Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:27 AM - Re: installing fire sleeve - basic question (j1j2h3@juno.com.c059c0b0a949b0512d)
2. 12:45 AM - Re: Re: Plenum closure (& airspeed) (Jeff Point)
3. 05:05 AM - rv-8 strakes again (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
4. 05:33 AM - Re: Re: Plenum closure (& CHT) (LarryRobertHelming)
5. 06:48 AM - Re: installing fire sleeve - basic question (Gary Zilik)
6. 07:47 AM - Countersink tribulations ... (John Spicer)
7. 07:49 AM - Re: Sub Assembly storage ... (John Spicer)
8. 08:01 AM - Re: Countersink tribulations ... (Dan Checkoway)
9. 08:16 AM - Re: Orange County CA Tax Assessor, Redux (Mickey Coggins)
10. 08:18 AM - Re: Countersink tribulations ... (Ed Anderson)
11. 08:34 AM - Re: Countersink tribulations ... (John Spicer)
12. 08:47 AM - Re: Countersink tribulations ... (Dan Reeves)
13. 09:00 AM - > Re: Countersink tribulations (Oldsfolks@aol.com)
14. 09:00 AM - Re: Countersink tribulations ... (Dan Checkoway)
15. 09:12 AM - Re: Sub Assembly storage ... (Mickey Coggins)
16. 09:23 AM - Re: Orange County CA Tax Assessor, Redux (Tim Bryan)
17. 10:32 AM - Re: Countersink tribulations (Rick Galati)
18. 10:55 AM - Re: Countersink tribulations.. (Rick Galati)
19. 11:18 AM - New Videos... (Bill VonDane)
20. 12:08 PM - Re: RV7 weight & balance (BRUCE GRAY)
21. 02:05 PM - XCOM760 (Gordon or Marge Comfort)
22. 02:20 PM - RV-8 Fastback (Clark, Thomas M UTPWR)
23. 02:43 PM - Lower Cowl Air Scoop Problem (Charlie Brame)
24. 04:53 PM - Rivet annealing (Wayne Glasser)
25. 05:56 PM - Re: Sub Assembly storage ... (Jerry Springer)
26. 07:22 PM - Re: Re: Plenum closure (& CHT) (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
27. 07:34 PM - Re: Sub Assembly storage ... (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
28. 09:42 PM - Re: Re: Plenum closure (& CHT)(& Long) (GMC)
29. 10:54 PM - Hangar Usage ()
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: installing fire sleeve - basic question |
--> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com c059c0b0a949b0512d
On 12/19/04 "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>wrote;
(SNIP)
>I couple of years ago I attended the EAA show at Arlington Washington.
While
>there I bought a "ClampTite" tool for making clamps out of stainless
steel
>tie wire.
>Contact: http://198.63.56.18/pages/order.html
Their cheapest price is $40.00. You can get it for $22.05 at
https://www6.mailordercentral.com/modernfarmcodymercantile/searchprods.as
p
I agree that it is a very useful tool.
Jim Hasper - RV-7
Franklin, TN
Do not archive
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: Plenum closure (& airspeed) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
I have a similar situation with my plenum- cylinders are about where
they need to be (360-380 in summer) but oil was too low, max of 175F in
summer, and 135 now that winter has set in. I had a small plate
blocking about 1/3 of the rear of the (baffle mounted) oil cooler which
got oil up to 185 in summer. I have since made an adjustable door which
blocks 100% of the cooler when closed, but haven't been able to fly to
get good numbers yet. Yes I did calibrate my oil temp sender. I was
surprised at Gary Zs high temps with a similar setup to mine. I guess
thats what they mean by YMMV.
Jeff Point
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | rv-8 strakes again |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Just wanted to let the list know that on the day I posted the message
looking for Brad Heinitz and my strakes, they were mailed. Amazing. I
received em yesterday and they are a thing of beauty. I asked for .050
instead of the std .040 for the strength at his recommendation due to
the higher S8 speeds. Also he included perfect mounting instructions of
exactly were to put them. He charged $100 for the pair which included
shipping. No way I could have formed these like this.
Ill be posting the numbers during the S8's testing phase for you all.
Both on and off of course so that you will have another data point.
Oh and for those considering gluing their canopy, "Barefoot" Billy
Waters posted a nice write-up and installation pictures for you viewing
pleasure. http://www.mstewart.net/super8/bbcanopy/index.htm
RV8 strakes
Bradford Heinitz
The Aerodyne Shop
360 403 8737
Thanks for the help team finding Brad:-) You Rock!
Michael Stewart
S8, final trimmed canopy last night
Gonna glue it.
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: Plenum closure (& CHT) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: GMC <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
>
>
> 1) Did I read that right, you are trying to keep your CHT's over 400F. ??
I
> don't have a Lycoming operators manual for the 0-320 however the 0-360
> manual states that at the Bayonet location "for maximum service life of
the
> engine maintain CHT between 150F. and 400F. during continuous operation".
> Most of the RV 0-320's I have experience with cruise at about 330F. -
350F.
> CHT on a standard day measured at Bayonet.(((((((That typo has since been
corrected to 300 degrees from 400)))
>
> 2) can anyone out there tell me why a plenum should be any more efficient
> than well sealed baffles, (no, my cowl does not bulge out in flight).
