---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 11/19/04: 35 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:50 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)) 2. 04:46 AM - Re:gluing canopy to frame (JEllis9847@aol.com) 3. 04:46 AM - Re: Canopy Protection (LarryRobertHelming) 4. 05:02 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)) 5. 05:16 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (N13eer@aol.com) 6. 05:55 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (David Figgins) 7. 06:25 AM - Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? (linn walters) 8. 06:46 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Sam Buchanan) 9. 06:50 AM - Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not (Jim Oke) 10. 06:55 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (linn walters) 11. 07:35 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Andrew Douglas) 12. 07:39 AM - RV-4 with -8 tail (GRENIER@aol.com) 13. 07:45 AM - List Police (Kosta Lewis) 14. 08:13 AM - Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS (Donald Mei) 15. 08:33 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (Dan Checkoway) 16. 08:38 AM - Re: spin again (Scott.Fink@microchip.com) 17. 08:41 AM - Blue Mountain/GRT/Dynon thread (Kevin Shannon) 18. 08:46 AM - Re: Redundancy (Maureen & Bob Christensen) 19. 08:49 AM - Re: Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS (Scott VanArtsdalen) 20. 08:56 AM - Re: Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Scott VanArtsdalen) 21. 08:58 AM - Re: RV-4 with -8 tail (Scott VanArtsdalen) 22. 09:02 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (Scott Bilinski) 23. 09:07 AM - Re: Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS (rv6tc) 24. 09:37 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (Dan Checkoway) 25. 09:37 AM - High Fuel Pressure (Kosta Lewis) 26. 11:14 AM - Re: Re: Redundancy (Kathleen@rv7.us) 27. 11:18 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (Gene Gottschalk) 28. 12:07 PM - 24 volt batteries (George Steube) 29. 12:08 PM - Re: SPINS in an RV - homework assignment (long) (Scott VanArtsdalen) 30. 03:06 PM - Re: 24 volt batteries (linn walters) 31. 03:15 PM - Re: 24 volt batteries (Bill Dube) 32. 04:03 PM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Eustace Bowhay) 33. 04:08 PM - Re: 24 volt batteries (Bill Dube) 34. 06:51 PM - Re: GPS18 (Ed Holyoke) 35. 11:42 PM - torque (Wheeler North) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:50:21 AM PST US From: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) Subject: RE: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like $450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any functionality including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS. Also, anywhere in their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you can think of your Trio and not worry about functionality loss. So I opted to sacrifice some panel space by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the lawrence or the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just in case. Further, I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I get to some place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't stuck inside my Lawrence.... -------------- Original message -------------- > --> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" > > Quick and dirty is good and no one around here takes much very seriously! > :-) You are correct you need GPS. Greg and company are working on an > internal GPS that will solve the problem. It's a ways off however. > > Regards, > David Schaefer > N142DS RV-6A > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen > To: rv-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A > > --> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen > > Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and > dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were > only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I > mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS. > That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David. > > Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on > my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? >:-) > > David Schaefer wrote: > > >--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" > > > >I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT the > >GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown > >behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like > >pictures just let me know. > > > >The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm > >zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV! > > > >Regards, > > > >David Schaefer > >N142DS > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > >[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen > >To: rv-list@matronics.com > >Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A > > > >--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen > > > >I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A, > >and GRT Horizon here: > >http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm > > > >I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the > >Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a > >bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I > >really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few > >other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really > >leaned me toward Blue Mountain. > > > >Gerald Richardson wrote: > > > > > > > >>--> RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson > >> > >>Greetings: > >> > >>I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have > >>studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of > >>them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either > >>of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My > >>installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would > >>like to have the capability of the attitude & directional gyros, plus a > >>few additional goodies, etc. > >> > >>My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this > >>post, merely gather some data to help me decide. > >> > >>Thank you for your comments. > >> > >>Gerald Richardson > >>Medicine Hat, Alberta > >>Canada > >> > >>RV6A 25366 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Scott VanArtsdalen > Van Arts Consulting Services > 3848 McHenry Ave > Suite #155-184 > Modesto, CA 95356 > 209-986-4647 > Ps 34:4,6 > > > > > > When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like $450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any functionality including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS.Also, anywherein their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you canthink of your Trio and not worry about functionality loss.So I opted to sacrifice some panel space by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the lawrence or the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just in case. Further, I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I get to some place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't stuck inside my Lawrence.... -------------- Original message -------------- -- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" Quick and dirty is good and no one around here takes much very seriously! :-) You are correct you need GPS. Greg and company are working on an internal GPS that will solve the problem. It's a ways off however. Regards, David Schaefer N142DS RV-6A -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen To: rv-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A -- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparr ison was quck and dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS. That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David. Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? :-) David Schaefer wrote: -- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT the GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like pictures just let me know. The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV! Regards, David Schaefer N142DS -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen To: rv-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A -- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A, and GRT Horizon here: http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really leaned me toward Blue Mountain. Gerald Richardson wrote: -- RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson Greetings: I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would like to have th e capability of the attitude directional gyros, plus a few additional goodies, etc. My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this post, merely gather some data to help me decide. Thank you for your comments. Gerald Richardson Medicine Hat, Alberta Canada RV6A 25366 -- Scott VanArtsdalen Van Arts Consulting Services 3848 McHenry Ave Suite #155-184 Modesto, CA 95356 209-986-4647 Ps 34:4,6 Please Support Your Lists This Month -- ============= ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:46:56 AM PST US From: JEllis9847@aol.com Subject: RV-List: Re:gluing canopy to frame --> RV-List message posted by: JEllis9847@aol.com I just completed gluing (and bolting) the canopy to the tip up frame on my 9A and debated the same question. Here's what I did. I drilled #40 pilot holes through the side frame only, not through the plexi or the side skirts. I made eight clamps, four for each side, from 2" x 4" x 1/8" aluminum tubing by cutting one of the 2" sides off the tubing and threading a 5/16 bolt into one of the 4" side of the tubing. Each clamp was about three inches long and sits under the frame with the open end of the "U" facing up. After preparing the contact area of both the side frames and the Plexiglas with Sika cleaner and Sika primer I applied a layer of Sikaflex 295UV to the side frame. With the canopy in its final position I used the clamps to hold the Plexiglas sides to the adhesive coated frame for 12 hours. I then back drilled through the frame into the Plexiglas with a #40 plastic drill, countersunk the outside of the Plexiglas for a #6 CS bolt, and then reamed through both the side frame and the Plexiglas for bolt clearance. I loosely bolted the canopy sides to the frame as shown in the plans (but not through the side skirts). I then used the same adhesive to glue the side skirts to the bolted frame and plastic held in place with clecos until it cured. Finally I riveted the side skirts to the frame. I was able to squeeze all but the aft three or four rivets with a longeron yoke. These had to be set with gun and bar. If you clamp the canopy frame to the main longeron it reduces the vibration stress on the Plexiglas when you rivet. The addition of the bolts may, in fact, not be unnecessary. The bond that the Sikaflex creates between the plastic and the aluminum is incredibly strong. The plastic will break or the aluminum will bend before the bond will let go. Hope this helps. Jim Ellis RV 9-A Tip Up finishing canopy ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:46:56 AM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: RV-List: Canopy Protection --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: RV-List: Canopy Protection > --> RV-List message posted by: JTAnon@aol.com > > Does anyone have a source/supplier for the protective plastic sheeting on the > canopy? I'm talking about the film on the canopy when you first get it. > (((((((((((( I might suggest an alternative protection for use after the canopy is installed. I used 4 mil plastic sheet that I purchased at Home Depot. The 10' by 25' size. Get some 1/4" or 3/16" fine line tape from your local auto paint distributor and some good masking tape also. Carefully apply the fine line tape all along the edge where the plexiglass starts/meets the aluminum frame. Press that down good using a roller or your finger nail. Then lay on the plastic and cut it to proper shape. Finally tape the cut plastic to the fineline tape. (The fineline tape is the only thing holding the plastic cover on, right? right..) I did not remove the original plastic protection that came with the plexi from Vans but just about an inch or so around the edges. So,,,, at a couple of spots internally to the edges you can use some double sided carpet tape to help hold the plastic to the plexi for added strength. Low cost and quick and you are all masked ready for the primer paint. If you are wanting to cover it before it is installed, you want another solution/method like the one you think you don't want to use -- Spray-Lat or perhaps a vacuum bag method. If you need to clean any tape residue off of plexi at a later time, use kerosene. Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker" do not archive The sincerest satisfactions in life come in doing and not dodging duty; in meeting and solving problems, in facing facts; in flying a virgin plane never flown before. - Richard L. Evans & Larry R Helming))))))))))))) > I'm not interested in the spray or brush on type (I believe it's called > Spray-Lat). > > John McDonnell (RV7A Slider - The $1,000 cut was successful) > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:02:41 AM PST US From: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) Subject: RE: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) Oops, meant to say my GPS wouldn't be stuck inside my EFIS when I need it about town... do not archive -------------- Original message -------------- > --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) > > When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like > $450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any > functionality including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS. > Also, anywhere in their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you can think of > your Trio and not worry about functionality loss. So I opted to sacrifice some > panel space by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the > lawrence or the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just in > case. Further, I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I > get to some place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't stuck inside my > Lawrence.... > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" > > > > Quick and dirty is good and no one around here takes much very seriously! > > :-) You are correct you need GPS. Greg and company are working on an > > internal GPS that will solve the problem. It's a ways off however. > > > > Regards, > > David Schaefer > > N142DS RV-6A > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen > > To: rv-list@matronics.com > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A > > > > --> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen > > > > Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and > > dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were > > only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I > > mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS. > > That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David. > > > > Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on > > my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? >:-) > > > > David Schaefer wrote: > > > > >--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" > > > > > >I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT the > > >GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown > > >behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like > > >pictures just let me know. > > > > > >The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm > > >zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV! > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > >David Schaefer > > >N142DS > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > > >[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen > > >To: rv-list@matronics.com > > >Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A > > > > > >--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen > > > > > >I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A, > > >and GRT Horizon here: > > >http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm > > > > > >I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the > > >Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a > > >bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I > > >really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few > > >other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really > > >leaned me toward Blue Mountain. > > > > > >Gerald Richardson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>--> RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson > > >> > > >>Greetings: > > >> > > >>I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have > > >>studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of > > >>them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either > > >>of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My > > >>installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would > > >>like to have the capability of the attitude & directional gyros, plus a > > >>few additional goodies, etc. > > >> > > >>My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this > > >>post, merely gather some data to help me decide. > > >> > > >>Thank you for your comments. > > >> > > >>Gerald Richardson > > >>Medicine Hat, Alberta > > >>Canada > > >> > > >>RV6A 25366 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Scott VanArtsdalen > > Van Arts Consulting Services > > 3848 McHenry Ave > > Suite #155-184 > > Modesto, CA 95356 > > 209-986-4647 > > Ps 34:4,6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like > $450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any > functionality including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS.Also, > anywherein their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you canthink of your > Trio and not worry about functionality loss.So I opted to sacrifice some panel > space by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the lawrence > or the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just in case. > Further, I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I get to > some place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't stuck inside my > Lawrence.... > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > -- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" > > Quick and dirty is good and no one around here takes much very seriously! > :-) You are correct you need GPS. Greg and company are working on an > internal GPS that will solve the problem. It's a ways off however. > > Regards, > David Schaefer > N142DS RV-6A > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen > To: rv-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A > > -- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen > > Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparr > ison was quck and > dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were > only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I > mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS. > That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David. > > Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on > my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? :-) > > David Schaefer wrote: > > -- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" > > I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT the > GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown > behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like > pictures just let me know. > > The only concern I found with the EFIS > Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm > zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV! > > Regards, > > David Schaefer > N142DS > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen > To: rv-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A > > -- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen > > I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A, > and GRT Horizon here: > http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm > > I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the > Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a > > bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I > really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few > other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really > leaned me toward Blue Mountain. > > Gerald Richardson wrote: > > > -- RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson > > Greetings: > > I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have > studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of > them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either > of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My > installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would > like to have th > e capability of the attitude directional gyros, plus a > few additional goodies, etc. > > My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this > post, merely gather some data to help me decide. > > Thank you for your comments. > > Gerald Richardson > Medicine Hat, Alberta > Canada > > RV6A 25366 > > > -- > Scott VanArtsdalen > Van Arts Consulting Services > 3848 McHenry Ave > Suite #155-184 > Modesto, CA 95356 > 209-986-4647 > Ps 34:4,6 > > > Please Support Your Lists This Month -- > ============= > > > > E> > > > > > > Oops, meant to say my GPS wouldn't be stuck inside my EFISwhen I need it about town... do not archive -------------- Original message -------------- -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like $450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any functionality including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS. Also, anywhere in their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you can think of your Trio and not worry about functionality loss. So I opted to sacrifice some panel space by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the lawrence or the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just in case. Further, I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I get to some place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't st uck inside my Lawrence.... -------------- Original message -------------- -- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" Quick and dirty is good and no one around here takes much very seriously! :-) You are correct you need GPS. Greg and company are working on an internal GPS that will solve the problem. It's a ways off however. Regards, David Schaefer N142DS RV-6A -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen To: rv-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A -- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen Geez, give me some cred it. I DID say the comparrison was quck and dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS. That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David. Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? :-) David Schaefer wrote: -- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT the GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like pictures j ust let me know. The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV! Regards, David Schaefer N142DS -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen To: rv-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A -- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A, and GRT Horizon here: http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm & gt; I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really leaned me toward Blue Mountain. Gerald Richardson wrote: -- RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson Greetings: I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of them. I was wonder ing if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would like to have the capability of the attitude directional gyros, plus a few additional goodies, etc. My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this post, merely gather some data to help me decide. Thank you for your comments. Gerald Richardson Medicine Hat, Alberta Canada RV6A 25366
-- Scott VanArtsdalen Van Arts Consulting Services 3848 McHenry Ave Suite #155-184 Modesto, CA 95356 209-986-4647 Ps 34:4,6 When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like $450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any functionality including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS.Also, anywherein their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you canthink of your Trio and not worry about functionality loss.So I opted to sacrifice some panel space by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the lawrence or the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just in case.
Further, I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I get to some place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't stuck inside my Lawrence.... -------------- Original message -------------- -- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" Quick and dirty is good and no one around here takes much very seriously! :-) You are correct you need GPS. Greg and company are working on an internal GPS that will solve the problem. It's a ways off however. Regards, David Schaefer N142DS RV-6A -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen To: rv-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A -- RV-List messag e posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparr ison was quck and dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS. That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David. Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? :-) David Schaefer wrote: -- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT the GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like > ; pictures just let me know. The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV! Regards, David Schaefer N142DS -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen To: rv-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A -- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A, and GRT Horizon here: http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really leaned me toward Blue Mountain. Gerald Richardson wrote: -- RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson Greetings: I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would like to have th e capability of the attitude directional gyros, plus a few additional goodies, etc. My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this post, merely gather some data to help me decide. Thank you for your comments. Gerald Richardson Medicine Hat, Alberta Canada RV6A 25366 -- Scott VanArtsdalen Van Arts Consulting Services 3848 McHenry Ave Suite #155-184 Modesto, CA 95356 209-986-4647 Ps 34:4,6 Please Support Your Lists This Month -- ============= RV-List message posted by: N13eer@aol.com For anyone looking for an external GPS to drive a GRT, take a look at the Garmin GPS-18. It is designed to hook to a laptop so it does not have a display. It looks like an antenna but it contains all the electronics. The -18 is a smaller WAAS version of the GPS-35 that has been around for years. You can find them for around $150 so I see no reason to buy the GRT internal GPS. Hope this helps someone, Alan Kritzman Cedar Rapids, IA Lucky wrote: When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like $450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any functionality including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS. Also, anywhere in their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you can think of your Trio and not worry about functionality loss. So I opted to sacrifice some panel space by using a small Lawrence 500. ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:55:29 AM PST US From: "David Figgins" <2004nospam@earthlink.net> Subject: RE: RV-List: SPINS in an RV --> RV-List message posted by: "David Figgins" <2004nospam@earthlink.net> Very interesting thread for a low time pilot building an RV7 (did do acro training), I do recall many years ago in either EAA or IAC what was called I believe the Beggs method for spin recovery which if I remember correctly was reduce power, let go of the stick, rudder to stop rotation, then fly out. I recall that the "let go of the stick" allowed the elevator to float to neutral and also prevented people from inadvertently holding back pressure (or forward pressure if inverted). This method worked upright and inverted (I can attest to the inverted claim by accident). I think this was along time ago but wondered if this approach is still considered valid today. Dave RV7 waiting for wings Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Louis Willig Subject: RV-List: SPINS in an RV --> RV-List message posted by: Louis Willig Hi gang, Most of us have been following this thread for the past week, and most of us have learned a few things from these discussions. However, no one has yet mentioned the name of Herman Dierks. I have never met Herman, but we corresponded several years ago when I first decided to try spinning my -4. Herman is a very serious and competent IAC aerobatic competitor. He owned an RV-4 and actually did a study on the spin characteristics of his aircraft. I think that everyone on this list who has an interest in spins in an RV should read his posts of March 12, 1996 and March 18, 1996. You mmight want to read them twice. They are loaded with information. The two things I took away from his post are (1) the RV-4 enters and recovers from spins using standard techniques. Its spin rate is faster and it take a little longer to recover, but it is pretty standard. And (2), keep the stick back when giving anti-spin rudder. Popping the stick will increase the spin rate appreciably, and probably put you into an inverted spin. A recent post mentioned that pulling the stick back might pull the wings off if you are in a spiral instead of a spin. My first thought about this statement is that you had to have had the stick pretty far back to get into the spin ( we're talking now about practice of standard spins and recovery), therefore you are not pulling the stick back. You are simply keeping it back. In a conversation with Herman several years ago, He said that keeping the stick back keeps the nose up a little and keeps the spin rate down. By the way, Herman's test showed that the decent rate in a spinning RV-4 is about 100 mph or about 9000 ft/ min. Lastly, there is another expert on this list. Matt ( Big D) Dralle. Matt's archives retain Herman Dierks' post. So I was able to bring them up. Here they are: From: dierks@austin.ibm.com Subject: Some accurate statistics on Spins in RV-4 A few weeks back, there was a discussion of spins in RV's. One of the notes posted by Rolf Hankers indicated up to 15,000 ft/min descent rate based on 500 ft. loss per turn and 1.5 to 2 seconds per turn based on his RV-4 test solo. Joe Larson posted a note a few days later questioning the '15,000 feet/minute' as being too high a rate and wondering if this was a spiral and not a spin. I had posted some general info on some initial spin tests but I had not collected any real quantifiable performance numbers. My RV-4 is still in test flight mode and my Pitts is in maintance mode so I decided to to collect some real numbers to determine who was correct. The following numbers were collected in my RV-4 solo with 1/4 fuel. My plane has the Sensenich fixed pitch metal prop and O-320-E2D (150 HP). I did a total of six 10 turn spins to the left. I did 3 on Saturday and went back and did 4 or 5 more on Sunday. Starting altitude, 6,000 AGL. Finish altitude, 2,500 AGL Lost altitude is 3,500 ft. Turns 10 turns Recovery 1.5 turns Total turns then is 11.5 Time per turn 2.0 seconds Altitude loss per turn 300 Ft. This all happened in a little over 30 seconds from start of the rudder kick to straight and level. Spins were normal entry, power-off stall, full rudder at stall. The stick was kept full back and with neutral aileron for the duration of the spin (i.e. no aileron input). The airspeed indicator was setting on 0 (zero), I.E, too low to read. The G-meter was reading 1 G. My ROC only goes to +/- 2,000 FPM and it was pegged at -2,000. I timed the rotation rate on turns 4 thru 7 at 6.17 seconds. That works out to just a hair over 2.0 seconds per rotation. The altimeter showed about 300 ft. loss per rotation. That also correlates quite well with the 3,500 ft/11.5 turns = 304 ft per turn. There is also some altitude loss during recovery so the average loss per turn would be somewhat less than 300 ft./turn. So, in 6 seconds, you loose 900 ft. Therefore in 60 seconds you would loose 9,000 ft. It looks like the descent rate is 9,000 ft/min. Its quite a wild ride, that is descending at over 100 MPH straight down. So, the 2 seconds per turn that Rolph posted is quite close. The 500 ft. per turn loss appears to be way too high per my measurements. One thing I noticed is that at the end of the first half-turn, the aircraft is 'tucked' inverted about 15 to 10 degrees. The reason for this is that the plane still has some forward momentum (you stall at 45 mph or so) so after one half turn, the air is hitting the bottom side of the horizontal stabilizer and this pushes the tail back and pitches the plane over in what would be called a 'tucked' or negative down line in aerobatic terms. This may be a little frightning to someone not use to doing spins. At the end of the first turn, the nose is back up some as the forward airspeed is then pushing on the top of the HS. Also, it takes quite a while to get the spin stopped (1.5 turns or so). You have to hold the opposite rudder and simply wait. If someone gets confused, it could lead to problems if they put back in pro-spin rudder. So, what can be concluded from all of this? 1) The aircraft spins and recovers fine. 2) The descent rate is quite high and any ground impact in a spin would be a major problem. 3) The recovery time and consume quite a bit of altitude if the spin is fully developed. We have all heard of the theory of putting a plane into a spin to get down through some clouds if we were caught 'IFR on top' (but VFR rated). Yes, that could be done as the spin is a stable configuration. However, you would need a minimum of 1,000 feet celing in order to have much of a chance of recovering with some margin for error. Also, a spin can progress into a high speed spiral or dive if full elevator is not maintained. The high turn rate in clouds would probably give vertigo. 4) I think everyone should have spin training. This is even more of a reqirement if you plan to do any aerobatics. There are a lot of manuvers that can result in a spin of done improperly. If you have not been thru some spin training with an instructor, you will probably panic. I recall back in 1968 (yikes) when I was learning to fly in a Luscombe 8A and a stall turned into a spin. It scared the cr*p out of me. My instructor showed me the ropes on how to spin. That Luscome was a nice spinning aircraft. These older planes did not have 'wash out' in the wings and they would fall off into a spin very easy. All the modern trainers have the angle-of-attack washed out at the tips to keep the tips/ailerons flying. Therefore many pilots don't really know what a plane without washout will do. I think the RV wing is straignt (no twist or washout) so it is not as forgiving as your C152, C172, etc. If you have some training, then if you ever get into an unplanned spin you should be able to recover (and not panic). 5) Lastly, doing spins should be done with caution, especially anything over one or two turns. There was a good article in IAC Sport Aerobatics a few yrs back (I could not find the article last nite) that discussed how seven turns in a spin is a magic number. If the pilot is not conditioned, they will typically loose it above 7 turns. It recommended working up to any advanced spins 1/2 or 1 turn at a time. I can say I felt like a one armed paper hanger trying to do the spins, stay oriented, and count the number of turns and then collect some meaningfull data at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your stomach and patting your head at the same time. I wanted to know how many turns I was doing and that means staying oriented and counting the rotations with visual contact outside the plane. Collecting the data from inside requires focusing on the instruments. I found I could really only collect one usefull piece of information at a time, like time the rate or measure the altitude lost per turn. So, it took a number of spins to collect the data and to get a couple of samples to verify it. 6) I would still like to get some power-on spin info to see what that does to the spin rate and descent rate. Well, I was just going to post a short note on the stats and here it a few pages already plugging up the internet. Herman From: dierks@austin.ibm.com Subject: Update to Some accurate statistics on Spins in RV-4 As I noted in my last posting on the spin results, I wanted to see what adding full power would do to the spin rate and sink rate. In general, adding power will 'flatten' the spin as it causes the nose to raise up. I let the first 3 turns spin with power off and then brought up full power on the third turn. I timed the next 3 turns at 6.8 seconds. The nose comes up a little and the rate slows a little. This compares to 6.2 seconds for 3 turns with power-off so it only slows the turn down about .2 second per turn. I did not get a good reading on the sink rate. After 4 turns with full power, I cut the power back to idle. This causes the nose to to drop again and the rotation rate increases for about 2 turns until the plane is back in equilibrium again. The RV4 behaved very similar to the Pitts as I have done similar spin tests with the Pitts. In looking back over the original data, I see that it takes right at 30 seconds for the 10 turn spin plus 1.5 turns to recover and consumes 3,500 ft of altitude. This would work out to 7,000 ft/min descent rate. That is probably a better statistic as it averages 11.5 turns. In the cockpit, the rate appeared to be very close to 300 ft per 2 second turn which translates to 9,000 ft/second. I expect one can not read the altimeter to +/- 50 ft in these conditions so 50 ft in 2 seconds would be an error of 1,500 ft/min. So, lets just say the rate is 7,000 ft/min minimum. (I added these changes to the attached note below). One other interesting think happened in the last set of spins this week end. I did two spins at idle power just as I had done the previous week. This time however, the engine quit both times after about 4 or 5 turns. The only think I know that was different is that I was on the Left fuel tank this time (and on the Right tank last time). Also the plane was close to full fuel where before it had about 1/4 fuel. The spins were to the left so the left wing is down. Thinking back on this, I suspect it was not getting fuel as in the left wing down for a left spin, the pickup tube may have been sucking air. The one thing that conflicts with this however is that I was able to do a full power spin when I bought up the power in the 3rd turn. Maybe bringing up the power flattened the spin enough to cause it to suck fuel. The tank was at least 3/4 full. If I ever do this again, I will check the fuel pressure next time it happens. It also took about 2 turns to recover with the prop stopped. Then a bump of the starter refired the engine (thankfully). Herman > > A few weeks back, there was a discussion of spins in RV's. > One of the notes posted by Rolf Hankers indicated up to > 15,000 ft/min descent rate based on 500 ft. loss per turn and > 1.5 to 2 seconds per turn based on his RV-4 test solo. > Joe Larson posted a note a few days later questioning the > '15,000 feet/minute' as being too high a rate and wondering if > this was a spiral and not a spin. > I had posted some general info on some initial spin tests but > I had not collected any real quantifiable performance numbers. > > My RV-4 is still in test flight mode and my Pitts is in maintance mode > so I decided to to collect some real numbers to determine who was correct. > The following numbers were collected in my RV-4 solo with 1/4 fuel. > My plane has the Sensenich fixed pitch metal prop and O-320-E2D (150 HP). > > I did a total of six 10 turn spins to the left. I did 3 on Saturday and > went back and did 4 or 5 more on Sunday. > > Starting altitude, 6,000 AGL. > Finish altitude, 2,500 AGL > Lost altitude is 3,500 ft. in 30 seconds (this would be 7,500 ft/min) > Turns 10 turnsk > Recovery 1.5 turns > Total turns then is 11.5 > Time per turn 2.0 seconds Altitude loss per turn 300 Ft. (as observed in the cockpit) > This all happened in a little over 30 seconds from start of the rudder kick to > straight and level. Spins were normal entry, power-off stall, full rudder > at stall. The stick was kept full back and with neutral aileron for > the duration of the spin (i.e. no aileron input). > > The airspeed indicator was setting on 0 (zero), I.E, too low to read. > The G-meter was reading 1 G. > My ROC only goes to +/- 2,000 FPM and it was pegged at -2,000. > I timed the rotation rate on turns 4 thru 7 at 6.17 seconds. > That works out to just a hair over 2.0 seconds per rotation. > The altimeter showed about 300 ft. loss per rotation. > That also correlates quite well with the 3,500 ft/11.5 turns = 304 ft > per turn. There is also some altitude loss during recovery so > the average loss per turn would be somewhat less than 300 ft./turn. > > So, in 6 seconds, you loose 900 ft. Therefore in 60 seconds you > would loose 9,000 ft. It looks like the descent rate is 9,000 ft/min. > Its quite a wild ride, that is descending at over 100 MPH straight down. > > So, the 2 seconds per turn that Rolph posted is quite close. > The 500 ft. per turn loss appears to be way too high per my measurements. > > One thing I noticed is that at the end of the first half-turn, > the aircraft is 'tucked' inverted about 15 to 10 degrees. > The reason for this is that the plane still has some forward momentum > (you stall at 45 mph or so) so after one half turn, the air is > hitting the bottom side of the horizontal stabilizer and this pushes > the tail back and pitches the plane over in what would be called > a 'tucked' or negative down line in aerobatic terms. > This may be a little frightning to someone not use to doing spins. > At the end of the first turn, the nose is back up some as the > forward airspeed is then pushing on the top of the HS. > > Also, it takes quite a while to get the spin stopped (1.5 turns or so). > You have to hold the opposite rudder and simply wait. If someone gets > confused, it could lead to problems if they put back in pro-spin rudder. > > So, what can be concluded from all of this? > 1) The aircraft spins and recovers fine. > 2) The descent rate is quite high and any ground impact in a spin > would be a major problem. > 3) The recovery time and consume quite a bit of altitude if the spin > is fully developed. We have all heard of the theory of putting > a plane into a spin to get down through some clouds if we were > caught 'IFR on top' (but VFR rated). Yes, that could be done as > the spin is a stable configuration. However, you would need a > minimum of 1,000 feet celing in order to have much of a chance > of recovering with some margin for error. > Also, a spin can progress into a high speed spiral or dive if > full elevator is not maintained. The high turn rate in clouds > would probably give