Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:15 AM - Re: Weighty Question ()
2. 01:37 AM - Re: Weighty Question ()
3. 04:50 AM - Re: Weighty Question (Bryan Jones)
4. 04:52 AM - Re: 430 initialization?? (Dana Overall)
5. 05:31 AM - Re: 430 initialization?? (Alex Peterson)
6. 06:05 AM - Re: Weighty Question (Bob 1)
7. 06:35 AM - Re: 430 initialization?? (Bob)
8. 06:40 AM - Six versus Seven Safety (Sherri & Paul Richardson)
9. 08:36 AM - Re: Six versus Seven Safety (Dave Bristol)
10. 08:43 AM - Re: Weighty Question (LARRY ADAMSON)
11. 09:10 AM - Re: Weighty Question (Jeff Dowling)
12. 09:58 AM - Re: Weighty Question (Konrad L. Werner)
13. 10:37 AM - Re: Weighty Question (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
14. 11:30 AM - Re: Six versus Seven Safety (sarg314)
15. 12:02 PM - Re: Six versus Seven Safety (Kevin Horton)
16. 12:11 PM - Re: Weighty Question ()
17. 01:23 PM - Re: Six versus Seven Safety (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
18. 03:22 PM - Solid state Trim, Speedbrake and Flap relays and controllers etc... (Bob)
19. 03:24 PM - Re: Six versus Seven Safety (Tedd McHenry)
20. 03:42 PM - Re: Six versus Seven Safety (Dave Bristol)
21. 04:19 PM - Re: Six versus Seven Safety (Bryan Jones)
22. 05:08 PM - RV6-a upper gear leg intersection Fairings attachment (Jim Jewell)
23. 06:10 PM - Re: Confused About Torque Specifications (John D. Heath)
24. 06:30 PM - Re: Six versus Seven Safety (Jerry Springer)
25. 06:39 PM - Re: Proseal on all ribs or not (LarryRobertHelming)
26. 08:00 PM - RV-6A nose gear top bolt (sarg314)
27. 09:49 PM - Re: Six versus Seven Safety (Jeff Point)
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: Weighty Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "" <tx_jayhawk@excite.com>
I tend to agree with David on this one. I personally struggle to see the benefit of 200 hp or c/s prop (IMHO). I must admit that I have never ridden in one (maybe that would sell me), but I think the 0-360/FP Sensenich can't be beat. I will be setting my 7A up for cruise with an 86 pitch prop, Sam James cowl, and all the right fairings. I'd be willing to bet that I end up pretty comparable in top end speed to a 200 hp with C/S. I would certainly lose a climb comparison, but that is life. I'll take the extra two minutes in climb and keep the $13K for fuel ($7 more for engine new, $6K more for C/S prop/governor). I'll also be lighter, likely have fewer cowl/cooling problems, and have one less thing to fail/check at annuals (governor).Scott7A Waiting on Fusewww.scottsrv7a.com--- On Fri 02/04, DAVID FOORD foords@senet.com.au wrote:From: DAVID FOORD [mailto: foords@senet.com.au]To: rv-list@matronics.comDate: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:39:47 +1030Subject: Re: RV-List: Wei
ghty Question-- RV-List message posted by: "DAVID FOORD" I HAVE A 160 HP FIXED
PITCH PROP RV6.I AM BEHIND MY MATES IN THE CLIMB.I CAN BEAT THEM IN THE CRUISE
AND PYLON RACING. I CAN OUTRUN A 180 HP CSU RV6. MORE EFFICIENCY, LESS WEIGHTTHE
CONSTANT SPEED PROP SIMPLY GETS COARSER TO ABSORB THE HP. HELICAL PITCH ON
A FP PROP IS DESIGNED TO BE EFFICIENT AT AN RPM AND SPEED.WITH A 200 HP RV6
WITH FP PROP YOU ARE GOING TO BE CLIMBING AT WELL ABOVE 1800 FEET PER MINUTE.
THAT'S AWESOME ENOUGH.IN THE CRUISE WITH A WELL SELECTED FP PROP YOU WILL BEAT
THE CS PROP CHAPS AND YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THE CRUISE. AT 1800 FPM, YOUR
CLIMB IS MAYBE 6 MINUTES TO THE BEST CRUISING ALTITUDE SO BIG DEAL IF YOU GET
THERE 2 MINUTES QUICKER. DOESN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE.A 200HP ANGLE VALVE ENGINE
IS ABOUT 30 LB HEAVIER THAN A 180 HP PARALLELL VALVE ENGINE.A CS PROP IS
MAINTENANCE WAITING TO DISECT YOUR WALLET.BTW, I AM NOW WELL ALONG BUILDING A
ONE DESIGN AEROBATIC PLANE. IT WILL HAVE A CS PRO
P AS I WANT THE HANG TIME AT THE TOP OF VERTICALS AND I CAN AFFORD IT NOW I AM
OLDER THAN WHEN I BUILT THE RV6.MY RV IS THE SWEETEST THING TO FLY. MY MATES
WITH CS PROPS HAVE HEAVIER NOSES AND ARE NOT SUCH A DELIGHT TO FLY, BECAUSE OF
THE NOSE HEAVINESS.THERE ARE PRO's AND CON's.CHEERSDAVE.foords@senet.com.au.I
unsubscribed today from the lists but feel free to email me directly.----- Original
Message ----- From: "Konrad L. Werner" To: Subject: Re: RV-List: Weighty
Question -- RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" Dear Dan, Very good
point, but how much time am I going to spend climbing vs. cruising? If weight
would be of a concern to you, would you then go 180hp/Hartzell CS, ...or
take the other option, a 200hp/FP setup? (Anyone know the weight difference anyway
between these two setups, just curious?) So, please pick one of the two
options, and tell me why you think one would be better then the other?