(((((The one thing I liked about the plenum, and the reason I built one, is
being able to run the engine with the cowling off without concerns about
lack of cooling or needing to build a cooling shroud/hood. That is
definitely more of a problem without the plenum. If the plenum is built so
air gets into it smoothly, as it does with Vans design, and most all the air
exits are covered except for cylinder, oil, alternator, and magneto cooling
with a feed for air to the heater, then it is all being used to cool. The
limit on cooling is defined by the air coming into *and* exiting the cowling
bottom. Some effenciency can be lost in that regard if the air intake on
the O-360 carburetor, for example, allows air to excape the intake and leak
into the cowling area. This could un-depressurize the cowling area and
reduce the air flow from the plenum area down through the cylinder heads and
other parts getting air flow for cooling. I'd guess that if all other
things are equal with air input volume, sealing off air from escaping
without being used for cooling and exit path, the only other difference to
explain differences in cylinder and oil temps is air leakage around the air
intake for the carb. Any other ideas?))))))))
>
> George in Langley BC
> 6A flying
> 7A wings
> ----------
>
> I was interested to note that you had relatively high CHT and oil temps
with
> your plenum. Although I have only ever flown my O-320 powered 6 with the
> Van's baffle kit converted to a closed plenum by way of a screwed-on top
> panel, I have had the opposite problem, except for when I was bedding in
the
> new engine in 40 degree C temps. Now, at 55- 65% power I am struggling to
> keep CHT on all cylinders above 400 F and the front baffle-mounted oil
((((see earlier comment on 300 degrees)))))))
> cooler is 80% covered to get the oil up to 170 F. Lycoming guru Paul
> McBride reckons my temps are too low, so I may look at restricting the air
> inlet or outlets - and maybe pick up a bit more speed ! One thing that I
> did note from your plenum pics - you seem to have a large step in the
inlet
> section, just aft of the opening for the cowl, that could be causing
> stalling/turbulence of the incoming airstream.(((((((This is the same
potential problem I have with my plenum. I need to work on smoothing the
air path transition somehow coming into the plenum area.)))))))))
> I tried to maintain a gradual divergence for just this reason - same
> principle that works for P-51's and megaphone exhaust systems.
>
> I agree that access to the top plugs is difficult, but with an electric
> screw-driver, it takes only a couple of minutes to remove to top panel.
>
> I'd certainly do it again. (((((((I don't know if I would. Adds lots of
work. Vans claims they have tested the plenum and the baffle method works
just as good and is easier to work with and maintain. I did not like the
idea of the baffle material constantly rubbing and rubbing against the
cowling with vibration. Seems that would eventully cause a problem unless
cowling is redressed with epoxy or paint. But that would be an easy thing
to do each annual if needed. With the plenum, it could always be removed
and the baffle material and inlet to cowling roof installed as I see it.
Larry)))))))))))
>
> Cheers
>
> Martin in Oz
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: installing fire sleeve - basic question |
--> RV-List message posted by: Gary Zilik <zilik@excelgeo.com>
My wife bought me a ClampTite over 10 years ago. I hope she didn't pay
40 bucks for it. Great tool. clamps fire sleeve, fixes shovel handles
and the list goes on.
Gary
j1j2h3@juno.com.c059c0b0a949b0512d wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com c059c0b0a949b0512d
>
> On 12/19/04 "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>wrote;
>
> (SNIP)
>
>>I couple of years ago I attended the EAA show at Arlington Washington.
>
> While
>
>>there I bought a "ClampTite" tool for making clamps out of stainless
>
> steel
>
>>tie wire.
>
>
>>Contact: http://198.63.56.18/pages/order.html
>
>
> Their cheapest price is $40.00. You can get it for $22.05 at
>
> https://www6.mailordercentral.com/modernfarmcodymercantile/searchprods.as
> p
>
> I agree that it is a very useful tool.
>
> Jim Hasper - RV-7
> Franklin, TN
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Countersink tribulations ... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Spicer" <spike@spikesplace.org>
I've been having problems properly using the countersink cage. I think I might
have just trashed one my HS spars. It seems I manage to move the cutter and
elongate the hole that Im cutting. Ideally I would use the drill press for
cutting countersinks but that's not always possible (i.e. spar flanges that
aren't perpendicular to the spar web.) Do you guys know of any techniques that
might help out with this problem?
If your curious to see my botched up spar I've got pictures on the web here:
http://www.rivetbangers.com/cgi-php/forums/viewtopic.php?t=335
Any hints you guys have would be greatly appreciated.
-- John
www.rivetbangers.com - A marriage of web and mail, no ads, just builders
www.spikesplace.org/cgi-php/serendipity - Builder's log
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: Sub Assembly storage ... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Spicer" <spike@spikesplace.org>
Hmm killing the cats probably wouldnt be such a good idea. It would probably end
up in divorce if you know that I mean. Wait, that would mean more $$ for
building ....... :)
-- John
www.rivetbangers.com - A marriage of web and mail, no ads, just builders
www.spikesplace.org/cgi-php/serendipity - Builder's log
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: | Re: Countersink tribulations ... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
What made you decide to machine countersinking your HS spar?! Yikes!
Dimple it. Any aluminum .040" or thinner may be dimple countersunk.
Anything .032" or thicker may be machine countersunk. My preference is
always to dimple if possible rather than machine countersink.
In the future, you need to provide something for the pilot of the
countersink cutter to center itself in as it pushes through the work. For
example, clamp a piece of 1/8" thick aluminum with a #40 pilot hole behind
the work. Just one method.
But usually (with exceptions), if you're machine countersinking, the work
should be thick enough that it won't matter.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Spicer" <spike@spikesplace.org>
Subject: RV-List: Countersink tribulations ...
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John Spicer" <spike@spikesplace.org>
>
> I've been having problems properly using the countersink cage. I think I
might
> have just trashed one my HS spars. It seems I manage to move the cutter
and
> elongate the hole that Im cutting. Ideally I would use the drill press for
> cutting countersinks but that's not always possible (i.e. spar flanges
that
> aren't perpendicular to the spar web.) Do you guys know of any techniques
that
> might help out with this problem?
