Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:23 AM - Re: deburring dimpled holes (Jeff Point)
2. 12:25 AM - Re: Alodine safety (owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com)
3. 04:43 AM - Re: deburring dimpled holes (Jamie Painter)
4. 05:21 AM - new feature found with the alt. warning light (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
5. 05:36 AM - Re: new feature found with the alt. warning light (linn walters)
6. 05:59 AM - Daily Motivator (Matthew Brandes)
7. 06:09 AM - Re: new feature found with the alt. warning light (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
8. 06:16 AM - Re: hartzell CS props (Scott Bilinski)
9. 06:17 AM - Dressing a Scotch Brite Wheel (alan@reichertech.com)
10. 06:31 AM - Re: new feature found with the alt. warning light (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
11. 06:49 AM - Re: pourable tank sealant??followup (REHughes)
12. 07:07 AM - Re: new feature found with the alt. warning light (Dave Bristol)
13. 07:24 AM - Re: deburring dimpled holes (Harold Roman)
14. 07:30 AM - Wiring hobbs to alt. (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
15. 07:37 AM - Re: deburring dimpled holes (DAVID REEL)
16. 07:53 AM - Re: Wiring hobbs to alt. (Sam Buchanan)
17. 08:00 AM - Re: new feature found with the alt. warning light (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
18. 08:18 AM - Re: Alodine safety (Chuck Jensen)
19. 08:28 AM - Re: hartzell CS props (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
20. 08:50 AM - Re: Re: deburring dimpled holes (linn walters)
21. 10:59 AM - Re: Wiring hobbs to alt. (John D. Heath)
22. 12:17 PM - Re: hartzell CS props ()
23. 01:38 PM - Re: Dressing a Scotch Brite Wheel (Richard V. Reynolds)
24. 03:55 PM - How many clecos needed for wings? (Richard Scott)
25. 04:11 PM - Re: How many clecos needed for wings? (Kyle Boatright)
26. 04:26 PM - panel label engraving with back lighting (Wayne Pedersen)
27. 04:45 PM - Re: deburring dimpled holes (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
28. 04:46 PM - Re: panel label engraving with back lighting (Brian Kraut)
29. 04:54 PM - Re: Dressing a Scotch Brite Wheel (Brett Morawski)
30. 05:14 PM - Re: pourable tank sealant??followup (Paul Trotter)
31. 05:31 PM - RV8 and aerobatics ()
32. 05:47 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (Jerry Springer)
33. 05:49 PM - Re: Wiring hobbs to alt. (Dave Bristol)
34. 05:52 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (Bryan Jones)
35. 06:10 PM - TEST ()
36. 06:16 PM - Re: deburring dimpled holes (dfenstermacher@earthlink.net)
37. 06:18 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
38. 06:36 PM - Re: TEST (JOHN STARN)
39. 06:36 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (James Freeman)
40. 06:36 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (cgalley)
41. 06:41 PM - Re: TEST (Dave Bristol)
42. 06:46 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (Bryan Jones)
43. 06:58 PM - Re: pourable tank sealant??followup (Charlie England)
44. 07:12 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (Jerry Springer)
45. 07:13 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
46. 07:36 PM - Re: deburring dimpled holes (Dan Checkoway)
47. 07:37 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (Brian Denk)
48. 07:47 PM - Building an RV to sell (james frierson)
49. 07:49 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (James Freeman)
50. 07:51 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (James Freeman)
51. 07:58 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (Charlie England)
52. 08:14 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (Stein Bruch)
53. 08:15 PM - Re: Starter Motor (DejaVu)
54. 08:20 PM - Re: Building an RV to sell (John Spicer)
55. 08:48 PM - Re: Starter Motor (Dave Bristol)
56. 08:54 PM - Re: Starter Motor (KIMSEYCO@aol.com)
57. 10:23 PM - Re: Building an RV to sell (Jim Jewell)
58. 10:35 PM - Re: RV8 and aerobatics (linn walters)
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: deburring dimpled holes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Looking at the quoted reference, it seems that you are confusing
dimpling with machine countersinking. A hole which is to be machine
countersunk is not separately deburred, since the machine countersink
process is really just overly aggressive deburring anyway. You
absolutely should debur any holes before dimpling.
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee WI
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by:
Alodine contains hexavalent Chromium - that is the really nasty stuff. It is
highly cancerigenus. You don't want to breathe it in, swallow any, get it to
go into your skin, get it into your garden where you shall be raising home
grown veggies...
There might be some Alodine without hexa Chromium however I'd presume at
first that it does contain it.
Michle - RV8 - France
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Kraut
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 3:59 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Alodine safety
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut@engalt.com>
>
> I bought some DuPont aluminum conversion treatment from my local paint
> store
> when I got some Imron. I assumed that it was just normal Alodine. I just
> read the bottles and there are a bunch of warnings about respirators,
> cancer, etc. I remember in A&P school 15 years ago that we just wore
> gloves. Is this normal for all Alodines or did I just buy some
> particularly
> nasty stuff? Is there different Alodine I can buy that I don't need to
> wear
> a respirator with?
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
>
>
>
>
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: deburring dimpled holes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter@jpainter.org>
> Should holes that are going to be dimpled be deburred first? I thought all
> holes should be deburred after drilling. However, in "Standard Aircraft
> Handbook" by Larry Reithmaier I find it says "Deburring shall not be
> prerformed on predrilled holes that are to be subsequently form countersunk."
>
> So what's wrong with deburring and dimpling? Is this inviting cracks to form?
> Do I need to replace the parts where I've done this?
>
> Harold
I think he's talking about machine countersinking, not dimpling. It doesn't
make sense to deburr a hole when you're about to countersink through the
material.
- Jamie
--
Jamie D. Painter
RV-7A wings N622JP (reserved)
http://rv.jpainter.org
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: | new feature found with the alt. warning light |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
While testing my panel mounted alt. fail light, which is simply one wire
to the alternator which has built in an idiot warning light, I found an
undocumented feature.
While your master switch is on, and the alternator is not turning, the
light is on. It is the perfect "you left your master sw on you dope"
light.
This is with the Mitsubushi 60a alternator 3 plug.
I am not exactly sure what this light would indicate in flight if the
light came on though?
Not charging? No field? I dunno.
Mike
Do not archive
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: new feature found with the alt. warning light |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>
>While testing my panel mounted alt. fail light, which is simply one wire
>to the alternator which has built in an idiot warning light, I found an
>undocumented feature.
>
>While your master switch is on, and the alternator is not turning, the
>light is on. It is the perfect "you left your master sw on you dope"
>light.
>
>
>This is with the Mitsubushi 60a alternator 3 plug.
>
>I am not exactly sure what this light would indicate in flight if the
>light came on though?
>
Red light ? Stop and wait for it to turn green??? OK, bad joke. :-[
>Not charging? No field?
>
Yes, or yes.
Linn
do not archive
> I dunno.
>
>
>Mike
>
>Do not archive
>
>
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew@n523rv.com>
(Seemed relative.. )
THE DAILY MOTIVATOR
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Just go ahead
+++++++++++++++++++
Don't worry that there's not enough time. Just get started
and go from there.
Don't worry that it won't be perfect. Just get going and
give it your very best.
Don't be concerned about what others may think. Just go
ahead and do what you know is best, what you know is right
for you.
Don't be discouraged when you encounter obstacles. Just work
your way diligently through each one.
Don't give up when the first attempt does not work out. Just
learn from your mistakes and get going again.
There will always be plenty of excuses for not taking
action, yet to achieve you must choose to look beyond those
excuses. Just go ahead and get it done.
Ralph Marston
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: new feature found with the alt. warning light |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Mike,
I have the Van's 60 amp alternator. Is this a Mitsubishi? If so, which
wire out of the alternator goes to the warning light? I purposely ran the two
wires from the field breaker separately in case I could add the warning light,
etc.
Thanks,
Dan Hopper
RV-7A (Flying)
In a message dated 2/16/05 8:22:43 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
mstewart@iss.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
While testing my panel mounted alt. fail light, which is simply one wire
to the alternator which has built in an idiot warning light, I found an
undocumented feature.
While your master switch is on, and the alternator is not turning, the
light is on. It is the perfect "you left your master sw on you dope"
light.
This is with the Mitsubushi 60a alternator 3 plug.
I am not exactly sure what this light would indicate in flight if the
light came on though?
Not charging? No field? I dunno.
Mike
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: hartzell CS props |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Another restriction of the BF prop is max RPM after take off, 2600. So you
speed freaks wont like that.
At 03:17 AM 2/16/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>With respect to George in the email below, his info is wrong on the new
>blended Hartzell prop. It does have midrange restrictions. See Van's
>catalog for further details.
>
>Also, Van's could stand to update the info on the Blended
>Prop. Hartzell's testing with it using the 200 hp Angle Valve engine is
>over and the combo flunked. They will not recommend the combo. Further,
>they told me it would not be earlier than this fall before they might have
>another blended airfoil available to test with the 200 hp engine.
>
>On the flip side, they did throw a bone out and told me that they do
>currently make composite props for certain folks in the acro crowd but
>they don't sell through vendors like Van's. Very limited basis and very
>expensive. However, they are expecting to have a major price
>DECREASE shortly in composite props with the intent of being competitive
>against the MTs and the Whirwinds.
>
>Anyway, I said back in November they were testing the blended prop and
>report back. Now I have and sorry to say the cooler looking new prop
>didn't make the grade.
>
>Lucky
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > First, I need to apologize to all of you that the information I provided
> > conflicted with your beliefs.
> > Second, I need to apologize for not having the foresight to include all
> > required technical information.
> >
> > If having the theoretical optimum efficiency propeller was required for
> > flight, we would still be waiting for the Wright brother's first flight.
> >
> > From my old fading memory (Hi Doug Preston), the maximum theoretical
> > propeller efficiency for a 2 blade propeller is around 91.5%, and the 3
> blade is
> > around 90.7%.
> >
> > The actual propeller efficiency can be very close to the theoretical
> maximum
> > propeller efficiency.
> >
> > Since we are really concerned about the real world application of existing
> > propellers for our aircraft, and are not still waiting for the perfect
> > propeller, where does that leave us?
> >
> > IMHO, typical propeller efficiencies for our aircraft in cruise are about
> > 88%.
> >
> > On a RV-6A with a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine, I tested four different
> > propellers and found the actual propeller efficiencies to be almost
> identical.
> > Three of the propellers were 2 blade propellers. One was a 3 blade
> propeller.
> >
> > So now I'll tell you what I believe.
> > The actual propeller efficiencies are far enough off of the theoretical
> > propeller efficiencies that a custom designed 3 blade propeller can
> have the
> > same, or better, actual propeller efficiency than a 2 blade propeller.
> >
> > In fact, I asked MT Propeller to design a 4 blade propeller for my HR2.
> The
> > propeller efficiency analysis predicts the same efficiency as the 3
> blade MT
> > Rocket propeller. Once I decided on the paint colors for the propeller, I
> > will be ordering a 4 blade MT propeller for my HR2.
> > By flight test, I already established the cruise propeller efficiency
> to be
> > the same between the 2 blade Hartzell propellers (both "D" and "J"
> blade) and
> > the 3 blade MT Rocket propeller.
> >
> > More real world stuff, if you are not interested in cruise performance.
> > Let's say your mission is to go as fast as possible on the deck at maximum
> > RPM.
> > My performance data indicates that the 2 blade Hartzell propeller works
> > slightly better on the RV-6A under these conditions.
> > Tracy Saylor's performance data between his highly modified Hartzell
> > propeller and an MT 3 blade propeller says the same thing.
> > For now, "Use the 2 blade Hartzell propeller."
> >
> > Back to normal cruise conditions at 1,000' and 12,000'.
> > Tracy Saylor's data shows that the 2 blade and 3 blade propeller
> performance
> > is the same at 2500 RPM and below.
> >
> > Why go below 2500 RPM? (I know. You didn't ask.) (Back to the RV-6A.)
> > Because the cruise efficiency (and range) is optimized at the lower RPM.
> > Even as low as 2100 to 2200 RPM. (Full throttle fuel flow decreases MUCH
> > faster than airspeed below 2500 RPM. At 12,000', the airspeed didn't
> appear to
> > change between 2500 RPM and 2200 RPM. Just the fuel flow changed.)
> >
> > MT Propeller has just completed the analysis and testing on their new 3
> > blade RV propeller for the Lycoming 360 non counterweighted engines.