vertigo. > 4) I think everyone should have spin training. This is even more > of a reqirement if you plan to do any aerobatics. > There are a lot of manuvers that can result in a spin of done > improperly. If you have not been thru some spin training with > an instructor, you will probably panic. > I recall back in 1968 (yikes) when I was learning to fly in > a Luscombe 8A and a stall turned into a spin. It scared the > cr*p out of me. My instructor showed me the ropes on how to > spin. That Luscome was a nice spinning aircraft. These older > planes did not have 'wash out' in the wings and they would fall > off into a spin very easy. All the modern trainers have the > angle-of-attack washed out at the tips to keep the tips/ailerons flying. > Therefore many pilots don't really know what a plane without washout > will do. I think the RV wing is straignt (no twist or washout) > so it is not as forgiving as your C152, C172, etc. > If you have some training, then if you ever get into an unplanned > spin you should be able to recover (and not panic). > 5) Lastly, doing spins should be done with caution, especially anything > over one or two turns. There was a good article in IAC Sport > Aerobatics a few yrs back (I could not find the article last nite) > that discussed how seven turns in a spin is a magic number. > If the pilot is not conditioned, they will typically loose it above > 7 turns. It recommended working up to any advanced spins 1/2 or > 1 turn at a time. > I can say I felt like a one armed paper hanger trying to do the > spins, stay oriented, and count the number of turns and then collect > some meaningfull data at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your > stomach and patting your head at the same time. I wanted to know > how many turns I was doing and that means staying oriented and > counting the rotations with visual contact outside the plane. > Collecting the data from inside requires focusing on the instruments. > I found I could really only collect one usefull piece of information > at a time, like time the rate or measure the altitude lost per > turn. So, it took a number of spins to collect the data and to > get a couple of samples to verify it. > > 6) I would still like to get some power-on spin info to see what that > does to the spin rate and descent rate. > > > Well, I was just going to post a short note on the stats and here > it a few pages already plugging up the internet. > > Herman ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:25:34 AM PST US From: linn walters Subject: Re: RV-List: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters Dan DeNeal wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: Dan DeNeal > > >I was flying over the top of Champaign, Illinois airspace at 6,500 msl heading 173 degrees. I was in touch with Champaign when they advised me of another airplane at my altitude and at my 2:00 o'clock. They then advised the other plane where I was and that I was at 6,800 msl. > >Why am I off? My altimeter says 6,500. I then realized I had forgotten to set barimetric pressure when I had lifted off from Danville, Illinois just 5 minutes earlier. > Ooops. What happened to your checklist? No flame from here, but that's what they're for. > I called Champaign and asked them for barimetric pressure and after correcting my altimeter it showed I was at 6,800 msl !!! > Gives you a creepy feeling doesn't it??? Now where is that bogey now??? >My question is how did Champaign know my exact altitude? > From your transponder ....... which gets it's info from the blind encoder or an encoding altimeter. > Does Mode C always know what your correct altitude is? > Well, not exactly. Your blind encoder is a pressure transducer, doing the same theing ..... measuring the pressure altitude ..... as your altimeter. You change (or were supposed to) the altimeter setting through the Kollsman window to correct for changes in pressure where you took off from. The radar display is converted to actual altitude by using the difference between sea level pressure altitude and a standard day. I'm not sure, but I believe this is automaticiclly done by the computer being fed the PA data. >If so why can't they make an altimeter that is always correct??? > Well, the altimeter is approved by the FAA, and anything coming down the pike (certified) would probably be may more bucks. And there needs to be some way to automatically get the information into the altimeter. That doesn't exist. We now get the 'fudge factor' from some calibrated measurement system: AWOS, sign on FBO, or eyeballs reading the pressure altitude on a mercury filled device (real name escapes me) hanging on the wall. So far an automatic system doesn't exist for our little birds .... but maybe in the future. We now have automatic (atomic time) clocks set by a radio signal ...... GPS that automatically takes care of altitude error (Differential GPS or WAAS) ..... so maybe automatically set altimeters will be in our future. For me, my correct altimeter setting means that I'm at a 'legal' altitude while in the system, and for those that are IFR, it keeps them out of the granite clouds. Below 3000 on a clear day ..... not sure of the value of an altimeter, other than help in spotting traffic relative to my position ..... which is what started this discussion :-) . Maybe we'll have some reall educational emails about altimeters, their systems etc. ..... we've pretty much beaten spins to death. Linn do not archive > >Dan DeNeal > >rv6a N256GD > > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:46:07 AM PST US From: Sam Buchanan Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan N13eer@aol.com wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: N13eer@aol.com > > For anyone looking for an external GPS to drive a GRT, take a look at > the Garmin GPS-18. It is designed to hook to a laptop so it does not > have a display. It looks like an antenna but it contains all the > electronics. The -18 is a smaller WAAS version of the GPS-35 that > has been around for years. You can find them for around $150 so I > see no reason to buy the GRT internal GPS. If the GPS18 is as good as the GPS35, it will be a fine receiver. I have been using the GPS35 for nearly three years and it has proved to be rock solid. Here is a link to the GPS18 for $84.95: http://www.gpscity.com/gps/brados/3361.3.3617845596012577063/OEM18PC.html Sam Buchanan http://thervjournal.com ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:50:59 AM PST US From: Jim Oke showing? Subject: Re: RV-List: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? --> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke showing? Hi Scott; Yes, you are quite right that the same static pressure should be fed to both the cockpit reading altimeter and the mode C altitude encoder and usually with a tee off the static system. As I think we both know, "big" airplanes have a number of static ports scattered about and calibrated (at considerable effort and expense) to provide closely matched altitude readings via an ADC or carefully selected location. Jim in the 'Peg RV-3, RV-6A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaye Murray and Scott Jackson" Subject: Re: RV-List: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? > --> RV-List message posted by: "Jaye Murray and Scott Jackson" > > > > The transponder's altitude encoder need have no >> connection (electrical or via static ports, etc.) to the altimeter for >> this >> to happen. >> > Jim: > Not a connection to the altimeter, per se, but it should be connected to > the > static system-usually through a "T"off the altimeter or VSI-to avoid > transmitting the error inherent in transmitting an altitude sensed inside > the cockpit. > Scott in Vancouver >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:55:34 AM PST US From: linn walters Subject: Re: RV-List: SPINS in an RV --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters David Figgins wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "David Figgins" <2004nospam@earthlink.net> > >Very interesting thread for a low time pilot building an RV7 (did do acro >training), I do recall many years ago in either EAA or IAC what was called I >believe the Beggs method for spin recovery which if I remember correctly was >reduce power, let go of the stick, rudder to stop rotation, then fly out. I >recall that the "let go of the stick" allowed the elevator to float to >neutral and also prevented people from inadvertently holding back pressure >(or forward pressure if inverted). This method worked upright and inverted >(I can attest to the inverted claim by accident). I think this was along >time ago but wondered if this approach is still considered valid today. > >Dave RV7 waiting for wings >Do not archive > Still valid. The Boggs method was 'designed' for pilots with low experience levels in aerobatics .... and was a course designed to save your bacon in an 'upset' situation .... inadvertent transitions from normal flight. The "let go of the stick" method prevents the pilot who is deep in panic mode from making the wrong control inputs .... and thereby worsening the situation and the panic level .... and putting too much forward stick for too long a time and ending up transitioning from an upright spin into an inverted one or vice versa. The panic mode is why I recommend some dual ..... of any kind. It's a real eye opener. and that experienced akro pilot is as good insurance as that parachute you should be wearing. Linn do not archive ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:48 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A From: Andrew Douglas --> RV-List message posted by: Andrew Douglas With the talk of being able to do it all with one screen, something that I think is very important is getting lost: Redundancy. I would get really nervous about putting all of my eggs in one basket. I see pictures of panels with one great big screen on them and not much else, and I have to ask myself what happens when (not if) the screen goes dark. That's why I like the EFIS/Lite G3. If I were equipping a panel, I'd buy two of them and stack them...have one do the AI thing, and have the other display an HSI. In addition, install the regular pitot-static instruments and TC, for the old, reliable and well-proven six-pack. This way, if one of the EFISes goes toes-up, all you do is press a button and bingo...a duplicate AI. Plus you've got redundant heading indicators (and sources of heading information) and redundant GPSes complete with moving map. And you've got the ability to cross-check all of your instruments against one another, if you like. (Think your AI is lying to you? Compare it to your other AI. Cool.) Lose BOTH EFISes at the same time (how likely is that?) and you've got partial panel exactly like having vacuum failure. Survivable. (This is why I'd install a TC, even though the EFISes have that capability.) Redundancy is a Very Good Thing, especially when it does not require much if any management by the pilot in a crisis. All for less than $6k, which is close to or less than the cost of a mechanical HSI plus AI plus vacuum system w/backup. And, given the reliability of dry vacuum pumps compared to alternators, it's arguably more reliable. I'd gladly give up screen real estate and eye candy in the interest of having backups that can save my tender pink butt should my favorite avionic toy meet its maker in bad weather. The Achilles' heel, of course, is that everything's electric, so with a really serious electrical meltdown (e.g., fire), you've got a problem if you're in IMC...but you've got one heck of a problem in that case anyway, even with an airplane that isn't all-electric. (This would be the equivalent of losing both the vacuum system and the electrical system simultaneously in a vacuum airplane, killing the AI, heading indicator and TC...both primary and supporting bank instruments gone...all you'd have left is pitot-static instruments, which means that unless you're in VMC, chances are you won't live long.) IMHO, a properly designed electrical system with adequate redundancy, isolation and backups (all of which must be transparent to the pilot) would sufficiently manage that risk. ----------------------------------------------------- Andrew Douglas RV wannabe Bridgeport, CT Do not archive ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:39:58 AM PST US From: GRENIER@aol.com Subject: RV-List: RV-4 with -8 tail --> RV-List message posted by: GRENIER@aol.com A few days ago someone sent me a message asking about my experience with installing an RV-8 tail to my -4. I messed up and deleated the message. If you still interested please re-send and this time I'll be more careful Ray Grenier N-20RG flying ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:45:24 AM PST US From: "Kosta Lewis" Subject: RV-List: List Police --> RV-List message posted by: "Kosta Lewis" >Could you guys in this thread use "do not archive" in your notes? I don't >mind the thread; but, I'm not sure Matt doesn't want to fill up the >archives with a conversation not related to RVs. If I were looking for >spin recovery info in the archives, I sure wouldn't want to read all of >this, either. It's been going on for a few days, now. Thanks! Well, at the risk of joining the list police, I would much rather read posts about airplanes that are similar to ours (F-4, F-18, etc) than have to wade through pages and pages of UNTRIMMED posts. Especially those archived. And it's even worse if the note posted in the reply is at the END of the untrimmed previous note(s). THAT is going to fill up the archives and may make researching the archives more difficult to wade through as you will see the same post again and again in the replies. Yes, there is tons of room in the archives and it would take years to fill it up, but............ If you are in Digest mode, the posts are in order and in their entirety. Which means you have to wade through pages of previous posts to get to the next message. SO: as Matt tells us in his monthly Please Read post: TRIM YOUR POSTS. OK; badge off, hat off, six-shooter on the bed post. Michael Garage door springs? Do not archive ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:13:03 AM PST US From: "Donald Mei" Subject: RV-List: Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS --> RV-List message posted by: "Donald Mei" Just some thoughts. I own a Dynon and am very pleased with it. However here are the reasons, I bought it, and would still buy it over the BM unit if I were buying today. A bit of background info. I am a VFR pilot, I purchased the dynon as a "bacon saver", since I love to fly at night. Also, I am not building a new airplane. I was a retrofit customer. 