>
> If your curious to see my botched up spar I've got pictures on the web
here:
> http://www.rivetbangers.com/cgi-php/forums/viewtopic.php?t=335
>
> Any hints you guys have would be greatly appreciated.
>
> -- John
>
> www.rivetbangers.com - A marriage of web and mail, no ads, just builders
> www.spikesplace.org/cgi-php/serendipity - Builder's log
>
>
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: Orange County CA Tax Assessor, Redux |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Reminds me of a quote:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
I think a chat with AOPA and/or the EAA might help.
Standing alone we're all targets for this kind of abuse,
but working together, we can make things more fair.
Good luck!
Mickey
Ronnie Brown wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ronnie Brown" <romott@adelphia.net>
>
> Folks in the RV community might want to try to head this off in CA - and the
rest of us need to do the same around the country. (It seems the rest of the country
likes to copy the Left Coast tax and spend crowd)!!!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Len Johnson
> To: Canards@tnstaafl.net ; canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com ; cozy_builders@canard.com
> Subject: [Canards] Orange County CA Tax Assessor, Redux
>
>
> Some of you might remember my tussle with the O.C. CA Tax Assessor in 2003. They
wanted to assess my plans-made, homebuilt airplane at $250,000! They agreed
to reassess it at $37,400 (35K plus sales tax) after presenting an appraisal
performed by Dick Ruttan showing that as the actual value. Well, they just changed
their minds. Given that they know far more about fiberglass canard aircraft
than anyone else in the country including Dick Ruttan, they have just reassessed
it for 2005 at over $140,000. This despite knowing it was in a hard landing,
after seeing proof of an insurance claim, and being told that it is still
disassembled in my hangar as it has been for more than a year.
>
>
> The assessment goes like this: they figure the materials at $40,000 (today's
market- never mind it was plans built over years). Figuring the time spent building
it, they are assessing the value of all the labor for the time it took to
build, for a total of a little over $90,000 in labor costs. They are supporting
this estimate with the blurb on the official Cozy website on the time it takes
to build, while ignoring the blurb on the cost of materials ($14,000). Then,
they add sales tax to the total. This is called cost-based assessment. They
completely ignore their previous assessment; Dick's appraisal; the damage history;
and that the plane is not even flying. If they pull this off, you can guarantee
it will spread through the rest of California like wildfire, and anyone
with a productive hobby will all have to flee the state, along with the businesses
(mine included- on top of the 65% estimate I just got on my Workmen's
Comp Insurance, I've got one foot in Arizona already
. !
> Arizona charges a flat $10 a year for experimentals).
>
>
> The worst part is, it takes 12-18 months to get a hearing, and you have to pay
the assessment in the meantime. They did this a few weeks ago, but waited until
today (Jan 5) to spring it on me, so I'd be legally bound to the 2005 tax
year. The woman on the phone told me so- can you believe that? When I told her
I'd fight it, she threatened to reassess back to 2003 as well. Isn't that sort
of thing subject to some kind of criminal penalties? Don't they call that extortion?
>
>
> Anyway, I know of no other experimental anywhere in the country that has been
assessed this way. I know of no other 4 place canard (cozy or aerocanard) that
is worth anywhere near this, of that has been assessed for taxes at even half
this much. This is close to a 4 fold increase. It makes you wonder- do these
folks have any clue what this looks like? 250K to 37K to 140K? Is anyone going
to believe them, given they can't give a single corroborating example anywhere
in the entire country for any of this, and you guys can contribute hundreds?
>
>
> Help me out here, guys. I need some ammunition. We desperately need to get government
at all levels involved to nip this in the bud, or California is going
to put experimental aircraft dead in their sites.
>
>
> -- Len
>
>
> Canards mailing list
> Canards@tnstaafl.net
> http://mail.tnstaafl.net/mailman/listinfo/canards_tnstaafl.net
>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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: Countersink tribulations ... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
John, you are not the first by any means. Apparently once you eat away most
of the metal, the pilot on the end of the countersink begins to carve into
the very thin edge of the cut hole (the bottom of the hole) making the
elongated hole. I found that if I backed up the metal being counter sunk
with another sheet with a hole to retain the pilot in place, I had no more
problems. Others will probably have other suggestions.
I knew one person who ruined the two skins for the Horz Stab and then gave
up on his RV project even after tips were given on how to avoid such
elongated holes - I think it simply destroyed his confidence given what
appears to be a "simple" thing to do. {:>)
Hope this helps
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
giving up on his RV project
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Spicer" <spike@spikesplace.org>
Subject: RV-List: Countersink tribulations ...
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John Spicer" <spike@spikesplace.org>
>
> I've been having problems properly using the countersink cage. I think I
might
> have just trashed one my HS spars. It seems I manage to move the cutter
and
> elongate the hole that Im cutting. Ideally I would use the drill press for
> cutting countersinks but that's not always possible (i.e. spar flanges
that
> aren't perpendicular to the spar web.) Do you guys know of any techniques
that
> might help out with this problem?
>
> If your curious to see my botched up spar I've got pictures on the web
here:
> http://www.rivetbangers.com/cgi-php/forums/viewtopic.php?t=335
>
> Any hints you guys have would be greatly appreciated.
>
> -- John
>
> www.rivetbangers.com - A marriage of web and mail, no ads, just builders
> www.spikesplace.org/cgi-php/serendipity - Builder's log
>
>
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: Countersink tribulations ... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Spicer" <spike@spikesplace.org>
> What made you decide to machine countersinking your HS spar?! Yikes!
> Dimple it. Any aluminum .040" or thinner may be dimple countersunk.
