Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:44 AM - Re: Re: http://www.rvproject.com (LarryRobertHelming)
2. 05:18 AM - Re: Fuel gauge sdjustment Question? Aerospace logic.. (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
3. 08:10 AM - Re: Tailwheel (Bob 1)
4. 08:34 AM - Re: Oil Cooler Location (James H Nelson)
5. 08:45 AM - Re: Oil Cooler Location (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
6. 08:49 AM - fuel metering options (Aircraft Technical Book Company)
7. 09:01 AM - Re: Oil Cooler Location (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
8. 09:20 AM - Re: fuel metering options (Alex Peterson)
9. 10:23 AM - Rivet Sizes (Paul Rice)
10. 10:57 AM - Re: Wing fairing gap seal (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
11. 11:01 AM - Re: Canopy Question (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
12. 11:45 AM - 25 hour Phase One ()
13. 11:45 AM - Re: RV-List Digest: 33 Msgs - 12/11/04 (James F George)
14. 11:51 AM - Re: 25 hour Phase One (RGray67968@aol.com)
15. 11:58 AM - Re: Re: RV-List Digest: 33 Msgs - 12/11/04 (Jerry Springer)
16. 12:05 PM - Re: 25 hour Phase One (Jerry Calvert)
17. 12:06 PM - Re: 25 hour Phase One (Stein Bruch)
18. 12:07 PM - Re: Rivet Sizes (Rick Galati)
19. 12:51 PM - Re: 25 hour Phase One (cgalley)
20. 12:57 PM - Re: 25 hour Phase One (Kyle Boatright)
21. 01:19 PM - Oil Cooler Location ()
22. 01:44 PM - Thicker baffle material for cooler (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
23. 01:51 PM - Re: Oil Cooler Location (Tom & Cathy Ervin)
24. 01:59 PM - Re: 25 hour Phase One (Greg Young)
25. 02:17 PM - Re: Rivet Sizes (Greg@itmack)
26. 02:53 PM - aileron travel (sportpilot)
27. 03:26 PM - Re: Oil Cooler Location (Dan Checkoway)
28. 04:18 PM - EMag (Darwin N. Barrie)
29. 05:10 PM - Re: aileron travel (sportypilot@stx.rr.com)
30. 05:23 PM - Re: 25 hour Phase One (DWENSING@aol.com)
31. 05:34 PM - Re: 25 hour Phase One (Bill VonDane)
32. 05:37 PM - Re: EMag (Terry Watson)
33. 07:06 PM - Re: 25 hour Phase One (Stein Bruch)
34. 07:15 PM - Re: aileron travel (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
35. 07:25 PM - Re: aileron travel (Albert Gardner)
36. 07:43 PM - Autopilot istallation instructions (Eustace Bowhay)
37. 07:59 PM - TRUNCATE AND DO NOT ARCHIVE (Wheeler North)
38. 08:01 PM - Re: Autopilot istallation instructions (Richard Sipp)
39. 08:08 PM - Re: 25 hour Phase One (RV6 Flyer)
40. 08:09 PM - Re: EMag (Maureen & Bob Christensen)
41. 08:19 PM - Re: Rivet Sizes (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
42. 08:35 PM - Re: 25 hour Phase One (Dave Bristol)
43. 08:46 PM - Re: Autopilot istallation instructions (Dave Bristol)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Just another perspective on painting: I've seen RVs painted both ways --
before assembly & flying and after assembly & already flown AND like Dan's
unpainted. It is a much easier job to paint it before assembly. You paint
in smaller parts and you can more easily do the job yourself rather than pay
out big bucks. With your own paint job, you use the saved money for your
first couple years of insurance payments (if you can even get insurance.)
And you get the pride in saying, I painted it myself just like I built it
myself. JMHO.
Almost done with 3XG. Going to airport next week.
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
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
----- Original Message -----
From: <j1j2h3@juno.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: http://www.rvproject.com
> --> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>
> Wow, Dan, what a super web site. I hadn't visited it in a while and am
> amazed at how it has grown. I have bookmarked this as "must-read".
> Personally, I am also leaning toward polished, but am getting scared by
> some of the posted horror stories. What I will probably do is fly it for
> a while unpainted and unpolished and see just how bad it is. If
> reflections are real bad, I will paint just enough to eliminate the
> problem areas, then polish the rest.
>
> I don't know if you are old enough to remember WW2 aircraft. These were
> all unpainted due to the necessity of rapid production and to hold costs
> down. They did, however, paint the top of the cowl from the wind screen
> forward.
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel gauge sdjustment Question? Aerospace logic.. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
Dean Pichon wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dean Pichon" <deanpichon@msn.com>
>
> My gages are reasonably accurate at the low end (i.e., near empty), but are
> about two gallons low at the full end. That is, all fuel levels between 14
> gallons and 16 gallons look like a full tank on the fuel gage. This happens
> for the simple reason that the float hits the top of the tank before it is
> full. My senders are in the same location as yours. What I should have
> said in my previous post is that the fuel gage is only for looks. I have an
> EI fuel flow computer that provides incredibly accurate data on all things
> fuel related. I can predict the amount of fuel the line will pump into my
> -4 within 0.1 gallons. When flying an experimental, for which there is no
> "verified" POH, the computer is invaluable. My next plane will have one for
> each tank.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Dean
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel gauge sdjustment Question? Aerospace logic..
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:32:41 -0800
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club"
> <sisson@consolidated.net>
>
> Dean Pichon wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dean Pichon" <deanpichon@msn.com>
> >
> > My recommendation would be to purchase a programmable gage compatible
> with
> > your float-type senders. With such a gage, you can fill your tanks one
> > gallon at a time and remove most of the non-linearity of the float-type
> > sender. I have an Aerospace Logic gage that works with the senders
> provided
> > with my -4 kit. I believe EI may make a programmable gage, as well.
> > Removing a non-leaking tank from an RV seems like more agravation than
> > anyone needs.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dean
>
> Dean.
> I have one of those gages but I have not started calibration yet.
>
> How close are your readings when you are approaching the filled position,
> but
> still about 4 or 5 gallons down? I have my float and sensor mounted on the
> rear
> tank Bulkhead in the second rib bay from the root. It seems like the float
> is
> going to top out before the tank is full. That is the reason for the
> question.
>
> Down on the bottom end, it starts moving at a little over a half gallon, so
> this should present no problem.
>
> That is a far as I went so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping to start the
> calibration
> process. It seems very simple but some of the instructions seem to be
> written a
> little more complicated than needed. I am sure that after I do one tank, it
> will
> be a lot simpler..
>
> Phil, in Illinois, Sure wish I had an RV....... (someday)
>
> Do not archive
Sunday........ Fuel gages were calibrated Saturday... Piece of cake except it
took most of the day and two people.
Right tank was linear from about 1 gallon to 18 gallons... Pretty neat gage..
Left tank was linear to about 17 gallons.. Dont ever forget your watch when
flying though.......
I am going to call it quits on the fuel gages for now but may try to get closer
next summer when weather is a little warmer. I have to remount my fuel pump and
fuel filter, then I should be able to run engine.
It will soon be "Brass Monkey" weather here in Illinois
.