Thanks, Konrad ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 7:27 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Weighty
Question -- RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" Using a fixed pitch
prop on the 200hp engine is like having burned filet mignon... (imho) Why
bother with the extra horsepower if you're not gonna harness it in the climb
(with a C/S prop)? do not archive )_( Dan ----- Original Message ----- From:
"Konrad L. Werner" To: Subject: RV-List: Weighty Question -- RV-List message
posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" Greetings everyone, Does anyone know what
the difference in weight would be between the following two options: A: 200hp
/ IO-360 Angle Valve with a Craig Catto F.P.Prop B: 180hp / O-360 Parallel
Valve with a Hartzell C.S.Pr
opeller I know that there is a significant weight increase between the 200hp
versus the 180hp Engine. I also
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: Weighty Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: <sears@searnet.com>
I've watched this thread with interest. I know there are times when a CS
prop is most beneficial. With that, I've toyed with the idea of buying one
for my newest project, a 160hp -7A. My -6A totes a 150hp O320 with one of
the early FP Sensenich props that was slightly under pitched. I've been
fairly satisfied with it, other than sometimes wanting a little more take
off power when I'm taking off from Pat Patterson's grass strip. The CS prop
would help me get out of there more easily. I don't have the speedster that
some of you have; but, I'm quite happy with my 160-165mph IAS at 3000' on a
hot day in that it is faster than the airplanes of most of my flying
buddies. Those with faster ones also have much bigger engines that must run
on 100LL and use 15gph. :-) After much consideration, I've just about
decided to forget the CS prop. I think the ten extra horsepower of the O320
I'll be building up compensates for the little extra I feel I need for Pat's
grass strip. On the top end, there won't be enough difference to matter. I
may as well put the savings into that autopilot I want. Now, that will be
an improvement because Scooter doesn't have one.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
RV-7A #70317 (Doing tanks)
EAA Technical Counselor
do not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weighty Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bryan Jones" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
This CS vs. fixed pitch is like arguing 4wd versus 2wd auto. It's almost
apples and oranges. In my experience, new CS prop and governor almost 5
years and 700 hrs ago, I have had no issues other than a pumping in a little
grease and made a couple of rpm stop adjustments. Additional (over a FP
arrgt) time spent at annual inspecting the CS system - all of about 10 mins.
The question one has to ask is the benefit of a CS prop worth the
investment. Because in my experience, there's very little hassle to owning
and maintaining the system.
Besides, if I wanted to fly something with a FP prop and trike gear, I could
go fly a -152! ;) ;)
Bryan 160-hp CS -8
Houston
www.LoneStarSquadron.com
>I've watched this thread with interest. I know there are times when a CS
>prop is most beneficial. With that, I've toyed with the idea of buying one
>for my newest project, a 160hp -7A. My -6A totes a 150hp O320 with one of
>the early FP Sensenich props that was slightly under pitched. I've been
>fairly satisfied with it, other than sometimes wanting a little more take
>off power when I'm taking off from Pat Patterson's grass strip. The CS
>prop
>would help me get out of there more easily. I don't have the speedster
>that
>some of you have; but, I'm quite happy with my 160-165mph IAS at 3000' on a
>hot day in that it is faster than the airplanes of most of my flying
>buddies. Those with faster ones also have much bigger engines that must
>run
>on 100LL and use 15gph. :-) After much consideration, I've just about
>decided to forget the CS prop. I think the ten extra horsepower of the
>O320
>I'll be building up compensates for the little extra I feel I need for
>Pat's
>grass strip. On the top end, there won't be enough difference to matter.
>I
>may as well put the savings into that autopilot I want. Now, that will be
>an improvement because Scooter doesn't have one.
>
>Jim Sears in KY
>RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
>RV-7A #70317 (Doing tanks)
>EAA Technical Counselor
>do not archive
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: | 430 initialization?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>Make sure that the 430 isn't in play mode. If one of the pins is
>grounded, the 430 operates in demo mode.
Bruce, when it comes up it shows the Garmin facility. All I have on hand is
the Quick Start Manual. How do I get it out of or into the demo mode. The
card is outdated by about a year, would that make any difference.
