Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:32 AM - corrosion (Greg@itmack)
2. 02:22 AM - Re: Apples to oranges ()
3. 02:40 AM - Re: corrosion (Jim Jewell)
4. 05:14 AM - Re: installing fire sleeve - basic question (RV_8 Pilot)
5. 05:36 AM - Notice to carbureted engine users (RV_8 Pilot)
6. 05:59 AM - Re: Insurance Question (DWENSING@aol.com)
7. 06:43 AM - Re: Insurance Question (JT Helms)
8. 07:44 AM - Fw: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j on zoot.lafn.org (cgalley)
9. 08:05 AM - Re: Apples to oranges (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
10. 08:17 AM - Re: Tailwheel (Finn Lassen)
11. 08:28 AM - Re: installing fire sleeve - basic question (cgalley)
12. 08:31 AM - Re: Tail Wheel wear (Finn Lassen)
13. 08:36 AM - Re: Apples to oranges (Scott Bilinski)
14. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: E-Mag - knock sensing (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
15. 08:49 AM - RV-7 wing tip height? (Erich Weaver)
16. 08:50 AM - Re: corrosion (Jamie Painter)
17. 08:52 AM - Re: Apples to oranges (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
18. 10:21 AM - Re: Rocket Tailwheel Linkage (Jack Blomgren)
19. 10:57 AM - "experimental" engine? (Rick Galati)
20. 11:16 AM - Re: "experimental" engine? (JT Helms)
21. 11:45 AM - TSO vs non-TSO (Maureen & Bob Christensen)
22. 12:52 PM - Re: Notice to carbureted engine users (Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR)
23. 01:00 PM - Re: TSO vs non-TSO (Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR)
24. 01:09 PM - Firesleeve: Sealing ends (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
25. 01:28 PM - Re: Re: TSO vs non-TSO (Scott Bilinski)
26. 02:16 PM - Re: Re: TSO vs non-TSO (RV_8 Pilot)
27. 02:19 PM - Re: Firesleeve: Sealing ends (Jim Jewell)
28. 04:48 PM - Re: "experimental" engine? (Tom & Cathy Ervin)
29. 04:50 PM - Re: Fw: Insurance Question clamav-milter version (Dave Bristol)
30. 06:07 PM - Re: Hobbyair Pro (Jordan Grant)
31. 06:31 PM - Re: Firesleeve: Sealing ends (Larry Bowen)
32. 07:17 PM - Re: Alternator temperature monitor was Apples to (Charlie Kuss)
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 |
|
| From: | "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com>
My aileron and flap skins that came with the kit seem to have minor corrosion around
the edges and where the holes were punched, it looks like moisture got under
the plastic film or maybe some kind of chemical spillage. It is only surface
corrosion and I thought I'd just give it an extra good going over with the
scotchbrite and then prime. I haven't been using alodine just epoxy primer.
Does this sound okay?
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: Apples to oranges |
--> RV-List message posted by: <sears@searnet.com>
> you can't compare the rating of an aircraft alternator with an automobile
> unit. The auto units are not rated at continous duty as are the aircraft
> units.
They sure do look the same, though. :-) OK, you may be right; but, I still
picked my Van's alternator based on what was in my Cheetah. So far, that
has worked for me. I've not burned up an alternator in my RV; and, it's a
35 amp unit from Van's. I guess one's milage will vary based on usage and
luck. :-) I know I can afford a lot of auto alternators, especially with a
lifetime warranty, more than I can afford one aircraft alternator. :-)
> The other factor is that the units are rated at a specific temperature. Is
> the temperature in your cowl equal to that?
I'd have to say they're about the same. If one compares the cowl of a
Cheetah to that of an RV, there is very little difference. Both are tight
cowls. The cylinder temps I see are pretty darned close. I'd say the cowl
internal temps are about the same. Neither has a blast tube for cooling the
alternator.
> Having it be of a load capacity that is larger just allows for it to run
> cooler at an equal load, or at least to be better suited to handling equal
> temperatures.
This is true. I'm not suggesting that one should load up a panel, have a
zillion lights, pitot heat, etc. and expect to run on 35 amps. However, one
shouldn't consider the 35 amp unit junk because it doesn't have the capacity
one really should be using for his/her specific needs. My panel is not
overloaded; and, I'm not running pitot heat. I do use my lights, on
occasion. So far, I've watched the volt meter and ammeter and have found
that the 35 amp unit can hold its own. Maybe it won't do that for long
periods; but, the extra loads I put on the battery are short term, anyway.
Again, one can use blast tubes to keep it cool for those short period blasts
of high energy. I chose not to and have been successful with that.
> In my limited experience with Van's units (about ten of them) they are not
> great units and in several cases they were flat out trash. I would never
fly
> one without first overhauling it myself. But, that said, I would do the
same
> with an autozone unit as well.
I guess I've really been lucky. I'll admit that I know little about
overhauling alternators. Heck, I gave up on working on my own cars, long
ago. Too darned complicated for a shade tree mechanic. :-) I do know
that I've not had any problems with Van's alternators, nose gear leg, and
rudder stirrups when others have reported they have. Either I'm lucky as
the Dickens; or, I don't abuse what I've installed. I guess it could be a
little of both. :-) Now, I do admit that my voltage regulator is a little
flakey; but, it's still working just fine. It's Van's adjustable unit.
For a point of reference, yesterday was the fifth anniversary of Scooter's
first flight. I now have over 300 hours on the tach. With it's being a bit
slow, the hours are probably more like 350+ hours. It still has the
original small nose gear and stirrups without gussets. No cracks, yet! :-)
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
RV-7A #70317 (Building wings, inventorying fuse)
EAA Tech. Counselor
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: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hi Greg,
I would be inclined toward using some Alumiprep (scouring with Scotchbrite
while acid etching) and then Alodin before priming. The acid etch and
Alodine should have a better chance of treating the already corroded
portions. I would be reluctant to bury any corrosion under the prime coat.
if the corrosion is deep try to sand it out before treating it. if the part
is corroded so bad that the sanding etc. appears to ruin it then a
replacement will likely be the next choice.