> Anything .032" or thicker may be machine countersunk. My preference is
> always to dimple if possible rather than machine countersink.
Because in the RV-9 the instructions specifically call out for those spars to be
machine countersunk as the material is too thick to dimple. I agree about always
dimpling when possible. I dont like to countersink at all.
>
> For example, clamp a piece of 1/8" thick aluminum with a #40 pilot hole
behind
> the work.
Great idea!!
www.rivetbangers.com - A marriage of web and mail, no ads, just builders
www.spikesplace.org/cgi-php/serendipity - Builder's log
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: Countersink tribulations ... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dan Reeves <williamdanielreeves@yahoo.com>
Drill and cleco your part to a piece of wood. The pilot on the countersink bit
will then have more material as a guide to keep it centered in the hole.
For flanges that need to be countersunk, create a small jig out of 1/8" aluminum
bar stock. Drill a couple of #40 and #30 holes in the jig that will be used
for the same purpose as the wood above. Then cleco the jig to the back side
of the flange and countersink away.
Dan
RV-7A - Fuselage
John Spicer <spike@spikesplace.org> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Spicer"
I've been having problems properly using the countersink cage. I think I might
have just trashed one my HS spars. It seems I manage to move the cutter and
elongate the hole that Im cutting. Ideally I would use the drill press for
cutting countersinks but that's not always possible (i.e. spar flanges that
aren't perpendicular to the spar web.) Do you guys know of any techniques that
might help out with this problem?
If your curious to see my botched up spar I've got pictures on the web here:
http://www.rivetbangers.com/cgi-php/forums/viewtopic.php?t=335
Any hints you guys have would be greatly appreciated.
-- John
www.rivetbangers.com - A marriage of web and mail, no ads, just builders
www.spikesplace.org/cgi-php/serendipity - Builder's log
---------------------------------
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: > Re: Countersink tribulations |
--> RV-List message posted by: Oldsfolks@aol.com
I like to use my low speed cordless drill for machine countersinking. The
low speed gives much better control and is less likely to cause the hole
elongation.
IMHO.
As Dan said - dimple where you can.
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
Charleston,Arkansas
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
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: Countersink tribulations ... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Because in the RV-9 the instructions specifically call out for those spars
to be
> machine countersunk as the material is too thick to dimple. I agree about
always
> dimpling when possible. I dont like to countersink at all.
Ah...my bad! I should have paid attention to which model you're building.
I don't know the -9 from a hole in my head. ;-)
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: Sub Assembly storage ... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> Hmm killing the cats probably wouldnt be such a good idea. It would probably
end
> up in divorce if you know that I mean. Wait, that would mean more $$ for
> building ....... :)
>
You've obviously never been divorced!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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: Orange County CA Tax Assessor, Redux |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
Have you considered registering this plane in another state? Might help
with liability too if registered to a Nevada Corp or other entity in another
state.
Tim
-------Original Message-------
From: Ronnie Brown
Subject: RV-List: Orange County CA Tax Assessor, Redux
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ronnie Brown" <romott@adelphia.net>
Folks in the RV community might want to try to head this off in CA - and the
rest of us need to do the same around the country. (It seems the rest of the
country likes to copy the Left Coast tax and spend crowd)!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Len Johnson
cozy_builders@canard.com
Subject: [Canards] Orange County CA Tax Assessor, Redux
Some of you might remember my tussle with the O.C. CA Tax Assessor in 2003.
They wanted to assess my plans-made, homebuilt airplane at $250,000! They
agreed to reassess it at $37,400 (35K plus sales tax) after presenting an
appraisal performed by Dick Ruttan showing that as the actual value. Well,
they just changed their minds. Given that they know far more about
fiberglass canard aircraft than anyone else in the country including Dick
Ruttan, they have just reassessed it for 2005 at over $140,000. This despite
knowing it was in a hard landing, after seeing proof of an insurance claim,
and being told that it is still disassembled in my hangar as it has been for
more than a year.
The assessment goes like this: they figure the materials at $40,000 (today's
market- never mind it was plans built over years). Figuring the time spent
building it, they are assessing the value of all the labor for the time it
took to build, for a total of a little over $90,000 in labor costs. They are
supporting this estimate with the blurb on the official Cozy website on the
time it takes to build, while ignoring the blurb on the cost of materials
($14,000). Then, they add sales tax to the total. This is called cost-based
assessment. They completely ignore their previous assessment; Dick's
appraisal; the damage history; and that the plane is not even flying. If
they pull this off, you can guarantee it will spread through the rest of
California like wildfire, and anyone with a productive hobby will all have
to flee the state, along with the businesses (mine included- on top of the
65% estimate I just got on my Workmen's Comp Insurance, I've got one foot in
Arizona already. !
Arizona charges a flat $10 a year for experimentals).
The worst part is, it takes 12-18 months to get a hearing, and you have to
pay the assessment in the meantime. They did this a few weeks ago, but
waited until today (Jan 5) to spring it on me, so I'd be legally bound to
the 2005 tax year. The woman on the phone told me so- can you believe that?
When I told her I'd fight it, she threatened to reassess back to 2003 as
well. Isn't that sort of thing subject to some kind of criminal penalties?
Don't they call that extortion?
Anyway, I know of no other experimental anywhere in the country that has
been assessed this way. I know of no other 4 place canard (cozy or
aerocanard) that is worth anywhere near this, of that has been assessed for
taxes at even half this much. This is close to a 4 fold increase. It makes
you wonder- do these folks have any clue what this looks like? 250K to 37K
to 140K? Is anyone going to believe them, given they can't give a single
corroborating example anywhere in the entire country for any of this, and
you guys can contribute hundreds?