Alex, the airplane is in my garage but I opened the garage door and got the
antenna within about a foot of the door, pointed towards the sky. No luck
on locking onto a single sat.
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
Finish kit
13B Rotary. Hangar flying my Dynon.
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero1.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero3.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/blackrudder.jpg
do not archive
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>Make sure that the 430 isn't in play mode. If one of the pins is
>grounded, the 430 operates in demo mode.
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: | 430 initialization?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> Alex, the airplane is in my garage but I opened the garage
> door and got the
> antenna within about a foot of the door, pointed towards the
> sky. No luck
> on locking onto a single sat.
>
>
> Dana Overall
Dana, I would guess that the garage is the problem. I don't know the scheme
that the unit uses, but I've seen problems when right next to the hangar,
even though half the sky was visible.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 559 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
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: Weighty Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
> Those with faster ones also have much bigger engines that must run
> on 100LL and use 15gph. :-) After much consideration, I've just about
> decided to forget the CS prop. I think the ten extra horsepower of the
O320
> I'll be building up compensates for the little extra I feel I need for
Pat's
> grass strip. On the top end, there won't be enough difference to matter.
I
> may as well put the savings into that autopilot I want. Now, that will be
> an improvement because Scooter doesn't have one.
>
> Jim Sears in KY
> RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
> RV-7A #70317 (Doing tanks)
> EAA Technical Counselor
> do not archive
=================================
AFAIK, Jim.....
At 2200 RPM, you might see as much as 7 hp, if I'm eyeballing the LYCO
charts correctly.
Further...
I fly with an 0-320 150 hp, so I can safely use 80/87 OCTANE auto fuel.
OTOH, the needs of the higher compression 160 hp 0-320 is 91/96/100 octane.
Perhaps you are going to acquire an honest 10 hp increase at take off RPM's
with 80 octane fuel and fixed pitch? Please explain.
Bob - 150hp stock 0-320 powered RV3
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: 430 initialization?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
Try a handheld GPS in the same spot as the antenna . . . you may not
be seeing the sats . . . particularly if you garage door is on the
northern side!
Regards,
Bob
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 07:49:24 -0500, Dana Overall <bo124rs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>
> >From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
> >Make sure that the 430 isn't in play mode. If one of the pins is
> >grounded, the 430 operates in demo mode.
>
> Bruce, when it comes up it shows the Garmin facility. All I have on hand is
> the Quick Start Manual. How do I get it out of or into the demo mode. The
> card is outdated by about a year, would that make any difference.
>
> Alex, the airplane is in my garage but I opened the garage door and got the
> antenna within about a foot of the door, pointed towards the sky. No luck
> on locking onto a single sat.
>
>
> Dana Overall
> Richmond, KY i39
> RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
> Finish kit
> 13B Rotary. Hangar flying my Dynon.
> http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero1.jpg
> http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero3.jpg
> http://rvflying.tripod.com/blackrudder.jpg
> do not archive
>
> >From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
> >Make sure that the 430 isn't in play mode. If one of the pins is
> >grounded, the 430 operates in demo mode.
>
>
>
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: | Six versus Seven Safety |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Sherri & Paul Richardson" <prichar@mail.win.org>
Hello,
I'm considering buying a flying RV-6A or 7A. I should say "we" because there will
be 4 or 5 buyers/flyers, with varying flying ability/experience.
The aerobatic gross weight of a 6 is 1375 (for more than 3.8 Gs). It is much higher
at 1600 Lbs for a 7. This brings up a few questions:
1. How difficult is it to stay below 135 mph and 3.8 Gs for an RV in various maneuvers?
2. Is the RV-7A a safer airplane for aerobatics?
Thanks,
Paul Richardson
RV-7A Empennage
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: Six versus Seven Safety |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
Paul,
It would be interesting to know why the 7 has a higher aerobatic gross
than the 6. Any ideas anyone?
It's difficult to say which might be safer, since there has never been a
structural failure on either one. It LOOKS like the 6 spar and center
section would be stronger, but a structural analysis might say differently.
Of course, the two aircraft that you are considering both have the same
troublesome weak point - the nosewheel. 8>)
Dave -6, So Cal
EAA Technical Counselor
Sherri & Paul Richardson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Sherri & Paul Richardson" <prichar@mail.win.org>
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm considering buying a flying RV-6A or 7A. I should say "we" because there will
be 4 or 5 buyers/flyers, with varying flying ability/experience.
>
>The aerobatic gross weight of a 6 is 1375 (for more than 3.8 Gs). It is much higher
at 1600 Lbs for a 7. This brings up a few questions:
>
>1. How difficult is it to stay below 135 mph and 3.8 Gs for an RV in various maneuvers?
>
>2. Is the RV-7A a safer airplane for aerobatics?
>
>Thanks,
>Paul Richardson
>RV-7A Empennage
>
>
>
>
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: Weighty Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03@msn.com>
A C/S prop has a marvelous advantage of controlling airspeed into the pattern,
with it's by design "braking abilities".