I think that the humidity level in the area quite near the coast where Van's
is located is commonly higher than other more inland areas. Van's uses a lot
of wood and paper when packing parts for shipping. It might be wise to
unpack and unwrap every thing upon arrival to inspect and then store in a
warm dry environment. The new plant and its location might be a bit less
humid but still getting parts out into a controlled drier environments
can't hurt.
Jim in Kelowna
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com>
>
> My aileron and flap skins that came with the kit seem to have minor
> corrosion around the edges and where the holes were punched, it looks like
> moisture got under the plastic film or maybe some kind of chemical
> spillage. It is only surface corrosion and I thought I'd just give it an
> extra good going over with the scotchbrite and then prime. I haven't been
> using alodine just epoxy primer. Does this sound okay?
>
>
>
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: installing fire sleeve - basic question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
Excellent info! and I paid $100+ for a band-it clamp!!! :(
Bryan
do not archive
>Contact: http://198.63.56.18/pages/order.html Google clamptite and it's
>there also
>
>Camptite tools, Ray Silvey MFG. Co.
>PO box 414 Shady Cove Or.97539
>
>Direst Orders-800-962-2901
>Tel.-(503) 826-4466
>
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: | Notice to carbureted engine users |
0.20 FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS From: contains an underline and numbers/letters
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
Just wanted to pass along what I thought was a new learning experience for
me yesterday.
Here's a little background - I have a 4 year old RV-8 with about 688 hrs on
engine and airframe. Engine is a 160-hp O-320 with a Marvel Shebler MA-4SPA
carb.
I had some rough engine issues and it recently it started becoming hard to
shut down. I rebuilt the old carb 688 hrs ago, and was looking for an
excuse to buy a factory reconditioned one. There it was. Bought one from
Kelly Aerospace. Was a first class product, well packaged and assembled.
After the quick swap, I fired up the plane and ended up flying 2-3 hrs
Saturday with nothing but good performance. Sunday I flew another 2 hrs or
so, but noticed a problem while approaching to land. One of my flying
buddies was departing, so I decided to asked for the low appch to follow my
buddy out of the ATA. When I got full power applied, it began missing about
once or twice every second or so. Wasn't enough to cause a noticable loss
of power, but made me mad more than anything! I wanted to go fly and I had
just dropped a few bills on the new carb.
On climb out at the airport, I switched tanks, boost on, changed rpm setting
(for some reason), changed power, mag check - the problem never went away
while at cruise power in the downwind so I asked for landing clearance.
Back at the hanger, I did a power and mag check. Checked for water in the
fuel. No problems.
About 2 hrs later I made another test flight to confirm my theory, and had
no problems. Nor could I reproduce the problem though.
Conclusion - I believe, for the first time that I'm aware of in nearly 700
hrs, I had carb ice. With the new, "tighter" carb and induction system
(which I coincidentally sealed up with RTV when I swapped carbs), I believe
it iced up.
Conditions were marginal for ice, IMO - 65F OAT, 28F dewpoint. But the info
I found below shows the ice as possible.
www.nawcad.navy.mil/flyingclub/
training%20presentations%5CCarburetor%20Ice%5CCarburetor%20Ice.ppt
Just something to consider.
Bryan Jones
Houston, TX
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: | Re: Insurance Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: DWENSING@aol.com
In a message dated 12/19/04 10:27:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mrobert569@hotmail.com writes:
> Through Nationair I am listed on several polices as a pilot. And as long
> as
> the pilot meets the experience requirements they will cover him/her and the
> aircraft during the first ten hours. You should check them out.
>
> Nationair is an agent not an insurance company. The coverage depends
on the insurance company they get to write the policy. I agree you should give
them first chance. Also, and this has been said before on the list, once you
contact an agent, all other agents are blocked by the insurance companies to
quote on your needs. Blatant restraint of commerce but that's the way it is!
Dale Ensing
do not archive
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: Insurance Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JT Helms" <jhelms@nationair.com>
You always get to choose who your agent is. Switching agents is not hard.
But the quotes that are in existence already will stand as is as long as the
underwriting info stays the same.
And, it isn't to restrain trade, it's to provide you with the lowest cost
insurance possible. Most of the companies aren't very advanced
technologically. Many still have underwriters manually underwrite each
risk. If they quoted it to 10 different agents which you queried, then if
they didn't quote it to just the first one, they'd have to do it 10 times.
They'd have to hire more underwriters which would push the price up for you
all.
To switch agents you merely call the agent you want to deal with, they'll
help you prepare what is called a broker of record letter. That will be
forwarded to all the companies and existing quotes are then assigned to the
new broker unchanged.
AIG is the only company which does not use that system currently. That is
primarily because they have a computer do all the work they can. They've
had the best online quoting system of any of the companies for 5 years (when
they started doing that).
JT
----- Original Message -----
From: <DWENSING@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance Question
> --> RV-List message posted by: DWENSING@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 12/19/04 10:27:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> mrobert569@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
> > Through Nationair I am listed on several polices as a pilot. And as
long
> > as
> > the pilot meets the experience requirements they will cover him/her and
the
> > aircraft during the first ten hours. You should check them out.
> >
> > Nationair is an agent not an insurance company. The coverage
depends
> on the insurance company they get to write the policy. I agree you should
give
> them first chance. Also, and this has been said before on the list, once
you
> contact an agent, all other agents are blocked by the insurance companies
to
> quote on your needs. Blatant restraint of commerce but that's the way it
is!
>
> Dale Ensing
> do not archive
>
>
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: | Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j |
on zoot.lafn.org
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
From the man in charge of the EAA insurance.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Mackey" <bmackey@falconinsurance.com>
<jrallen@falconinsurance.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j on
zoot.lafn.org
> Hello Cy!
>
> The EAA Plan will provide insurance coverage for first flight provided
> the EAA Member participates in the EAA Flight Advisor Program. Anyone
> needing assistance or having questions should contact one of the EAA
> Plan Specialists at (866) 647-4EAA (4322)...... (Also, there are some
> special situations that may come into play so it is important to contact
> the EAA Plan.)
>
> Happy Holidays! If there is anything else I can lend a hand with please
> let me know!