1) Dynon comes with a built in battery backup. No need to rewire aircraft in a "Nuckols" kind of way for redundancy. 2) Company Integrity - BMI released product that was clearly not ready for production. They lost no opportunity when I spoke with them at Sun - n - Fun to badmouth everyone but themself. Greg Richter is clearly brilliant. But that doesn't change the bad taste my discussions left in my mouth. In contrast, Dynon folks humbly plowed ahead with product development and didn't release their product until they felt it was ready. When I asked them about Grand Rapids and BMI products, they praised the products, but pointed out that whiile their competitors were more capable, they were (at the time) significantly more expensive and required a panel built around their products. 3) Free support and updates - BMI requires you to pay for software updates, Dynon does not. I'm sure I'll think of other things. Just to be fair, there are some nice advantages to the BMI: 1) seems to have a higher quality AHRS than the Dynon 2) Certainly more versatile with moving map etc. 3) great little knob for setting things like barometric pressure In summary, if I was building an IFR airplane, I'd give consideration to a couple of BMI devices or a single GRT device. I'd probably choose them over the Dynon. But that was not what I was trying to achieve. My '4 was a light and simple airplane with no gyros, and no vacume system. I wanted to keep it that way. The Dynon allowed me to install a complete attitude/airspeed/altitude/heading system for the price of a single electrically driven attitude indicator. I was also able to install it in about 2 hours on a saturday after spending about another 2 hours making up the harness at home. Hope this helps. Don ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:28 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV-List: SPINS in an RV --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > reduce power, let go of the stick, rudder to stop rotation, then fly out. I > recall that the "let go of the stick" allowed the elevator to float to > neutral and also prevented people from inadvertently holding back pressure Not exactly. The idea is that in the spin, the relative airflow over the tail is coming from below -- which can "lock" the elevators full up unless you physically move the stick to neutralize them. The airflow is what's keeping the elevators up and preventing "on its own" recovery from the stall. Simply letting go of the stick, you may find that the stick stays full aft without your explicit involvement. Thus arises the need to take action and move the stick forward and neutralize the elevators (in addition to applying rudder opposite to the direction of the spin). YMMV )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 08:38:31 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again From: Scott.Fink@microchip.com 11/19/2004 09:38:13 AM, Serialize complete at 11/19/2004 09:38:13 AM --> RV-List message posted by: Scott.Fink@Microchip.com Yup, that is what I thought. There has been discussion that in a spin you would already have the stick all the way back, and that would be right in a correctly entered intentional spin. My concern was in an unintentional spin or spiral, the stick may not be fully back and if you are actually in a spiral you could break the plane. I agree that spin training is very beneficial and a heck of a lot of fun. When I someday finish my -6 I AM going to spin it (probably a lot). Scott "David Fenstermacher" Sent by: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com 11/18/2004 06:19 PM Please respond to rv-list To: rv-list@matronics.com cc: Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again --> RV-List message posted by: "David Fenstermacher" I meant aft and up > [Original Message] > From: > To: > Date: 11/18/2004 5:46:29 PM > Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again > > --> RV-List message posted by: Scott.Fink@Microchip.com > > I'm not an instructor, but I have spun 3 different aircraft, and all of my > spins have been intentional (mostly). One concen I have with going stick > full aft in a light GA aircraft is that if you are wrong and you are > really in a spiral, going stick full aft will tighten the spiral and > probably remove the wings. > > Once I had spin training, being able to tell that the G's were very high > and I was in a spiral was obvious, but early on I may not have been able > to tell in the excitment of the moment. > > Scott > > > "RV_8 Pilot" > Sent by: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > 11/18/2004 01:16 PM > Please respond to rv-list > > > To: rv-list@matronics.com > cc: > Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again > > > One last comment - re. the item 3 below (stick back [before spin > recovery]), > I am inclined to question that action for light GA aircraft. I'll have to > > try it next time I'm out though. > > Bryan > > > >rudder and hold aft stick. Once she starts a spinnin: > > > >1. Power - idle > >2. Ail - neutral > >3. Stick - Full aft > >4. Confirm spin direction with needle > >5. Rudder - abruptly full opposite direction > >6. Wait a turn, then abrupt neutral elevator. If that doesnt work, I > >would > >try what I was taught and restabilize the spin and apply hard full > forward > >stick to see if it will break the stall > > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 08:41:24 AM PST US From: "Kevin Shannon" Subject: RV-List: Blue Mountain/GRT/Dynon thread --> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Shannon" ?? The BM EFIS sport screen is slightly smaller than the GRT according to their websites. 6.25 X 4.3 (BM) VS 7.25 X 4.75 (GRT). I am building an -8 so size is also a consideration for me. --> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen --> RV-List message posted by: Kathleen@rv7.us > >So, why didn't you compare the Blue Mountain Sport? It is sized and >priced like the GRT, but a somewhat different product in that it >focuses on navigation rather than engine instruments as it's additional >feature set and it has terrain data? Just curious.... > >Kathleen Evans >www.rv7.us > Kevin Shannon ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:58 AM PST US From: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" Subject: RV-List: Re: Redundancy --> RV-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" I'm wrestling with the same question! I'm thinking you get closer to the kind of redundancy you need with dual GRT EFIS and a certified GPS/VOR . . . able to drive either of them . . . I agree with the 3 steam gauges Alt/AS/TC as the final back-up along with a TruTrak with it's independent gyro. Better have dual elec too. Regards, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Douglas" Subject: RV-List: Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A > --> RV-List message posted by: Andrew Douglas > > With the talk of being able to do it all with one screen, something that I > think is very important is getting lost: > > Redundancy. > > I would get really nervous about putting all of my eggs in one basket. I see > pictures of panels with one great big screen on them and not much else, and > I have to ask myself what happens when (not if) the screen goes dark. > > That's why I like the EFIS/Lite G3. If I were equipping a panel, I'd buy two > of them and stack them...have one do the AI thing, and have the other > display an HSI. In addition, install the regular pitot-static instruments > and TC, for the old, reliable and well-proven six-pack. > > This way, if one of the EFISes goes toes-up, all you do is press a button > and bingo...a duplicate AI. Plus you've got redundant heading indicators > (and sources of heading information) and redundant GPSes complete with > moving map. And you've got the ability to cross-check all of your > instruments against one another, if you like. (Think your AI is lying to > you? Compare it to your other AI. Cool.) > > Lose BOTH EFISes at the same time (how likely is that?) and you've got > partial panel exactly like having vacuum failure. Survivable. (This is why > I'd install a TC, even though the EFISes have that capability.) > > Redundancy is a Very Good Thing, especially when it does not require much if > any management by the pilot in a crisis. > > All for less than $6k, which is close to or less than the cost of a > mechanical HSI plus AI plus vacuum system w/backup. And, given the > reliability of dry vacuum pumps compared to alternators, it's arguably more > reliable. > > I'd gladly give up screen real estate and eye candy in the interest of > having backups that can save my tender pink butt should my favorite avionic > toy meet its maker in bad weather. > > The Achilles' heel, of course, is that everything's electric, so with a > really serious electrical meltdown (e.g., fire), you've got a problem if > you're in IMC...but you've got one heck of a problem in that case anyway, > even with an airplane that isn't all-electric. (This would be the equivalent > of losing both the vacuum system and the electrical system simultaneously in > a vacuum airplane, killing the AI, heading indicator and TC...both primary > and supporting bank instruments gone...all you'd have left is pitot-static > instruments, which means that unless you're in VMC, chances are you won't > live long.) > > IMHO, a properly designed electrical system with adequate redundancy, > isolation and backups (all of which must be transparent to the pilot) would > sufficiently manage that risk. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Andrew Douglas > RV wannabe > Bridgeport, CT > > Do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 08:49:53 AM PST US From: Scott VanArtsdalen Subject: Re: RV-List: Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS --> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen Very good reasons. That's why I've been leaning toward a Dynon unit myself. Then when I did the comparisson the BMA Lite began to have more appeal for me. Of course, if it isn't shipping to customers then none of the features are very useful. :-) My philosophy on my RV-4 is exacly the same as yours. Light, simple, day/night VFR machine and panel space is a HUGE consideration for me as well. Donald Mei wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "Donald Mei" > >Just some thoughts. I own a Dynon and am very pleased with it. > >However here are the reasons, I bought it, and would still buy it over the >BM unit if I were buying today. A bit of background info. I am a VFR >pilot, I purchased the dynon as a "bacon saver", since I love to fly at >night. Also, I am not building a new airplane. I was a retrofit customer. > >1) Dynon comes with a built in battery backup. No need to rewire aircraft >in a "Nuckols" kind of way for redundancy. > >2) Company Integrity - BMI released product that was clearly not ready for >production. They lost no opportunity when I spoke with them at Sun - n - >Fun to badmouth everyone but themself. Greg Richter is clearly brilliant. >But that doesn't change the bad taste my discussions left in my mouth. In >contrast, Dynon folks humbly plowed ahead with product development and >didn't release their product until they felt it was ready. When I asked >them about Grand Rapids and BMI products, they praised the products, but >pointed out that whiile their competitors were more capable, they were (at >the time) significantly more expensive and required a panel built around >their products. > >3) Free support and updates - BMI requires you to pay for software updates, >Dynon does not. > >I'm sure I'll think of other things. > >Just to be fair, there are some nice advantages to the BMI: > >1) seems to have a higher quality AHRS than the Dynon >2) Certainly more versatile with moving map etc. >3) great little knob for setting things like barometric pressure > >In summary, if I was building an IFR airplane, I'd give consideration to a >couple of BMI devices or a single GRT device. I'd probably choose them over >the Dynon. > >But that was not what I was trying to achieve. My '4 was a light and simple >airplane with no gyros, and no vacume system. I wanted to keep it that way. > The Dynon allowed me to install a complete >attitude/airspeed/altitude/heading system for the price of a single >electrically driven attitude indicator. I was also able to install it in >about 2 hours on a saturday after spending about another 2 hours making up >the harness at home. > >Hope this helps. > >Don > > > > -- Scott VanArtsdalen Van Arts Consulting Services 3848 McHenry Ave Suite #155-184 Modesto, CA 95356 209-986-4647 Ps 34:4,6 ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 08:56:40 AM PST US From: Scott VanArtsdalen Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A --> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen Andrew, You really need to come sit in my RV-4 and tell me where all that stuff is going to go! :-) Andrew Douglas wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: Andrew Douglas > >That's why I like the EFIS/Lite G3. If I were equipping a panel, I'd buy two >of them and stack them...have one do the AI thing, and have the other >display an HSI. In addition, install the regular pitot-static instruments >and TC, for the old, reliable and well-proven six-pack. > > That's a great desing philosophy for a guy who's going to do IFR work and has sufficient funds to afford all that stuff. I'm a VFR pilot in a VFR airplane on a canned tuna budget. So, one is sufficient in my case. I'll not start the whole "land without an airspeed indicator" thread again. :-) ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 08:58:10 AM PST US From: Scott VanArtsdalen Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-4 with -8 tail --> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen Why not just post it? I have an RV-4 and I'd be interested in hearing about that too. Or maybe post it to the RV4-List so we don't bore the rest of the crowd. GRENIER@aol.com wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: GRENIER@aol.com > >A few days ago someone sent me a message asking about my experience with >installing an RV-8 tail to my -4. I messed up and deleated the message. If you >still interested please re-send and this time I'll be more careful > >Ray Grenier >N-20RG flying > > > > -- Scott VanArtsdalen Van Arts Consulting Services 3848 McHenry Ave Suite #155-184 Modesto, CA 95356 209-986-4647 Ps 34:4,6 ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 09:02:53 AM PST US From: Scott Bilinski Subject: Re: RV-List: SPINS in an RV --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski All this talk about spin recovery, has anyone looked in the manual to see what Van's has said about spin recovery? I know its there in my 8 manual but dont remember what it says exactly. Maybe someone has a few minutes can look it up.......Dan? At 08:32 AM 11/19/2004 -0800, you wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > > > reduce power, let go of the stick, rudder to stop rotation, then fly out. >I > > recall that the "let go of the stick" allowed the elevator to float to > > neutral and also prevented people from inadvertently holding back pressure > >Not exactly. The idea is that in the spin, the relative airflow over the >tail is coming from below -- which can "lock" the elevators full up unless >you physically move the stick to neutralize them. The airflow is what's >keeping the elevators up and preventing "on its own" recovery from the >stall. Simply letting go of the stick, you may find that the stick stays >full aft without your explicit involvement. Thus arises the need to take >action and move the stick forward and neutralize the elevators (in addition >to applying rudder opposite to the direction of the spin). > >YMMV > >)_( Dan >RV-7 N714D >http://www.rvproject.com > > Scott Bilinski Eng dept 305 Phone (858) 657-2536 Pager (858) 502-5190 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 09:07:39 AM PST US From: "rv6tc" Subject: Re: RV-List: Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS --> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" Actually... it does. Good post, thanks. Keith do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Mei" . > > Hope this helps. > > Don > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 09:37:31 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV-List: SPINS in an RV --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > All this talk about spin recovery, has anyone looked in the manual to see > what Van's has said about spin recovery? I know its there in my 8 manual > but dont remember what it says exactly. Maybe someone has a few minutes can > look it up.......Dan? We all have manuals...mine is at the hangar, where I'm not at the moment. Call it homework for anybody who hasn't read it already and can't recite it from memory. ;-) do not archive )_( Dan ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 09:37:50 AM PST US From: "Kosta Lewis" Subject: RV-List: High Fuel Pressure --> RV-List message posted by: "Kosta Lewis" I have for years been running between 3-5 to 6 pounds of fuel pressure depending on I don't know what. Lately I have noticed it keeps at the high end, 5.5 to 6 at cruise, with a slight increase (needle width) with adding the boost pump. At idle, it inches towards 7 to 8, which is redline. No change with fuel tank selection, no change in climb power, take off performance, fuel consumption. No fuel flow meter, so don't know that. Fuel line to the carburetor is clear; screens are clear; nothing in the gascolator screen or sump. I would assume if there was a blockage before or in the fuel pump(s) the pressure would be low. Nothing blocking the lines from the pumps to the carb. No leaky fuel lines. Only recent change: fuel selector valve (nylon innards) that now is very smooth, as opposed to the old one (brass) that had to be lubed every 10 or so hours. Hmmmmm. Ideas? Michael ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 11:14:59 AM PST US From: Kathleen@rv7.us Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Redundancy --> RV-List message posted by: Kathleen@rv7.us I have decided (always subject to change, of course) on 2 Blue Mountain Sports. Since they will run from separate electrical systems and each be switchable between electric sources, I feel confident that simultaneous failure is very unlikely. I probably will not have steam gauges at all. Engine info will come from an ACS and an SL-30 will drive the VOR and glideslope features, but I may add a VOR/GS head. All that with a Tru-Trak will leave a rather clean panel and still provide redundancy. You might say I'm getting a little whacky about this, but I am also installing dual pitot systems so that the EFIS units each have their own pitot static systems including heated pitot tubes. OK, like my husband says, "That's over the edge," but it's my airplane, so... Kathleen Evans www.rv7.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Maureen & Bob Christensen Subject: RV-List: Re: Redundancy --> RV-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" I'm wrestling with the same question! I'm thinking you get closer to the kind of redundancy you need with dual GRT EFIS and a certified GPS/VOR . . . able to drive either of them . . . I agree with the 3 steam gauges Alt/AS/TC as the final back-up along with a TruTrak with it's independent gyro. Better have dual elec too. Regards, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Douglas" Subject: RV-List: Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A > --> RV-List message posted by: Andrew Douglas > > With the talk of being able to do it all with one screen, something that I > think is very important is getting lost: > > Redundancy. > > I would get really nervous about putting all of my eggs in one basket. I see > pictures of panels with one great big screen on them and not much else, and > I have to ask myself what happens when (not if) the screen goes dark. > > That's why I like the EFIS/Lite G3. If I were equipping a panel, I'd buy two > of them and stack them...have one do the AI thing, and have the other > display an HSI. In addition, install the regular pitot-static instruments > and TC, for the old, reliable and well-proven six-pack. > > This way, if one of the EFISes goes toes-up, all you do is press a button > and bingo...a duplicate AI. Plus you've got redundant heading indicators > (and sources of heading information) and redundant GPSes complete with > moving map. And you've got the ability to cross-check all of your > instruments against one another, if you like. (Think your AI is lying to > you? Compare it to your other AI. Cool.) > > Lose BOTH EFISes at the same time (how likely is that?) and you've got > partial panel exactly like having vacuum failure. Survivable. (This is why > I'd install a TC, even though the EFISes have that capability.) > > Redundancy is a Very Good Thing, especially when it does not require much if > any management by the pilot in a crisis. > > All for less than $6k, which is close to or less than the cost of a > mechanical HSI plus AI plus vacuum system w/backup. And, given the > reliability of dry vacuum pumps compared to alternators, it's arguably more > reliable. > > I'd gladly give up screen real estate and eye candy in the interest of > having backups that can save my tender pink butt should my favorite avionic > toy meet its maker in bad weather. > > The Achilles' heel, of course, is that everything's electric, so with a > really serious electrical meltdown (e.g., fire), you've got a problem if > you're in IMC...but you've got one heck of a problem in that case anyway, > even with an airplane that isn't all-electric. (This would be the equivalent > of losing both the vacuum system and the electrical system simultaneously in > a vacuum airplane, killing the AI, heading indicator and TC...both primary > and supporting bank instruments gone...all you'd have left is pitot-static > instruments, which means that unless you're in VMC, chances are you won't > live long.) > > IMHO, a properly designed electrical system with adequate redundancy, > isolation and backups (all of which must be transparent to the pilot) would > sufficiently manage that risk. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Andrew Douglas > RV wannabe > Bridgeport, CT > > Do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 11:18:29 AM PST US From: Gene Gottschalk Subject: RE: RV-List: SPINS in an RV --> RV-List message posted by: Gene Gottschalk Careful, this doesn't work in all aircraft. Some AC require you fly the thing out of a spin (ie: pilot input required). Gene At 08:53 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "David Figgins" <2004nospam@earthlink.net> > >Very interesting thread for a low time pilot building an RV7 (did do acro >training), I do recall many years ago in either EAA or IAC what was called I >believe the Beggs method for spin recovery which if I remember correctly was >reduce power, let go of the stick, rudder to stop rotation, then fly out. I >recall that the "let go of the stick" allowed the elevator to float to >neutral and also prevented people from inadvertently holding back pressure >(or forward pressure if inverted). This method worked upright and inverted >(I can attest to the inverted claim by accident). I think this was along >time ago but wondered if this approach is still considered valid today. > >Dave RV7 waiting for wings >Do not archive > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Louis Willig >To: rv-list@matronics.com >Subject: RV-List: SPINS in an RV > >--> RV-List message posted by: Louis Willig > >Hi gang, > >Most of us have been following this thread for the past week, and most of us >have learned a few things from these discussions. However, no one has yet >mentioned the name of Herman Dierks. I have never met Herman, but we >corresponded several years ago when I first decided to try spinning my -4. >Herman is a very serious and competent IAC aerobatic competitor. He owned an >RV-4 and actually did a study on the spin characteristics of his aircraft. I >think that everyone on this list who has an interest in spins in an RV >should read his posts of March 12, 1996 and March 18, 1996. You mmight want >to read them twice. They are loaded with information. The two things I took >away from his post are (1) the RV-4 enters and recovers from spins using >standard techniques. Its spin rate is faster and it take a little longer to >recover, but it is pretty standard. And (2), keep the stick back when giving >anti-spin rudder. Popping the stick will increase the spin rate appreciably, >and probably put you into an inverted spin. A recent post mentioned that >pulling the stick back might pull the wings off if you are in a spiral >instead of a spin. My first thought about this statement is that you had to >have had the stick pretty far back to get into the spin ( we're talking now >about practice of standard spins and recovery), therefore you are not >pulling the stick back. You are simply keeping it back. In a conversation >with Herman several years ago, He said that keeping the stick back keeps the >nose up a little and keeps the spin rate down. > >By the way, Herman's test showed that the decent rate in a spinning RV-4 is >about 100 mph or about 9000 ft/ min. > >Lastly, there is another expert on this list. Matt ( Big D) Dralle. Matt's >archives retain Herman Dierks' post. So I was able to bring them up. Here >they are: > > >From: dierks@austin.ibm.com >Subject: >ins_&_rv-4?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=79?SERIAL=1651471345?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>Some >accurate statistics on Spins in RV-4 >Date: Mar 12, 1996 > > >A few weeks back, there was a discussion of spins in RV's. >One of the notes posted by Rolf Hankers indicated up to >15,000 ft/min descent rate based on 500 ft. loss per turn and >1.5 to 2 seconds per turn based on his RV-4 test solo. >Joe Larson posted a note a few days later questioning the >'15,000 feet/minute' as being too high a rate and wondering if >this was a spiral and not a spin. >I had posted some general info on some initial spin tests but >I had not collected any real quantifiable performance numbers. > >My RV-4 is still in test flight mode and my Pitts is in maintance mode >so I decided to to collect some real numbers to determine who was correct. >The following numbers were collected in my RV-4 solo with 1/4 fuel. >My plane has the Sensenich fixed pitch metal prop and O-320-E2D (150 HP). > >I did a total of six 10 turn spins to the left. I did 3 on Saturday and > >went back and did 4 or 5 more on Sunday. > >Starting altitude, 6,000 AGL. >Finish altitude, 2,500 AGL > >Lost altitude is 3,500 ft. >Turns 10 turns >Recovery 1.5 turns >Total turns then is 11.5 >Time per turn 2.0 seconds >Altitude loss per turn 300 Ft. >This all happened in a little over 30 seconds from start of the rudder kick >to >straight and level. Spins were normal entry, power-off stall, full rudder >at stall. The stick was kept full back and with neutral aileron for >the duration of the spin (i.e. no aileron input). > >The airspeed indicator was setting on 0 (zero), I.E, too low to read. >The G-meter was reading 1 G. >My ROC only goes to +/- 2,000 FPM and it was pegged at -2,000. >I timed the rotation rate on turns 4 thru 7 at 6.17 seconds. >That works out to just a hair over 2.0 seconds per rotation. >The altimeter showed about 300 ft. loss per rotation. >That also correlates quite well with the 3,500 ft/11.5 turns = 304 ft >per turn. There is also some altitude loss during recovery so >the average loss per turn would be somewhat less than 300 ft./turn. > >So, in 6 seconds, you loose 900 ft. Therefore in 60 seconds you >would loose 9,000 ft. It looks like the descent rate is 9,000 ft/min. >Its quite a wild ride, that is descending at over 100 MPH straight down. > >So, the 2 seconds per turn that Rolph posted is quite close. >The 500 ft. per turn loss appears to be way too high per my measurements. > >One thing I noticed is that at the end of the first half-turn, >the aircraft is 'tucked' inverted about 15 to 10 degrees. >The reason for this is that the plane still has some forward momentum >(you stall at 45 mph or so) so after one half turn, the air is >hitting the bottom side of the horizontal stabilizer and this pushes >the tail back and pitches the plane over in what would be called >a 'tucked' or negative down line in aerobatic terms. >This may be a little frightning to someone not use to doing spins. >At the end of the first turn, the nose is back up some as the >forward airspeed is then pushing on the top of the HS. > >Also, it takes quite a while to get the spin stopped (1.5 turns or so). >You have to hold the opposite rudder and simply wait. If someone gets >confused, it could lead to problems if they put back in pro-spin rudder. > >So, what can be concluded from all of this? >1) The aircraft spins and recovers fine. >2) The descent rate is quite high and any