Phil sure wish I had something to fly
do not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
> > Bearings come out fairly easy, I didn't like how they fit though within
the
> TW assembly, so I made a spacer for inside, between the bearings much like
a
> stub shaft inside a preloaded steering drive axel commonly used in today's
> cars.
>
> This allows one to tighten the the tail wheel bolt enough for the bolt to
> not spin.
>
>
> But that all said, does anyone know of a valid criteria by which to
> determine of a tail wheel is worn out?
>
> W
==========================================
In the case of my RV-3 that I bought with 180 hours on it.....
I could not stand the noise being megaphoned by the tail section. Spinning
the unloaded tailwheel by hand revealed it was very rough running and
wobbly. Really shot. No grease or residue found. Dry as a bone
Bob
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oil Cooler Location |
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Dan,
Do you have any pix of your installation? I would like to see it
as I would think it would preclude baffle cracking. I am going to be
using a IO 360.
Jim
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oil Cooler Location |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/11/04 3:37:27 PM Central Standard Time,
tcervin@valkyrie.net writes:
> Has anybody been able to cool an RV with a firewall mounted cooler?
>>>
Yep- works great. I'll send ya some fotos
Mark
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | fuel metering options |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland@rkymtnhi.com>
I've got a stumble in rpm as I throttle up past around 1500 which seems to
be getting worse and does not respond to idle jet adjustments. I also no
longer see an rpm rise at idle cutoff which also doesn't respond to
adjustments. And I've got some play in the mixture control post where it
seats into the carb body.
Sooo... Its probably a good idea to consider having the 'ol MSA overhauled
at the next annual; which may present some options. Certainly a bolt-off /
bolt-on overhaul of the same carb will be cheapest and easiest. However if
there is to be a significant benefit to replacing it with an Ellison or
Airflow throttle body or an RSA injection system, this would be a good time
to make the switch.
So, for anyone whose replaced an MSA with something else - was it worth it?
What real life benefits did you see? Sustained inverted flight is not an
issue for me. And, since this is a VFR airplane that rarely travels in ice
prone conditions, that too becomes just a minor concern.
Considering the extra money and work of changing systems (new bracketry, new
hoses, new control cables, airbox alterations, etc...) I would want to see
some noticeable improvements in power or efficiency. Otherwise, I'll just
keep the MSA and not miss a 3-4 weeks of flying.
Any comments or suggestions?
Andy
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oil Cooler Location |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
In a message dated 12/12/04 11:35:18 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
rv9jim@juno.com writes:
>
> Dan,
> Do you have any pix of your installation? I would like to see it
> as I would think it would preclude baffle cracking. I am going to be
> using a IO 360.
>
> Jim
>
Jim,
I'm sorry, I don't have at this time. The next time the cowl is off I'll get
some.
Dan Hopper
N766DH
RV-7A (Flying since July -- about 80 hours)
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | fuel metering options |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
> I've got a stumble in rpm as I throttle up past around 1500
> which seems to be getting worse and does not respond to idle
> jet adjustments. I also no longer see an rpm rise at idle
> cutoff which also doesn't respond to adjustments. And I've
> got some play in the mixture control post where it seats into
> the carb body.
>
> Sooo... Its probably a good idea to consider having the 'ol
> MSA overhauled at the next annual; which may present some
> options. Certainly a bolt-off / bolt-on overhaul of the same
> carb will be cheapest and easiest. However if there is to be
Andy, since you don't know what the problem is, why would you not ground it
until you can have the carb overhauled, or at least disassembled and
inspected?
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 561 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:19:31 -0500
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
Hey out there,
I have just started to rivet together the rear spar for the horz. stab. The
rivets shown on the drawings aren't long enough to make a proper shop head,
however in the preview plans it specifically states that the rivet size
shown on the plan is correct. I have started to put in the -7 rivets instead
of the the -6 rivets in order to obtain a shop head that passes both rivet
spec test. Anybody run in the same problem and did you use the plan size
rivets or the next larger.
Thanks,
Paul
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing fairing gap seal |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/11/04 5:31:25 PM Central Standard Time,
stevea@svpal.org writes:
> 1. What should the fairing to fuselage gap be in order to hold the
> rubber seal in place without any adhesive? (I am not planning on using
> adhesive, unless the seal does not stay put in flight.)
>
>>>
Like another lister mentioned, put the seal on the edge of a part and apply
it to a perpendicular surface to achieve the desired radius, then measure.
Speaking from experience, I'd certainly make it narrower than you think you'll
need at first as it is easy to trim more of the fairing away but difficult to
add it back if too much is removed! My second fairings fit MUCH better (don't
ask!)
>
> 3. What is the easiest way to install the seal? Put the seal over the
> fairing and screw the fairing in place, or screw the fairing in place
> first and then slide the seal in. (Some previous posts on this. Most
> seem to install both at the same time.)
>
>>>
Tape the seal to the fairing every 4 or 5 inches (on the outside of course!)
then install it starting at the rear- cleco then screw like Dan C. sez. If
the seal gets tucked under in places slip a credit card between the seal and
skin and slide it past the tuck to lift the seal into position. No, this should
not debit your account, but you might wish to check anyway. If you want to
freak your friends, tell 'em you just have the wings taped on for the first
couple of flights til you're happy with the incidence angle (or just go ahead and
remove it if this makes your wife nervous...8-)
From The Possumworks in TN
Mark
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/11/04 7:09:27 PM Central Standard Time,
davercook@prodigy.net writes:
> Does the side skirts need any sort of weather-strip adhesive next to the
> Plexiglas for waterproofing and if so what did you use?
>>>
I used proseal 'cause I had some extra laying around, and as you know, it
takes days to cure, giving you plenty of time to work with it, clean it off
etc...... They sure don't leak!
Mark -6A tip-up, 133 hours
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 25 hour Phase One |
--> RV-List message posted by: <nyman@bellsouth.net>
I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport Power with
the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the inspection
has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one because the engine
is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25 hour phase
one with this or a similar combination? If so, some documentation I could use
to show my DAR would be helpful.
Thanks
Steve
MEM
7QB
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 33 Msgs - 12/11/04 |
--> RV-List message posted by: James F George <rv4george@juno.com>
Bravo Andrew!
On my IP ,Juno, I can opt to NOT send the message that I am
replying
to. Can the rest of us do the same?
Jim George
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 25 hour Phase One |
--> RV-List message posted by: RGray67968@aol.com
My experience as well. According to my inspector......your engine (and mine)
is NOT a Lycoming....it's an 'Aero Sport Power LTD'. 40 hours....go have fun!
Curious.....what's the big hurry anyway? You can learn a LOT about yourself
and your RV in 40hrs.
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/
not archive do
I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport Power
with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the
inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one because the
engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25 hour
phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some documentation I could
use to show my DAR would be helpful.
Thanks
Steve
MEM
7QB
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 33 Msgs - 12/11/04 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
When you send a message like this no one knows what you are talking
about. So what good is it in the archives?
Jerry
do not archive
James F George wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: James F George <rv4george@juno.com>
>
>Bravo Andrew!
> On my IP ,Juno, I can opt to NOT send the message that I am
>replying
>to. Can the rest of us do the same?