Help me out here, guys. I need some ammunition. We desperately need to get
government at all levels involved to nip this in the bud, or California is
going to put experimental aircraft dead in their sites.
-- Len
Canards mailing list
Canards@tnstaafl.net
http://mail.tnstaafl.net/mailman/listinfo/canards_tnstaafl.net
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: Countersink tribulations |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
Subject: Countersink tribulations ...From: John Spicer (spike@spikesplace.org)Date:
Thu Jan 06 - 7:47 AM
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Spicer" <spike@spikesplace.org>I've been having problems properly using the countersink cage. I think I mighthave just trashed one my HS spars. It seems I manage to move the cutter andelongate the hole that Im cutting. Ideally I would use the drill press forcutting countersinks but that's not always possible (i.e. spar flanges thataren't perpendicular to the spar web.) Do you guys know of any techniques thatmight help out with this problem?If your curious to see my botched up spar I've got pictures on the web here:http://www.rivetbangers.com/cgi-php/forums/viewtopic.php?t=335Any hints you guys have would be greatly appreciated.-- John
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: | Re: Countersink tribulations.. |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
John,
Many good tips have already been shared. Lots of good advice. Another technique
that works well, especially when machine countersinking a curved surface is
to use a pilotless open countersink. These are sometimes sold as deburring cutters.
Just make sure it is of the 100 degree variety. I use one that is designed
to countersink composite material and it has had no problem with aluminum
sheet after years and years of service. It takes a bit of practice at first because
after all, without a cage, you control the perpendicularity and depth.
You'll quickly get the hang of it. This type of cutter virtually eliminates any
chance of wallowing out the pilot hole.
Rick Galati RV-6A "finished"
I've been having problems properly using the countersink cage. I think I might
have just trashed one my HS spars. It seems I manage to move the cutter and
elongate the hole that Im cutting. Ideally I would use the drill press for
cutting countersinks but that's not always possible (i.e. spar flanges that
aren't perpendicular to the spar web.) Do you guys know of any techniques that
might help out with this problem?
Any hints you guys have would be greatly appreciated.
-- John
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 |
|
vansairforce <vansairforce@yahoogroups.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
My buddy Paul Drexler has been shooting a lot of video lately of the planes
and pilots in my EAA chapter and I got a chance to be a subject that past
weekend...
http://www.rv8a.com/videos/index.htm
-Bill VonDane
RV-8A - Colorado
www.rv8a.com
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: | RV7 weight & balance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us@hotmail.com>
Steve,
Check out Dan Checkoway's W&B scenario program he has on the front page of
his sight (dan@rvproject.com). It is about 2/3 d's down the page under "Cool
Stuff". Very interesting to play out your worse conditions before your in
one. Good Luck
Bruce
RV8 Wings
>From: "Steve Nyman" <nyman@bellsouth.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: RV7 weight & balance
>Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:01:27 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve Nyman" <nyman@bellsouth.net>
>
>I'm on the road and don't have the manual with me. Does anyone have Van's
>basic numbers for calculating the w&b for the RV7 they can send me. Just
>got the airplane weighed and it came in at 1104. I would like to do a
>preliminary calculation and then take measurements when I get back.
>Thanks in advance,
>Steve
>7QB
>MEM
>
>do not archive
>
>
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: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
Does anyone on the list have operational experience with the XCOMVHF760
tranceiver? It appears to do everything that the SL40 does, and more.
Not only can it monitor the standby frequency but it can tune VOR freqs
as well. When I'm going cross country I often would like to listen to
an ASOS or AWOS on a VOR station. Cost seems to be competitive, but does
it really work, and work well?
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
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 |
|
rv8-list@matronics.com, rv9-list@matronics.com, rv-list@matronics.com,
Mid-AtlRVwing@yahoogroups.com, rv8list@yahoogroups.com,
BostonRVBuilders@yahoogroups.com
--> RV-List message posted by: "Clark, Thomas M UTPWR" <Tom.Clark@UTCFuelCells.com>
Groups,
I have had a bunch of questions about my modified RV-8 Fastback which was
completed mid. last year. I now have a web site that should answer many of
the questions about this modification. Try the link below.
Thanks,
Tom RV8 Fastback, N525TC, 75 hours
http://members.cox.net/rv8fastback
Tom Clark
860-727-2287 Office
860-604-5826 Cell
860-998-9811 Fax
e-mail: tom.clark@utcfuelcells.com
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: | Lower Cowl Air Scoop Problem |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Brame <chasb@satx.rr.com>
Mike,
Thanks for the reply.
Not sure how the RV-9 cowl compares with the RV-6. Did you specify a
fuel injected O-320 when you ordered your cowl or the FAB? Do you know
the nomenclature of the FAB you got?
Charlie
--------------------------------------------
> Time: 01:14:30 PM PST US
> From: "Mike Robertson"
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Lower Cowl Air Scoop Problem
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>
> Charlie,
>
> We installed the same engine on our RV-9A using the fab box that came with
> the firewall forward kit and it fit the -9 cowl without modification. It
> even lined up with the air inlet on the scope perfectly.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
> >From: Charlie Brame
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: RV-List
> >Subject: RV-List: Lower Cowl Air Scoop Problem
> >Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:58:43 -0600
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Brame
> >
> >I am finishing an RV-6A with an 0-320 engine fitted with an Air Flow
> >Performance Fuel injection. When I tried to mate the lower cowl air
> >scoop to the lower cowl, it would not fit over Van's standard 0-320 FAB.
> >The AFP throttle body sits almost exactly one inch lower than a Lycoming
> >carb. Van's solution is that I need an 0-360 air scoop, with the caveat
> >that "if that doesn't work, I may have to switch to a FAB 360 AP air
> >box." The 0-360 air scoop sells for $60 plus shipping, the FAB 360 AP
> >air box costs $120 plus shipping.