>
> Bob Mackey
> Falcon Insurance Agency
> Oshkosh, WI
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cgalley [mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org]
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 3:01 AM
> To: Bob Mackey
> Subject: Fw: RV-List: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j on
> zoot.lafn.org
>
>
> Can you help?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 9:39 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j on
> zoot.lafn.org
>
>
> > I believe the "new" insurance thru EAA does but I'll will check and
> > get
> back
> > to you.
> >
> > Cy Galley
> > EAA Safety Programs Editor
> > Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Bristol" <bj034@lafn.org>
> > To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 8:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j
> on
> > zoot.lafn.org
> >
> >
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > I think this is pretty common. Back when AVEMCO was the official EAA
>
> > > insurance company, you were insured from the first flight if you
> > > took part in the EAA Flight Advisor and Technical Counselor
> > > programs, because it was proven that there were far fewer accidents
> > > during early flight testing when builders took advantage of those
> > > programs. I don't know if this is true now with the new insurer but,
>
> > > in my opinion, it should be.
> > >
> > > Dave -6 So Cal
> > > EAA Flight Advisor and Technical Counselor
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim Bean wrote:
> > >
> > > >--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Bean <jim-bean@att.net>
> > > >
> > > >Listers,
> > > >
> > > >...I requested info from Avemco about converting not-inflight to
> > inflight. They say OK but
> > > >have two surprising, to me, restrictions. No hull coverage for the
> first
> > > >10 hours and no liability to a test pilot for the first 10 hours...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ===
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Apples to oranges |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
W,
I agree with most of what you have said, but I wonder where you heard that
the auto ratings of alternators are not for continuous duty? Although my
experience working for Delco Electronics on their regulator program dates back
to
the 1960s, those ratings were for continuous operation. How would the operator
of a car know to reduce the load on his electrical system?
Alternators are self limiting in their current capacity at a given rpm.
(Generators before them had to be protected by a current limiting coil in the
voltage regulator.) That's where that amperage rating comes from. We used 6000
rpm as the "standard" test rpm. When loaded slightly greater than their output
current rating, the voltage drops causing the field current to drop resulting
in a foldback, and that is all you get. Of course, the same thing happens at
other rpms, but at different output currents. Lower at lower rpm, and
slightly higher at higher rpm. Alternators are designed to have enough cooling
air
(the fan) that in the under hood environment (about 125 degrees C.) they will
not self-destruct regardless of the load. An alternator is approximately 50
percent efficient, meaning that it dissipates about 490 watts internally when
it delivers 35 amps at 14 volts. To keep the internal temperature safe,
cooling air is required.
Many automobile alternators turn backwards when used in an airplane. I think
that is why Van's discards the fan. The certificated airplanes that use
alternators (that I have seen) still have a fan, and I would highly recommend one
for the above reason. Even a reversed fan would be better than none at all.
But there are some cars out there that have the right fan, I would expect.
Van's 35 amp alternator would be just fine at 35 amps if you can get enough
cooling air to it. I'm not sure a blast tube guarantees that, but it may.
Another alternative would be to sense the temperature of the diode heat sink and
light a warning light on the panel if it overheats so that the field circuit
breaker could be turned off. This would be at about 150 degrees C. Not too many
of us have time or resources to do this. But, this may be easier than taking
the necessary data to assure ourselves that the system is doing the job
reliably as installed in our particular airplane.
OK, sorry folks, but I had to jump in here. Of course just IMHO.
Regards,
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
N766DH (Flying with Van's 60 amp alternator, even though I don't need even 35
amps!)
> Folks,
>
> you can't compare the rating of an aircraft alternator with an automobile
> unit. The auto units are not rated at continous duty as are the aircraft
> units.
>
> The other factor is that the units are rated at a specific temperature. Is
> the temperature in your cowl equal to that?
>
> Having it be of a load capacity that is larger just allows for it to run
> cooler at an equal load, or at least to be better suited to handling equal
> temperatures.
>
> In my limited experience with Van's units (about ten of them) they are not
> great units and in several cases they were flat out trash. I would never fly
> one without first overhauling it myself. But, that said, I would do the same
> with an autozone unit as well.
>
> W
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
While I was doing my annual, a gentleman came by and suggested what a
freind of his had done on his RV-4:
Bend a peice of flat stainless steel. into a U-shape with a 1/2" hole in
one end. This will protect the threaded portion that hangs down. Sort of
a tail skid-wheel combination.
Finn
H.Ivan Haecker wrote:
But that all said, does anyone know of a valid criteria by which to
>>determine of a tail wheel is worn out?
>>
>>W
>>
>>
>>
>I don't have the answer to that, but I will say that after 1120 hrs. my
>angle of attack while sitting on the ground is increasing! The biggest
>problem is that with the original style tail gear, the threaded portion that
>hangs down sure gets caught on things a lot easier. I got hung up this
>weekend on one of those cables that are used for tie downs. It stopped me
>real quick(was only going a couple of mph). I guess I'm carrier qualified!
>So for me, it's probably time. I'll measure the tire diameter the next time
>I'm at the hangar if you are interested.
>Ivan Haecker -4 1120 hrs. S. Cen. TX
>
>
>
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: installing fire sleeve - basic question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Automotive CVC joint boot clamps work very well.
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: installing fire sleeve - basic question
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>
> Excellent info! and I paid $100+ for a band-it clamp!!! :(
>
> Bryan
>
> do not archive
>
>
> >Contact: http://198.63.56.18/pages/order.html Google clamptite and it's
> >there also
> >
> >Camptite tools, Ray Silvey MFG. Co.
> >PO box 414 Shady Cove Or.97539
> >
> >Direst Orders-800-962-2901
> >Tel.-(503) 826-4466
> >
>
>
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: | Re: Tail Wheel wear |
--> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
I guess one of these criteria would qualify as worn down:
1) Rubber worn down to the metal rim.
2) Threaded end of spring dragging on the ground.
3) Can only see sky when taxiing :)
Finn
Wheeler North wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
>
>Ah Ha,
>
>I got you beat, I already measured mine.
>
>New its 5.875" diameter; mine, at 800 hours, is at 4.812"D which means I
>have worn off about 1/2".
>
>I wonder what the increase on tail wheel wieght is because of this? Less
>rubber but the CG is moved aft a tad due to the shift in attitude.
>
>I do agree, it does get hung up in tie down potholes a lot more.