> Jim George
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 25 hour Phase One |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Calvert" <rv6@cox.net>
My DAR gave me 10 hours within 50 miles of my base airport and then the
remaining 30 hours anywhere in the state excluding some specific controlled
airspace. Try to get something like this in your Operation Limitations and
go have fun!
Jerry Calvert
RV 6 N296JC
Edmond Ok
----- Original Message -----
From: <RGray67968@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One
> --> RV-List message posted by: RGray67968@aol.com
>
> My experience as well. According to my inspector......your engine (and
mine)
> is NOT a Lycoming....it's an 'Aero Sport Power LTD'. 40 hours....go have
fun!
> Curious.....what's the big hurry anyway? You can learn a LOT about
yourself
> and your RV in 40hrs.
> Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/
> not archive do
> I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport
Power
> with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the
> inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one
because the
> engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25
hour
> phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some documentation I
could
> use to show my DAR would be helpful.
>
> Thanks
> Steve
> MEM
> 7QB
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 25 hour Phase One |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
If you don't have a lycoming data plate on it, you're not likely to convince
the Feds that it's a Lycoming built under a TC. After all, van's
recommendation is for a Lycoming, not a "xyz....".
The 2nd thing is that prop probably doesn't have the AeroSport power engine
on it's type certificate either, which is what you actually need to prove to
the FAA - That you're using a Type Certificated Engine/Prop Combo. Put a
non-TC'd prop on a Lycoming and you're in the same boat.
Anyway, that extra 15 hrs. is a breeze. Think of it as another weekend or
two of flying!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6's, Minneapolis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
nyman@bellsouth.net
Subject: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One
--> RV-List message posted by: <nyman@bellsouth.net>
I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport Power
with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the
inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one because
the engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25
hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some
documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful.
Thanks
Steve
MEM
7QB
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=WTsPU1dGFfYfe9Th4OuKdsdTr4DmdXq01JdYJKZc4IB2OSCa+JQSpQZ/u3LfzDbGpAVusvamTSbTrTGHFBxTiulMsXygrWeGpFoOVm6sQoWXmofTy/BcgyigYF6Gl+hEVydqdQUYINGG52Bd4z87jzUygnSfQFW8WzoXyek+8Zs=
;
--> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
Paul,
Consider all drawings and plans callout for a specific rivet length as a helpful
guideline and then use the correct length rivet for your application. Continue
to (correctly) rely on a rivet gauge to pass a go/no go spec test. The problem
you cite is certainly not unique to Van's drawings and on a personal note,
was routinely encountered by this retired aerospace worker while referring to
blueprint callouts .... building combat jets for a living.
Rick Galati
Hey out there,
I have just started to rivet together the rear spar for the horz. stab. The
rivets shown on the drawings aren't long enough to make a proper shop head,
however in the preview plans it specifically states that the rivet size
shown on the plan is correct. I have started to put in the -7 rivets instead
of the the -6 rivets in order to obtain a shop head that passes both rivet
spec test. Anybody run in the same problem and did you use the plan size
rivets or the next larger.
Thanks,
Paul
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 25 hour Phase One |
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Van's recommendation has nothing to do with whether you get a 25 or 40 hour
test period. One could use a Continental, a Franklin, or even a P&W and get
the 25 hour since they are certified.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
>
> If you don't have a lycoming data plate on it, you're not likely to
convince
> the Feds that it's a Lycoming built under a TC. After all, van's
> recommendation is for a Lycoming, not a "xyz....".
>
> The 2nd thing is that prop probably doesn't have the AeroSport power
engine
> on it's type certificate either, which is what you actually need to prove
to
> the FAA - That you're using a Type Certificated Engine/Prop Combo. Put a
> non-TC'd prop on a Lycoming and you're in the same boat.
>
> Anyway, that extra 15 hrs. is a breeze. Think of it as another weekend or
> two of flying!
>
> Cheers,
> Stein Bruch
> RV6's, Minneapolis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> nyman@bellsouth.net
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: <nyman@bellsouth.net>
>
> I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport
Power
> with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the
> inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one
because
> the engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25
> hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some
> documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful.
>
> Thanks
> Steve
> MEM
> 7QB
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 25 hour Phase One |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: <nyman@bellsouth.net>
Subject: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One
> --> RV-List message posted by: <nyman@bellsouth.net>
>
> I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport
> Power with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use
> for the inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase
> one because the engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able
> to get a 25 hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so,
> some documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful.
>
> Thanks
> Steve
> MEM
> 7QB
As others have stated, technically you should get a 40 hour fly-off.
Believe it or not, 40 hours isn't that long, and gives you enough time to do
all the things you should do before carrying passengers - get comfortable
with the airplane, check out the systems, perform all expected maneuvers,
expand the W/B envelope to the worst case situations, do extended flights to
check fuel burn, etc. I know of at least one person who spent all 40 "test"
hours boring holes in the air, and got a big surprise when he put people and
bags in the airplane...
KB
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=z9bfNOCBucRc1MUzaJFpyjrIlt9wuDtfBM5ZuQW8CeWP1WDjgC4ROhYTq6U2G9fx1+lz96LsDmIh91rWL3ojytHIy8QflBcFgRpT5wYxeN3hI+0ymRGKUGUhHpGW+2fA3vv6WzMY2UYdyzNZJDvyevgU4dbA6FdjgpDjju2F66M=
;
| Subject: | Oil Cooler Location |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
My 2 cents worth.
Don't mount the oil cooler directly to the rear baffle, because it will crack eventually.
It happened to me, and many other RV's have this issue, including Van's
airplanes. Some guy's put extra braces and heaver gage metal to support the
cooler, but this is a band-aid. Some of the older Mooneys, I have seen, use
a clever idea I'll describe below. Also oil cooler installations, whether baffle
mounted or not, are not efficient. They may work but at the cost of higher
cooling drag. I have a few ideas from experience and what I read in Speed with
Economy by Kent Paser, Tony B. and other builders.
If you feel you must mount it to the rear baffle, consider supporting the oil cooler
near the baffle but just off it, using the fixed (not vibrating) engine
mount tubes as an OC support. (You can weld tabs or use Adel clamps and brackets).
Connect the OC, which is now fixed, to the vibrating rear baffle with a short
flexible duct (rectangular like the Mooney) or a round duct with a smooth
ID. This is a variation between the baffle and firewall supported OC. The cooler
can be vertical or horizontal as long as you use a generous radius and no
abrupt transitions in the duct. The less you turn the air the better. The firewall
mount is good but has the draw back of a longer duct, oil lines and firewall
crowding. Regardless of how you mount it, you will have higher drag and less
efficiency if not engineered well. I think the baffle mounted OC is the hardest
to make efficient, regardless of baffle cracking.
Bottom line, if the OC is mounted and supported directly to the baffle, the baffle
will crack at some point, usually 200-400 hours of operation max. I know some
may write they have 10,000 hours on theirs, but the average is LOW. Consider
the weight of an OC and the oil in it, the weight of the oil lines sprung weight
including oil in them, the G factor produced from engine vibration, especially
start/shutdown, fatigue...... It is going to crack and is hard on the oil
cooler.