> > The 3 blade MTV-12-B/183-59b manufactured after January 2005 has no mid
> > range RPM restrictions on the Lycoming 360 engine. Unfortunately for me, I
> > just
> > ordered the metal 2 blade MTV-15-B/183-402 propeller for my RV-6A.
> > (Yes, MT Propeller has an aluminum blade 2 blade RV propeller for the
> > Lycoming 360 engine with no mid range RPM restriction. Vibration
> testing done
> > using high compression pistons and electronic ignition.)
> >
> > If you have any technical questions regarding MT Propeller's testing,
> please
> > send Eric Greindl an email at _Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com_
> > (mailto:Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com) , or call Eric at
> 011-49-9429-94-09-19.
> > Eric speaks
> > excellent English and Germany is 8 hours earlier than PST. (Eric's
> title is
> > Sales Manager, but his actual function appears to be general manager.)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jim Ayers
> >
> > In a message dated 02/13/2005 11:59:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> >
> > Les:
> >
> > I guess I am not sure what the answer is regarding the MT two blade
> (metal)
> > prop
> > for the 180HP or 200HP Lycoming (I)O-360. You state they have certified
> > applications
> > and "Done that been there" but inquiring minds want to know...I think
> > the point Kevin was making is:
> >
> > Has MT specifically tested their prop with Lightspeed ignition, LASAR
> > ignition,
> > FADEC and High Compression Pistons. Hartzell is supporting the
> experimental
> > market
> > by actually testing a wide variety of props and even brands of engines
> like
> > the XP-360, on a RV-8 of all things. I sure would like to see something
> like
> > that from MT, stating they have done vibration surveys with these
> different
> > configurations. No offense, but what does "Done that been there" mean?
> Prop
> > manufactures
> > have no obligation to test props for the experimental market.
> >
> > As far as "being sorry" for those of us with Hartzell props, I know you
> are
> > kidding.
> > Hartzell performance and the performance of their new Blended Airfoil
> model
> > is without compare and has no mid-range RPM restriction on the 180hp Lyc
> > with
> > E ignition or FADEC. Also the Hartzell has widely available service and
> > parts,
> > new or reconditioned, and they cost less than the MT. If the new MT has no
> > restrictions with 10.5 to 1 pistons and E ignition, than this is a
> fantastic
> > additional choice for the experimental market. However, to assume it
> has no
> > restrictions
> > on a highly modified engine, based on a STC for stock engines, is
> > not precise. I would call MT myself but I don't: "sprechen Sie Deutsches"
> >
> > Keep up the good work Les, Cheers George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>With respect to George in the email below, his info is wrong on the new
>blended Hartzell prop. It does have midrange restrictions. See Van's
>catalog for further details.
>
>Also, Van's could stand to update the info on the Blended Prop. Hartzell's
>testing with it using the 200 hp Angle Valve engine is over and the combo
>flunked. They will not recommend the combo. Further, they told me it would
>not beearlier than thisfall before they might have another blended airfoil
>available to test with the 200 hp engine.
>
>On the flip side, they did throw a bone out and told me that they do
>currently make composite props for certain folks in the acro crowd but
>they don't sell through vendors like Van's. Very limited basis and very
>expensive. However, they are expecting to have a major price DECREASE
>shortly in composite props with the intent of being competitive against
>the MTs and the Whirwinds.
>
>Anyway, I said back in November they were testing the blended prop and
>report back. Now I have and sorry to say the cooler looking new prop
>didn't make the grade.
>
>Lucky
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> First, I need to apologize to all of you that the information I provided
> conflicted with your beliefs.
> Second, I need to apologize for not having the foresight to include all
> required technical information.
>
> If having the theoretical optimum efficiency propeller was required for
> flight, we would still be waiting for the Wright brother's first flight.
>
> From my old fading memory (Hi Doug Preston), the maximum theoretical
> propeller efficiency for a 2 blade propeller is around 91.5%, and the 3
> blade is
> around 90.7%.
>
> The actual propeller efficiency can be very close to the theoretical
> maximum
> propeller efficiency.
>
>
> Since we are really concerned about the real world application of existing
> propellers for our aircraft, and are not still waiting for the perfect
> propeller, where does that leave us?
>
> IMHO, typical propeller efficiencies for our aircraft in cruise are about
> 88%.
>
> On a RV-6A with a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine, I tested four different
> propellers and found the actual propeller efficiencies to be almost
> identical.
> Three of the propellers were 2 blade propellers. One was a 3 blade
> propeller.
>
> So now I'll tell you what I believe.
> The actual propeller efficiencies are far enough off of the theoretical
> propeller efficiencies that a custom designed 3 blade propeller can have
> the
> same, or better, actual propeller efficiency than a 2 blade propeller.
>
> In fact, I asked MT Propeller to design a 4 blade propeller for my HR2. The
>&g
> t; propeller efficiency analysis predicts the same efficiency as the 3
> blade MT
> Rocket propeller. Once I decided on the paint colors for the propeller, I
> will be ordering a 4 blade MT propeller for my HR2.
> By flight test, I already established the cruise propeller efficiency to be
> the same between the 2 blade Hartzell propellers (both "D" and "J"
> blade) and
> the 3 blade MT Rocket propeller.
>
> More real world stuff, if you are not interested in cruise performance.
> Let's say your mission is to go as fast as possible on the deck at maximum
> RPM.
> My performance data indicates that the 2 blade Hartzell propeller works
> slightly better on the RV-6A under these conditions.
> Tracy Saylor's performance data between his highly modified Hartzell
> propeller and an MT 3 blade propeller says the same thing.
> For now, "Use the 2 blade Hartzell propeller."
>
>
> Back to normal cruise conditions at 1,000' and 12,000'.
> Tracy Saylor's data shows that the 2 blade and 3 blade propeller
> performance
> is the same at 2500 RPM and below.
>
> Why go below 2500 RPM? (I know. You didn't ask.) (Back to the RV-6A.)
> Because the cruise efficiency (and range) is optimized at the lower RPM.
> Even as low as 2100 to 2200 RPM. (Full throttle fuel flow decreases MUCH
> faster than airspeed below 2500 RPM. At 12,000', the airspeed didn't
> appear to
> change between 2500 RPM and 2200 RPM. Just the fuel flow changed.)
>
> MT Propeller has just completed the analysis and testing on their new 3
> blade RV propeller for the Lycoming 360 non counterweighted engines.
> The 3 blade MTV-12-B/183-59b manufactured after January 2005 has no mid
> range RPM restrictions on the Lycoming 360 engine. Unfortunately for me, I
> just
> ordered the metal 2 blade MTV-1
> 5-B/183-402 propeller for my RV-6A.
> (Yes, MT Propeller has an aluminum blade 2 blade RV propeller for the
> Lycoming 360 engine with no mid range RPM restriction. Vibration testing
> done
> using high compression pistons and electronic ignition.)
>
> If you have any technical questions regarding MT Propeller's testing,
> please
> send Eric Greindl an email at _Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com_
> (mailto:Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com) , or call Eric at
> 011-49-9429-94-09-19.
> Eric speaks
> excellent English and Germany is 8 hours earlier than PST. (Eric's title is
> Sales Manager, but his actual function appears to be general manager.)
>
> Regards,
> Jim Ayers
>
> In a message dated 02/13/2005 11:59:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>
> Les:
>
> I guess I am not sure what the answer is regarding the MT two bla
> de (metal)
> prop
> for the 180HP or 200HP Lycoming (I)O-360. You state they have certified
> applications
> and "Done that been there" but inquiring minds want to know...I think
> the point Kevin was making is:
>
> Has MT specifically tested their prop with Lightspeed ignition, LASAR
> ignition,
> FADEC and High Compression Pistons. Hartzell is supporting the experimental
> market
> by actually testing a wide variety of props and even brands of engines like
> the XP-360, on a RV-8 of all things. I sure would like to see something
> like
> that from MT, stating they have done vibration surveys with these different
> configurations. No offense, but what does "Done that been there" mean? Prop
> manufactures
> have no obligation to test props for the experimental market.
>
> As far as "being sorry" for those of us with Hartzell props, I know you are
>&g
> t; kidding.
> Hartzell performance and the performance of their new Blended Airfoil model
> is without compare and has no mid-range RPM restriction on the 180hp Lyc
> with
> E ignition or FADEC. Also the Hartzell has widely available service and
> parts,
> new or reconditioned, and they cost less than the MT. If the new MT has no
> restrictions with 10.5 to 1 pistons and E ignition, than this is a
> fantastic
> additional choice for the experimental market. However, to assume it has no
> restrictions
> on a highly modified engine, based on a STC for stock engines, is
> not precise. I would call MT myself but I don't: "sprechen Sie Deutsches"
>
> Keep up the good work Les, Cheers George
>
>
> utions
> /trouble-report
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: | Dressing a Scotch Brite Wheel |
--> RV-List message posted by: alan@reichertech.com
All,
With some of the shaping I've been doing with the Scotch Brite wheel, it
has developed some grooves in it's surface. Is there a recommended way to
dress a Scotch Brite wheel so it's surface is flat again?
--
Alan Reichert
RV-8 N927AR (reserved)
Horizontal/Vertical Stabilizer Spars...
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: | new feature found with the alt. warning light |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
I do not know what Vans sells. I am installing in an IO-540 so I bought
mine from a supplier for that engine with the proper mount. Ill bet it
is the same. Does it look like this?
http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/alternator.htm
Mike
S8
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hopperdhh@aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: new feature found with the alt. warning light
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Mike,
I have the Van's 60 amp alternator. Is this a Mitsubishi? If so,
which
wire out of the alternator goes to the warning light? I purposely ran
the two
wires from the field breaker separately in case I could add the warning
light,
etc.
Thanks,
Dan Hopper
RV-7A (Flying)
In a message dated 2/16/05 8:22:43 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
mstewart@iss.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
While testing my panel mounted alt. fail light, which is simply one
wire
to the alternator which has built in an idiot warning light, I found an
undocumented feature.
While your master switch is on, and the alternator is not turning, the
light is on. It is the perfect "you left your master sw on you dope"
light.
This is with the Mitsubushi 60a alternator 3 plug.
I am not exactly sure what this light would indicate in flight if the
light came on though?
Not charging? No field? I dunno.
Mike
Do not archive
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: pourable tank sealant??followup |
--> RV-List message posted by: "REHughes" <hawk@digisys.net>
Paul,
Are you familiar with the relative physical properties of the PRC-Desoto
Type A (brush applied) and Type C (roller applied) ProSeal variants? Which
one would be more appropriate for bonding the control surface stiffeners (in
combination with rivets) and for use in other faying surface sealing
applications ?
Thanks for your opinion,
Hawkeye
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Trotter" <ptrotter@acm.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: pourable tank sealant??followup
> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
>
> Charlie,
>
> It is interesting that Flamemaster recommended this product. It seems to
> be
> designed primarily as an adhesive for bonding. By the way, the TDS you
> reference is old and has been superceded by a newer version that is
> somewhat
> different and seems to limit the product to bonding applications. The new
> version, which can be found at
> http://www.flamemaster.com/Products&Services/prod02.htm eliminates any
> reference to top-coating or sloshing in the application section. They may
> have run into the peeling problem that you mentioned.
>
> Personally, I would drill out the rivets and start over with sealant, but
> if
> I were to try an repair it in place, I would use the "A" version of the
> CS3204 or thin the CS3204B with Toluene rather than use a 1 part material.
>
> I am also surprised they recommended this for access plate sealing as it
> is
> primarily an adhesive and would probably be difficult to remove. They
> make
> a low adhesive product just for this purpose, CS3330, which is probably
> more
> appropriate. Of course it is always nice to be able to limit yourself to
> a
> single product for multiple purposes. I ordered a 1 oz. kit of CS3330 to
> do
> my access plates. I think it cost about $8.
>
> In any case, I would be very interested in how it works out for you.
>
> Paul
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: new feature found with the alt. warning light |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
In order to use this feature, the red light is usually connected from
the idiot light wire (from the alternator) to the 12v buss, that way
when the alternator is stopped, and that wire is essentially grounded,
the light will light. You can also use that wire to run your Hobbs meter
since it puts out voltage only when the engine is running.
Dave -6 So Cal
EAA Technical Counselor
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>
>While testing my panel mounted alt. fail light, which is simply one wire
>to the alternator which has built in an idiot warning light, I found an
>undocumented feature.