>
>Hmmm, still don't know if its worn out yet?????
>
>W
>
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
>
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: Apples to oranges |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Interesting numbers for sustained temps, much higher than I expected. On
the CAFE web page the exit air temp on a RV-8 was 163 F. So there is your
under the cowl temps for those interested.
At 11:04 AM 12/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>W,
>
>I agree with most of what you have said, but I wonder where you heard that
>the auto ratings of alternators are not for continuous duty? Although my
>experience working for Delco Electronics on their regulator program dates
>back to
>the 1960s, those ratings were for continuous operation. How would the
>operator
>of a car know to reduce the load on his electrical system?
>
>Alternators are self limiting in their current capacity at a given rpm.
>(Generators before them had to be protected by a current limiting coil in the
>voltage regulator.) That's where that amperage rating comes from. We
>used 6000
>rpm as the "standard" test rpm. When loaded slightly greater than their
>output
>current rating, the voltage drops causing the field current to drop resulting
>in a foldback, and that is all you get. Of course, the same thing happens at
>other rpms, but at different output currents. Lower at lower rpm, and
>slightly higher at higher rpm. Alternators are designed to have enough
>cooling air
>(the fan) that in the under hood environment (about 125 degrees C.) they will
>not self-destruct regardless of the load. An alternator is approximately 50
>percent efficient, meaning that it dissipates about 490 watts internally when
>it delivers 35 amps at 14 volts. To keep the internal temperature safe,
>cooling air is required.
>
>Many automobile alternators turn backwards when used in an airplane. I think
>that is why Van's discards the fan. The certificated airplanes that use
>alternators (that I have seen) still have a fan, and I would highly
>recommend one
>for the above reason. Even a reversed fan would be better than none at all.
>But there are some cars out there that have the right fan, I would expect.
>Van's 35 amp alternator would be just fine at 35 amps if you can get enough
>cooling air to it. I'm not sure a blast tube guarantees that, but it may.
>Another alternative would be to sense the temperature of the diode heat
>sink and
>light a warning light on the panel if it overheats so that the field circuit
>breaker could be turned off. This would be at about 150 degrees C. Not
>too many
>of us have time or resources to do this. But, this may be easier than taking
>the necessary data to assure ourselves that the system is doing the job
>reliably as installed in our particular airplane.
>
>OK, sorry folks, but I had to jump in here. Of course just IMHO.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dan Hopper
>RV-7A
>N766DH (Flying with Van's 60 amp alternator, even though I don't need even 35
>amps!)
>
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > you can't compare the rating of an aircraft alternator with an automobile
> > unit. The auto units are not rated at continous duty as are the aircraft
> > units.
> >
> > The other factor is that the units are rated at a specific temperature. Is
> > the temperature in your cowl equal to that?
> >
> > Having it be of a load capacity that is larger just allows for it to run
> > cooler at an equal load, or at least to be better suited to handling equal
> > temperatures.
> >
> > In my limited experience with Van's units (about ten of them) they are not
> > great units and in several cases they were flat out trash. I would
> never fly
> > one without first overhauling it myself. But, that said, I would do the
> same
> > with an autozone unit as well.
> >
> > W
> >
> >
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: E-Mag - knock sensing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
In a message dated 12/19/04 8:46:49 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
jjewell@telus.net writes:
> Hi G,
>
> Am I wrong in thinking that Ping sensing would seem to be a missing
> component in the current electronic ignition system designs?
> I would like to think that including ping sensing as is done in automotive
> electronic ignition systems might some day be incorporated into the various
> ignition systems that have come on stream lately. Do you or any other
> listers have ideas in this regard.
>
> Best of the season to everyone,
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
Jim,
For a while I worked on ion-sense ignition systems for GM. Ion sense was
invented by a guy from Sweden, whom I met, who worked for Saab. I believe his
name was Yon Nytompt -- probably spelled wrong. He was a very interesting guy
who used to race motorcycles. As far as I know Saab still uses ion sense on
their cars. Maybe GM does by now too.
Ion sensing is done by looking at the waveform of current at the low
potential side of the secondary of the ignition coil after the spark has ended.
A
special circuit supplies a voltage to the spark plug to use it as a sensor.
Engine knock has a very distinct waveform which the electronics uses to retard
the
timing.
The type of knock sensing that American cars use probably wouldn't work on
air cooled engines. This is basically a microphone mounted to the engine block
to acoustically listen for knock. There are filters which pass only the
resonant frequency of the block which is set off by the knock. Unfortunately,
other mechanical noises sound very similar because they also cause the block to
resonate. One cure is to only look for the knock in a time window -- so many
degrees ATDC. All this is very difficult to make work in the real world. I
would imagine that the production volume is just too low in GA to have any
payback.
That is not to say that it can't be done. Quite the opposite. But it isn't
easy.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
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: | RV-7 wing tip height? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Erich Weaver" <erichweaver@cox.net>
Greetings.
I am new to this list, and am considering purchase of an RV-7A kit that has
already been started. Before I commit, I want to be sure that it will fit
in the hangar that Im currently sharing. Specifically, I need to know if
the RV-7A wing tip wiill be able to pass under the wing tip of the adjacent
plane. If there's some out there who has their the wings on and could
measure the distance from the ground to the TOP of the wing tip, I would
greatly appreciate it.
regards,
erich weaver
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter@jpainter.org>
> My aileron and flap skins that came with the kit seem to have minor corrosion
> around the edges and where the holes were punched, it looks like moisture got
> under the plastic film or maybe some kind of chemical spillage. It is only
> surface corrosion and I thought I'd just give it an extra good going over with
> the scotchbrite and then prime. I haven't been using alodine just epoxy
> primer. Does this sound okay?
Greg:
I'm no expert with chemicals, but the first thing I would look at would be
Alumiprep. It states on the bottle that it can be used for removing 'major'
corrosion, so I would think it could help you here. It will also be able to
remove corrosion inside of the holes where your scotchbrite pad may not be
able to reach.
The only potential caveat to Alumiprep that I see is that it will obviously
discolor alcad since it etches it so care must be taken with it if you plan on
only alumprepping the inside of the skin.