Internal airflow drag and details are important and ignored. The internal airflow
in the typical oil cooler installation has sharp corners, abrupt transitions
and uses convoluted scat tube for ducts. Also a huge rectangular cutout near
the #4 cylinder that is often used for cooler air is poor, from both a cylinder
cooling standpoint and aerodynamics (cooling drag). You are taking air away
from an already hot #4 or #3 cylinder. You don't need 26 sq inches for oil cooler
air, you need pressure. Making a big rectangular cutout is not the key. For
example look at Van's carb air box, it uses a small inlet area, say 6.5 sq
inches to supply Carb intake air. It takes the high velocity air and converts
it to pressure, by smoothly transitioning to a larger area. (filter is approx
45 in sq). The oil cooler should be similar in concept, of course without the
filter. So a 2.5-3 inch diameter area will be enough, but you can't just go from
a circle to a rectangle with out a diffuser of som
e kind
with out losing efficiency.
Many use a very large oil cooler cutout in the baffle, matching the 26 inch sq
area/dimension as the OC. This also makes the baffle weak. I am not sure what
the actual effective area of the cooler is, but some cutouts are in the baffles
I have seen are 1/2 to 2/3rds the total area of the engine cowl inlets. It works
but is draggy and you risk hot spots and valve problems on you adjacent cylinder
you are taking air from. You are trying to convert air velocity into pressure.
OC efficiency is a function of airflow mass across the cooler, which
is a function of the delta pressure across it. The air-inlet for the OC air in
the back of the baffle should have a smooth large radius, like the inlets in
the cowl. Also use a duct with a smooth ID to connect the oil cooler. Wire reinforced
SCAT is a poor choice, and is more critical for a longer duct.
The adapter/transition on the oil cooler, where the duct attaches is important.
It should be like a funnel without abrupt angles. The square shallow "box" bolted
directly to the Oil Cooler, like Vans sells, is a poor transition. This is
very turbulent. If you supply extra air you can get enough cooling but at the
expense of drag. Van's engine cowl inlets are larger than needed for a typical
150-180 hp RV, so you have extra air. Again it works but is not as efficient
as it can be. Key is to have good cooling with the minimum air. Suggest making
you own oil cooler transition out of fiberglass, like other builders. An advantage
of NOT supporting the OC directly by the baffle is you have room to make
the transition from baffle to oil cooler. The oil cooler bolted directly to
the baffle is abrupt. Even if you do bolt directly to the rear of the baffle,
consider using some transition air box, use the min inlet area not max (experiment),
and radius the inlet. Keep Cool G.
---------------------------------
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Thicker baffle material for cooler |
0.50 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
0.01 RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE Received: by and from look like IP addresses
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Local 8 builder/flyer just had to repair the cracked baffle material after less
than 100 hours TT because of his baffle mounted cooler - like everyone else usually
does at some point.
But he remarked that the replacement baffle material he ordered from Vans was thicker
than the original material. It irked him because he said he called Van's
and told them to begin with that in his opinion the material was too thin to
support the loads. They assured him all would be well. He is a retired aircraft
manufacturing manager for Boeing so he has more than a clue about such things.
Take a look at your baffle material around that area and if it's not at
least .063 call up Van's and see if they don't have new thicker replacement material
or consider making your own with thicker material.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by:
>
>
> My 2 cents worth.
>
>
> Don't mount the oil cooler directly to the rear baffle, because it will crack
> eventually. It happened to me, and many other RV's have this issue, including
> Van's airplanes. Some guy's put extra braces and heaver gage metal to support
> the cooler, but this is a band-aid. Some of the older Mooneys, I have seen, use
> a clever idea I'll describe below. Also oil cooler installations, whether baffle
> mounted or not, are not efficient. They may work but at the cost of higher
> cooling drag. I have a few ideas from experience and what I read in Speed with
> Economy by Kent Paser, Tony B. and other builders.
>
>
> If you feel you must mount it to the rear baffle, consider supporting the oil
> cooler near the baffle but just off it, using the fixed (not vibrating) engine
> mount tubes as an OC support. (You can weld tabs or use Adel clamps and
> brackets). Connect the OC, which is now fixed, to the vibrating rear baffle with
> a short flexible duct (rectangular like the Mooney) or a round duct with a
> smooth ID. This is a variation between the baffle and firewall supported OC.
> The cooler can be vertical or horizontal as long as you use a generous radius
> and no abrupt transitions in the duct. The less you turn the air the better.
The
> firewall mount is good but has the draw back of a longer duct, oil lines and
> firewall crowding. Regardless of how you mount it, you will have higher drag
and
> less efficiency if not engineered well. I think the baffle mounted OC is the
> hardest to make efficient, regardless of baffle cracking.
>
>
> Bottom line, if the OC is mounted and supported directly to the baffle, the
> baffle will crack at some point, usually 200-400 hours of operation max. I know
> some may write they have 10,000 hours on theirs, but the average is LOW.
> Consider the weight of an OC and the oil in it, the weight of the oil lines
> sprung weight including oil in them, the G factor produced from engine
> vibration, especially start/shutdown, fatigue...... It is going to crack and
is
> hard on the oil cooler.
>
>
> Internal airflow drag and details are important and ignored. The internal
> airflow in the typical oil cooler installation has sharp corners, abrupt
> transitions and uses convoluted scat tube for ducts. Also a huge rectangular
> cutout near the #4 cylinder that is often used for cooler air is poor, from both
> a cylinder cooling standpoint and aerodynamics (cooling drag). You are taking
> air away from an already hot #4 or #3 cylinder. You don't need 26 sq inches for
> oil cooler air, you need pressure. Making a big rectangular cutout is not the
> key. For example look at Van's carb air box, it uses a small inlet area, say
6.5
> sq inches to supply Carb intake air. It takes the high velocity air and converts
> it to pressure, by smoothly transitioning to a larger area. (filter is approx
45
> in sq). The oil cooler should be similar in concept, of course without the
> filter. So a 2.5-3 inch diameter area will be enough, but you can't just go from
> a circle to a rectangle with out a diffuser of som
> e kind
> with out losing efficiency.
>
>
> Many use a very large oil cooler cutout in the baffle, matching the 26 inch sq
> area/dimension as the OC. This also makes the baffle weak. I am not sure what
> the actual effective area of the cooler is, but some cutouts are in the baffles
> I have seen are 1/2 to 2/3rds the total area of the engine cowl inlets. It works
> but is draggy and you risk hot spots and valve problems on you adjacent cylinder
> you are taking air from. You are trying to convert air velocity into pressure.
> OC efficiency is a function of airflow mass across the cooler, which is a
> function of the delta pressure across it. The air-inlet for the OC air in the
> back of the baffle should have a smooth large radius, like the inlets in the
> cowl. Also use a duct with a smooth ID to connect the oil cooler. Wire
> reinforced SCAT is a poor choice, and is more critical for a longer duct.
>
>
> The adapter/transition on the oil cooler, where the duct attaches is important.