Also has the advantage for those one way in and one way out airfields where the
prevailing winds might call for a with the
wind landing. Since I'm in a high altitude area to start with, I also prefer the
climbing abilities of C/S. Having flown both fixed &
C/S RV's, C/S is the only way I'd go. Several of my "fixed pitch" RV acquaintances,
think the same way! :)
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: Weighty Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
Have you considered the lower 160 hp w/ cs prop? Some of the rv guys I know
with a lot of experience say thats the only way to go. Of course it
ultimately depends on the type of flying you will most often do.
do not archive
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
150 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03@msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Weighty Question
> --> RV-List message posted by: "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03@msn.com>
>
>
> A C/S prop has a marvelous advantage of controlling airspeed into the
> pattern, with it's by design "braking abilities".
> Also has the advantage for those one way in and one way out airfields
> where the prevailing winds might call for a with the
> wind landing. Since I'm in a high altitude area to start with, I also
> prefer the climbing abilities of C/S. Having flown both fixed &
> C/S RV's, C/S is the only way I'd go. Several of my "fixed pitch" RV
> acquaintances, think the same way! :)
>
>
>
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: Weighty Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
I totally agree with all of you on the added versatility & performance benefits
of a CS Prop. But there are sometimes more factors involved than just the best
performance (...to climb/dive/accelerate/decelerate). Sometimes Weight and/or
Money may dictate what one can or cannot do, otherwise everyone would have
a 200HP/CS-Setup?
I am sure that Sensenich would not have spent the time and money to develop their
FixedPitch RV-Props if that would not be the case.
And some other people fly behind used engines with solid cranks that do not even
allow hydraulic CS Props, even if they wanted to go that way.
Vans latest cost for an 0-360-A1A, Hartzell & Governor is in excess of $30,000
for NEW stuff. Heck, I know of a couple of -6's around here that got airborne
for less than that in total cost (of course that was a few years back and the
men/women were skilled builders, hunters & collectors). But they are still smiling,
and they fly well enough with much less money tied up.
As the original poster of the "Weighty Question", I do think I only got one or
two good answers that had to do to my mainly weight related question. Here it
is again:
"Which of the two combinations would be the lighter version (or perhaps they are
equal in weight?), and how would a 200hp/FP compare to the 180hp/CS in climb
and cruise?"
Everything else was mainly input on the performance gain of a CS over FP, but with
absolutely no regard to weight. But then, fat ducks fly too, now don't they?
Please do not archive
P.S.: Larry, what is holding your FP-Aquaintances back from upgrading to a CS?
--> RV-List message posted by: "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03@msn.com>
A C/S prop has a marvelous advantage of controlling airspeed into the pattern,
with it's by design "braking abilities".
Also has the advantage for those one way in and one way out airfields where the
prevailing winds might call for a with the
wind landing. Since I'm in a high altitude area to start with, I also prefer the
climbing abilities of C/S. Having flown both fixed &
C/S RV's, C/S is the only way I'd go. Several of my "fixed pitch" RV acquaintances,
think the same way! :)
Greetings everyone,
Does anyone know what the difference in weight would be between the following
two options:
A: 200hp / IO-360 Angle Valve with a Craig Catto F.P.Prop
B: 180hp / O-360 Parallel Valve with a Hartzell C.S.Propeller
I know that there is a significant weight increase between the 200hp versus the
180hp Engine.
I also know that a Craig Catto FP Prop is much lighter than a complete Hartzell
CS Setup: Propeller, Governor, Oil Line, Linkage,etc.
Questions:
Which of the two combinations would be the lighter version (or perhaps they are
equal in weight?), and how would a 200hp/FP compare to the 180hp/CS in climb
and cruise?
Thanks, Konrad
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: Weighty Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 02/05/2005 12:01:57 PM Central Standard Time,
klwerner@comcast.net writes:
But then, fat ducks fly too, now don't they?
>>>
You betcha, Konrad- I'm flying proof of that! 8-)
(quack!)
Mark - DO NOT ARCHIVE ! !
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: Six versus Seven Safety |
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
The 7 has a bigger rudder. The 7 has more rudder authority in a spin.
If I could refit my 6A with a 7 rudder, I would, but I'd have to change
the Vert. Stabilizer too.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, engine
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: Six versus Seven Safety |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
>
>Paul,
>
>It would be interesting to know why the 7 has a higher aerobatic gross
>than the 6. Any ideas anyone?
The RV-7 has a higher aerobatic gross weight than the -6 because that
is the way Van designed it.
The RV-7 is designed to accept a heavier engine than the -6, and it
has more fuel capacity. Couple that with the fact that Van was
envisioning a VFR panel when he designed the -6, and now days many
builders are going full IFR. So, the -7 ends up with higher empty,
aerobatic and gross weights than the -6.
Van could have designed the -6 for a higher aerobatic gross weight,
but that would have meant more metal, which means more weight.