Hope this helps,
Jamie
--
Jamie D. Painter
RV-7A wings, fuse on order N622JP (reserved)
http://rv.jpainter.org
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: | Re: Apples to oranges |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
In a message dated 12/20/04 11:37:48 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com writes:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>
> Interesting numbers for sustained temps, much higher than I expected. On
> the CAFE web page the exit air temp on a RV-8 was 163 F. So there is your
> under the cowl temps for those interested.
>
>
Yes, of course those are worst case -- like tied up in traffic in the summer
with the A/C (thats air conditioning) on, etc., and those are degree C. Very
hot!
Dan
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 |
|
| Subject: | Rocket Tailwheel Linkage |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jack Blomgren" <jackanet@hotmail.com>
If Terry Jantzi is no longer in the linkage business there are some of us
out here who might be able to roll our own if provided design details. If
someone can can give the list a drawing showing the design principle of
Terry's neat linkage (without violating any intelectual property rights)
this builder would appreciate the info. Do not archive.
Thanks,
Jack
-8 cowling
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: | "experimental" engine? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
A friend and fellow RV builder is having serious second thoughts about ever finishing
his airplane project. Seems long hours at work and family commitments
devour most of his time these days and the RV-6A project gets little attention
of late. I suspect he may be going through a period of doubt that many of us
experience at one time or another during the building process and will eventually
overcome it. But for the rest of us, the distressing part of his story lies
elsewhere. In an effort to save money early in the building process, he elected
to buy a Bart LeLonde O-320 AeroSport engine. It is a beautiful piece of
work. It has new Millenium cylinders and pistons, all new accessories, and a brand
new crankshaft. But his initial euphoria evaporated many months later when
the state became aware of the purchase and he was held liable for substantial
customs fees and penalties. This one event effectively and dramatically narrowed
the margin he enjoyed over buying a new OEM Ly
coming
engine (read domestic) through Van's. He now tells me that Nationair is balking
at renewing his builders insurance because their position is they are not inclined
to cover an under-construction aircraft they do not intend to cover when
flying. Seems he was told by "someone" at Nationair they now consider the
AeroSport to be an "experimental" engine. In addition, new policies will no longer
be written to cover the insured for construction time, typically $15 an hour.
Now what I have just related to this list should be considered hearsay.....
that is.....only my personal interpretation of details as he related the events
to me. If anyone out there has had similar untoward experiences that can
substantiate these claims, particularly as it relates to insurance matters,
it would be helpful for members of this list to be cognizant of any such developments.
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" N307R "finished"
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: "experimental" engine? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JT Helms" <jhelms@nationair.com>
Sorry to hear about the import problem. On the insurance issue, it isn't
NationAir that's taking that position. Phoenix Aviation Managers formerly
insured the Aerosport Power engines after we lobbied them very hard about
it. Some of the companies we're left with after Phoenix's departure do not.
(Particularly... and peculiarly... the EAA's program.)
However, AIG will accept that engine though (again after NationAir took the
lead and got them to agree to it) for both builders risks and flying RVs....
I don't see what the problem is. It is likely that it's more expensive than
what Phoenix formerly offered. Perhaps that is why your friend feels it is
a problem (not availability but price).
As for payment for building time, again Phoenix's program was very nice, but
is no longer available. They paid $15 per hour for labor. Both the EAA's
program and AIG don't mention that at all in their policy. Vagueness in
insurance policies is bad for insurance companies. Without setting limits,
they can get hit for a lot by the courts (i.e. they offer you $7/hour, you
sue them to get $20) You are likely to win as the courts default to you
since they are supposed to have lawyers and insurance experts draw up the
policy, and presumably you're not a lawyer.
I've gotten answers from both companies that vary from 'we don't pay for
labor on a builders risk' to 'we'd negotiate on that with the insured.' I
am trying to get both companies to clarify that better for your and their
sake. As it stands now with both it is a negotiation. While you're not
likely to get $50 or $60/hour that an FBO gets, I'd ask for $15 if it were
me. In lieu of that, it may be cost effective to consider substituting QB
wings for wings you built yourself (for example).
John "JT" Helms
Branch Manager
NationAir Insurance Agency
Light Aircraft Office.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Galati" <rick6a@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: "experimental" engine?
> --> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
>
> A friend and fellow RV builder is having serious second thoughts about
ever finishing his airplane project. Seems long hours at work and family
commitments devour most of his time these days and the RV-6A project gets
little attention of late. I suspect he may be going through a period of
doubt that many of us experience at one time or another during the building
process and will eventually overcome it. But for the rest of us, the
distressing part of his story lies elsewhere. In an effort to save money
early in the building process, he elected to buy a Bart LeLonde O-320
AeroSport engine. It is a beautiful piece of work. It has new Millenium
cylinders and pistons, all new accessories, and a brand new crankshaft. But
his initial euphoria evaporated many months later when the state became
aware of the purchase and he was held liable for substantial customs fees
and penalties. This one event effectively and dramatically narrowed the
margin he enjoyed over buying a new OEM Ly
> coming
> engine (read domestic) through Van's. He now tells me that Nationair is
balking at renewing his builders insurance because their position is they
are not inclined to cover an under-construction aircraft they do not intend
to cover when flying. Seems he was told by "someone" at Nationair they now
consider the AeroSport to be an "experimental" engine. In addition, new
policies will no longer be written to cover the insured for construction
time, typically $15 an hour. Now what I have just related to this list
should be considered hearsay..... that is.....only my personal
interpretation of details as he related the events to me. If anyone out
there has had similar untoward experiences that can substantiate these
claims, particularly as it relates to insurance matters, it would be helpful
for members of this list to be cognizant of any such developments.
>
> Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" N307R "finished"
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
I'm trying to decided whether to buy a TSOed Sensitive Altimeter or
NON-TSOed?
My concern is accuracy (obviously) and Pitot/Static System Checks.
Are NON-TSOed Altimeters accurate enough to pass the test?
Has anyone researched this issues?
I will be operating some IFR.
Thanks,
Bob Christensen
RV-8 Builder - SE Iowa
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: | Re: Notice to carbureted engine users |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen@UTCFuelCells.com>
Bryan,
Carb Ice might be rare in your neck of the woods, but it's
very common place here in New England. You should add to your
flying checklist to pull the carb heat once in a while. It
should also be part of your rough engine check list.....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
Just wanted to pass along what I thought was a new learning experience for
me yesterday.