>
>While your master switch is on, and the alternator is not turning, the
>light is on. It is the perfect "you left your master sw on you dope"
>light.
>
>
>This is with the Mitsubushi 60a alternator 3 plug.
>
>I am not exactly sure what this light would indicate in flight if the
>light came on though?
>
>Not charging? No field? I dunno.
>
>
>Mike
>
>Do not archive
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: deburring dimpled holes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Harold Roman <haroldroman00@yahoo.com>
Thanks for the reply. I tried to read this pretty carefully, because it didn't
seem right to me either. The book does seem to be pretty clear in distinguishing
between machine countersinking (cut countersink) and form countersinking (dimpling).
I'm looking at the sixth edition and on page 88 I see:
"Flush head rivets (100 degree countersunk) require a countersunk hole prepared
for the manufactured rivet head to nest in. This is accomplished by one of two
methodes: machine countersinking or form countersinking (dimpling) ..."
So maybe it's just a typo or an editorial slip? Well the same advice is given in
two different places. On page 87 is the bit I quoted in my first post:
"Deburring shall not be prerformed on predrilled holes that are to be subsequently
form countersunk."
Then again on page 94 I find:
"Do not burr holes to be form countersunk, except on titanium."
Ok, so what is that "burr" part? Don't we want to "deburr" the holes? The book
uses 'burring', 'deburring', and 'debunking', interchangably as seen this on page
87:
"Drilling operations cause burrs to form on each side of the sheet and between
sheets. Removal of these burrs, called 'debunking' or 'burring', must be performed
..."
Sorry for turning this into some sort of academic disection of the "Standard Aircraft
Book". But I'm rather simple and I'm getting worried about cracks developing
from all my flush rivets.
Harold
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: | Wiring hobbs to alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Dave I don't see how this would work.
With the engine running, this ground is open. This seems to be backwards
from what the hobbs would require. It would want closed when running
right?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Bristol
Subject: Re: RV-List: new feature found with the alt. warning light
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
In order to use this feature, the red light is usually connected from
the idiot light wire (from the alternator) to the 12v buss, that way
when the alternator is stopped, and that wire is essentially grounded,
the light will light. You can also use that wire to run your Hobbs meter
since it puts out voltage only when the engine is running.
Dave -6 So Cal
EAA Technical Counselor
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
>
>While testing my panel mounted alt. fail light, which is simply one
wire
>to the alternator which has built in an idiot warning light, I found an
>undocumented feature.
>
>While your master switch is on, and the alternator is not turning, the
>light is on. It is the perfect "you left your master sw on you dope"
>light.
>
>
>This is with the Mitsubushi 60a alternator 3 plug.
>
>I am not exactly sure what this light would indicate in flight if the
>light came on though?
>
>Not charging? No field? I dunno.
>
>
>Mike
>
>Do not archive
>
>
>
>
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: deburring dimpled holes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
"Standard Aircraft Handbook"
by Larry Reithmaier I find it says "Deburring shall not be prerformed on
predrilled
holes that are to be subsequently form countersunk."
I can readily imagine how ugly and crack inviting a hole dimpled without removing
the burr often left after dirlling would be. Dimpling expands the diameter
of a hole so a sharp edge is an invitation to crack even without a burr. I simply
would ignore this advice regardless of how authoritatively it is presented.
To me, such a statement is a red flag bringing the rest of the book into
question. Haven't read it though.
That said, I recall hearing of a study done by Mooney aircraft to see if structural
assembly could be streamlined by elimination of the deburring step. Does
anyone have the details of their conclusions?
Dave Reel - RV8A
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: Wiring hobbs to alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>
> Dave I don't see how this would work.
> With the engine running, this ground is open. This seems to be backwards
> from what the hobbs would require. It would want closed when running
> right?
> Mike
Mike, I think what is happening with the "idiot light" pin on the
alternator is the alternator sends 12v to the light when the alternator
is running. Since the light has 12v supplied to the other side of it,
there is no ground and the light doesn't energize.
As the alternator winds down (or fails), the light sees a dropping
voltage until it eventually sees ground and then energizes.
The Hobbs will work if it is grounded on one end and connected to the
alternator light pin on the other. That way it will start turning when
the alternator sends 12v to the meter.
Can both the light and meter be connected to the alternator at the same
time? I'll leave that one to somebody with better electrical skills than
myself.
Sam Buchanan
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: new feature found with the alt. warning light |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
In a message dated 2/16/05 9:32:34 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
mstewart@iss.net writes:
I do not know what Vans sells. I am installing in an IO-540 so I bought
mine from a supplier for that engine with the proper mount. Ill bet it
is the same. Does it look like this?
http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/alternator.htm
Mike
S8
Mike,
Yes, I think so, but your pictures look like Van's 35 amp. But the 60 amp
does use the same 3 pin connector. I suspected that one lead was sense and
one was indicator. I think your theory may be backwards about connecting the
two leads together. The drop in the lead will cause the alternator voltage to
go up (only a little) since it will try to make the voltage at the pin be
14.5 volts. I have been looking for a way to drop the voltage about 1/2 volt.
Any ideas? The only thing I can think of is to introduce 1/2 volt in series
with the sense lead from an isolated power supply. That gets a little
messy! My voltage runs about 14.7, although I haven't measured it with a digital
meter to be sure yet.
Thanks for the reply,
Dan Hopper
RV-7A (Flying)
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Hexavalent chromium (chromates) migrates to the bone marrow where it does its dirty
work (carcinogenic). All of the identified uptake routes are certainly valid.
Particularly problematic is uptake through the skin (in liquid form) or
ingestion through breathing of dust/mist. Once uptake occurs, it is not eliminated
from the body thru expiration or excretion. This is one of those instances
where the product can be as bad as the warning labels indicate. Used properly
and with appropriate protection, it is a perfectly safe product. So, be
careful.
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]
Subject: RE: RV-List: Alodine safety
--> RV-List message posted by:
Alodine contains hexavalent Chromium - that is the really nasty stuff. It is
highly cancerigenus. You don't want to breathe it in, swallow any, get it to
go into your skin, get it into your garden where you shall be raising home
grown veggies...
There might be some Alodine without hexa Chromium however I'd presume at
first that it does contain it.
Michle - RV8 - France
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Kraut
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 3:59 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Alodine safety
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut@engalt.com>
>
> I bought some DuPont aluminum conversion treatment from my local paint
> store
> when I got some Imron. I assumed that it was just normal Alodine. I just
> read the bottles and there are a bunch of warnings about respirators,
> cancer, etc. I remember in A&P school 15 years ago that we just wore
> gloves. Is this normal for all Alodines or did I just buy some
> particularly
> nasty stuff? Is there different Alodine I can buy that I don't need to
> wear
> a respirator with?
>
> Brian Kraut
> Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
> www.engalt.com
>
>
>
>
>
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: hartzell CS props |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
yep. having a counterbalanced crankshaft, the engineer gave me a CS prop which
had zero restrictions of any kind on it and to paraphrase him, he didn't think
the difference between prop types was worth waiting for.
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
>
> Another restriction of the BF prop is max RPM after take off, 2600. So you
> speed freaks wont like that.
>
>
> At 03:17 AM 2/16/2005 +0000, you wrote:
> >--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> >With respect to George in the email below, his info is wrong on the new
> >blended Hartzell prop. It does have midrange restrictions. See Van's
> >catalog for further details.
> >
> >Also, Van's could stand to update the info on the Blended
> >Prop. Hartzell's testing with it using the 200 hp Angle Valve engine is
> >over and the combo flunked. They will not recommend the combo. Further,
> >they told me it would not be earlier than this fall before they might have
> >another blended airfoil available to test with the 200 hp engine.
> >
> >On the flip side, they did throw a bone out and told me that they do
> >currently make composite props for certain folks in the acro crowd but
> >they don't sell through vendors like Van's. Very limited basis and very
> >expensive. However, they are expecting to have a major price
> >DECREASE shortly in composite props with the intent of being competitive
> >against the MTs and the Whirwinds.
> >
> >Anyway, I said back in November they were testing the blended prop and
> >report back. Now I have and sorry to say the cooler looking new prop
> >didn't make the grade.
> >
> >Lucky
> >
> >-------------- Original message --------------
> >
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > First, I need to apologize to all of you that the information I provided
> > > conflicted with your beliefs.
> > > Second, I need to apologize for not having the foresight to include all
> > > required technical information.
> > >
> > > If having the theoretical optimum efficiency propeller was required for
> > > flight, we would still be waiting for the Wright brother's first flight.
> > >
> > > From my old fading memory (Hi Doug Preston), the maximum theoretical
> > > propeller efficiency for a 2 blade propeller is around 91.5%, and the 3
> > blade is
> > > around 90.7%.
> > >
> > > The actual propeller efficiency can be very close to the theoretical
> > maximum
> > > propeller efficiency.
> > >
> > > Since we are really concerned about the real world application of existing
> > > propellers for our aircraft, and are not still waiting for the perfect
> > > propeller, where does that leave us?
> > >
> > > IMHO, typical propeller efficiencies for our aircraft in cruise are about
> > > 88%.
> > >
> > > On a RV-6A with a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine, I tested four different
> > > propellers and found the actual propeller efficiencies to be almost
> > identical.
> > > Three of the propellers were 2 blade propellers. One was a 3 blade
> > propeller.
> > >
> > > So now I'll tell you what I believe.
> > > The actual propeller efficiencies are far enough off of the theoretical
> > > propeller efficiencies that a custom designed 3 blade propeller can
> > have the
> > > same, or better, actual propeller efficiency than a 2 blade propeller.
> > >
> > > In fact, I asked MT Propeller to design a 4 blade propeller for my HR2.
> > The
> > > propeller efficiency analysis predicts the same efficiency as the 3
> > blade MT
> > > Rocket propeller. Once I decided on the paint colors for the propeller, I
> > > will be ordering a 4 blade MT propeller for my HR2.
> > > By flight test, I already established the cruise propeller efficiency
> > to be
> > > the same between the 2 blade Hartzell propellers (both "D" and "J"
> > blade) and
> > > the 3 blade MT Rocket propeller.
> > >
> > > More real world stuff, if you are not interested in cruise performance.
> > > Let's say your mission is to go as fast as possible on the deck at maximum
> > > RPM.
> > > My performance data indicates that the 2 blade Hartzell propeller works
> > > slightly better on the RV-6A under these conditions.
> > > Tracy Saylor's performance data between his highly modified Hartzell
> > > propeller and an MT 3 blade propeller says the same thing.
> > > For now, "Use the 2 blade Hartzell propeller."
> > >
> > > Back to normal cruise conditions at 1,000' and 12,000'.
> > > Tracy Saylor's data shows that the 2 blade and 3 blade propeller
> > performance
> > > is the same at 2500 RPM and below.
> > >
> > > Why go below 2500 RPM? (I know. You didn't ask.) (Back to the RV-6A.)
> > > Because the cruise efficiency (and range) is optimized at the lower RPM.
> > > Even as low as 2100 to 2200 RPM. (Full throttle fuel flow decreases MUCH
> > > faster than airspeed below 2500 RPM. At 12,000', the airspeed didn't
> > appear to
> > > change between 2500 RPM and 2200 RPM. Just the fuel flow changed.)
> > >
> > > MT Propeller has just completed the analysis and testing on their new 3
> > > blade RV propeller for the Lycoming 360 non counterweighted engines.
> > > The 3 blade MTV-12-B/183-59b manufactured after January 2005 has no mid
> > > range RPM restrictions on the Lycoming 360 engine. Unfortunately for me,
I
> > > just
> > > ordered the metal 2 blade MTV-15-B/183-402 propeller for my RV-6A.
> > > (Yes, MT Propeller has an aluminum blade 2 blade RV propeller for the
> > > Lycoming 360 engine with no mid range RPM restriction. Vibration
> > testing done
> > > using high compression pistons and electronic ignition.)
> > >
> > > If you have any technical questions regarding MT Propeller's testing,
> > please
> > > send Eric Greindl an email at _Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com_
> > > (mailto:Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com) , or call Eric at
> > 011-49-9429-94-09-19.