ground impact in a spin > would be a major problem. >3) The recovery time and consume quite a bit of altitude if the spin > is fully developed. We have all heard of the theory of putting > a plane into a spin to get down through some clouds if we were > caught 'IFR on top' (but VFR rated). Yes, that could be done as > the spin is a stable configuration. However, you would need a > minimum of 1,000 feet celing in order to have much of a chance > of recovering with some margin for error. > Also, a spin can progress into a high speed spiral or dive if > full elevator is not maintained. The high turn rate in clouds > would probably give vertigo. >4) I think everyone should have spin training. This is even more > of a reqirement if you plan to do any aerobatics. > There are a lot of manuvers that can result in a spin of done > improperly. If you have not been thru some spin training with > an instructor, you will probably panic. > I recall back in 1968 (yikes) when I was learning to fly in > a Luscombe 8A and a stall turned into a spin. It scared the > cr*p out of me. My instructor showed me the ropes on how to > spin. That Luscome was a nice spinning aircraft. These older > planes did not have 'wash out' in the wings and they would fall > off into a spin very easy. All the modern trainers have the > angle-of-attack washed out at the tips to keep the tips/ailerons flying. > Therefore many pilots don't really know what a plane without washout > will do. I think the RV wing is straignt (no twist or washout) > so it is not as forgiving as your C152, C172, etc. > If you have some training, then if you ever get into an unplanned > spin you should be able to recover (and not panic). >5) Lastly, doing spins should be done with caution, especially anything > over one or two turns. There was a good article in IAC Sport > Aerobatics a few yrs back (I could not find the article last nite) > that discussed how seven turns in a spin is a magic number. > If the pilot is not conditioned, they will typically loose it above > 7 turns. It recommended working up to any advanced spins 1/2 or > 1 turn at a time. > I can say I felt like a one armed paper hanger trying to do the > spins, stay oriented, and count the number of turns and then collect > some meaningfull data at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your > stomach and patting your head at the same time. I wanted to know > how many turns I was doing and that means staying oriented and > counting the rotations with visual contact outside the plane. > Collecting the data from inside requires focusing on the instruments. > I found I could really only collect one usefull piece of information > at a time, like time the rate or measure the altitude lost per > turn. So, it took a number of spins to collect the data and to > get a couple of samples to verify it. > >6) I would still like to get some power-on spin info to see what that > does to the spin rate and descent rate. > > > Well, I was just going to post a short note on the stats and here > it a few pages already plugging up the internet. > > Herman > > >From: dierks@austin.ibm.com >Subject: >ins_&_rv-4?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=76?SERIAL=1651471345?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>Update >to Some accurate statistics on Spins in RV-4 >Date: Mar 18, 1996 > > > As I noted in my last posting on the spin results, > I wanted to see what adding full power would do to the > spin rate and sink rate. In general, adding power will 'flatten' > the spin as it causes the nose to raise up. > > I let the first 3 turns spin with power off and then brought up > full power on the third turn. I timed the next 3 turns at 6.8 seconds. > The nose comes up a little and the rate slows a little. > This compares to 6.2 seconds for 3 turns with power-off so it only > slows the turn down about .2 second per turn. I did not get a > good reading on the sink rate. After 4 turns with full power, > I cut the power back to idle. This causes the nose to to drop again > and the rotation rate increases for about 2 turns until the plane is > back in equilibrium again. The RV4 behaved very similar to the Pitts > as I have done similar spin tests with the Pitts. > > In looking back over the original data, I see that it takes right at > 30 seconds for the 10 turn spin plus 1.5 turns to recover and consumes > 3,500 ft of altitude. This would work out to 7,000 ft/min descent rate. > That is probably a better statistic as it averages 11.5 turns. > In the cockpit, the rate appeared to be very close to 300 ft per > 2 second turn which translates to 9,000 ft/second. > I expect one can not read the altimeter to +/- 50 ft in these > conditions so 50 ft in 2 seconds would be an error of 1,500 ft/min. > So, lets just say the rate is 7,000 ft/min minimum. > (I added these changes to the attached note below). > > One other interesting think happened in the last set of spins this > week end. I did two spins at idle power just as I had done the previous > week. This time however, the engine quit both times after about 4 or 5 >turns. > The only think I know that was different is that I was on the Left > fuel tank this time (and on the Right tank last time). Also the plane > was close to full fuel where before it had about 1/4 fuel. > > The spins were to the left so the left wing is down. Thinking back > on this, I suspect it was not getting fuel as in the left wing down > for a left spin, the pickup tube may have been sucking air. > The one thing that conflicts with this however is that I was able > to do a full power spin when I bought up the power in the 3rd turn. > Maybe bringing up the power flattened the spin enough to cause it > to suck fuel. The tank was at least 3/4 full. > If I ever do this again, I will check the fuel pressure next time > it happens. > It also took about 2 turns to recover with the prop stopped. Then > a bump of the starter refired the engine (thankfully). > > Herman > > > > > A few weeks back, there was a discussion of spins in RV's. > > One of the notes posted by Rolf Hankers indicated up to > > 15,000 ft/min descent rate based on 500 ft. loss per turn and > > 1.5 to 2 seconds per turn based on his RV-4 test solo. > > Joe Larson posted a note a few days later questioning the > > '15,000 feet/minute' as being too high a rate and wondering if > > this was a spiral and not a spin. > > I had posted some general info on some initial spin tests but > > I had not collected any real quantifiable performance numbers. > > > > My RV-4 is still in test flight mode and my Pitts is in maintance mode > > so I decided to to collect some real numbers to determine who was >correct. > > The following numbers were collected in my RV-4 solo with 1/4 fuel. > > My plane has the Sensenich fixed pitch metal prop and O-320-E2D (150 HP). > > > > I did a total of six 10 turn spins to the left. I did 3 on Saturday and > > > went back and did 4 or 5 more on Sunday. > > > > Starting altitude, 6,000 AGL. > > Finish altitude, 2,500 AGL > > > Lost altitude is 3,500 ft. in 30 seconds (this would be 7,500 ft/min) > > Turns 10 turnsk > > Recovery 1.5 turns > > Total turns then is 11.5 > > Time per turn 2.0 seconds > Altitude loss per turn 300 Ft. (as observed in the cockpit) > > This all happened in a little over 30 seconds from start of the rudder >kick to > > straight and level. Spins were normal entry, power-off stall, full rudder > > at stall. The stick was kept full back and with neutral aileron for > > the duration of the spin (i.e. no aileron input). > > > > The airspeed indicator was setting on 0 (zero), I.E, too low to read. > > The G-meter was reading 1 G. > > My ROC only goes to +/- 2,000 FPM and it was pegged at -2,000. > > I timed the rotation rate on turns 4 thru 7 at 6.17 seconds. > > That works out to just a hair over 2.0 seconds per rotation. > > The altimeter showed about 300 ft. loss per rotation. > > That also correlates quite well with the 3,500 ft/11.5 turns = 304 ft > > per turn. There is also some altitude loss during recovery so > > the average loss per turn would be somewhat less than 300 ft./turn. > > > > So, in 6 seconds, you loose 900 ft. Therefore in 60 seconds you > > would loose 9,000 ft. It looks like the descent rate is 9,000 ft/min. > > Its quite a wild ride, that is descending at over 100 MPH straight down. > > > > So, the 2 seconds per turn that Rolph posted is quite close. > > The 500 ft. per turn loss appears to be way too high per my measurements. > > > > One thing I noticed is that at the end of the first half-turn, > > the aircraft is 'tucked' inverted about 15 to 10 degrees. > > The reason for this is that the plane still has some forward momentum > > (you stall at 45 mph or so) so after one half turn, the air is > > hitting the bottom side of the horizontal stabilizer and this pushes > > the tail back and pitches the plane over in what would be called > > a 'tucked' or negative down line in aerobatic terms. > > This may be a little frightning to someone not use to doing spins. > > At the end of the first turn, the nose is back up some as the > > forward airspeed is then pushing on the top of the HS. > > > > Also, it takes quite a while to get the spin stopped (1.5 turns or so). > > You have to hold the opposite rudder and simply wait. If someone gets > > confused, it could lead to problems if they put back in pro-spin rudder. > > > > So, what can be concluded from all of this? > > 1) The aircraft spins and recovers fine. > > 2) The descent rate is quite high and any ground impact in a spin > > would be a major problem. > > 3) The recovery time and consume quite a bit of altitude if the spin > > is fully developed. We have all heard of the theory of putting > > a plane into a spin to get down through some clouds if we were > > caught 'IFR on top' (but VFR rated). Yes, that could be done as > > the spin is a stable configuration. However, you would need a > > minimum of 1,000 feet celing in order to have much of a chance > > of recovering with some margin for error. > > Also, a spin can progress into a high speed spiral or dive if > > full elevator is not maintained. The high turn rate in clouds > > would probably give vertigo. > > 4) I think everyone should have spin training. This is even more > > of a reqirement if you plan to do any aerobatics. > > There are a lot of manuvers that can result in a spin of done > > improperly. If you have not been thru some spin training with > > an instructor, you will probably panic. > > I recall back in 1968 (yikes) when I was learning to fly in > > a Luscombe 8A and a stall turned into a spin. It scared the > > cr*p out of me. My instructor showed me the ropes on how to > > spin. That Luscome was a nice spinning aircraft. These older > > planes did not have 'wash out' in the wings and they would fall > > off into a spin very easy. All the modern trainers have the > > angle-of-attack washed out at the tips to keep the tips/ailerons >flying. > > Therefore many pilots don't really know what a plane without washout > > will do. I think the RV wing is straignt (no twist or washout) > > so it is not as forgiving as your C152, C172, etc. > > If you have some training, then if you ever get into an unplanned > > spin you should be able to recover (and not panic). > > 5) Lastly, doing spins should be done with caution, especially anything > > over one or two turns. There was a good article in IAC Sport > > Aerobatics a few yrs back (I could not find the article last nite) > > that discussed how seven turns in a spin is a magic number. > > If the pilot is not conditioned, they will typically loose it above > > 7 turns. It recommended working up to any advanced spins 1/2 or > > 1 turn at a time. > > I can say I felt like a one armed paper hanger trying to do the > > spins, stay oriented, and count the number of turns and then collect > > some meaningfull data at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your > > stomach and patting your head at the same time. I wanted to know > > how many turns I was doing and that means staying oriented and > > counting the rotations with visual contact outside the plane. > > Collecting the data from inside requires focusing on the instruments. > > I found I could really only collect one usefull piece of information > > at a time, like time the rate or measure the altitude lost per > > turn. So, it took a number of spins to collect the data and to > > get a couple of samples to verify it. > > > > 6) I would still like to get some power-on spin info to see what that > > does to the spin rate and descent rate. > > > > > > Well, I was just going to post a short note on the stats and here > > it a few pages already plugging up the internet. > > > > Herman > > ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 12:07:14 PM PST US From: "George Steube" Subject: RV-List: 24 volt batteries --> RV-List message posted by: "George Steube" I would like to use a 24 volt system on the RV-8 I am building. I am looking for a sealed battery that will fit in Van's batteries tray. I also plan to firewall mount the battery tray. Any suggestions. Thanks. George ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 12:08:03 PM PST US From: Scott VanArtsdalen Subject: Re: RV-List: SPINS in an RV - homework assignment (long) --> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen Good thing some of us played hookie today. :-) This is from my RV-4 manual. It was scanned and OCR'd so forgive the spelling and punctuation errors. Some of them are Van's. :-) Anyway from the mouth of Van hisownself: SPIN TESTING: "A spin is a condition in which an airplane rotates because one wing is deeper in stall than the other. A spin is a highly complex dynamic maneuver that is still not fully understood even by the experts." Flight testing homebuilt Aircraft, by Vaughn Askew. Accidental spins can result from a variety of conditions in which asymmetric wing lift is induced. Spins normally are caused by improper rudder usage coupled with a stall (including accelerated stalls) Out-of-coordination rudder produces a yaw which in turn causes asymmetric wing lift which drives the rotation. Avoid these conditions, and accidental spins won't happen. Since this utopian condition cannot be guaranteed, a degree of spin investigation training is suggested. Intentional spin entry should be initiated from a power off stall with full rudder in one direction and full elevator following the initial stall break. Typical spin behavior for an RV is that if control pressures are released immediately following spin entry, recovery will be automatic and almost immediate - no more than 1/2 spin revolution. lf spin rotation is held for approximately one full revolution recovery can be accomplished quickly through application of anti-spin control (opposite rudder, stick centered) . lf pro-spin controls are held until two full revolutions have been completed, the spin will be fully developed. Recovery techniques will vary. For RV-3s, 4s, and 8s, the most effective recovery technique is as follows: 1. Power off. 2. Elevator centered. (or stick free) 3. Full opposite rudder. 