> >
> >Surely I'm not the only one out there with this set up, but Van's seemed
> >unsure as how I should correct it. Is there anybody else out there with
> >an 0-320 and a AFP Fuel Injection? What airscoop/FAB did you use to
> >solve the problem? If possible, I would prefer NOT to use the 0-360
> >scoop because of its larger frontal area and increased drag.
> >
> >Charlie Brame
> >RV-6A N11CB
> >San Antonio
> >
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Glasser" <ku-tec@bigpond.net.au>
Just wondering if anyone would have the article on rivet annealing from the
April 1993 issue of RVator.
Many thanks
Wayne
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: Sub Assembly storage ... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>
>
>>Hmm killing the cats probably wouldnt be such a good idea. It would probably
end
>>up in divorce if you know that I mean. Wait, that would mean more $$ for
>>building ....... :)
>>
>>
>>
>
>You've obviously never been divorced!
>
>
>
>
LOL!!! that was going to be my comment.
Jerry
do not archive
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: Plenum closure (& CHT) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
> 2) can anyone out there tell me why a plenum should be any more efficient
> than well sealed baffles, (no, my cowl does not bulge out in flight).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If y'all are bored by loooooooooooooong dissertations, ya best delete
now................
First of all let's establish that I am an industrial electrician and unversed
in the area of Lycoming thermodynamics with no carefully measured and
documented data, just somewhat cognizant of the physics involved here, and FWIW
I
"have" built and flown an RV (yeehaw!)- my theories mayhaps blaspheme
conventional wisdom, but this is experimental territory and what the ____...
When I began looking at cooling options (standard baffles vs. plenum) I saw
lots of plenums (pleni?) going up out there. Fad? Maybe. I kept coming back
to- Q: What the heck is the air supposed to be doing here, anyway? A: Flow
through the cylinder fins and carry radiated heat out the air outlet on the
bottom of the cowl. For a given airspeed, only "X" amount of atmosphere can get
into them little holes next to the spinner, subject to the amount of resistance
encountered by the stuff it runs into afterwards (cylinder fins, baffles,
pushrod tubes, exhaust & intake tubes, engine mount, oil cooler, cabin heat
provisions, wires yadayadayada...) resulting in a differential pressure at the
outlet at some point higher (hopefully) than ambient air.
Take a look at the actual airflow through a typical RV cowling. Air is
shoved through them little bitty holes at awesome velocity (I'm guessing maybe
10-20% above IAS due to venturi effect?) and then is expected to expand in about
6
or 8 inches to the _relatively_ huge cross-sectional area in front of the
front 2 cylinders. Awesome deceleration, no? This means that within the
confines of the shape of Vans cowling, the air enters, then expands to the main
"choke" point (above the front cylinders, defined by the clearance between the
cylinders and the cowling) then turns into slow moving mush as it sloppily spews
all over the rear of the air chamber behind the front cylinders. I've heard
many times here on the list about folks having to put a dam in front of #1
'cause #3 was suffering mightily. Pressure or velocity? Seems like #1 gets all
of
both, #3, little of either. Let's see...
Yeah, I've heard the "converting velocity into pressure" stuff, but what good
is pressure if it means the air is hanging out for a while above the
cylinders, picking up heat before crawling through the cylinder fins? Parlay the
difference between more air atoms individually absorbing more heat energy at low
velocity (higher pressure) vs. less atoms absorbing less energy, but at a much
higher volume (higher velocity). Here's an interesting possibility: If the
velocity is lower and the air atoms absorb more heat (get fat&happy), then the
temperature differential between above the cylinders and below them is greater
(they grabbed more heat, remember?), resulting in higher differential
pressure due to expansion of the air below the cylinders and less differential
with
the ambient air that this stuff has to contend with at the cowl exit (ouch- my
brain cell is on fire!) resulting is less exit airflow? So is higher velocity
more efficient than converting all that velocity into pressure? Don't ask
me- I'm just a dumb 'lectrician- put yer Micky-mouse ears on and decide fer
yerseff........
And that brings up the problem I sought to address: Look at the cross section
of the cowling from above cylinders 1&2, aft to the rear baffle. It goes
from maybe 1-1/2" over the front cyls to 5 or 6 inches at the back! Look at all
that useless, stagnant air aft of the front cylinders swirling around over the
crankcase and piled up against the rear baffles. We're talking major
deceleration here, and I speculate there is mucho air that could be removing heat
that
is just boiling around, wasting energy but picking up heat. Where do we
really NEED this precious air to go? We need to stuff it down between the front
and rear cylinders, past the rear of 3&4, to the oil cooler and cabin heat muff.
So here's the theory: maintain as constant a velocity from the inlets,
through the engine and out the exit as smoothly as possible. After entering the
cowl and initially expanding, some air departs the airflow by passing down the
front of cyls 1&2, but not much. The remainder must squeeze past the front
cylinders, then cool the rears, supply the oil cooler and cabin heat muff, and
this stuff is moving a LOT slower than 180 mph! (again, IMHO) How to best
utilize this available air?
My "opinion" is that most plenums contain and control the airflow better by
directing the available air more efficiently than a standard cowling, mainly by
reducing the amount of stagnant air above the engine. Most installations I
looked at were basically the standard baffle kit with a "roof" extending from
one side to the other. This approach effectively reduces the total VOLUME of
air above the engine, particularly at the rear. Most folks report good
results, others not so good. (or as my daughter would chastise me, "well"!) I
theorized that the volume toward the rear must be reduced to maintain higher
velocity, combined with containing airflow only where it is needed- across and
down
through the cylinder fins as opposed to swirling around above the crankcase.