> > > Eric speaks
> > > excellent English and Germany is 8 hours earlier than PST. (Eric's
> > title is
> > > Sales Manager, but his actual function appears to be general manager.)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jim Ayers
> > >
> > > In a message dated 02/13/2005 11:59:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > > rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> > >
> > > Les:
> > >
> > > I guess I am not sure what the answer is regarding the MT two blade
> > (metal)
> > > prop
> > > for the 180HP or 200HP Lycoming (I)O-360. You state they have certified
> > > applications
> > > and "Done that been there" but inquiring minds want to know...I think
> > > the point Kevin was making is:
> > >
> > > Has MT specifically tested their prop with Lightspeed ignition, LASAR
> > > ignition,
> > > FADEC and High Compression Pistons. Hartzell is supporting the
> > experimental
> > > market
> > > by actually testing a wide variety of props and even brands of engines
> > like
> > > the XP-360, on a RV-8 of all things. I sure would like to see something
> > like
> > > that from MT, stating they have done vibration surveys with these
> > different
> > > configurations. No offense, but what does "Done that been there" mean?
> > Prop
> > > manufactures
> > > have no obligation to test props for the experimental market.
> > >
> > > As far as "being sorry" for those of us with Hartzell props, I know you
> > are
> > > kidding.
> > > Hartzell performance and the performance of their new Blended Airfoil
> > model
> > > is without compare and has no mid-range RPM restriction on the 180hp Lyc
> > > with
> > > E ignition or FADEC. Also the Hartzell has widely available service and
> > > parts,
> > > new or reconditioned, and they cost less than the MT. If the new MT has no
> > > restrictions with 10.5 to 1 pistons and E ignition, than this is a
> > fantastic
> > > additional choice for the experimental market. However, to assume it
> > has no
> > > restrictions
> > > on a highly modified engine, based on a STC for stock engines, is
> > > not precise. I would call MT myself but I don't: "sprechen Sie Deutsches"
> > >
> > > Keep up the good work Les, Cheers George
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >With respect to George in the email below, his info is wrong on the new
> >blended Hartzell prop. It does have midrange restrictions. See Van's
> >catalog for further details.
> >
> >Also, Van's could stand to update the info on the Blended Prop. Hartzell's
> >testing with it using the 200 hp Angle Valve engine is over and the combo
> >flunked. They will not recommend the combo. Further, they told me it would
> >not beearlier than thisfall before they might have another blended airfoil
> >available to test with the 200 hp engine.
> >
> >On the flip side, they did throw a bone out and told me that they do
> >currently make composite props for certain folks in the acro crowd but
> >they don't sell through vendors like Van's. Very limited basis and very
> >expensive. However, they are expecting to have a major price DECREASE
> >shortly in composite props with the intent of being competitive against
> >the MTs and the Whirwinds.
> >
> >Anyway, I said back in November they were testing the blended prop and
> >report back. Now I have and sorry to say the cooler looking new prop
> >didn't make the grade.
> >
> >Lucky
> >
> >-------------- Original message --------------
> >
> > -- RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > First, I need to apologize to all of you that the information I provided
> > conflicted with your beliefs.
> > Second, I need to apologize for not having the foresight to include all
> > required technical information.
> >
> > If having the theoretical optimum efficiency propeller was required for
> > flight, we would still be waiting for the Wright brother's first flight.
> >
> > From my old fading memory (Hi Doug Preston), the maximum theoretical
> > propeller efficiency for a 2 blade propeller is around 91.5%, and the 3
> > blade is
> > around 90.7%.
> >
> > The actual propeller efficiency can be very close to the theoretical
> > maximum
> > propeller efficiency.
> >
> >
> > Since we are really concerned about the real world application of existing
> > propellers for our aircraft, and are not still waiting for the perfect
> > propeller, where does that leave us?
> >
> > IMHO, typical propeller efficiencies for our aircraft in cruise are about
> > 88%.
> >
> > On a RV-6A with a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine, I tested four different
> > propellers and found the actual propeller efficiencies to be almost
> > identical.
> > Three of the propellers were 2 blade propellers. One was a 3 blade
> > propeller.
> >
> > So now I'll tell you what I believe.
> > The actual propeller efficiencies are far enough off of the theoretical
> > propeller efficiencies that a custom designed 3 blade propeller can have
> > the
> > same, or better, actual propeller efficiency than a 2 blade propeller.
> >
> > In fact, I asked MT Propeller to design a 4 blade propeller for my HR2. The
> >&g
> > t; propeller efficiency analysis predicts the same efficiency as the 3
> > blade MT
> > Rocket propeller. Once I decided on the paint colors for the propeller, I
> > will be ordering a 4 blade MT propeller for my HR2.
> > By flight test, I already established the cruise propeller efficiency to be
> > the same between the 2 blade Hartzell propellers (both "D" and "J"
> > blade) and
> > the 3 blade MT Rocket propeller.
> >
> > More real world stuff, if you are not interested in cruise performance.
> > Let's say your mission is to go as fast as possible on the deck at maximum
> > RPM.
> > My performance data indicates that the 2 blade Hartzell propeller works
> > slightly better on the RV-6A under these conditions.
> > Tracy Saylor's performance data between his highly modified Hartzell
> > propeller and an MT 3 blade propeller says the same thing.
> > For now, "Use the 2 blade Hartzell propeller."
> >
> >
> > Back to normal cruise conditions at 1,000' and 12,000'.
> > Tracy Saylor's data shows that the 2 blade and 3 blade propeller
> > performance
> > is the same at 2500 RPM and below.
> >
> > Why go below 2500 RPM? (I know. You didn't ask.) (Back to the RV-6A.)
> > Because the cruise efficiency (and range) is optimized at the lower RPM.
> > Even as low as 2100 to 2200 RPM. (Full throttle fuel flow decreases MUCH
> > faster than airspeed below 2500 RPM. At 12,000', the airspeed didn't
> > appear to
> > change between 2500 RPM and 2200 RPM. Just the fuel flow changed.)
> >
> > MT Propeller has just completed the analysis and testing on their new 3
> > blade RV propeller for the Lycoming 360 non counterweighted engines.
> > The 3 blade MTV-12-B/183-59b manufactured after January 2005 has no mid
> > range RPM restrictions on the Lycoming 360 engine. Unfortunately for me, I
> > just
> > ordered the metal 2 blade MTV-1
> > 5-B/183-402 propeller for my RV-6A.
> > (Yes, MT Propeller has an aluminum blade 2 blade RV propeller for the
> > Lycoming 360 engine with no mid range RPM restriction. Vibration testing
> > done
> > using high compression pistons and electronic ignition.)
> >
> > If you have any technical questions regarding MT Propeller's testing,
> > please
> > send Eric Greindl an email at _Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com_
> > (mailto:Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com) , or call Eric at
> > 011-49-9429-94-09-19.
> > Eric speaks
> > excellent English and Germany is 8 hours earlier than PST. (Eric's title is
> > Sales Manager, but his actual function appears to be general manager.)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jim Ayers
> >
> > In a message dated 02/13/2005 11:59:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> >
> > Les:
> >
> > I guess I am not sure what the answer is regarding the MT two bla
> > de (metal)
> > prop
> > for the 180HP or 200HP Lycoming (I)O-360. You state they have certified
> > applications
> > and "Done that been there" but inquiring minds want to know...I think
> > the point Kevin was making is:
> >
> > Has MT specifically tested their prop with Lightspeed ignition, LASAR
> > ignition,
> > FADEC and High Compression Pistons. Hartzell is supporting the experimental
> > market
> > by actually testing a wide variety of props and even brands of engines like
> > the XP-360, on a RV-8 of all things. I sure would like to see something
> > like
> > that from MT, stating they have done vibration surveys with these different
> > configurations. No offense, but what does "Done that been there" mean? Prop
> > manufactures
> > have no obligation to test props for the experimental market.
> >
> > As far as "being sorry" for those of us with Hartzell props, I know you are
> >&g
> > t; kidding.
> > Hartzell performance and the performance of their new Blended Airfoil model
> > is without compare and has no mid-range RPM restriction on the 180hp Lyc
> > with
> > E ignition or FADEC. Also the Hartzell has widely available service and
> > parts,
> > new or reconditioned, and they cost less than the MT. If the new MT has no
> > restrictions with 10.5 to 1 pistons and E ignition, than this is a
> > fantastic
> > additional choice for the experimental market. However, to assume it has no
> > restrictions
> > on a highly modified engine, based on a STC for stock engines, is
> > not precise. I would call MT myself but I don't: "sprechen Sie Deutsches"
> >
> > Keep up the good work Les, Cheers George
> >
> >
> > utions
> > /trouble-report
> >
> >
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
>
>
>
>
yep. having a counterbalanced crankshaft, the engineer gave me a CS prop which
had zero restrictions of any kind on it and to paraphrase him, he didn't think
the difference between prop types was worth waiting for.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <BILINSKI@KYOCERA-WIRELESS.COM>
Another restriction of the BF prop is max RPM after take off, 2600. So you
speed freaks wont like that.
At 03:17 AM 2/16/2005 +0000, you wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
With respect to George in the email below, his info is wrong on the new
blended Hartzell prop. It does have midrange restrictions. See Van's
catalog for further details.
Also, Van's could stand to update the info on the Blended
Prop. Hartzell's testing with it using the 200 hp Angle Valve engine is
over and the combo flunked. They will not recommend the combo. Further,
they told me it would not be earlier than this fall before they might have
another blended airfoil available to test with the 200 hp engine.
On the flip side, they did throw a bone out and told me that they do
currently make composite props for certain folks in the acro crowd but
they don't sell through vendors like Van's. Very limited basis and very
expensive. However, they are expecting to have a major price
DECREASE shortly in composite props with the intent of being competitive
against the MTs and the Whirwinds.
Anyway, I said back in November they were testing the blended prop and
report back. Now I have and sorry to say the cooler looking new prop
didn't make the grade.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
--
RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
Hi all,
First, I need to apologize to all of you that the information I provided
conflicted with your beliefs.
Second, I need to apologize for not having the foresight to include all
required technical information.
If having the theoretical optimum efficiency propeller was required for
flight, we would still be waiting for the Wright brother's first flight.
From my old fading memory (Hi Doug Preston), the maximum theoretical
propeller efficiency for a 2 blade propeller is around 91.5%, and the 3
blade is
around 90.7%.
The actual propeller efficiency can be very close to the theoretical
maximum
propeller efficiency.
Since we are really concerned about the real world application of existing
propellers for our aircraft, and are not still waiting for the perfect
propeller, where does that leave us?
IMHO, typical propeller efficiencies for our aircraft in cruise are about
88%.
On a RV-6A with a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine, I tested four different
propellers and found the actual propeller efficiencies to be almost
identical.
Three of the propellers were 2 blade propellers. One was a 3 blade
propeller.
So now I'll tell you what I believe.
The actual propeller efficiencies are far enough off of the theoretical
propeller efficienci
es that a custom designed 3 blade propeller can
have the
same, or better, actual propeller efficiency than a 2 blade propeller.
In fact, I asked MT Propeller to design a 4 blade propeller for my HR2.
The
propeller efficiency analysis predicts the same efficiency as the 3
blade MT
Rocket propeller. Once I decided on the paint colors for the propeller, I
will be ordering a 4 blade MT propeller for my HR2.
By flight test, I already established the cruise propeller efficiency
to be
the same between the 2 blade Hartzell propellers (both "D" and "J"
blade) and
the 3 blade MT Rocket propeller.
More real world stuff, if you are not interested in cruise performance.
Let's say your mission is
to go as fast as possible on the deck at maximum
RPM.
My performance data indicates that the 2 blade Hartzell propeller works
slightly better on the RV-6A under these conditions.
Tracy Saylor's performance data between his highly modified Hartzell
propeller and an MT 3 blade propeller says the same thing.
For now, "Use the 2 blade Hartzell propeller."
Back to normal cruise conditions at 1,000' and 12,000'.
Tracy Saylor's data shows that the 2 blade and 3 blade propeller
performance
is the same at 2500 RPM and below.
Why go below 2500 RPM? (I know. You didn't ask.) (Back to the RV-6A.)
Because the cruise efficiency (and range) is optimized at the lower RPM.
Even as low as 2100 to 2200 RPM. (Full thro
ttle fuel flow decreases MUCH
faster than airspeed below 2500 RPM. At 12,000', the airspeed didn't
appear to
change between 2500 RPM and 2200 RPM. Just the fuel flow changed.)
MT Propeller has just completed the analysis and testing on their new 3
blade RV propeller for the Lycoming 360 non counterweighted engines.
The 3 blade MTV-12-B/183-59b manufactured after January 2005 has no mid
range RPM restrictions on the Lycoming 360 engine. Unfortunately for me, I
just
ordered the metal 2 blade MTV-15-B/183-402 propeller for my RV-6A.