4. Recover from dive as soon as rotation stops. Recovery time (time to stop rotation) will vary depending on CG position and other factors. Step #2 is best accomplished ''hands-on stick'' rather than stick-free because while in spin rotation, the outside aileron will sometimes float up, thus driving the stick out of center. (As an example, here is what we found when spin testing the prototype RV-6. Remember this is one individual airplane. Our results and yours may vary significantly. Testing was; performed up to the limit load ( 1375 lb. aerobatic gross) and C. G. (25 % aft of leading edge) with satisfactory recoveries being easily effected. For prototype RV-6 and RV-6A aircraft spin characteristics and recovery procedures were found to be as follows: ) The prototype RV-6 & RV-6A aircraft exhibited good spin resistance. Forceful pro-spin (full up elevator and full rudder) control pressures were necessary to induce a fully established spin. Good spin recovery was evident during the first two rotations. Simply releasing the controls during the 1st rotation stopped the spin and opposite rudder and forward stick caused a quick recovery during the second rotation. After two turns, the rotation rate increased and stabilized between 3 and 4 turns with a high rate of rotation of about 180 degrees/second. Once past approximately 2 spin rotations, the spin had stabilized and if the controls were freed, the RV-6 would continue spinning until anti-rotation control inputs were applied. One reason for this is that in a fully developed spin, the elevators float up and remain there hands-off. Recovery procedure consists of the following; 1. Power to idle. 2. Apply full opposite rudder, (opposite the direction of rotation) 3. Center the ailerons and elevator. (Because of the up elevator float forward stick pressure is needed to center the elevators. 4. Hold the above control positions until rotation stops then use elevator to recover to level flight. 1-1/4 to 1-3/4 rotations are usually required for rotation to stop Because of the high rotation rate and the positive (rather than automatic) spin recovery technique required, Van 's Aircraft Inc, recommends that pilots of RV-6 and RV-6A aircraft limit their intentional spins to two turns or less, and that recovery from incipient accidental spins be initiated immediately upon recognition. Learn the conditions which lead to accidental spins how to recognize the onset of a spin, and how to immediately and subconsciously stop an incipient spin. Then fully developed spins, and the need to recover from them will become less probable. Span testing like other forms of limit testing, should only be attempted while wearing a parachute and after memorizing escape procedures. Memorize anticipated recovery techniques and act deliberately and calmly throughout the entry and recovery from the spin. Perform intentional spins in progressive steps, starting with immediate recovery after 1/2 turn, recovery after one turn, etc. Also begin spin testing with forward C G loadings and proceed to more aft loadings as satisfactory recoveries are experienced. All homebuilt RVs should be individually tested because small variation in configuration can sometimes greatly affect spin characteristics. This is particularly true for any variations in vertical surface areas forward of the aircraft center, and for changes which may affect airflow over the forward surfaces and/or the tail surf aces. For example, spin testing of prototype RVs has shown that spin characteristics differ noticeably with wheel and gear leg fairings installed or removed. The vertical area of these components located forward of the center of rotation of the airplane causes a destabilizing effect which degrades spin recovery. There are after-market gear leg fairings being marketed which are wider than those tested and supplied by Van's Aircraft. Because spin testing has shown that a small changes such as this can cause a noticeable change in spin recovery builders are advised to use caution when making changes such as this to their RVs. One often cited example of how small alterations affect spin characteristics is that of the Beechcraft Musketeer. The early production airplanes had an engine cowling with a rather abrupt transition (squared off ) from its top to side surfaces. A later version had a reshaped cowl which had a smoother transition between the top and side cowl surfaces. The result was that while in a spin mode, the cross flow over the cowl now produced more lift and held the nose up, inhibiting spin recovery. As with all other areas of testing; don't make any assumptions! Rrecommended spin test altitude is between 6 000' and 8,000 AGL to allow plenty of altitude margin for recovery. Inverted spins were not tested because the prototype test aircraft were not equipped for inverted f light. **Vans Aircraft Inc. Does not consider spins to be a recreational acrobatic maneuver and recommends that they not be casually undertaken. *** Dan Checkoway wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > > > >>All this talk about spin recovery, has anyone looked in the manual to see >>what Van's has said about spin recovery? I know its there in my 8 manual >>but dont remember what it says exactly. Maybe someone has a few minutes >> >> >can > > >>look it up.......Dan? >> >> > >We all have manuals...mine is at the hangar, where I'm not at the moment. >Call it homework for anybody who hasn't read it already and can't recite it >from memory. ;-) > >do not archive >)_( Dan > > > -- Scott VanArtsdalen Van Arts Consulting Services 3848 McHenry Ave Suite #155-184 Modesto, CA 95356 209-986-4647 Ps 34:4,6 ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 03:06:24 PM PST US From: linn walters Subject: Re: RV-List: 24 volt batteries --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters George Steube wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "George Steube" > >I would like to use a 24 volt system on the RV-8 I am building. > Why??? The battery is heavier and things like light bulbs, equipment (like a T&B) etc. are going to be more expensive. Please tell me what benefit a 24V system is?? Linn do not archive > I am >looking for a sealed battery that will fit in Van's batteries tray. I also >plan to firewall mount the battery tray. Any suggestions. Thanks. >George > > > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 03:15:26 PM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: Re: RV-List: 24 volt batteries --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube At 02:06 PM 11/19/2004 -0600, you wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "George Steube" > >I would like to use a 24 volt system on the RV-8 I am building. I am >looking for a sealed battery that will fit in Van's batteries tray. I also >plan to firewall mount the battery tray. You will have a hard time finding a 24 volt battery. Two 12 volt batteries will be much easier to find. The Hawker Genisis is a pretty good choice. Here is a link: http://www.dmstech.co.uk/hawker.htm Also, the SVR brand are quite good: http://www.svrbatteries.com/battery_page.php?bid=1&vid=-1 I doubt if you will find high-current lightweight batteries in the correct size to fit the stock battery box. It's tough to find the high-current batteries at all. You will likely end up building a custom battery box. > Any suggestions. Thanks. >George > > ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 04:03:39 PM PST US From: "Eustace Bowhay" Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A --> RV-List message posted by: "Eustace Bowhay" Jeff's post re Dynon order and charge to his CC is not the normal way that Van operates and for me it needed an explanation. I called Van's today to order some parts for a friend and in the process talked to Barbara a long time employee in the office and the explanation is as follows. Because of the long waiting time for the Dynon units Van has none in stock and places the orders with Dynon to be shipped direct to the customer. Van's may not be advised of the shipping date and units get shipped without payment. That is the reason they need payment on receipt of the order. Anything ordered from Van's and shipped from Van's final payment is collected at time of shipment in the normal way. Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A > --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Dowling" > To: > Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A > > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" > > > > If you go with the Dynon, expect a loooong delay. I've been waiting for a > > couple of months now. I ordered through Vans and they charged my credit > > card immediately. Not real happy about that. > > (((((((((((( You should not be happy with that. I believe there is > a credit law that says your credit card cannot be charged too far in advance > of the shipment date. I used to know the specifics, but have forgotten over > the years. > Larry in Indiana)))))))))))))))) > > > > Shemp > > > > do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 04:08:55 PM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: Re: RV-List: 24 volt batteries --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube At 06:05 PM 11/19/2004 -0500, you wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters > >George Steube wrote: > > >--> RV-List message posted by: "George Steube" > > > >I would like to use a 24 volt system on the RV-8 I am building. > > >Why??? The battery is heavier Actually, the battery will not be heavier. Your starter will require a fixed amount of horsepower. A 24 volt starter takes twice the volts but half the amps. The battery will have twice as many plates, but each will have half the surface area. It all comes out in the wash. > and things like light bulbs, equipment >(like a T&B) etc. are going to be more expensive. This is very true. > Please tell me what >benefit a 24V system is?? Thinner wire is lighter. Motors are lighter. Alternator "should" be lighter. Relays are lighter. With used avionics, 24 volt is often less expensive. ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:32 PM PST US From: "Ed Holyoke" Subject: RV-List: RE: GPS18 --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" Did you notice that it has an integrated magnetic base? I wonder if you can find a place on the glareshield far enough away from the compass or maybe one could dig out the magnet (probably voiding the warrantee). Ed Holyoke -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan N13eer@aol.com wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: N13eer@aol.com > > For anyone looking for an external GPS to drive a GRT, take a look at > the Garmin GPS-18. It is designed to hook to a laptop so it does not > have a display. It looks like an antenna but it contains all the > electronics. The -18 is a smaller WAAS version of the GPS-35 that > has been around for years. You can find them for around $150 so I > see no reason to buy the GRT internal GPS. If the GPS18 is as good as the GPS35, it will be a fine receiver. I have been using the GPS35 for nearly three years and it has proved to be rock solid. Here is a link to the GPS18 for $84.95: http://www.gpscity.com/gps/brados/3361.3.3617845596012577063/OEM18PC.htm l Sam Buchanan http://thervjournal.com ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 11:42:25 PM PST US From: Wheeler North "'owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com '"@matronics.com Subject: RV-List: torque --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North Bill, interesting that this is published so. I still don't agree though in spite of that. First the specs for the two always bear out my statement that coarse threads need more rotational torque to get equivalent clamping force. Second, a screw is an inclined plane wrapped around a rod. If one changes the threads per inch one is changing the ratio of the vector forces on the inclined plane by changing the length of the incline, where horizontal force is measured in rotational torque, and vertical force is measured as clamping force. If one inch of vertical distance has 28 threads wrapped around a 1/4" rod rather than 20 wraps then it will be a ratio of 1:1/4Pi x 28 vs 1:1/4Pi x 20. Not sure how this book arrived at this but one can easily test it. Take two equal bolts, one coarse and one fine and torque them on a stack of washers to various equal settings and measure the stretch. I may test this for fun and to set up a lab demo, but I can assure you that I have found fine threads much easier to twist off and fail the bolt, more than I care to admit. The reason the engine manufacturer uses coarse thread studs is the fine threads in aluminum are not physically strong enough at their bases. The advantage of studs is that since they are force fit they load the aluminum threads into compression, so for them to fail they need to be pulled hard enough to over come that compression and then overcome the shear strength of the thread. Hence the rule, never replace a stud with a bolt. They are also one of the more rare applications where studs of two thread sizes are commonly used. The coarse portion goes into the aluminum case and the fine goes into the steel nut. W Time: 03:07:30 PM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: Re: RV-List: Torque --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube At 11:56 AM 11/17/2004 -0800, you wrote: >The reason is with the exception of reciprocating engines most aircraft >fasteners are fine thread, most auto fasteners are coarse thread. Since the >torque values are much higher for NCT to get equal clamping force, one's arm >doesn't need to be that sensitive to get fairly close. It turns out that the pitch of the thread drops out of the equation. The clamping force is a function of the diameter, torque, and the surface friction. Surprisingly, the thread pitch is not a factor. T = K x Fi x d where T = torque, K ~ 0.20, Fi = clamping force, d = bolt diameter (Page #378, Mechanical Engineering Design, Shigley and Mitchell, 1983, McGraw Hill)