If you look at the cooling system on Jabiru engines, they simply have a
fiberglas "scoop" extending from the inlet and containing the airflow aft to the
cylinders and nothing but the cylinders. Works for them! Keeps the air moving
only where it needs to go, not bouncing around inside the cowling.
In my installation, I made a separate plenum above each pair of cylinders,
eliminating the stagnant air above the crankcase entirely, and forcing the
incoming air to only go where it is needed. After 140+ hours of use, winter and
summer here in hot, humid Tennessee, it seems to be working, even though there
is significant "leakage" from sloppy fabrication. As mentioned earlier, my
engine ain't makin 200+ ponies, but it's doing pretty darn well at 150!
This was understandably a real "experiment", but so far, it seems to have
worked out fairly well. I'm offering this to the list as a rough data point or
just "thought food". I'd be happy to debate the various merits of this
approach with anyone that knows a lot more about this stuff than I do!
(((((The one thing I liked about the plenum, and the reason I built one, is
being able to run the engine with the cowling off without concerns about
lack of cooling or needing to build a cooling shroud/hood.
As full of shiznyt as I am, I MUST question this- I firmly believe that with
the cowl off on a plenumed (sp?) engine, that there is almost NO airflow
through the engine- I have seen no factual evidence of this, but find it very
difficult to believe that there is any kind of significant airflow provided by
the
extreme root of most prop blades and I would suspect that a plenum would
PREVENT any airflow provided by propwash from even washing over an uncowled engine,
and also reduce cooling provided by convection. The highest CHTs I have ever
seen on 51PW were when waiting in the que at OSH for departure last summer-
after about 25 minutes of taxiing/sitting' one cylinder got up to 435 just
before blast-off. I'd waited that long, so what the hell- shoved in the black
knob and I'm sitting here now...
To REALLY stick my neck out (chop away- this is true BLASPHEMY) I will
maintain that those that suggest to "point the nose into the wind" after shutdown
are very misguided- the heat of a cooling engine will convect air around the
cylinders to RISE- therefore, since the cowl outlet is a whole bunch lower than
the inlet, it makes more sense to point the arse-end of the the RV INTO the
wind to take advantage of this free-of-charge cooling source...
That's my damn too long story and unless proven otherly, I'm stickin' with it!
Fingers achin' at The Possumworks in TN
Mark - damn fine RV-6A and damn happy with it, even without any cowl bulges!
Archive if ya want to................... I don't care 'cause my employer now
makes me work FIVE daze a week instead of FOUR!
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: Sub Assembly storage ... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 01/06/2005 9:50:21 AM Central Standard Time,
spike@spikesplace.org writes:
Hmm killing the cats probably wouldnt be such a good idea.
>>>
B.S.! A dead cat is a good cat, especially if properly marinated!
(here's the obligatory do not archive for this bee ess!)
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: Plenum closure (& CHT)(& Long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: GMC <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
Thanks for the thoughts Mark, not knowing anything about fluid dynamics I
just can't see why a squared off plenum would be any better than standard
baffles. I can understand a streamlined plenum like the Jabiru (and others)
reducing turbulence and improving cooling efficiency but not just putting a
cover over the standard baffles.
Seems to me the cooling depends mostly on the airflow created by the
pressure differential above/below the cylinders. I can't see how reducing
the volume above the cylinders with a box type plenum will change that
pressure (anyone measured that).
Standing by to be educated!
George in Langley BC
6A flying
7a wings
------------------
The Question!
> 2) can anyone out there tell me why a plenum should be any more efficient
> than well sealed baffles, (no, my cowl does not bulge out in flight).
-------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If y'all are bored by loooooooooooooong dissertations, ya best delete
now................
First of all let's establish that I am an industrial electrician and
unversed
in the area of Lycoming thermodynamics with no carefully measured and
documented data, just somewhat cognizant of the physics involved here, and
FWIW I
"have" built and flown an RV (yeehaw!)- my theories mayhaps blaspheme
conventional wisdom, but this is experimental territory and what the ____...
When I began looking at cooling options (standard baffles vs. plenum) I saw
lots of plenums (pleni?) going up out there. Fad? Maybe. I kept coming
back
to- Q: What the heck is the air supposed to be doing here, anyway? A: Flow
through the cylinder fins and carry radiated heat out the air outlet on the
bottom of the cowl. For a given airspeed, only "X" amount of atmosphere can
get
into them little holes next to the spinner, subject to the amount of
resistance
encountered by the stuff it runs into afterwards (cylinder fins, baffles,
pushrod tubes, exhaust & intake tubes, engine mount, oil cooler, cabin heat
provisions, wires yadayadayada...) resulting in a differential pressure at
the
outlet at some point higher (hopefully) than ambient air.
Take a look at the actual airflow through a typical RV cowling. Air is
shoved through them little bitty holes at awesome velocity (I'm guessing
maybe
10-20% above IAS due to venturi effect?) and then is expected to expand in
about 6
or 8 inches to the _relatively_ huge cross-sectional area in front of the
front 2 cylinders. Awesome deceleration, no? This means that within the
confines of the shape of Vans cowling, the air enters, then expands to the
main
"choke" point (above the front cylinders, defined by the clearance between
the
cylinders and the cowling) then turns into slow moving mush as it sloppily
spews
all over the rear of the air chamber behind the front cylinders. I've heard
many times here on the list about folks having to put a dam in front of #1
'cause #3 was suffering mightily. Pressure or velocity? Seems like #1 gets
all of
both, #3, little of either. Let's see...