Weight is the enemy of performance, so Van didn't make the aerobatic
gross weight any greater than he deemed necessary.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
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: Weighty Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>RV-List message posted by: "DAVID FOORD" <foords@senet.com.au
>
>I CAN BEAT THEM IN THE CRUISE AND PYLON RACING.
>I CAN OUTRUN A 180HP CS RV6.
I would say Tracy Saylors 180hp RV-6 and c/s prop at over 237 mph would give your
160hp/fixed pitch a run for the money. The fastest RV is Dave Anders +250mph
RV-4, with a Hartzell. BTW Dave turns his prop at 2900rpm, which the Hartzell
is rated to.
I disagree; a fixed prop is NOT necessary faster (or slower) in cruise. Fixed pitch props are optimized for one phase of flight, t/o, climb or cruise. Speed depends on other factors, other than just the prop. Your speed advantage over your Buddie's RV says more about the individual airplanes. A fixed prop can be faster than a c/s prop wide open, especially if the fixed prop is being turned at a higher RPM, but this comes at the expense of noise and fuel burn. Your RV may also just be cleaner. To state overall superiority of fixed pitch props in cruise or better top speed over c/s props is not correct. Look at the following chart: http://www.hartzellprop.com/kitplane/index_kitplane.htm
(From link, select: "why you need a certified prop" next to the picture of that
disgusted man Van the Man, and scroll down to the second item, "performance".
Click on the chart to enlarge it.)
>MORE EFFICIENCY, LESS WEIGHT
The above link shows the relationship of C/S and fixed pitch performance (efficiency).
There is little doubt to me c/s props main advantage over fixed props
is their overall efficiency. I think fixed props are great, but more efficient,
no. I say fixed props are less weight with a qualified yes. Fixed vs. c/s weight:
A fixed metal Sensenich (40 lbs) vs. composite Whirlwind (31 lbs), or a
fixed wood prop (15 lbs) vs. Hartzell (55 lbs).
>IN THE CRUISE WITH A WELL SELECTED FP PROP YOU WILL BEAT THE CS PROP >CHAPS AND
YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THE CRUISE. WITH A 200 HP RV6 WITH FP >PROP YOU ARE
GOING TO BE CLIMBING AT WELL ABOVE 1800 FEET PER MINUTE. >AT 1800 FPM, YOUR
CLIMB IS MAYBE 6 MINUTES TO THE BEST CRUISING ALTITUDE >SO BIG DEAL IF YOU GET
THERE 2 MINUTES QUICKER. DOESN'T MAKE MUCH >DIFFERENCE.
I guess the basic idea that a fixed pitch is not much slower on a trip is your
point, OK. Your example does not talk about taking off from a short runway, high
alt runways or ones with obstacles. As far as (1800 fpm climb), ( 6 min to
cruise) and (2 min behind), I got to say I am missing some critical info in this
example. Vans Aircraft lists a 160hp RV-7 with a c/s prop solo climb at 1900fpm,
and 2550fpm with 200hp. You are giving up 650 fpm at SL. I agree with
the other Gent, 200hp and a fixed-pitch is a waste. A 160hp RV-7 with a c/s prop
can out climb a 200hp RV-7 with a fixed prop, according to your 1800fpm you
quote? Sounds inefficient.
>A CS PROP IS MAINTENANCE WAITING TO DISECT YOUR WALLET.
I agree c/s props are more expensive, but maintenance is not an issue. My C2YK
is reliable year in and out, and it requires no maintenance other than annual
greasing. About 50 cents worth of grease and 10 minutes of effort is required.
The metal fixed prop is about as good as you can get for maintenance. As far
as a Hartzell overhaul, going rate, about 5 years ago was about $1000, if no
extra parts are needed. Most bad parts are due to disuse and corrosion, not wear.
For my RV-7 project I paid $2,500 for an overhauled Hartzell outright, made
from spare parts at local prop shop, and $400 for an overhauled Woodward governor
outright, from another large established shop selling inventory in trade-a-plane.
So for 3 grand I have a c/s prop. BTW, A fixed wood prop needs constant
re-torque of bolts and worry of erosion in rain.
>MY RV IS THE SWEETEST THING TO FLY. MY MATES WITH CS PROPS HAVE >HEAVIER NOSES
AND ARE NOT SUCH A DELIGHT TO FLY, BECAUSE OF >THE NOSE HEAVINESS.
I agree a lighter RV, good CG has better a feel. It is still possible to have a
light RV with a c/s prop, but it is harder. My empty wt. survey clearly shows
RVs with fixed props tend to be lighter by at least 36 lbs. However there are
some real porky fixed pitch RVs and very light c/s RVs out there. For my RV-7,
I am keeping the panel, upholstery and paint light to compensate. I would love
to get a composite lightweight c/s prop and save 20 lbs, but is does not meet
my cheap-ness criteria. If a $8,000 prop were my only choice for a c/s prop,
I would not hesitate to use a fixed pitched prop.