> It should be like a funnel without abrupt angles. The square shallow "box"
> bolted directly to the Oil Cooler, like Vans sells, is a poor transition. This
> is very turbulent. If you supply extra air you can get enough cooling but at
the
> expense of drag. Van's engine cowl inlets are larger than needed for a typical
> 150-180 hp RV, so you have extra air. Again it works but is not as efficient
as
> it can be. Key is to have good cooling with the minimum air. Suggest making you
> own oil cooler transition out of fiberglass, like other builders. An advantage
> of NOT supporting the OC directly by the baffle is you have room to make the
> transition from baffle to oil cooler. The oil cooler bolted directly to the
> baffle is abrupt. Even if you do bolt directly to the rear of the baffle,
> consider using some transition air box, use the min inlet area not max
> (experiment), and radius the inlet. Keep Cool G.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Local 8 builder/flyer just had to repair the cracked baffle material after less
than 100 hours TT because of his baffle mounted cooler - like everyone else usually
does at some point.
But he remarked that the replacement baffle material he ordered from Vanswas thicker
than the original material. It irked him because he said he called Van's
and told them to begin with that in his opinion the material was too thin to
support the loads.Theyassured him allwould be well. He is a retired aircraft manufacturing
manager for Boeing so he has more than a clue about such things.
Take a look at your baffle material around that area and if it's not at least
.063 call up Van's and see if they don't have new thicker replacement material
or consider making your own with thicker material.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: <GMCJETPILOT@YAHOO.COM>
My 2 cents worth.
Don't mount the oil cooler directly to the rear baffle, because it will crack
eventually. It happened to me, and many other RV's have this issue, including
Van's airplanes. Some guy's put extra braces and heaver gage metal to support
the cooler, but this is a band-aid. Some of the older Mooneys, I have seen, use
a clever idea I'll describe below. Also oil cooler installations, whether baffle
mounted or not, are not efficient. They may work but at the cost of higher
cooling drag. I have a few ideas from experience and what I read in Speed with
Economy by Kent Paser, Tony B. and other builders.
If you feel you must mo
unt it to the rear baffle, consider supporting the oil
cooler near the baffle but just off it, using the fixed (not vibrating) engine
mount tubes as an OC support. (You can weld tabs or use Adel clamps and
brackets). Connect the OC, which is now fixed, to the vibrating rear baffle with
a short flexible duct (rectangular like the Mooney) or a round duct with a
smooth ID. This is a variation between the baffle and firewall supported OC.
The cooler can be vertical or horizontal as long as you use a generous radius
and no abrupt transitions in the duct. The less you turn the air the better. The
firewall mount is good but has the draw back of a longer duct, oil lines and
firewall crowding. Regardless of how you mount it, you will have higher drag and
less efficiency if not engineered well. I think the baffle mounted OC is the
hardest to make efficient, regardless of baffle cracking.
Bottom line, if the OC is mounted and supported directly to the baffle, the
baffle will crack at some point, usually 200-400 hours of operation max. I know
some may write they have 10,000 hours on theirs, but the average is LOW.
Consider the weight of an OC and the oil in it, the weight of the oil lines
sprung weight including oil in them, the G factor produced from engine
vibration, especially start/shutdown, fatigue...... It is going to crack and is
hard on the oil cooler.
Internal airflow drag and details are important and ignored. The internal
airflow in the typical oil cooler installation has sharp corners, abrupt
transitions and uses convoluted scat tube for ducts. Also a huge rectangular
cutout near the #4 cylinder that is often used for cooler air is poor, from both
a cylinder cooling standpoint and aerodynamics (cooling dra
g). You are taking
air away from an already hot #4 or #3 cylinder. You don't need 26 sq inches for
oil cooler air, you need pressure. Making a big rectangular cutout is not the
key. For example look at Van's carb air box, it uses a small inlet area, say 6.5
sq inches to supply Carb intake air. It takes the high velocity air and converts
it to pressure, by smoothly transitioning to a larger area. (filter is approx
45
in sq). The oil cooler should be similar in concept, of course without the
filter. So a 2.5-3 inch diameter area will be enough, but you can't just go from
a circle to a rectangle with out a diffuser of som
e kind
with out losing efficiency.
Many use a very large oil cooler cutout in the baffle, matching the 26 inch sq
area/dimension as the OC. This also makes the baffle weak. I am not sure what
the actual effective area of the co
oler is, but some cutouts are in the baffles
I have seen are 1/2 to 2/3rds the total area of the engine cowl inlets. It works
but is draggy and you risk hot spots and valve problems on you adjacent cylinder
you are taking air from. You are trying to convert air velocity into pressure.
OC efficiency is a function of airflow mass across the cooler, which is a
function of the delta pressure across it. The air-inlet for the OC air in the
back of the baffle should have a smooth large radius, like the inlets in the
cowl. Also use a duct with a smooth ID to connect the oil cooler. Wire
reinforced SCAT is a poor choice, and is more critical for a longer duct.
The adapter/transition on the oil cooler, where the duct attaches is important.
It should be like a funnel without abrupt angles. The square shallow "box"
bolted directly to the Oil Cooler, like Vans sells, is a
poor transition. This
is very turbulent. If you supply extra air you can get enough cooling but at the
expense of drag. Van's engine cowl inlets are larger than needed for a typical
150-180 hp RV, so you have extra air. Again it works but is not as efficient as
it can be. Key is to have good cooling with the minimum air. Suggest making you
own oil cooler transition out of fiberglass, like other builders. An advantage
of NOT supporting the OC directly by the baffle is you have room to make the
transition from baffle to oil cooler. The oil cooler bolted directly to the
baffle is abrupt. Even if you do bolt directly to the rear of the baffle,
consider using some transition air box, use the min inlet area not max
(experiment), and radius the inlet. Keep Cool G.
---------------------------------
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn
more.
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oil Cooler Location |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin@valkyrie.net>
Excellent Post! I have decided to go with the firewall mount thanks to many
replies to my question both off and online.
Boy I hate to do fiberglass but believe I can come up with a funnel
type design using metal. How large should the air inlet be... 3" ? Where is
the best baffle location to tap for the air supply and not suffer cool air
to the engine or undue drag?
Tom in Ohio
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Oil Cooler Location
> --> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> My 2 cents worth.
>
>
> Don't mount the oil cooler directly to the rear baffle, because it will
> crack eventually. It happened to me, and many other RV's have this issue,
> including Van's airplanes. Some guy's put extra braces and heaver gage
> metal to support the cooler, but this is a band-aid. Some of the older
> Mooneys, I have seen, use a clever idea I'll describe below. Also oil
> cooler installations, whether baffle mounted or not, are not efficient.
> They may work but at the cost of higher cooling drag. I have a few ideas
> from experience and what I read in Speed with Economy by Kent Paser, Tony
> B. and other builders.
>
>
> If you feel you must mount it to the rear baffle, consider supporting the
> oil cooler near the baffle but just off it, using the fixed (not
> vibrating) engine mount tubes as an OC support. (You can weld tabs or use
> Adel clamps and brackets). Connect the OC, which is now fixed, to the
> vibrating rear baffle with a short flexible duct (rectangular like the
> Mooney) or a round duct with a smooth ID. This is a variation between the
> baffle and firewall supported OC. The cooler can be vertical or
> horizontal as long as you use a generous radius and no abrupt transitions
> in the duct. The less you turn the air the better. The firewall mount is
> good but has the draw back of a longer duct, oil lines and firewall
> crowding. Regardless of how you mount it, you will have higher drag and
> less efficiency if not engineered well. I think the baffle mounted OC is
> the hardest to make efficient, regardless of baffle cracking.