(Yes, MT Propeller has an aluminum blade 2 blade RV propeller for the
Lycoming 360 engine with no mid range RPM restriction. Vibration
testing done
using high compression pistons and electronic ign
ition.)
If you have any technical questions regarding MT Propeller's testing,
please
send Eric Greindl an email at _Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com_
(mailto:Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com) , or call Eric at
011-49-9429-94-09-19.
Eric speaks
excellent English and Germany is 8 hours earlier than PST. (Eric's
title is
Sales Manager, but his actual function appears to be general manager.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 02/13/2005 11:59:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Les:
I guess I am not sure what the answer is regarding the MT two blade
(metal)
prop
for the 180HP or 200HP Lycoming (I)O-360. You state they have certified
applications
and "Done that been there" but inquiring minds want to know...I think
the point Kevin was making is:
Has MT specifically tested their prop with Lightspeed ignition, LASAR
ignition,
FADEC and High Compression Pistons. Hartzell is supporting the
experimental
market
by actually testing a wide variety of props and even brands of engines
like
the XP-360, on a RV-8 of all things. I sure would like to see something
like
that from MT, stating they have done vibration surveys with these
different
configurations. No offense, but what does "Done that been there" mean?
Prop
>
; manufactures
have no obligation to test props for the experimental market.
As far as "being sorry" for those of us with Hartzell props, I know you
are
kidding.
Hartzell performance and the performance of their new Blended Airfoil
model
is without compare and has no mid-range RPM restriction on the 180hp Lyc
with
E ignition or FADEC. Also the Hartzell has widely available service and
parts,
new or reconditioned, and they cost less than the MT. If the new MT has no
restrictions with 10.5 to 1 pistons and E ignition, than this is a
fantastic
additional choice for the experimental market. However, to assume it
has no
restrictions
on a highly modified engine, ba
sed on a STC for stock engines, is
not precise. I would call MT myself but I don't: "sprechen Sie Deutsches"
Keep up the good work Les, Cheers George
With respect to George in the email below, his info is wrong on the new
blended Hartzell prop. It does have midrange restrictions. See Van's
catalog for further details.
Also, Van's could stand to update the info on the Blended Prop. Hartzell's
testing with it using the 200 hp Angle Valve engine is over and the combo
flunked. They will not recommend the combo. Further, they told me it would
not beearlier than thisfall before they might have another blended airfoil
available to test with the 200 hp engine.
&g
t;On the flip side, they did throw a bone out and told me that they do
currently make composite props for certain folks in the acro crowd but
they don't sell through vendors like Van's. Very limited basis and very
expensive. However, they are expecting to have a major price DECREASE
shortly in composite props with the intent of being competitive against
the MTs and the Whirwinds.
Anyway, I said back in November they were testing the blended prop and
report back. Now I have and sorry to say the cooler looking new prop
didn't make the grade.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
Hi all,
First, I need to apologize to all of you that the informati
on I provided
conflicted with your beliefs.
Second, I need to apologize for not having the foresight to include all
required technical information.
If having the theoretical optimum efficiency propeller was required for
flight, we would still be waiting for the Wright brother's first flight.
From my old fading memory (Hi Doug Preston), the maximum theoretical
propeller efficiency for a 2 blade propeller is around 91.5%, and the 3
blade is
around 90.7%.
The actual propeller efficiency can be very close to the theoretical
maximum
propeller efficiency.
Since we are really concerned about the real world application of existing
propellers for our aircraft, and are not still waiting for the perfect
propell
er, where does that leave us?
IMHO, typical propeller efficiencies for our aircraft in cruise are about
88%.
On a RV-6A with a Lycoming O-360-A1A engine, I tested four different
propellers and found the actual propeller efficiencies to be almost
identical.
Three of the propellers were 2 blade propellers. One was a 3 blade
propeller.
So now I'll tell you what I believe.
The actual propeller efficiencies are far enough off of the theoretical
propeller efficiencies that a custom designed 3 blade propeller can have
the
same, or better, actual propeller efficiency than a 2 blade propeller.
In fact, I asked MT Propeller to design a 4 blade propeller for my HR2. The
g
t; propeller efficiency analysis predicts the sam
e efficiency as the 3
blade MT
Rocket propeller. Once I decided on the paint colors for the propeller, I
will be ordering a 4 blade MT propeller for my HR2.
By flight test, I already established the cruise propeller efficiency to be
the same between the 2 blade Hartzell propellers (both "D" and "J"
blade) and
the 3 blade MT Rocket propeller.
More real world stuff, if you are not interested in cruise performance.
Let's say your mission is to go as fast as possible on the deck at maximum
RPM.
My performance data indicates that the 2 blade Hartzell propeller works
slightly better on the RV-6A under these conditions.
Tracy Saylor's performance data between his highly modified Hartzell
propeller and an MT 3 blade propeller says the same thing.
For now, "Use th
e 2 blade Hartzell propeller."
Back to normal cruise conditions at 1,000' and 12,000'.
Tracy Saylor's data shows that the 2 blade and 3 blade propeller
performance
is the same at 2500 RPM and below.
Why go below 2500 RPM? (I know. You didn't ask.) (Back to the RV-6A.)
Because the cruise efficiency (and range) is optimized at the lower RPM.
Even as low as 2100 to 2200 RPM. (Full throttle fuel flow decreases MUCH
faster than airspeed below 2500 RPM. At 12,000', the airspeed didn't
appear to
change between 2500 RPM and 2200 RPM. Just the fuel flow changed.)
MT Propeller has just completed the analysis and testing on their new 3
blade RV propeller for the Lycoming 360 non counterweighted engines.
The 3 blade MTV-12-B/183-59b manufactured after J
anuary 2005 has no mid
range RPM restrictions on the Lycoming 360 engine. Unfortunately for me, I
just
ordered the metal 2 blade MTV-1
5-B/183-402 propeller for my RV-6A.
(Yes, MT Propeller has an aluminum blade 2 blade RV propeller for the
Lycoming 360 engine with no mid range RPM restriction. Vibration testing
done
using high compression pistons and electronic ignition.)
If you have any technical questions regarding MT Propeller's testing,
please
send Eric Greindl an email at _Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com_
(mailto:Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com) , or call Eric at
011-49-9429-94-09-19.
Eric speaks
excellent English and Germany is 8 hours earlier than PST. (Eric's title is
Sales Manager, but his actual function appears to be general manager.
)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 02/13/2005 11:59:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Les:
I guess I am not sure what the answer is regarding the MT two bla
de (metal)
prop
for the 180HP or 200HP Lycoming (I)O-360. You state they have certified
applications
and "Done that been there" but inquiring minds want to know...I think
the point Kevin was making is:
Has MT specifically tested their prop with Lightspeed ignition, LASAR
ignition,
FADEC and High Compression Pistons. Hartzell is supporting the experimental
market
by actually testing a wide variety of props and even brands of engines like
the XP-360, on a RV-8 of all thi
ngs. I sure would like to see something
like
that from MT, stating they have done vibration surveys with these different
configurations. No offense, but what does "Done that been there" mean? Prop
manufactures
have no obligation to test props for the experimental market.
As far as "being sorry" for those of us with Hartzell props, I know you are
g
t; kidding.
Hartzell performance and the performance of their new Blended Airfoil model
is without compare and has no mid-range RPM restriction on the 180hp Lyc
with
E ignition or FADEC. Also the Hartzell has widely available service and
parts,
new or reconditioned, and they cost less than the MT. If the new MT has no
restrictions with 10.5 to 1 pistons and E ignition, than this is a
fantastic
additional choice for the experimental market. However, to assume it has no
restrictions
on a highly modified engine, based on a STC for stock engines, is
not precise. I would call MT myself but I don't: "sprechen Sie Deutsches"
Keep up the good work Les, Cheers George
utions
/trouble-report
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
========================
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: deburring dimpled holes |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Harold Roman wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Harold Roman <haroldroman00@yahoo.com>
>
snip
>Sorry for turning this into some sort of academic disection of the "Standard Aircraft
Book". But I'm rather simple and I'm getting worried about cracks developing
from all my flush rivets.
>
>Harold
>
Harold, no apology necessary. I'm getting a good education .... I
haven't even ordered my kit ..... but there were millions of rivets
(although pulled) in my BD-5 kit and deburring was the norm for formed
dimples. Very few machined dimples (I like to use the term
'countersunk' because it goes with 'countersinking tool') but even then
I cleaned up the outside edge of the dimple with a drill bit just to
break that edge. I wouldn't worry about cracks from dimpling without
deburring unless you failed to drill out the holes prior to dimpling.
IMHO, of course ..... 'cause I'm no expert. And the BD-5 never flew
anyway!!! :-(
Linn
do not archive
>
>
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: Wiring hobbs to alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
There is a diode in this circuit between the light and the +12VDC(battery)
supply in automotive applications. The light being out means the alternator
is Supplying More + VDC than the battery. Sometimes the light will go out
when the engine first starts and then start to glow dimly as the battery
charge comes up. This suggest that one of the phases in the alternator might
be bad, most times a bad Diode Trio. Hobbs meter Positive connection on the
Alternator side of the Diode and other end grounded should run whenever
alternator is working, unless it fails completely.
John D. Heath
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Buchanan" <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Wiring hobbs to alt.
> --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>
> Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
>> <mstewart@iss.net>
>>
>> Dave I don't see how this would work.
> The Hobbs will work if it is grounded on one end and connected to the
> alternator light pin on the other. That way it will start turning when
> the alternator sends 12v to the meter.
>
> Can both the light and meter be connected to the alternator at the same
> time? I'll leave that one to somebody with better electrical skills than
> myself.
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: hartzell CS props |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
The original post was about selling a MT prop, model MTV15, for use on a parallel
valve 180hp (I)O-360 Lycoming. The MTV15 is essentially MT's version of a
2 bladed metal prop, equivalent to a Hartzell C2YK . The question was if the
MTV15 was tested with HC pistons, electronic ignition and FADEC, like Hartzell
has done.
> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>With respect to George in the email below, his info is wrong on the new
>blended Hartzell prop. It does have midrange restrictions. See Van's
>catalog for further details.
There is no mid-RANGE restriction, for the new Hartzell blended airfoil (C2YR)
on a O-360 180hp Lyc. You may be referring to this limitation:
"Do not operate above 22" manifold pressure below 2350 RPM"
This limitation is not a "range". If you think about this, this limitation does
not affects normal operation. I am amazed how detailed Hartzell prop test's are.
>-RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>Also, Van's could stand to update the info on the Blended Prop. Hartzell's testing
>with it using the 200 hp Angle Valve engine is over and the combo flunked.
>They will not recommend the combo. Further, they told me it would not be earlier
>than this fall before they might have another blended airfoil available
>to test with the 200 hp engine.
The new Hartzell blended airfoil did not pass mustard on the IO-360 angle valve.
That is a surprise. Oh, well. It is interesting that the common C2YK, with the
mid range restriction is good on both 180hp and 200hp Lycs. The 200hp IO-360
has dampened crank and should be less critical than a 180hp Lyc, with a non-dampened
crank. It shows that vibration surveys are very important and must be
done on every configuration.
You can't extrapolate and ASS-U-ME vibration on a prop based on other configurations.
Asking MT if they tested the MTV15 on engine configurations and modifications
we use is a fair question, and MT should have some kind of statement,
report or summary written down to explain their testing.
>-RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>On the flip side, they did throw a bone out and told me that they do currently
>make composite props for certain folks in the acro crowd but they don't sell through
vendors >like Van's. Very limited basis and very expensive. However,
they are expecting to have a >major price DECREASE shortly in composite props
with the intent of being competitive >against the MTs and the Whirwinds.
>Anyway, I said back in November they were testing the blended prop and report
back. Now I >have and sorry to say the cooler looking new prop didn't make the
grade.
I know the looks of props are a deciding factor in a prop purchase. For me how
it performs in the air, cost and maintainability are more important. Weight is
a factor, but I can handle the extra 12 to 20 lbs on the nose. The OLD HC2YK
is still a great prop and fast. You can still pick them up used/overhauled for
a great price. Spare parts, new & used, are available and almost every prop shop
can work on them. The new Blended Airfoil on a 180hp is even better and has
fantastic performance at a very good price.
As far as models of MT props with wood/composite blades, let me just make a blanked
statement, they should be excellent in regards to vibration and blade fatigue.