>THERE ARE PRO's AND CON's.
Good points, pros and cons, no real clear winner, you have to look at your wallet,
overall performance, initial cost, manufacture support, service and parts
availability and weight to determine what's better for you. For me, I want efficient
cruise using normal rpms (better fuel burn), better climb and fast top
speed, so it was a no brainier, the Hartzell is a good choice for me. If I want
to race I will tweak my Gov to 2800 rpm. Dave, when I get it flying, lets have
a race. PS, word has it Reno may open a Bronze class for the sport planes!
So you have a chance without running against the big six bangers.
Cheers G (RV-4, RV-7 project)
---------------------------------
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: Six versus Seven Safety |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 02/05/2005 1:31:21 PM Central Standard Time,
sarg314@comcast.net writes:
The 7 has a bigger rudder. The 7 has more rudder authority in a spin.
If I could refit my 6A with a 7 rudder, I would, but I'd have to change
the Vert. Stabilizer too.
>>>
FWIW, While getting some time in the factory -9 I asked a
well-known-and-respected Van's transition training pilot about updating from the
-6 to the -7
style before finishing my plane, and he replied that in his opinion, the original
tail is perfectly suited to the -6 and wouldn't recommend it- nothing wrong
with it, just not necessary. The primary reason for the change was that the -8
needed the extra size and for parts commonality, not any shortcoming of the
original design. Something else I'm curious about is the additional weight
that far out on the tail and what effect on CG this has for lighter engine/prop
combos- my O-320/FP composite prop is a bit tail-heavy as it is. (I should say
nose-light, shouldn't I?) Not sure what the actual weight difference is
(anybody?) but it sure is on a loooooong arm out there...
Mark Phillips -6A
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: | Solid state Trim, Speedbrake and Flap relays and controllers |
etc...
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob" <rpgross@bellsouth.net>
I hate to use this list to spam but the thread appears so frequently I
thought I'd throw this out. When I built my F1, the need for trim control
was obvious so I developed a trim control system using an LMD18200T H-bridge
driver chip. Problem is it only handles 3 amps. Fine for Vans type A/C and
all Ray Allen servos, but
inadequate for Lancairs, Glasairs, Velocities etc.
Along the way I been producing and selling an improved version of the
original Trim Control Module (TCM). Details are on my website link below.
Basically, the TCM does many cool tricks including: polling two sets of
sticks for trim motor commands, prioritizing them; variable speed mode for
fast aircraft, runaway trim protection, and it does away with mechanical,
failure prone relays. All this $99 and available now
I've been slowly developing a high powered version that will easily handle
10 amps. In fact with heat sinking, it will handle a blistering 50 amps.
This module, when programmed with variations of processor firmware, will
serve as either:
1. High power trim control module.
2. Intelligent flap control module.
3. Speedbrake control module
4. Boost pump control module
5. and even a Landing gear control module.
It's a lot of stuff, but all of it will share the same proven circuit board
and MOSFET drive system. The common board design will accept an optional
pitot/static pressure transducer which, if opted for, will give true
variable speed trim motor operation based on IAS. It will also optionally
give the Flap Control Module "overspeed load relief" capability which
retracts the flaps for you (if you forget on a Go-Around). Think of this as
a life saver.
The new CPU also has a multi-channel 10 bit A/D converter so the module
can read flap position, speedbrake position, flap control lever position,
speed control lever position, airspeed, fuel pressure (for auto boost pump
operation) and on and on.
Currently the board is being tested. All is going well. I expect the first
versions of the high power TCM to available within 2 months. Followed by
the Speedbrake module, the boost pump module, Flap Control module and then
the Landing gear control module.
Basic operation is like this. Please send me ideas and suggestions to
operating modes now as this is the time to be heard.
1. TCM, same operation as current TCM only optional pitot/static
users
get true variable speed trim.
2, Flap Control Module. Either a selector lever positions the flaps or
three buttons marked UP,MID,FULL do. This will also accommodate Infinity
grips with the two position up/down switch. Holding the button for more that
one second causes flaps to drive full to the limit selected. Pitot/Static
versions always have load relief watching them. Flaps won't extend at
excessively high speeds, and will auto-retract at excessively high speeds.
Aircraft using a "flap selector lever" must install a feedback device on the
flap system to report flap position to the FCM. The flaps may be positioned
in
any position desired by moving the lever.
3.Speedbrake Control Module. Moving a lever commands the speed brake to move
the appropriate amount. An optional throttle switch will cause a "SPPEDBRAKE
WARNING" light to illuminate if the speedbrake are extended with the
throttle opened beyond a point determined by the builder. Feedback sensor
must be installed to speedbrake to report position back to SCM.
4. Boost Pump Control Module: Press the switch...pump on-light on,
press
again.pump off-light off. Low fuel pressure turns pump on-light on. After
fifteen minute of pump operation, switch LED begins to flash reminding pilot
to do something.