>
>
> Bottom line, if the OC is mounted and supported directly to the baffle,
> the baffle will crack at some point, usually 200-400 hours of operation
> max. I know some may write they have 10,000 hours on theirs, but the
> average is LOW. Consider the weight of an OC and the oil in it, the weight
> of the oil lines sprung weight including oil in them, the G factor
> produced from engine vibration, especially start/shutdown, fatigue......
> It is going to crack and is hard on the oil cooler.
>
>
> Internal airflow drag and details are important and ignored. The internal
> airflow in the typical oil cooler installation has sharp corners, abrupt
> transitions and uses convoluted scat tube for ducts. Also a huge
> rectangular cutout near the #4 cylinder that is often used for cooler air
> is poor, from both a cylinder cooling standpoint and aerodynamics (cooling
> drag). You are taking air away from an already hot #4 or #3 cylinder. You
> don't need 26 sq inches for oil cooler air, you need pressure. Making a
> big rectangular cutout is not the key. For example look at Van's carb air
> box, it uses a small inlet area, say 6.5 sq inches to supply Carb intake
> air. It takes the high velocity air and converts it to pressure, by
> smoothly transitioning to a larger area. (filter is approx 45 in sq). The
> oil cooler should be similar in concept, of course without the filter. So
> a 2.5-3 inch diameter area will be enough, but you can't just go from a
> circle to a rectangle with out a diffuser of som
> e kind
> with out losing efficiency.
>
>
> Many use a very large oil cooler cutout in the baffle, matching the 26
> inch sq area/dimension as the OC. This also makes the baffle weak. I am
> not sure what the actual effective area of the cooler is, but some cutouts
> are in the baffles I have seen are 1/2 to 2/3rds the total area of the
> engine cowl inlets. It works but is draggy and you risk hot spots and
> valve problems on you adjacent cylinder you are taking air from. You are
> trying to convert air velocity into pressure. OC efficiency is a function
> of airflow mass across the cooler, which is a function of the delta
> pressure across it. The air-inlet for the OC air in the back of the baffle
> should have a smooth large radius, like the inlets in the cowl. Also use
> a duct with a smooth ID to connect the oil cooler. Wire reinforced SCAT is
> a poor choice, and is more critical for a longer duct.
>
>
> The adapter/transition on the oil cooler, where the duct attaches is
> important. It should be like a funnel without abrupt angles. The square
> shallow "box" bolted directly to the Oil Cooler, like Vans sells, is a
> poor transition. This is very turbulent. If you supply extra air you can
> get enough cooling but at the expense of drag. Van's engine cowl inlets
> are larger than needed for a typical 150-180 hp RV, so you have extra air.
> Again it works but is not as efficient as it can be. Key is to have good
> cooling with the minimum air. Suggest making you own oil cooler transition
> out of fiberglass, like other builders. An advantage of NOT supporting the
> OC directly by the baffle is you have room to make the transition from
> baffle to oil cooler. The oil cooler bolted directly to the baffle is
> abrupt. Even if you do bolt directly to the rear of the baffle, consider
> using some transition air box, use the min inlet area not max
> (experiment), and radius the inlet. Keep Cool G.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 25 hour Phase One |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
My DAR made me find a TCDS with the engine AND prop together which I could
do because of a Lyc data plate and normal Hartzell. With a Superior and new
Hartzell just accept the 40 hrs and ask for the largest test area you can
get. I was the first locally to ask for and get a 200nm radius around a
local VOR exclusive of Class B&C. Subsequently others have gotten even
larger areas. The DAR has little or no discretion on the hours but does have
on the area... But you have to ask.
Greg Young
>
> I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at
> Aero Sport Power with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop.
> The DAR I plan to use for the inspection has indicated that I
> will have to do a 40 hour phase one because the engine is
> technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25
> hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so,
> some documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful.
>
> Thanks
> Steve
> MEM
> 7QB
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| From: | "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com>
I went to the -7 also but I had the pneumatic squeezer, I might not have if
I didn't though. I also ran out of -7 and had to borrow some because of
that so you might want to check how many you have first.
Greg
>
> Hey out there,
>
> I have just started to rivet together the rear spar for the horz. stab.
The
> rivets shown on the drawings aren't long enough to make a proper shop
head,
> however in the preview plans it specifically states that the rivet size
> shown on the plan is correct. I have started to put in the -7 rivets
instead
> of the the -6 rivets in order to obtain a shop head that passes both rivet
> spec test. Anybody run in the same problem and did you use the plan size
> rivets or the next larger.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "sportpilot" <sportypilot@stx.rr.com>
I just finnished up the wings and was checking out
motion ect.. and wanted to ask , any of you others
I was moving the alierons back and forth and it
seemslike its kinda binding ever so slightly on the
skin are those suppose to be rubbing?> it will go
past the point but its rubbing although
nothing is scratching the alieron skins it seems too tight
of tolarence whats the story on that.. once it
breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull
back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ?
what is the degree of movement needed I got a message about
15 to 17 degree's the problem is when it goes fully up past
the skin at the gap flairing..
Danny..
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oil Cooler Location |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
For what it's worth, here's a photo of the oil cooler setup on my old Mooney
201. It's exactly what "gmcjetpilot" described.
http://images.rvproject.com/m20j/images/engine/firewall.jpg
This one shows the "duct" built into the baffles.
http://images.rvproject.com/m20j/images/engine/baffle.jpg
I did not use this method on my RV-7 & IO-360-A1B6. I used the bandaid
method (mounted on the baffle with lots of reinforcement) and am happy with
it. ;-) I wasn't content with the idea of the engine moving around and the
oil cooler mount/duct being stationary. Just my personal perspective on it.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Oil Cooler Location
> --> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> My 2 cents worth.
>
>
> Don't mount the oil cooler directly to the rear baffle, because it will
crack eventually. It happened to me, and many other RV's have this issue,
including Van's airplanes. Some guy's put extra braces and heaver gage metal
to support the cooler, but this is a band-aid. Some of the older Mooneys, I
have seen, use a clever idea I'll describe below. Also oil cooler
installations, whether baffle mounted or not, are not efficient. They may
work but at the cost of higher cooling drag. I have a few ideas from
experience and what I read in Speed with Economy by Kent Paser, Tony B. and
other builders.
>
>
> If you feel you must mount it to the rear baffle, consider supporting the
oil cooler near the baffle but just off it, using the fixed (not vibrating)
engine mount tubes as an OC support. (You can weld tabs or use Adel clamps
and brackets). Connect the OC, which is now fixed, to the vibrating rear
baffle with a short flexible duct (rectangular like the Mooney) or a round
duct with a smooth ID. This is a variation between the baffle and firewall
supported OC. The cooler can be vertical or horizontal as long as you use a
generous radius and no abrupt transitions in the duct. The less you turn the
air the better. The firewall mount is good but has the draw back of a longer
duct, oil lines and firewall crowding. Regardless of how you mount it, you
will have higher drag and less efficiency if not engineered well. I think
the baffle mounted OC is the hardest to make efficient, regardless of baffle
cracking.
>
>
> Bottom line, if the OC is mounted and supported directly to the baffle,
the baffle will crack at some point, usually 200-400 hours of operation max.