Wood has natural damping qualities that are very good. Wood is good, and
should not have any RPM limits or restriction that metal props can have.
There are pros and cons to all materials. I would think damage repair on a MT would
require specialized skills. A metal prop may be a little more impact resistant.
Metal prop repair is easily accomplished with a file on the ramp without
special techniques. Repair of a MT may require more "technique" and equipment,
possibly necessitating removal and shipping to one of 9-10(?) MT service
centers in the US. May be someone can describe their experience with repair of
a rock ding/dent on their MT prop?
My purpose is NOT to put-down a brand of prop. I think safety is the real priority
we all have. I would have no problem with any MT model on my plane. Asking
a question should not be interpreted as an attack, or stating the pros of one
brand of prop should not be considered a statement of absolute superiority. For
me, the Hartzell has the balance of performance, cost, maintainability and
known history that meets my needs best. That's all Folks. It's all good, and different
strokes, I mean props, for different folks.
Regards George
---------------------------------
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: Dressing a Scotch Brite Wheel |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard V. Reynolds" <rvreynolds@macs.net>
Try a wood 2X4.
Richard Reynolds
alan@reichertech.com wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: alan@reichertech.com
>
> All,
>
> With some of the shaping I've been doing with the Scotch Brite wheel, it
> has developed some grooves in it's surface. Is there a recommended way to
> dress a Scotch Brite wheel so it's surface is flat again?
>
> --
> Alan Reichert
> RV-8 N927AR (reserved)
> Horizontal/Vertical Stabilizer Spars...
>
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: | How many clecos needed for wings? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Scott <rscott@cascadeaccess.com>
>Got mixed messages from the RV9 list on this, so I am asking everyone else:
>Doing both slow build wings at the same time. How many 3/32 clecos do I
>need? I have 400. Is that enough? I'll probably put one in about every
>4th hole.
>
>Richard Scott
RV-9 Wings
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: How many clecos needed for wings? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net>
400 should be plenty.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Scott" <rscott@cascadeaccess.com>
Subject: RV-List: How many clecos needed for wings?
> --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Scott <rscott@cascadeaccess.com>
>
>
>>Got mixed messages from the RV9 list on this, so I am asking everyone
>>else:
>
>>Doing both slow build wings at the same time. How many 3/32 clecos do I
>>need? I have 400. Is that enough? I'll probably put one in about every
>>4th hole.
>>
>>Richard Scott
> RV-9 Wings
>
>
>
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: | panel label engraving with back lighting |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Pedersen" <wayne@pedersentransport.com>
Looking for a supplier that has panel labels that are engravable and then a
light(s) inserted into back of plastic. This little lite would illuminate
all areas that are engraved.
Thanks
Wayne
-7a panel
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: deburring dimpled holes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Harold,
You have reopened that old can of worms! I just read The Standard Aircraft
Handbook section on drilling, etc., and there can be no doubt about it, Larry
does not want those holes deburred. Both sides of the argument have been
hashed over many times on this list, but you're the first one that I know of
who has brought up the fact that the Handbook (which I bought from Van's)
states this.
Most of Larry's book reflects what the FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B
contains. So, I looked for this subject in it, but it doesn't seem to be there.
I have tried both ways (deburring and not deburring before dimpling) and can
find no difference in the quality of the dimpled hole. I have never seen
dimpling cause any cracks either way.
I can believe that you can do as much harm by deburring as good. Look under
a magnifier at your deburred hole. Mine are usually uneven. That would
cause stress risers when the hole is later dimpled. This is why I can believe
that just drilling the hole may be OK. Of course any gross burrs should be
removed, but that doesn't usually happen with 2024-T3 aluminum.
I am not on one side or the other. I did deburr all the holes on my RV
project, but now I'm wondering if it was all necessary.
I don't agree with Dave that you should throw the book away. No one person
knows everything, whether or not he writes a book.
Does anyone know Larry Reithmaier? Better get him on here to defend himself!
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A (Flying since July 2004)
--> RV-List message posted by: Harold Roman <haroldroman00@yahoo.com>
Thanks for the reply. I tried to read this pretty carefully, because it
didn't seem right to me either. The book does seem to be pretty clear in
distinguishing between machine countersinking (cut countersink) and form
countersinking (dimpling). I'm looking at the sixth edition and on page 88 I see:
"Flush head rivets (100 degree countersunk) require a countersunk hole
prepared for the manufactured rivet head to nest in. This is accomplished by one
of two methodes: machine countersinking or form countersinking (dimpling) ..."
So maybe it's just a typo or an editorial slip? Well the same advice is
given in two different places. On page 87 is the bit I quoted in my first post:
"Deburring shall not be prerformed on predrilled holes that are to be
subsequently form countersunk."
Then again on page 94 I find:
"Do not burr holes to be form countersunk, except on titanium."
Ok, so what is that "burr" part? Don't we want to "deburr" the holes? The
book uses 'burring', 'deburring', and 'debunking', interchangably as seen this
on page 87:
"Drilling operations cause burrs to form on each side of the sheet and
between sheets. Removal of these burrs, called 'debunking' or 'burring', must
be
performed ..."
Sorry for turning this into some sort of academic disection of the "Standard
Aircraft Book". But I'm rather simple and I'm getting worried about cracks
developing from all my flush rivets.
Harold
In a message dated 2/16/05 10:38:48 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
dreel@cox.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
"Standard Aircraft Handbook"
by Larry Reithmaier I find it says "Deburring shall not be prerformed on
predrilled
holes that are to be subsequently form countersunk."
I can readily imagine how ugly and crack inviting a hole dimpled without
removing the burr often left after dirlling would be. Dimpling expands the
diameter of a hole so a sharp edge is an invitation to crack even without a burr.
I simply would ignore this advice regardless of how authoritatively it is
presented. To me, such a statement is a red flag bringing the rest of the
book into question. Haven't read it though.
That said, I recall hearing of a study done by Mooney aircraft to see if
structural assembly could be streamlined by elimination of the deburring step.
Does anyone have the details of their conclusions?
Dave Reel - RV8A
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: | panel label engraving with back lighting |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut@engalt.com>
Wayne at Aircraft Engravers, www.engravers.net, does a great job on the
engraving. I had some of his labels with a custom fiber optic back light
that I made.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Wayne Pedersen
Subject: RV-List: panel label engraving with back lighting
--> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Pedersen"
<wayne@pedersentransport.com>
Looking for a supplier that has panel labels that are engravable and then a
light(s) inserted into back of plastic. This little lite would illuminate
all areas that are engraved.
Thanks
Wayne
-7a panel
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Dressing a Scotch Brite Wheel |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brett Morawski" <brett.morawski@buckeye-express.com>
I use a diamond grit coated t-shaped dresser I found at a hardware store for
about $10. It's about the size and shape of a disposable razor. It'll take
1/8" off a Scotchbrite wheel in 2 minutes with little pressure and the wheel
looks like new.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
alan@reichertech.com
Subject: RV-List: Dressing a Scotch Brite Wheel
--> RV-List message posted by: alan@reichertech.com
All,
With some of the shaping I've been doing with the Scotch Brite wheel, it
has developed some grooves in it's surface. Is there a recommended way to
dress a Scotch Brite wheel so it's surface is flat again?
--
Alan Reichert
RV-8 N927AR (reserved)
Horizontal/Vertical Stabilizer Spars...
Message transport security by GatewayDefender.com
9:36:26 AM ET - 2/16/2005
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pourable tank sealant??followup |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
Hawkeye,
The Class C ProSeal is designed for exactly the purpose you describe, that
is sealing faying surfaces while riveting, and can be applied with either a
roller or brush. It is has a somewhat higher viscosity than Class A
ProSeal, but is much less viscous than the normal Class B ProSeal. That
being said the Class C ProSeal has somewhat different application
characteristics than the either the Class A or Class B ProSeal. Class C
ProSeal is designed for use when long application and assembly times are
required. This would be typical of assembling a large fuel tank on
commercial aircraft, but is probably not necessary (or desirable) on our
small projects as the cure time is quite long. Class C ProSeal has an
application time of 8 hours, with assembly times of 20 or 80 hours,
depending on the version, with curing time of 1 to 3 weeks. This makes
sense when building large aircraft, but probably not so much on smaller
projects. You could use the Class A version, but if you already have some
of the normal Class B ProSeal you can thin it with Toluene. You can safely
thin ProSeal with up to 15% Toluene by weight without changing its
properties, although I would expect that you would only need around 5%-6%
(this is a guess) to get the viscosity you need. The characteristics of the
cured material seems to be fairly similar for all the Classes.
As always, you should test your method prior to using in production.
Paul
>
> Paul,
>
> Are you familiar with the relative physical properties of the PRC-Desoto
> Type A (brush applied) and Type C (roller applied) ProSeal variants?
Which
> one would be more appropriate for bonding the control surface stiffeners
(in
> combination with rivets) and for use in other faying surface sealing
> applications ?
>
> Thanks for your opinion,
> Hawkeye
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
Hello;
I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning that it
is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this true?
I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each weigh
210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
Bud Silvers
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
flynlow@usaviator.net wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
>
>Hello;
>
>I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning that it
>is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this true?
>I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each weigh
>210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
>
>Bud Silvers
>
>
>
What does your friend fly? Where did he get his information. An RV-8
will do loops easily with two aboard.
do not archive
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wiring hobbs to alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
When the alternator is alternating, the lamp terminal outputs a voltage
(9-10 volts on mine IIRC) but call it 12V for this discussion. When the
lamp is connected between this terminal and the buss (battery) which is
(12V +/-) also, it will not light. When the alternator shuts down, the
alternator lamp terminal goes to ground so the lamp now has 12V across
it and it lights. So, since the Hobbs wants a + voltage to work,
connecting it to the lamp terminal causes it to work when the alternator
is on line.
Dave
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>
>Dave I don't see how this would work.
>With the engine running, this ground is open. This seems to be backwards
>from what the hobbs would require. It would want closed when running
>right?
>Mike
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Bristol
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: new feature found with the alt. warning light
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
>
>
>In order to use this feature, the red light is usually connected from
>the idiot light wire (from the alternator) to the 12v buss, that way
>when the alternator is stopped, and that wire is essentially grounded,
>the light will light. You can also use that wire to run your Hobbs meter
>
>since it puts out voltage only when the engine is running.
>
>Dave -6 So Cal
>EAA Technical Counselor
>
>Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
>>
>>
><mstewart@iss.net>
>
>
>>While testing my panel mounted alt. fail light, which is simply one
>>
>>
>wire
>
>
>>to the alternator which has built in an idiot warning light, I found an
>>undocumented feature.
>>
>>While your master switch is on, and the alternator is not turning, the
>>light is on. It is the perfect "you left your master sw on you dope"
>>light.
>>
>>
>>This is with the Mitsubushi 60a alternator 3 plug.
>>
>>I am not exactly sure what this light would indicate in flight if the
>>light came on though?
>>
>>Not charging? No field? I dunno.
>>
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>Do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bryan Jones" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning that
>it
>is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this true?
>I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each weigh
>210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
The RV-8 does safe, beautiful loops, Immelmans, Cubans, reverse Cubans, etc.
with two people in the 200-lb category. Check the limits and respect the
weight and g limits for your specific conditions.
Bryan -8
Houston
do not archive
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
I have been trying for several days now. Hope this one works
Bud Silvers
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: deburring dimpled holes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "dfenstermacher@earthlink.net" <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
I deburr all holes.
That said, I have heard of people not deburring holes which are reamed
(match-holes).
If the hole is not pre-punched, then deburring is in order.
There is little to no burr left on reaming the pre-punched holes in these
kits.
My 2 cents.
Dave
> [Original Message]
> From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 2/16/2005 7:40:47 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: deburring dimpled holes
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>
> Harold,
>
> You have reopened that old can of worms! I just read The Standard
Aircraft
> Handbook section on drilling, etc., and there can be no doubt about it,
Larry
> does not want those holes deburred. Both sides of the argument have
been
> hashed over many times on this list, but you're the first one that I know
of
> who has brought up the fact that the Handbook (which I bought from Van's)
> states this.
>
> Most of Larry's book reflects what the FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B
> contains. So, I looked for this subject in it, but it doesn't seem to be
there.
>
> I have tried both ways (deburring and not deburring before dimpling) and
can
> find no difference in the quality of the dimpled hole. I have never
seen
> dimpling cause any cracks either way.