Keep building and keep dreaming, it's worth the wait!
Warmest Regards,
Bob Gross
For the latest F1 Rocket/Synthetic Vision progress, click here...
www.F1-RocketBoy.com <http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/>
-----Disclaimer---------
The contents of this E-mail (including contents of enclosure/(s) or
attachment/(s) if any are privileged & confidential material of Innovative
Aviation Systems Inc. or RocketBoy Aircraft Products Inc. and should not be
disclosed to, used by, or copied in any manner by anyone other than intended
addressee/(s).If this E-mail (including enclosure/(s) or attachment/(s) if
any has been received in error, please advise sender immediately and delete
it from your system. The views expressed in this E-mail message (including
enclosure/(s) or attachment/(s) if any are those of the individual sender.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Six versus Seven Safety |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
> The 7 has a bigger rudder. The 7 has more rudder authority in a spin.
It's not quite that clear cut. SB02-6-1 says, "Testing the RV-7 (N137RV)
reconfigured with an RV-9/9A rudder showed improved spin recovery qualities.
With this larger rudder, RV-7 spin recovery qualities are equal to or better
than those of the standard RV-6/6A, which have been service proven through
fleet experience."
In other words, the larger rudder was added to the -7 to bring it up to the
standard of the -6.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
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: Six versus Seven Safety |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
Thanks for the reply Kevin. I understand that it's because it was
designed that way, but what I was wondering is how/where that extra
strength was designed in.
Dave
Kevin Horton wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
>
>>It would be interesting to know why the 7 has a higher aerobatic gross
>>than the 6. Any ideas anyone?
>>
>>
>
>The RV-7 has a higher aerobatic gross weight than the -6 because that
>is the way Van designed it.
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Six versus Seven Safety |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bryan Jones" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
You know, I bet the -7 would have yet even better spin recovery
characteristics if it had a 737 vert stab & rudder!
Bryan
Houston
do not archive!
>Thanks for the reply Kevin. I understand that it's because it was
>designed that way, but what I was wondering is how/where that extra
>strength was designed in.
>
>Dave
>
>Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> >
> >
> >>It would be interesting to know why the 7 has a higher aerobatic gross
> >>than the 6. Any ideas anyone?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The RV-7 has a higher aerobatic gross weight than the -6 because that
> >is the way Van designed it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | RV6-a upper gear leg intersection Fairings attachment |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
My RV6-A is on the wheels in my garage. Bob's http://www.fairings-etc.com
wheel pant intersection fairings are fitted and laminated onto the Van's
wheel pants. Bob's parts dropped in place and it took me quite a lot of
effort to fit, laminate and finish to match the quality of his
craftsmanship. Thanks Bob!
Now I am looking for some ideas and hopefully some pictures as to attachment
of the upper leg intersection fairing to the fuselage.
I am looking for suggestions re- attachment points, hardware suggestions:
Rivnuts Platenuts, Tinnermans, Springs and mounting point locations etc.
I have been mulling this over for a while and have yet to settle them in
place.
If you have pictures I'd sure like to see them.
Thanks in advance,
Jim in Kelowna
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: Confused About Torque Specifications |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
No body seems to want to touch this so I'll give it what amounts to my 2
cents worth.
When you see a chart like is in Chapter 7 of AC 43.13-1B it is for
standard Aircraft Hardware. The torque indicated in these charts is
calculated to pre-stress the standard aircraft bolt to 40,000 psi for a bolt
used in tension and 24,000 psi for a bolt in a shear application. "Clamping
Force" is arrived at by the size and/or quantity fasteners used in the
application.
Other requirements of the standard are, AN310 nuts used in tension, AN320
nuts used in shear, and all standard Aircraft bolts are Cadmium plated. One
thing that is not made as clear as it could be is what constitutes the face
bearing area. The head of the bolt and the nut should both bear on a
standard AN960 Washer which is also cadmium plated. This Cadmium plating
provides the proper and uniform lubricant required to arrive at the
pre-stress requirement consistently.
On close examination of most washers you can see that one side is almost
perfectly flat and the other side is some what rounded over at the inside
and outside diameters from the manufacturing process. The flat side goes
toward the head of the bolt or the nut to provide the proper bearing area,
and the rounded side goes toward whatever is being bolted together so as not
to make a grove or nick that would be a stress riser.
Special applications torque values are set so as to arrive at the
pre-stress values required for the application and special fastener being
used. As in the case of a rod bolt, which is considerably stronger than a
standard bolt of the same size, it is not plated, the threads are most times
oiled, the nut is longer including more threads and the threads are somewhat
differently shaped. All this leads to a different torque value. The measured
torque values of lock nuts is also considered in torque values.
These torque values and how they are applied are critical. Someone one on
the list recently stated that "~ it might be time to come up with a new AC
43.13-1B for BOAM use". That publication now applies to Heavy Aircraft only
as FAA states on their web site that puts the responsibility for Standards
for Light Aircraft in the lap of the manufacturer.