I know some may write they have 10,000 hours on theirs, but the average is
LOW. Consider the weight of an OC and the oil in it, the weight of the oil
lines sprung weight including oil in them, the G factor produced from engine
vibration, especially start/shutdown, fatigue...... It is going to crack and
is hard on the oil cooler.
>
>
> Internal airflow drag and details are important and ignored. The internal
airflow in the typical oil cooler installation has sharp corners, abrupt
transitions and uses convoluted scat tube for ducts. Also a huge rectangular
cutout near the #4 cylinder that is often used for cooler air is poor, from
both a cylinder cooling standpoint and aerodynamics (cooling drag). You are
taking air away from an already hot #4 or #3 cylinder. You don't need 26 sq
inches for oil cooler air, you need pressure. Making a big rectangular
cutout is not the key. For example look at Van's carb air box, it uses a
small inlet area, say 6.5 sq inches to supply Carb intake air. It takes the
high velocity air and converts it to pressure, by smoothly transitioning to
a larger area. (filter is approx 45 in sq). The oil cooler should be similar
in concept, of course without the filter. So a 2.5-3 inch diameter area will
be enough, but you can't just go from a circle to a rectangle with out a
diffuser of som
> e kind
> with out losing efficiency.
>
>
> Many use a very large oil cooler cutout in the baffle, matching the 26
inch sq area/dimension as the OC. This also makes the baffle weak. I am not
sure what the actual effective area of the cooler is, but some cutouts are
in the baffles I have seen are 1/2 to 2/3rds the total area of the engine
cowl inlets. It works but is draggy and you risk hot spots and valve
problems on you adjacent cylinder you are taking air from. You are trying to
convert air velocity into pressure. OC efficiency is a function of airflow
mass across the cooler, which is a function of the delta pressure across it.
The air-inlet for the OC air in the back of the baffle should have a smooth
large radius, like the inlets in the cowl. Also use a duct with a smooth ID
to connect the oil cooler. Wire reinforced SCAT is a poor choice, and is
more critical for a longer duct.
>
>
> The adapter/transition on the oil cooler, where the duct attaches is
important. It should be like a funnel without abrupt angles. The square
shallow "box" bolted directly to the Oil Cooler, like Vans sells, is a poor
transition. This is very turbulent. If you supply extra air you can get
enough cooling but at the expense of drag. Van's engine cowl inlets are
larger than needed for a typical 150-180 hp RV, so you have extra air. Again
it works but is not as efficient as it can be. Key is to have good cooling
with the minimum air. Suggest making you own oil cooler transition out of
fiberglass, like other builders. An advantage of NOT supporting the OC
directly by the baffle is you have room to make the transition from baffle
to oil cooler. The oil cooler bolted directly to the baffle is abrupt. Even
if you do bolt directly to the rear of the baffle, consider using some
transition air box, use the min inlet area not max (experiment), and radius
the inlet. Keep Cool G.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
<RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn@cox.net>
Hi All,
I will hopefully be buying an ECI IO360 if I recover from the Crossflow experience. I am planning ahead and am seriously considering the Emag setup as opposed to conventional mags or electronic ignition. www.emagair.com
Is anyone out there using these yet? It almost appears to be too good to be true.
This is nearly a wash cost wise with conventional mags with not BS factor involved
in installation.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: aileron travel |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportypilot@stx.rr.com
Oh its an rv9a I am building
> --> RV-List message posted by: "sportpilot" <sportypilot@stx.rr.com>
>
> I just finnished up the wings and was checking out
> motion ect.. and wanted to ask , any of you others
> I was moving the alierons back and forth and it
> seemslike its kinda binding ever so slightly on the
> skin are those suppose to be rubbing?> it will go
> past the point but its rubbing although
> nothing is scratching the alieron skins it seems too tight
> of tolarence whats the story on that.. once it
> breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull
> back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ?
> what is the degree of movement needed I got a message about
> 15 to 17 degree's the problem is when it goes fully up past
> the skin at the gap flairing..
>
> Danny..
>
>
> _-
> _-
> _-
> =====================================================================
>
>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 25 hour Phase One |
--> RV-List message posted by: DWENSING@aol.com
In a message dated 12/12/04 2:52:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
RGray67968@aol.com writes:
> your engine (and mine)
> is NOT a Lycoming....it's an 'Aero Sport Power LTD'
My O-360 has a Lycoming data plate but the engine is from AeroSport Power.
Have Hartzell C/S prop matched to Lycoming O-360. Still got 40 hours!
Dale Ensing
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 25 hour Phase One |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill VonDane" <bill@vondane.com>
It's really up to the DAR... I had an O320 and wood prop and I got 30
hours...
-Bill
no not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <DWENSING@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One
--> RV-List message posted by: DWENSING@aol.com
In a message dated 12/12/04 2:52:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
RGray67968@aol.com writes:
> your engine (and mine)
> is NOT a Lycoming....it's an 'Aero Sport Power LTD'
My O-360 has a Lycoming data plate but the engine is from AeroSport Power.
Have Hartzell C/S prop matched to Lycoming O-360. Still got 40 hours!
Dale Ensing
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Have a look at the Matronics aeroelectric list recent archives. There has
been some discussion there - mostly quite favorable.
Terry
I will hopefully be buying an ECI IO360 if I recover from the Crossflow
experience. I am planning ahead and am seriously considering the Emag setup
as opposed to conventional mags or electronic ignition. www.emagair.com
Is anyone out there using these yet? It almost appears to be too good to be
true. This is nearly a wash cost wise with conventional mags with not BS
factor involved in installation.
Darwin N. Barrie
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 25 hour Phase One |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
In this case you obviously have a rebuilt/overhauled/new lycoming built by
AeroSport power. The ones in question are his new "Experimental" Engines
which are NOT new/rebuilt/overhauled Lyc's.
Aerosport Power builds both overhauled/rebuilt Lycs as well as full
Experimental engines. Two totally different things in the eyes of the feds.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of DWENSING@aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One
--> RV-List message posted by: DWENSING@aol.com
In a message dated 12/12/04 2:52:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
RGray67968@aol.com writes:
> your engine (and mine)
> is NOT a Lycoming....it's an 'Aero Sport Power LTD'
My O-360 has a Lycoming data plate but the engine is from AeroSport Power.
Have Hartzell C/S prop matched to Lycoming O-360. Still got 40 hours!
Dale Ensing
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: aileron travel |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/12/2004 4:53:46 PM Central Standard Time,
sportypilot@stx.rr.com writes:
once it
breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull
back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ?
>>>>>>
Make absolutely sure it is NOT the aileron bellcranks or pushrod end bearings
or the pushrods themselves touching anything- also check clearances where the
pushrods go through the rear spars and the rods from the sticks where they go
through the seat ribs and side skins... On a -6A these clearances are very
tight- if you are building something else, your mileage may vary....
It took quite a while in a very quiet hangar to find out that a rivet in my
Navaid servo rod bearing was barely brushing the bellcrank mounting angle- time
well spent IMHO!