Yeah, I've heard the "converting velocity into pressure" stuff, but what
good
is pressure if it means the air is hanging out for a while above the
cylinders, picking up heat before crawling through the cylinder fins?
Parlay the
difference between more air atoms individually absorbing more heat energy at
low
velocity (higher pressure) vs. less atoms absorbing less energy, but at a
much
higher volume (higher velocity). Here's an interesting possibility: If the
velocity is lower and the air atoms absorb more heat (get fat&happy), then
the
temperature differential between above the cylinders and below them is
greater
(they grabbed more heat, remember?), resulting in higher differential
pressure due to expansion of the air below the cylinders and less
differential with
the ambient air that this stuff has to contend with at the cowl exit (ouch-
my
brain cell is on fire!) resulting is less exit airflow? So is higher
velocity
more efficient than converting all that velocity into pressure? Don't ask
me- I'm just a dumb 'lectrician- put yer Micky-mouse ears on and decide fer
yerseff........
And that brings up the problem I sought to address: Look at the cross
section
of the cowling from above cylinders 1&2, aft to the rear baffle. It goes
from maybe 1-1/2" over the front cyls to 5 or 6 inches at the back! Look at
all
that useless, stagnant air aft of the front cylinders swirling around over
the
crankcase and piled up against the rear baffles. We're talking major
deceleration here, and I speculate there is mucho air that could be removing
heat that
is just boiling around, wasting energy but picking up heat. Where do we
really NEED this precious air to go? We need to stuff it down between the
front
and rear cylinders, past the rear of 3&4, to the oil cooler and cabin heat
muff.
So here's the theory: maintain as constant a velocity from the inlets,
through the engine and out the exit as smoothly as possible. After entering
the
cowl and initially expanding, some air departs the airflow by passing down
the
front of cyls 1&2, but not much. The remainder must squeeze past the front
cylinders, then cool the rears, supply the oil cooler and cabin heat muff,
and
this stuff is moving a LOT slower than 180 mph! (again, IMHO) How to best
utilize this available air?
My "opinion" is that most plenums contain and control the airflow better by
directing the available air more efficiently than a standard cowling, mainly
by
reducing the amount of stagnant air above the engine. Most installations I
looked at were basically the standard baffle kit with a "roof" extending
from
one side to the other. This approach effectively reduces the total VOLUME
of
air above the engine, particularly at the rear. Most folks report good
results, others not so good. (or as my daughter would chastise me, "well"!)
I
theorized that the volume toward the rear must be reduced to maintain higher
velocity, combined with containing airflow only where it is needed- across
and down
through the cylinder fins as opposed to swirling around above the crankcase.
If you look at the cooling system on Jabiru engines, they simply have a
fiberglas "scoop" extending from the inlet and containing the airflow aft to
the
cylinders and nothing but the cylinders. Works for them! Keeps the air
moving
only where it needs to go, not bouncing around inside the cowling.
In my installation, I made a separate plenum above each pair of cylinders,
eliminating the stagnant air above the crankcase entirely, and forcing the
incoming air to only go where it is needed. After 140+ hours of use, winter
and
summer here in hot, humid Tennessee, it seems to be working, even though
there
is significant "leakage" from sloppy fabrication. As mentioned earlier, my
engine ain't makin 200+ ponies, but it's doing pretty darn well at 150!
This was understandably a real "experiment", but so far, it seems to have
worked out fairly well. I'm offering this to the list as a rough data point
or
just "thought food". I'd be happy to debate the various merits of this
approach with anyone that knows a lot more about this stuff than I do!
(((((The one thing I liked about the plenum, and the reason I built one, is
being able to run the engine with the cowling off without concerns about
lack of cooling or needing to build a cooling shroud/hood.
As full of shiznyt as I am, I MUST question this- I firmly believe that with
the cowl off on a plenumed (sp?) engine, that there is almost NO airflow
through the engine- I have seen no factual evidence of this, but find it
very
difficult to believe that there is any kind of significant airflow provided
by the
extreme root of most prop blades and I would suspect that a plenum would
PREVENT any airflow provided by propwash from even washing over an uncowled
engine,
and also reduce cooling provided by convection. The highest CHTs I have
ever
seen on 51PW were when waiting in the que at OSH for departure last summer-
after about 25 minutes of taxiing/sitting' one cylinder got up to 435 just
before blast-off. I'd waited that long, so what the hell- shoved in the
black
knob and I'm sitting here now...
To REALLY stick my neck out (chop away- this is true BLASPHEMY) I will
maintain that those that suggest to "point the nose into the wind" after
shutdown
are very misguided- the heat of a cooling engine will convect air around the
cylinders to RISE- therefore, since the cowl outlet is a whole bunch lower
than
the inlet, it makes more sense to point the arse-end of the the RV INTO the
wind to take advantage of this free-of-charge cooling source...
That's my damn too long story and unless proven otherly, I'm stickin' with
it!
Fingers achin' at The Possumworks in TN
Mark - damn fine RV-6A and damn happy with it, even without any cowl bulges!
Archive if ya want to................... I don't care 'cause my employer now
makes me work FIVE daze a week instead of FOUR!
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "" <tx_jayhawk@excite.com>
Do Not Archive All, Can anyone provide some thoughts on how many small aircraft (RV/Cessna/Piper types) might fit in a 48x48 hangar? I am looking into purchasing one, and I was trying to plan accordingly. I know it depends on high wing/low wing, but I am trying to get a rough idea. I am assuming three planes could probably fit? Also, any bits of advice that might be had when renting spaces to others. Appreciate any help that can be provided (off-line if necessary). Thanks,ScottQB (Cheater) fuse comingwww.scottsrv7a.com
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
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! --
|