>
> I can believe that you can do as much harm by deburring as good. Look
under
> a magnifier at your deburred hole. Mine are usually uneven. That would
> cause stress risers when the hole is later dimpled. This is why I can
believe
> that just drilling the hole may be OK. Of course any gross burrs should
be
> removed, but that doesn't usually happen with 2024-T3 aluminum.
>
> I am not on one side or the other. I did deburr all the holes on my RV
> project, but now I'm wondering if it was all necessary.
>
> I don't agree with Dave that you should throw the book away. No one
person
> knows everything, whether or not he writes a book.
>
> Does anyone know Larry Reithmaier? Better get him on here to defend
himself!
>
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A (Flying since July 2004)
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Harold Roman <haroldroman00@yahoo.com>
>
> Thanks for the reply. I tried to read this pretty carefully, because it
> didn't seem right to me either. The book does seem to be pretty clear in
> distinguishing between machine countersinking (cut countersink) and form
> countersinking (dimpling). I'm looking at the sixth edition and on page
88 I see:
>
> "Flush head rivets (100 degree countersunk) require a countersunk hole
> prepared for the manufactured rivet head to nest in. This is
accomplished by one
> of two methodes: machine countersinking or form countersinking
(dimpling) ..."
>
> So maybe it's just a typo or an editorial slip? Well the same advice is
> given in two different places. On page 87 is the bit I quoted in my
first post:
>
> "Deburring shall not be prerformed on predrilled holes that are to be
> subsequently form countersunk."
>
> Then again on page 94 I find:
>
> "Do not burr holes to be form countersunk, except on titanium."
>
> Ok, so what is that "burr" part? Don't we want to "deburr" the holes?
The
> book uses 'burring', 'deburring', and 'debunking', interchangably as
seen this
> on page 87:
>
> "Drilling operations cause burrs to form on each side of the sheet and
> between sheets. Removal of these burrs, called 'debunking' or 'burring',
must be
> performed ..."
>
> Sorry for turning this into some sort of academic disection of the
"Standard
> Aircraft Book". But I'm rather simple and I'm getting worried about
cracks
> developing from all my flush rivets.
>
> Harold
>
>
> In a message dated 2/16/05 10:38:48 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
> dreel@cox.net writes:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
> "Standard Aircraft Handbook"
> by Larry Reithmaier I find it says "Deburring shall not be prerformed on
> predrilled
> holes that are to be subsequently form countersunk."
>
> I can readily imagine how ugly and crack inviting a hole dimpled without
> removing the burr often left after dirlling would be. Dimpling expands
the
> diameter of a hole so a sharp edge is an invitation to crack even
without a burr.
> I simply would ignore this advice regardless of how authoritatively it
is
> presented. To me, such a statement is a red flag bringing the rest of
the
> book into question. Haven't read it though.
>
> That said, I recall hearing of a study done by Mooney aircraft to see if
> structural assembly could be streamlined by elimination of the deburring
step.
> Does anyone have the details of their conclusions?
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
go to www.rvproject.com
and find the weight and balance link if the link below doesn't work.
http://rvproject.com/wab/wab.jsp?average=true&aircraftModelId=7
If i put on two 215 pound people and 15 gallons of gas it computes that the Aerobatic
gross weight (1555.56) is exceeded by 63.49 pounds. Starts off assuming
empty weight of 1099 pounds. So your friend would be right if your plane came
out what Dan's program considers to be an average RV8. The moment arm is right
at the aft end too.
Two 200 pounders would still be over but
Aerobatic gross weight (1555.56) is exceeded by 33.49 pounds and bring the arms
in almost an inch.
lucky
> --> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
>
> Hello;
>
> I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning that it
> is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this true?
> I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each weigh
> 210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
>
> Bud Silvers
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Nope... didn't get it. 8*) KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
Subject: RV-List: TEST
> --> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
>
> I have been trying for several days now. Hope this one works
>
> Bud Silvers
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
On Feb 16, 2005, at 7:26 PM, flynlow@usaviator.net wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
>
> Hello;
>
> I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning
> that it
> is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this
> true?
> I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each
> weigh
> 210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
>
>
It depends on several things. If you look at Dan Checkoway's database,
IO-360 equipped -8s run from 1076 to 1176 empty (and the only one under
1100# is the lighter parallel-valved engine). An RV8 with a
pre-punched wing has an aerobatic gross of 1600#. Above that, you are
limited to the utlility category. (see: http://www.rvproject.com/wab/)
While it is possible to loop an RV while remaining well under utility
category limits, it is also pretty easy to screw up, get too much speed
coming down the backside, and need more "g" than you expected to
recover.
While I suspect that many RVs are operated routinely outside these
limits without problems, at least one RV8 has had a structural failure
under these conditions,''
See:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?
ev_id=20001211X10121&ntsbno=LAX98FA171&akey=1
Be careful
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
He is pulling your chain... SUCCESSFULLY!
----- Original Message -----
From: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
Subject: RV-List: RV8 and aerobatics
> --> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
>
> Hello;
>
> I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning that
it
> is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this
true?
> I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each weigh
> 210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
>
> Bud Silvers
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
I think you got it right this time!
Dave
do not archive
flynlow@usaviator.net wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
>
>I have been trying for several days now. Hope this one works
>
>Bud Silvers
>
>
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bryan Jones" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
Two things:
1. As I recall, the RV-8 AGW is 1600-lbs.
2. I personally think it would be foolish to load an RV near the aerobatic
weight limit to 6 g's (the designed stress limit). I never fly more than
3-3.5 g's ever, much less when approaching to the limit. "Aerobatics" does
not automatically mean 6 g load factors.
Bryan -8
Houston
do not archive
>If i put on two 215 pound people and 15 gallons of gas it computes that the
>Aerobatic gross weight (1555.56) is exceeded by 63.49 pounds. Starts off
>assuming empty weight of 1099 pounds. So your friend would be right if
>your plane came out what Dan's program considers to be an average RV8. The
>moment arm is right at the aft end too.
>
>Two 200 pounders would still be over but
>Aerobatic gross weight (1555.56) is exceeded by 33.49 pounds and bring the
>arms in almost an inch.
>
>lucky
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
> >
> > Hello;
> >
> > I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning
>that it
> > is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this
>true?
> > I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each
>weigh
> > 210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
> >
> > Bud Silvers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pourable tank sealant??followup |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Thanks, Paul; I appreciate the input. I'd prefer the 2 part stuff in pourable form,
but cs3600's what they recommended. She actually attached the later version
of the TDS so I restated my question to be sure she was quoting the correct
#. Our email exchanges are quoted below.
Will 15% dilution with toluene thin the 3204B enough to pour in the corners & flow
past the ~1/4" corner notches in the ribs?
Thanks,
Charlie
>>>>
start of emails with Flamemaster:
:::::
Yes, this is the right material. Used as a sloshing compound.
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: cs 3204-compatible 'sloshing compond'?
>> Thanks for the info. However, I may not have been clear on my needs. The
>> document you sent describes a bonding material applied similar to a
>> contact cement. I have an already constructed tank with some seams that
>> leak. Joints are clean, but the beads of cs3204 were applied too far
>> from the actual joint to seal it and the tank has been riveted so it's
>> no longer feasible to seal the joints in the normal fashion. I need a
>> pourable or 'sloshing' type sealant that can by poured in the filler
>> opening, flowed into the corners by tilting the tank & allowed to cure
>> in place in the corners (seams) of the tank.
>>
>> One 'traditional' product for this has been Randolph brand #912. Does
>> Flame master sell a product that is similar in purpose to this product
>> but intended for use if there is already cs 3204 in the seams?
>>
>> If cs 3600 is suitable I'll order that.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>> Linda Smith wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> >The product used for this purpose is CS 3600 to AMS-S-4383.
>>> >A copy of the technical bulletin is attached.
>>> >
>>> >Linda
>>> >
>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>> >From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>>> >To: <lindasmith@flamemaster.com>
>>> >Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 9:01 AM
>>> >Subject: cs 3204-compatible 'sloshing compond'?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>>> >>I'm assembling fuel tanks using your cs 3204 (B?) sealant & need some
>>>> >>pourable sealant to seal inaccessable joints. What compatible product do
>>>> >>you recommend for this purpose?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Thanks,
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Charlie
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
:::::
end of emails with Flamemaster
>>>>
Paul Trotter wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
>
>Charlie,
>
>It is interesting that Flamemaster recommended this product. It seems to be
>designed primarily as an adhesive for bonding. By the way, the TDS you
>reference is old and has been superceded by a newer version that is somewhat
>different and seems to limit the product to bonding applications. The new
>version, which can be found at
>http://www.flamemaster.com/Products&Services/prod02.htm eliminates any
>reference to top-coating or sloshing in the application section. They may
>have run into the peeling problem that you mentioned.
>
>Personally, I would drill out the rivets and start over with sealant, but if
>I were to try an repair it in place, I would use the "A" version of the
>CS3204 or thin the CS3204B with Toluene rather than use a 1 part material.
>
>I am also surprised they recommended this for access plate sealing as it is
>primarily an adhesive and would probably be difficult to remove. They make
>a low adhesive product just for this purpose, CS3330, which is probably more
>appropriate. Of course it is always nice to be able to limit yourself to a
>single product for multiple purposes. I ordered a 1 oz. kit of CS3330 to do
>my access plates. I think it cost about $8.
>
>In any case, I would be very interested in how it works out for you.
>
>Paul
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: pourable tank sealant??followup
>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>Flamemaster says to use their cs 3600 which, by fortuitous coincidence,
>>can also be used to seal removable covers. (!)
>>
>>http://www.nationalsealants.com/TDS/CS3600.pdf
>>
>>About $25/pint plus the pound of HAZMAT flesh for shipping.
>>
>>Thanks to all for their help.
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>>Charlie England wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>>>
>>>I've written Flamemaster; I hope to get a reply on Monday. Some info on
>>>the web indicates there's a 'c' grade that's pourable, but I haven't
>>>found a supplier that shows it in their online catalog. Can the 'b'
>>>grade stuff be cut with MEK to thin it without hurting the effectiveness?
>>>
>>>The tank in question is the wing leading edge outboard of the stock
>>>tank. The problem was caused by applying the bead of sealant in line
>>>with the ribs' spar flanges instead of just inside of the rivet line
>>>inside the skin. Because of the gentle radius of the spar (acting as the
>>>back baffle of the new tank bays), the bead of sealant missed the spar
>>>completely. The other leading edge was just done this morning & by
>>>applying the bead next to the rivet line, all seems to be well.
>>>
>>>If the joint between the skin & spar can be filled, there shouldn't be a
>>>problem with the rest of the joints & rivets. My big concern is with the
>>>'slosh' coating & then later peeling off the large areas of the tank
>>>that weren't carefully cleaned like the joint areas. A couple of replies
>>>off-list (thanks, guys) indicated that this is the primary problem with
>>>'slosh'.
>>>
>>>The outboard skin is thinner than the tank skins & will flex enough to
>>>lift off the spar even with the ribs attached. I'm still tempted to just
>>>drill the rivets, lift the skin & 'recaulk' with regular sealant. It
>>>seems unlikely that it's effectively 'stuck' to the spar, since it's
>>>leaking along over 1/2 the length of the 3 bays that were closed up for
>>>fuel.
>>>
>>>Any thoughts on which is the better option?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>>Evan and Megan Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
>>>>
>>>>
><evmeg@snowcrest.net>
>
>
>>>>You might try to reach the company that makes the "proseal" we all get
>>>>
>>>>
>from
>
>
>>>>Vans. I understand that you can get it in different consistencies. They
>>>>
>>>>
>are
>
>
>>>>called Flame Master, and I am sure they have a website somewhere. The
>>>>
>>>>
>thing
>
>
>>>>I would be leery of is the real root of the problem with the old slosh.
>>>>
>>>>
>It
>
>
>>>>did not like to stick to the smooth aluminum skins on the inside of the
>>>>tank.........you may have the same problem with any other product.
>>>>
>>>>
>Unless
>
>
>>>>you open up the tank and scuff it all up with a scotchbrite, you may
>>>>
>>>>
>have
>
>
>>>>adhesion problems. I would like to hear about the tanks you are trying
>>>>
>>>>
>to
>
>
>>>>fix.....how many leaks and where. Many times they can be
>>>>repaired........sometimes the best solution is new tanks. Feel free to
>>>>
>>>>
>call
>
>
>>>>or email me, I may be able to help.