Here's a little background - I have a 4 year old RV-8 with about 688 hrs on
engine and airframe. Engine is a 160-hp O-320 with a Marvel Shebler MA-4SPA
carb.
I had some rough engine issues and it recently it started becoming hard to
shut down. I rebuilt the old carb 688 hrs ago, and was looking for an
excuse to buy a factory reconditioned one. There it was. Bought one from
Kelly Aerospace. Was a first class product, well packaged and assembled.
After the quick swap, I fired up the plane and ended up flying 2-3 hrs
Saturday with nothing but good performance. Sunday I flew another 2 hrs or
so, but noticed a problem while approaching to land. One of my flying
buddies was departing, so I decided to asked for the low appch to follow my
buddy out of the ATA. When I got full power applied, it began missing about
once or twice every second or so. Wasn't enough to cause a noticable loss
of power, but made me mad more than anything! I wanted to go fly and I had
just dropped a few bills on the new carb.
On climb out at the airport, I switched tanks, boost on, changed rpm setting
(for some reason), changed power, mag check - the problem never went away
while at cruise power in the downwind so I asked for landing clearance.
Back at the hanger, I did a power and mag check. Checked for water in the
fuel. No problems.
About 2 hrs later I made another test flight to confirm my theory, and had
no problems. Nor could I reproduce the problem though.
Conclusion - I believe, for the first time that I'm aware of in nearly 700
hrs, I had carb ice. With the new, "tighter" carb and induction system
(which I coincidentally sealed up with RTV when I swapped carbs), I believe
it iced up.
Conditions were marginal for ice, IMO - 65F OAT, 28F dewpoint. But the info
I found below shows the ice as possible.
www.nawcad.navy.mil/flyingclub/
training%20presentations%5CCarburetor%20Ice%5CCarburetor%20Ice.ppt
Just something to consider.
Bryan Jones
Houston, TX
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: TSO vs non-TSO |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen@UTCFuelCells.com>
Bob,
Why would you risk your life on a non-TSO'ed Altimeter while
flying IFR? Spend the extra $$$ and do it right....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
Serious IFR Pilot
Subject: TSO vs non-TSO
From: Maureen & Bob Christensen (mchriste@danvilletelco.net)
--> RV-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen"
<mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
I'm trying to decided whether to buy a TSOed Sensitive Altimeter or
NON-TSOed?
My concern is accuracy (obviously) and Pitot/Static System Checks.
Are NON-TSOed Altimeters accurate enough to pass the test?
Has anyone researched this issues?
I will be operating some IFR.
Thanks,
Bob Christensen
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: | Firesleeve: Sealing ends |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Listers,
Red RTV works, but kind of hard to apply and get into the fibres because
it's thick. A product I've used that works great is called "Disc Brake Quiet"
at
AV dept. of NAPA. It's for stopping brake squealing when applied to back of
brake pads, so is def hi-temp stuff. It is more liquid so is absorbed
readily into the glass strands of firesleeve and sets up rubbery. It's even red
to
match the firesleeve... :)
Jerry Cochran
In a message dated 12/19/2004 11:59:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
As for Using the RTV on the ends of the firesleeve, Yes by all means use it.
It is used to stop oils ,cleaning solvents and environmental contaminants
from creeping into the ends of the firesleeve.and damaging the otherwise
protected hose.
There is an actual industrial product that has been designed for that
purpose. I expect it is a liquid form of silicone?. I cannot offer a name or
contact info for supply source etc. Maybe ACS could find it. I had a small
container given to me and it soon set up into a hard rubber mass after
coming in contact with air. Very short shelf life!. don't by a large volume.
In use it does work better than the RTV.
The people who make the firesleeve most likely make the stuff. I have a
length of Parker Stratoflex firesleeve but found nothing tangible on the
web.
Carry on Hoser, {[;-)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: TSO vs non-TSO |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Sounds like I am wrong here, but I thought you can buy 2 different parts
made by the same company one is TSO'd the other is not and they are exactly
the same except for the paper work right? There again the cost difference
on an altimeter is not really that much, if it is bothering you, get the
TSO'd one.
At 03:59 PM 12/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR"
><Fred.Stucklen@UTCFuelCells.com>
>
>Bob,
>
> Why would you risk your life on a non-TSO'ed Altimeter while
>flying IFR? Spend the extra $$$ and do it right....
>
>Fred Stucklen
>RV-6A N926RV
>Serious IFR Pilot
>
>
>Subject: TSO vs non-TSO
>From: Maureen & Bob Christensen (mchriste@danvilletelco.net)
>Date: Mon Dec 20 - 11:45 AM
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen"
><mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
>
>I'm trying to decided whether to buy a TSOed Sensitive Altimeter or
>NON-TSOed?
>
>My concern is accuracy (obviously) and Pitot/Static System Checks.
>
>Are NON-TSOed Altimeters accurate enough to pass the test?
>
>Has anyone researched this issues?
>
>I will be operating some IFR.
>
>Thanks,
>Bob Christensen
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: TSO vs non-TSO |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
my 2 cents - save the money! If it checks out 0-20,000' when they check it
for the 24 mo check, I'd go with it. Last IFR check on mine, all they
wanted was the mfgr and S/N on the altimeter. Pretty sure it's not TSOd.
In my case I have back ups - an EFIS in my case. Most have this or a blind
encoder. besides - when has anyone been IFR and not had to confirm your
reported and observed altitude..... Would know pretty quick is one was off.
Bryan
>
>Sounds like I am wrong here, but I thought you can buy 2 different parts
>made by the same company one is TSO'd the other is not and they are exactly
>the same except for the paper work right? There again the cost difference
>on an altimeter is not really that much, if it is bothering you, get the
>TSO'd one.
>
>
>At 03:59 PM 12/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR"
> ><Fred.Stucklen@UTCFuelCells.com>
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> > Why would you risk your life on a non-TSO'ed Altimeter while
> >flying IFR? Spend the extra $$$ and do it right....