I hope I haven't clouded the issues more than what were. I only post on
the list when I think safety is at risk.
John D. Heath
Point Blank, TX
~ 75 miles N. of Houston
----- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Confused About Torque Specifications
> --> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
> Listers,
>
> I have to wonder how critical these bolt torque specifications really
> are.
> The latter spec is not for connecting rods. Those call for 400 - 475
> in-lb
> for 3/8 - 24 threads. These must be better steel, so don't go this tight
> with standard AN bolts!
>
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A (Should be flying, but runway is snowed in.)
>
>
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: | Re: Six versus Seven Safety |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
Fiveonepw@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 02/05/2005 1:31:21 PM Central Standard Time,
>sarg314@comcast.net writes:
>The 7 has a bigger rudder. The 7 has more rudder authority in a spin.
>If I could refit my 6A with a 7 rudder, I would, but I'd have to change
>the Vert. Stabilizer too.
>
>
>
>FWIW, While getting some time in the factory -9 I asked a
>well-known-and-respected Van's transition training pilot about updating from the
-6 to the -7
>style before finishing my plane, and he replied that in his opinion, the original
>tail is perfectly suited to the -6 and wouldn't recommend it- nothing wrong
>with it, just not necessary.
>
I am sure you are talking about Mike. Mike has a lot of time in RVs but
that does not mean he is the end all answer man
or has all of the answers about flying RVs, he is only giving his
opinion. Now ask someone that has done it and see if they
think it makes a difference on how the -6 flies. Oh wait a minute I did
put the RV-7 rudder and stab on my R V-6 and
IMNSHO it makes "MY RV-6" fly and handle much better, It handles better
while taxiing, it handles X-wind landings
much better and I feel it does not have as much "waggle" in turbulence.
I am glad I did it and would do it again. YMMV.
> The primary reason for the change was that the -8
>needed the extra size and for parts commonality, not any shortcoming of the
>original design. Something else I'm curious about is the additional weight
>that far out on the tail and what effect on CG this has for lighter engine/prop
>combos- my O-320/FP composite prop is a bit tail-heavy as it is. (I should say
>nose-light, shouldn't I?) Not sure what the actual weight difference is
>(anybody?) but it sure is on a loooooong arm out there...
>
>
I do not know how it would effect an O-320/FP as I have a O-360FP
Sensenich I cannot feel any difference
in handling quality as far as weight is concerned. I do not have the
numbers here in front of me how much more
weight it added to the tail. If I remember I can get it out of my
airplane next time I am at the airport.
Jerry(Flying my antique RV-6 almost 16 year)Springer
do not archive
>Mark Phillips -6A
>
>
>
>
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: Proseal on all ribs or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
And I might add to what cgalley said, "You will be adding a lot of unneeded
black stuff to everything you own and a lot of energy and time you really
should save for the engine install."
do not archive
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
Evansville, Indiana (just north of western Kentucky)
----- Original Message -----
From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Proseal on all ribs or not
> --> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> You are adding weight for what? Corrosion should not be a problem unless
you
> land in the ocean. <GRIN>
>
> JBSBA!
>
> Cy Galley - Chair,
> AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
> A Service Project of Chapter 75
> EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
> EAA Sport Pilot
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "wskimike" <wskimike@mchsi.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Proseal on all ribs or not
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "wskimike" <wskimike@mchsi.com>
> >
> > My question is; Would it be better for corrosion purposes to use proseal
> on all ribs after primer and shoot the rivets wet or would it entrap water
> and cause more corrosion? I know you use it for fuel cells and pressurized
> cabins, but I was wondering if it would prevent corrosion or aid it.
> >
> >
>
>
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: | RV-6A nose gear top bolt |
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
There is an AN5-20 bolt that pins the top of the nose gear to the engine
mount. I had previously made a hole in the firewall (as per plans) so
allow access for a socket wrench to tighten this bolt. I also made a
plate to cover the hole. Installing the nose gear for real tonight (I
hang the engine tomorrow) I discovered that the AN5-20 bolt actually
interferes with the firewall - it's a bit too long. I can't screw my
cover plate over the hole when the bolt is in place.
Is this typical?
Only solution I can think of is to mount a 1/16" or 1/8" plate with a
hole in it on the cabin side of the firewall to effectively move the
cabin side of the firewall aft to allow room for the bolt.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, engine.
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: Six versus Seven Safety |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
>
>It would be interesting to know why the 7 has a higher aerobatic gross
>than the 6. Any ideas anyone?
>
>
There was some discussion about this when the 7 first hit the shelves.
IIRC part of the equation was that the 1375 weight of the -6 was a very
conservative number which had a large "fudge factor" for differences in
constsruction of different planes. With the -7 and the matched hole
kits, it was determined that the fudge factor did not have to be as
large, and this was one of the factors in the higher aerobatic gross
weight of the -7.
Jeff Point
RV-6 "Classic"
Milwaukee WI
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! --
|