From The PossumWorks in TN
Mark
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: aileron travel |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" <spudnut@worldnet.att.net>
On the RV-9A: Aileron travel is limited by the positive stops. They will
only limit up travel so until you get the wings hooked together through the
stick you won't have any limit on down aileron. Also, the amount of total
travel is usually greater than the stops will eventually limit it to, so
until the stops are installed you may be seeing more travel (and therefore
some binding) than you will end up with.
Albert Gardner
RV-9A 872RV
Yuma, AZ
----- Original Message ----- >> --> RV-List message posted by: "sportpilot"
<sportypilot@stx.rr.com>
>>
>> I just finnished up the wings and was checking out
>> motion ect.. and wanted to ask , any of you others
>> I was moving the alierons back and forth and it
>> seemslike its kinda binding ever so slightly on the
>> skin are those suppose to be rubbing?> it will go
>> past the point but its rubbing although
>> nothing is scratching the alieron skins it seems too tight
>> of tolarence whats the story on that.. once it
>> breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull
>> back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ?
>> what is the degree of movement needed I got a message about
>> 15 to 17 degree's the problem is when it goes fully up past
>> the skin at the gap flairing..
>>
>> Danny..
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Autopilot istallation instructions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay@jetstream.net>
Just received my servos from TruTrak and included is all the hardware and installation
instruction manual with some excellent pictures and as has been mentioned,
the drawings for a RV 7 installation in the left hand wing.
A couple of questions come to mind, the WD421 L is not the same as the one shown
in the 7 drawing. The difference being their is a difference in the divergence
of the two arms, looks like around 4-5 degrees and also the arms look like
they are about 1/4 inch longer.
The other is all the info pertains to a left hand installation. I realize that
the right hand installation is probably a mirror image of the left, did I miss
something when I ordered them. What would be the advantage of a right hand installation?
Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C.
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
"'owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com '"@matronics.com
| Subject: | TRUNCATE AND DO NOT ARCHIVE |
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Well,
I try to not whine and be policey on this list, but after reading Friday's
digest the only thoughts that come to mind are
TRUNCATE AND DO NOT ARCHIVE
good topics though, thx
W
PS Jack L. I was at CMA today for a few minutes dropping off the wife, but
the WX was looking to be mean to me so I left. Next time I'm up that way for
food I'll try to give you a heads up...
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Autopilot istallation instructions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
It may not be of much significance but having the servo in the right wing
would help balance the pitot installation in the left wing both from a
weight and complexity standpoint.
Dick Sipp
#40065
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay@jetstream.net>
Subject: RV-List: Autopilot istallation instructions
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay@jetstream.net>
>
> Just received my servos from TruTrak and included is all the hardware and
> installation instruction manual with some excellent pictures and as has
> been mentioned, the drawings for a RV 7 installation in the left hand
> wing.
>
> A couple of questions come to mind, the WD421 L is not the same as the one
> shown in the 7 drawing. The difference being their is a difference in the
> divergence of the two arms, looks like around 4-5 degrees and also the
> arms look like they are about 1/4 inch longer.
>
> The other is all the info pertains to a left hand installation. I realize
> that the right hand installation is probably a mirror image of the left,
> did I miss something when I ordered them. What would be the advantage of a
> right hand installation?
>
> Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C.
>
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 25 hour Phase One |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
If YOU cannot prove that all ADs are complied with, that the engine and prop
meets the TCDS, the DAR should give you 40 hours even if you have the data
plate and prop. One thing that causes many engines in homebuilts to not
meet the TCDS is the removal of a mag and installation on an EXPERIMENTAL
ignition system.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,610 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
My O-360 has a Lycoming data plate but the engine is from AeroSport Power.
Have Hartzell C/S prop matched to Lycoming O-360. Still got 40 hours!
Dale Ensing
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
Darwin,
I too am considering Emag . . . I also monitor the AeroElectric list
mentions . . . there was some general discussion a while back but not much
"personal experience" that I recall?!
I am also interested in any feed back!
Regards,
Bob Christensen
RV-8 Builder - SE Iowa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: EMag
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> Have a look at the Matronics aeroelectric list recent archives. There has
> been some discussion there - mostly quite favorable.
>
> Terry
>
>
> I will hopefully be buying an ECI IO360 if I recover from the Crossflow
> experience. I am planning ahead and am seriously considering the Emag
setup
> as opposed to conventional mags or electronic ignition. www.emagair.com
>
> Is anyone out there using these yet? It almost appears to be too good to
be
> true. This is nearly a wash cost wise with conventional mags with not BS
> factor involved in installation.
>
> Darwin N. Barrie
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Paul,
I can think of two things which may cause the rivets to seem too short. One
would be if all the pieces were not laying flat together, if there are several
layers to rivet through. Another thing would be if the hole(s) were
oversize, possibly due to drilling out the rivet and redoing it. The rivets
themselves enlarge the holes when they are driven, even if you do a perfect job
of
drilling them out. If you have drilled a rivet out, you may well have to use a
longer rivet to fill the hole, and get a good shop head. Sometimes its better
to accept a less than perfect shop head to avoid getting into this situation.
Experience will help make that decision for you.
Regards,
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 12/12/04 1:24:31 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
rice737@msn.com writes:
> Hey out there,
>
> I have just started to rivet together the rear spar for the horz. stab. The
>
> rivets shown on the drawings aren't long enough to make a proper shop head,
> however in the preview plans it specifically states that the rivet size
> shown on the plan is correct. I have started to put in the -7 rivets instead
>
> of the the -6 rivets in order to obtain a shop head that passes both rivet
> spec test. Anybody run in the same problem and did you use the plan size
> rivets or the next larger.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 25 hour Phase One |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on zoot.lafn.org
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
I got 40 hours with an O-360 and Hartzell because I had Airflow
Performance fuel injection. Go figure. The worst part was that I "HAD"
to fly another 15 hours, when I could have been home mowing the lawn or
something!
It's just not fair - I had to spend another 2 weekends at the airport!
Dave -6 So Cal
do not archive
Stein Bruch wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
>
>In this case you obviously have a rebuilt/overhauled/new lycoming built by
>AeroSport power. The ones in question are his new "Experimental" Engines
>which are NOT new/rebuilt/overhauled Lyc's.
>
>Aerosport Power builds both overhauled/rebuilt Lycs as well as full
>Experimental engines. Two totally different things in the eyes of the feds.
>
>Cheers,
>Stein.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of DWENSING@aol.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: DWENSING@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 12/12/04 2:52:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>RGray67968@aol.com writes:
>
>
>
>
>>your engine (and mine)
>>is NOT a Lycoming....it's an 'Aero Sport Power LTD'
>>
>>
>
>My O-360 has a Lycoming data plate but the engine is from AeroSport Power.
>Have Hartzell C/S prop matched to Lycoming O-360. Still got 40 hours!
>Dale Ensing
>
>
>
>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Autopilot istallation instructions |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on zoot.lafn.org
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
Actually, it will help balance the PILOT that is in the left seat. One
person in the airplane instead of 2 significantly changes the balance of
the airplane.
Dave -6 So Cal
Richard Sipp wrote:
>...would help balance the pitot installation in the left wing...
>
>
>
>>The other is all the info pertains to a left hand installation. I realize
>>that the right hand installation is probably a mirror image of the left,
>>did I miss something when I ordered them. What would be the advantage of a
>>right hand installation?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|