> >
> >Fred Stucklen
> >RV-6A N926RV
> >Serious IFR Pilot
> >
> >
> >Subject: TSO vs non-TSO
> >From: Maureen & Bob Christensen (mchriste@danvilletelco.net)
> >Date: Mon Dec 20 - 11:45 AM
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen"
> ><mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
> >
> >I'm trying to decided whether to buy a TSOed Sensitive Altimeter or
> >NON-TSOed?
> >
> >My concern is accuracy (obviously) and Pitot/Static System Checks.
> >
> >Are NON-TSOed Altimeters accurate enough to pass the test?
> >
> >Has anyone researched this issues?
> >
> >I will be operating some IFR.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Bob Christensen
> >
> >
>
>
>Scott Bilinski
>Eng dept 305
>Phone (858) 657-2536
>Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
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: Firesleeve: Sealing ends |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Jerry,
Good info, thanks!
Jim in Kelowna do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jerry2DT@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Firesleeve: Sealing ends
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>
>
> Listers,
>
> Red RTV works, but kind of hard to apply and get into the fibres because
> it's thick. A product I've used that works great is called "Disc Brake
> Quiet" at
> AV dept. of NAPA. It's for stopping brake squealing when applied to back
> of
> brake pads, so is def hi-temp stuff. It is more liquid so is absorbed
> readily into the glass strands of firesleeve and sets up rubbery. It's
> even red to
> match the firesleeve... :)
>
> Jerry Cochran
>
> In a message dated 12/19/2004 11:59:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>
> As for Using the RTV on the ends of the firesleeve, Yes by all means use
> it.
> It is used to stop oils ,cleaning solvents and environmental contaminants
> from creeping into the ends of the firesleeve.and damaging the otherwise
> protected hose.
> There is an actual industrial product that has been designed for that
> purpose. I expect it is a liquid form of silicone?. I cannot offer a name
> or
> contact info for supply source etc. Maybe ACS could find it. I had a
> small
> container given to me and it soon set up into a hard rubber mass after
> coming in contact with air. Very short shelf life!. don't by a large
> volume.
> In use it does work better than the RTV.
> The people who make the firesleeve most likely make the stuff. I have a
> length of Parker Stratoflex firesleeve but found nothing tangible on the
> web.
>
> Carry on Hoser, {[;-)
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: "experimental" engine? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin@valkyrie.net>
John, I am confused.......Phoenix just renewed my "Builders Policy" through
your agency? Does this mean Phoenix plans on covering my RV6-A when it
flies this spring? I am powered by a New Lycoming 0-360-A1A.
Tom in Ohio
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "JT Helms" <jhelms@nationair.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: "experimental" engine?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "JT Helms" <jhelms@nationair.com>
>
> Sorry to hear about the import problem. On the insurance issue, it isn't
> NationAir that's taking that position. Phoenix Aviation Managers formerly
> insured the Aerosport Power engines after we lobbied them very hard about
> it. Some of the companies we're left with after Phoenix's departure do
> not.
> (Particularly... and peculiarly... the EAA's program.)
>
> However, AIG will accept that engine though (again after NationAir took
> the
> lead and got them to agree to it) for both builders risks and flying
> RVs....
> I don't see what the problem is. It is likely that it's more expensive
> than
> what Phoenix formerly offered. Perhaps that is why your friend feels it
> is
> a problem (not availability but price).
>
> As for payment for building time, again Phoenix's program was very nice,
> but
> is no longer available. They paid $15 per hour for labor. Both the EAA's
> program and AIG don't mention that at all in their policy. Vagueness in
> insurance policies is bad for insurance companies. Without setting
> limits,
> they can get hit for a lot by the courts (i.e. they offer you $7/hour, you
> sue them to get $20) You are likely to win as the courts default to you
> since they are supposed to have lawyers and insurance experts draw up the
> policy, and presumably you're not a lawyer.
>
> I've gotten answers from both companies that vary from 'we don't pay for
> labor on a builders risk' to 'we'd negotiate on that with the insured.' I
> am trying to get both companies to clarify that better for your and their
> sake. As it stands now with both it is a negotiation. While you're not
> likely to get $50 or $60/hour that an FBO gets, I'd ask for $15 if it were
> me. In lieu of that, it may be cost effective to consider substituting QB
> wings for wings you built yourself (for example).
>
> John "JT" Helms
> Branch Manager
> NationAir Insurance Agency
> Light Aircraft Office.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick Galati" <rick6a@yahoo.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: "experimental" engine?
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
>>
>> A friend and fellow RV builder is having serious second thoughts about
> ever finishing his airplane project. Seems long hours at work and family
> commitments devour most of his time these days and the RV-6A project gets
> little attention of late. I suspect he may be going through a period of
> doubt that many of us experience at one time or another during the
> building
> process and will eventually overcome it. But for the rest of us, the
> distressing part of his story lies elsewhere. In an effort to save money
> early in the building process, he elected to buy a Bart LeLonde O-320
> AeroSport engine. It is a beautiful piece of work. It has new Millenium
> cylinders and pistons, all new accessories, and a brand new crankshaft.
> But
> his initial euphoria evaporated many months later when the state became
> aware of the purchase and he was held liable for substantial customs fees
> and penalties. This one event effectively and dramatically narrowed the
> margin he enjoyed over buying a new OEM Ly
>> coming
>> engine (read domestic) through Van's. He now tells me that Nationair is
> balking at renewing his builders insurance because their position is they
> are not inclined to cover an under-construction aircraft they do not
> intend
> to cover when flying. Seems he was told by "someone" at Nationair they
> now
> consider the AeroSport to be an "experimental" engine. In addition, new
> policies will no longer be written to cover the insured for construction
> time, typically $15 an hour. Now what I have just related to this list
> should be considered hearsay..... that is.....only my personal
> interpretation of details as he related the events to me. If anyone out
> there has had similar untoward experiences that can substantiate these
> claims, particularly as it relates to insurance matters, it would be
> helpful
> for members of this list to be cognizant of any such developments.
>>
>> Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" N307R "finished"
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Insurance Question clamav-milter version |
0.80j on zoot.lafn.org
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on zoot.lafn.org
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
Thanks Cy, that's good to know.
Dave
do not archive
cgalley wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
>>From the man in charge of the EAA insurance.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Mackey" <bmackey@falconinsurance.com>
>To: "'cgalley'" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
><jrallen@falconinsurance.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j on
>zoot.lafn.org
>
>
>
>
>>Hello Cy!
>>
>>The EAA Plan will provide insurance coverage for first flight provided
>>the EAA Member participates in the EAA Flight Advisor Program. Anyone
>>needing assistance or having questions should contact one of the EAA
>>Plan Specialists at (866) 647-4EAA (4322)...... (Also, there are some
>>special situations that may come into play so it is important to contact
>>the EAA Plan.)
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jordan Grant" <gra9933@bellsouth.net>
I would try to build one out of a vacuum cleaner, first. Its a small risk
that could definitely pay off. If it doesn't work, you could always buy a
hobbyair. I have one, incidentally, and it works great, but it was
expensive.
I would definitely buy a hood, though. You can get Tyvek hoods that have the
air go up over your head and fill up the hood. They aren't that expensive.
Good luck,
Jordan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Greg@itmack
Subject: RV-List: Hobbyair Pro
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com>
Anyone using the Hobbyair Pro that can give comments.
Thanks
Greg
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: | Firesleeve: Sealing ends |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
I thinned the RTV. I'm happy with how it turned out.
http://bowenaero.com/mt3/archives/2004/01/firesleeve_dres.html
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry2DT@aol.com [mailto:Jerry2DT@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 4:09 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Firesleeve: Sealing ends
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>
>
> Listers,
>
> Red RTV works, but kind of hard to apply and get into the
> fibres because it's thick. A product I've used that works
> great is called "Disc Brake Quiet" at AV dept. of NAPA.
> It's for stopping brake squealing when applied to back of
> brake pads, so is def hi-temp stuff. It is more liquid so is
> absorbed readily into the glass strands of firesleeve and
> sets up rubbery. It's even red to match the firesleeve... :)
>
> Jerry Cochran
>
> In a message dated 12/19/2004 11:59:28 P.M. Pacific Standard
> Time, rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>
> As for Using the RTV on the ends of the firesleeve, Yes by
> all means use it.
> It is used to stop oils ,cleaning solvents and environmental
> contaminants from creeping into the ends of the
> firesleeve.and damaging the otherwise protected hose.
> There is an actual industrial product that has been designed
> for that purpose. I expect it is a liquid form of silicone?.
> I cannot offer a name or contact info for supply source etc.
> Maybe ACS could find it. I had a small container given to me
> and it soon set up into a hard rubber mass after coming in
> contact with air. Very short shelf life!. don't by a large volume.
> In use it does work better than the RTV.
> The people who make the firesleeve most likely make the
> stuff. I have a length of Parker Stratoflex firesleeve but
> found nothing tangible on the web.
>
> Carry on Hoser, {[;-)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator temperature monitor was Apples to |
oranges
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> oranges
Dan
Thanks for the great info. I really appreciate the temperature data. As
an auto mechanic with 30 years experience, I know that toasting the
rectifier diodes destroys lots of alternators. I have a Rocky Mountain
MicroMonitor in my 8A project. It allows me to add up to 3 additional
sensor inputs. It also allows me to set alarm points for all sensors,
including the "user defined" ones.
Can you suggest a thermistor which would be small enough and durable enough
to be used to monitor the rectifier diode heat sink??
Charlie Kuss
>--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>W,
>
>I agree with most of what you have said, but I wonder where you heard that
>the auto ratings of alternators are not for continuous duty? Although my
>experience working for Delco Electronics on their regulator program dates
>back to
>the 1960s, those ratings were for continuous operation. How would the
>operator
>of a car know to reduce the load on his electrical system?
>
>Alternators are self limiting in their current capacity at a given rpm.
>(Generators before them had to be protected by a current limiting coil in the
>voltage regulator.) That's where that amperage rating comes from. We
>used 6000
>rpm as the "standard" test rpm. When loaded slightly greater than their
>output
>current rating, the voltage drops causing the field current to drop resulting
>in a foldback, and that is all you get. Of course, the same thing happens at
>other rpms, but at different output currents. Lower at lower rpm, and
>slightly higher at higher rpm. Alternators are designed to have enough
>cooling air
>(the fan) that in the under hood environment (about 125 degrees C.) they will
>not self-destruct regardless of the load. An alternator is approximately 50
>percent efficient, meaning that it dissipates about 490 watts internally when
>it delivers 35 amps at 14 volts. To keep the internal temperature safe,
>cooling air is required.
>
>Many automobile alternators turn backwards when used in an airplane. I think
>that is why Van's discards the fan. The certificated airplanes that use
>alternators (that I have seen) still have a fan, and I would highly
>recommend one
>for the above reason. Even a reversed fan would be better than none at all.
>But there are some cars out there that have the right fan, I would expect.
>Van's 35 amp alternator would be just fine at 35 amps if you can get enough
>cooling air to it. I'm not sure a blast tube guarantees that, but it may.
>Another alternative would be to sense the temperature of the diode heat
>sink and
>light a warning light on the panel if it overheats so that the field circuit
>breaker could be turned off. This would be at about 150 degrees C. Not
>too many
>of us have time or resources to do this. But, this may be easier than taking
>the necessary data to assure ourselves that the system is doing the job
>reliably as installed in our particular airplane.
>
>OK, sorry folks, but I had to jump in here. Of course just IMHO.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dan Hopper
>RV-7A
>N766DH (Flying with Van's 60 amp alternator, even though I don't need even 35
>amps!)
>
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > you can't compare the rating of an aircraft alternator with an automobile
> > unit. The auto units are not rated at continous duty as are the aircraft
> > units.
> >
> > The other factor is that the units are rated at a specific temperature. Is
> > the temperature in your cowl equal to that?
> >
> > Having it be of a load capacity that is larger just allows for it to run
> > cooler at an equal load, or at least to be better suited to handling equal
> > temperatures.
> >
> > In my limited experience with Van's units (about ten of them) they are not
> > great units and in several cases they were flat out trash. I would
> never fly
> > one without first overhauling it myself. But, that said, I would do the
> same
> > with an autozone unit as well.
> >
> > W
> >
> >
>
>
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! --
|