>>>>
>>>>Evan Johnson
>>>>www.evansaviationproducts.com
>>>>(530)247-0375
>>>>(530)351-1776 cell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>>>>To: "RV list" <rv-list@matronics.com>
>>>>Subject: RV-List: pourable tank sealant??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England
>>>>>
>>>>>
><ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
>
>>>>>I'm aware of the past problems with tank 'sloshing compound'.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there a newer compound that will allow 'sloshing' a tank without the
>>>>>peeling problems of old?
>>>>>
>>>>>(I'm asking for a friend, of course. I'd never personally need this
>>>>>stuff....)
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>Charlie
>>>>>
Message 44
| 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: RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
James Freeman wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
>
>
>On Feb 16, 2005, at 7:26 PM, flynlow@usaviator.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
>>
>>Hello;
>>
>>I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning
>>that it
>>is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this
>>true?
>>I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each
>>weigh
>>210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>It depends on several things. If you look at Dan Checkoway's database,
>IO-360 equipped -8s run from 1076 to 1176 empty (and the only one under
>1100# is the lighter parallel-valved engine). An RV8 with a
>pre-punched wing has an aerobatic gross of 1600#. Above that, you are
>limited to the utlility category. (see: http://www.rvproject.com/wab/)
>
>While it is possible to loop an RV while remaining well under utility
>category limits, it is also pretty easy to screw up, get too much speed
>coming down the backside, and need more "g" than you expected to
>recover.
>
>While I suspect that many RVs are operated routinely outside these
>limits without problems, at least one RV8 has had a structural failure
>under these conditions,''
>
>See:
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?
>ev_id=20001211X10121&ntsbno=LAX98FA171&akey=1
>
>Be careful
>
>
>
>
Be careful is good advice, but I find it pretty hard to screw up a loop.
do not archive
Message 45
| 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: | RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Bud,
Not Possible?
Tell your friend a Cessna 152 will do loops with 2 people.
A glider will do loops with 2 people.
My brain will perform multiple loops single handedly.
You friend made a dumb statement or worse yet, he was pulling your chain
and choked you on it:)
Loops are way better with 2 people in any plane.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
flynlow@usaviator.net
Subject: RV-List: RV8 and aerobatics
--> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
Hello;
I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning
that it
is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this
true?
I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each
weigh
210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
Bud Silvers
Message 46
| 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: deburring dimpled holes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
I think the point is that if you're gonna machine countersink a hole,
there's no point in deburring the to-be-countersunk side of the hole before
you countersink. I have to assume that's what the book has implied
(POORLY).
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: deburring dimpled holes
> --> RV-List message posted by: "dfenstermacher@earthlink.net"
<dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
>
> I deburr all holes.
>
> That said, I have heard of people not deburring holes which are reamed
> (match-holes).
> If the hole is not pre-punched, then deburring is in order.
>
> There is little to no burr left on reaming the pre-punched holes in these
> kits.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Dave
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
> > To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Date: 2/16/2005 7:40:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: deburring dimpled holes
> >
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
> >
> >
> > Harold,
> >
> > You have reopened that old can of worms! I just read The Standard
> Aircraft
> > Handbook section on drilling, etc., and there can be no doubt about it,
> Larry
> > does not want those holes deburred. Both sides of the argument have
> been
> > hashed over many times on this list, but you're the first one that I
know
> of
> > who has brought up the fact that the Handbook (which I bought from
Van's)
>
> > states this.
> >
> > Most of Larry's book reflects what the FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B
> > contains. So, I looked for this subject in it, but it doesn't seem to
be
> there.
> >
> > I have tried both ways (deburring and not deburring before dimpling) and
> can
> > find no difference in the quality of the dimpled hole. I have never
> seen
> > dimpling cause any cracks either way.
> >
> > I can believe that you can do as much harm by deburring as good. Look
> under
> > a magnifier at your deburred hole. Mine are usually uneven. That
would
> > cause stress risers when the hole is later dimpled. This is why I can
> believe
> > that just drilling the hole may be OK. Of course any gross burrs
should
> be
> > removed, but that doesn't usually happen with 2024-T3 aluminum.
> >
> > I am not on one side or the other. I did deburr all the holes on my RV
> > project, but now I'm wondering if it was all necessary.
> >
> > I don't agree with Dave that you should throw the book away. No one
> person
> > knows everything, whether or not he writes a book.
> >
> > Does anyone know Larry Reithmaier? Better get him on here to defend
> himself!
> >
> > Dan Hopper
> > Walton, IN
> > RV-7A (Flying since July 2004)
> >
> >
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Harold Roman <haroldroman00@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Thanks for the reply. I tried to read this pretty carefully, because it
> > didn't seem right to me either. The book does seem to be pretty clear
in
> > distinguishing between machine countersinking (cut countersink) and
form
> > countersinking (dimpling). I'm looking at the sixth edition and on page
> 88 I see:
> >
> > "Flush head rivets (100 degree countersunk) require a countersunk hole
> > prepared for the manufactured rivet head to nest in. This is
> accomplished by one
> > of two methodes: machine countersinking or form countersinking
> (dimpling) ..."
> >
> > So maybe it's just a typo or an editorial slip? Well the same advice is
> > given in two different places. On page 87 is the bit I quoted in my
> first post:
> >
> > "Deburring shall not be prerformed on predrilled holes that are to be
> > subsequently form countersunk."
> >
> > Then again on page 94 I find:
> >
> > "Do not burr holes to be form countersunk, except on titanium."
> >
> > Ok, so what is that "burr" part? Don't we want to "deburr" the holes?
> The
> > book uses 'burring', 'deburring', and 'debunking', interchangably as
> seen this
> > on page 87:
> >
> > "Drilling operations cause burrs to form on each side of the sheet and
> > between sheets. Removal of these burrs, called 'debunking' or
'burring',
> must be
> > performed ..."
> >
> > Sorry for turning this into some sort of academic disection of the
> "Standard
> > Aircraft Book". But I'm rather simple and I'm getting worried about
> cracks
> > developing from all my flush rivets.
> >
> > Harold
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 2/16/05 10:38:48 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
> > dreel@cox.net writes:
> >
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
> >
> > "Standard Aircraft Handbook"
> > by Larry Reithmaier I find it says "Deburring shall not be prerformed
on
> > predrilled
> > holes that are to be subsequently form countersunk."
> >
> > I can readily imagine how ugly and crack inviting a hole dimpled
without
> > removing the burr often left after dirlling would be. Dimpling expands
> the
> > diameter of a hole so a sharp edge is an invitation to crack even
> without a burr.
> > I simply would ignore this advice regardless of how authoritatively it
> is
> > presented. To me, such a statement is a red flag bringing the rest of
> the
> > book into question. Haven't read it though.
> >
> > That said, I recall hearing of a study done by Mooney aircraft to see
if
> > structural assembly could be streamlined by elimination of the
deburring
> step.
> > Does anyone have the details of their conclusions?
> >
> > Dave Reel - RV8A
> >
> >
>
>
Message 47
| 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: RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
> >>
> >>Hello;
> >>
> >>I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning
> >>that it
> >>is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this
> >>true?
> >>I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each
> >>weigh
> >>210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
I do not perform loops or other vertical maneuvers with a pax in my -8.
First off, it involves a 3-4G pull, which can send some folks into
pukeville. Second, I know my limits and since I don't fly acro regularly
anymore, it's not something I'm comfortable doing. I try to envision
worst-case scenario....pull vertical, engine gags for whatever reason, and
plane falls out at the top. Inverted spins or spins of any flavor are not
approved while dual in my aircraft.
I do rolls if the pax is comfortable with them as I find them to be very
simple to fly safely, do not involve rapid G onset, and are over quickly if
the pax is even the slightest bit unsure of the situation.
My view on the matter. So there.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
RV10 '51 in hibernation mode
Message 48
| 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: | Building an RV to sell |
--> RV-List message posted by: "james frierson" <tn3639@hotmail.com>
I recently finished an RV6A and I miss the building process. Don't get me
wrong, I do love to fly it and I am looking forward to going places in it.
But, I do love the building part as well and having done it once and having
all the tools and a place to do it a second one will go much faster.
I am trying to get a feel for what the market looks like for these things. I
talked to Vans and they indicated that the 7 is the best seller. I have
noticed their are a lot of 8's for sell at prices around 100k. I have also
noticed the lack of 7's for sell as well. Is there a market for the 7's? I
know the issues with liabilities as the archives are full but I believe that
if you build it right you won't have any problems. So my question is two
fold. Is there a market and which plane to build? Right now I am leaning
towards a 7A, 180hp w/CS prop and an IFR panel. But I could be wrong....
Looking forward to input.
Scott
RV6A Flying
Do not archive
Message 49
| 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: RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
On Feb 16, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Jerry Springer wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
>
> James Freeman wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2005, at 7:26 PM, flynlow@usaviator.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
>>>
>>> Hello;
>>>
>>> I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning
>>> that it
>>> is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this
>>> true?
>>> I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each
>>> weigh
>>> 210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It depends on several things. If you look at Dan Checkoway's
>> database,
>> IO-360 equipped -8s run from 1076 to 1176 empty (and the only one
>> under
>> 1100# is the lighter parallel-valved engine). An RV8 with a
>> pre-punched wing has an aerobatic gross of 1600#. Above that, you are
>> limited to the utlility category. (see: http://www.rvproject.com/wab/)
>>
>> While it is possible to loop an RV while remaining well under utility
>> category limits, it is also pretty easy to screw up, get too much
>> speed
>> coming down the backside, and need more "g" than you expected to
>> recover.
>>
>> While I suspect that many RVs are operated routinely outside these
>> limits without problems, at least one RV8 has had a structural failure
>> under these conditions,''
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?
>> ev_id=20001211X10121&ntsbno=LAX98FA171&akey=1
>>
>> Be careful
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Be careful is good advice, but I find it pretty hard to screw up a
> loop.
>
> do not archive
>
>
Message 50
| 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: RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
On Feb 16, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Jerry Springer wrote:
> Be careful is good advice, but I find it pretty hard to screw up a
> loop.
>
> do not archive
>
>
Ahh...it may be that I'm blessed with more talent in the area of
screwing up ;-)
Message 51
| 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: RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Jerry Springer wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
>
>James Freeman wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
>>
>>
>>On Feb 16, 2005, at 7:26 PM, flynlow@usaviator.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: <flynlow@usaviator.net>
>>>
>>>Hello;
>>>
>>>I am beginning construction of an RV8. A friend told me this morning
>>>that it
>>>is not possible to do loops in an RV8 with 2 people on board. Is this
>>>true?
>>>I will be flying with an IO 360 A1A. Myself and passenger will each
>>>weigh
>>>210-225. Let me know what you all think. Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It depends on several things. If you look at Dan Checkoway's database,
>>IO-360 equipped -8s run from 1076 to 1176 empty (and the only one under
>>1100# is the lighter parallel-valved engine). An RV8 with a
>>pre-punched wing has an aerobatic gross of 1600#. Above that, you are
>>limited to the utlility category. (see: http://www.rvproject.com/wab/)
>>
>>While it is possible to loop an RV while remaining well under utility
>>category limits, it is also pretty easy to screw up, get too much speed
>>coming down the backside, and need more "g" than you expected to
>>recover.
>>
>>While I suspect that many RVs are operated routinely outside these
>>limits without problems, at least one RV8 has had a structural failure
>>under these conditions,''
>>
>>See:
>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?
>>ev_id=20001211X10121&ntsbno=LAX98FA171&akey=1
>>
>>Be careful
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Be careful is good advice, but I find it pretty hard to screw up a loop.
>
You obviously aren't as creative as some others have been. ;-)
do not archive
Message 52
| 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: | RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Don't worry, you're not alone!
I managed to screw up a perfectly "easy" hammerhead a few weeks ago and fell
over on my backside. Not a huge problem, but emarrasing none the less. My
"friend" who was along for the ride asked, "what maneuver was that we just
did". I made something up so it sounded like I meant to do it.....don't
know if he believed it or not:)
Cheers,
Stein.
Do Not Archive
P.S., this is the 1st one of these after MANY that I've fallen out of in
long while....like other said, BE CAREFULL and know what to do in case the
plane screws up!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Freeman
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV8 and aerobatics
--> RV-List message posted by: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
Ahh...it may be that I'm blessed with more talent in the area of
screwing up ;-)
Message 53
| 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: Starter Motor |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DejaVu" <wvu@mail.ameritel.net>
Ivan,
Didn't see your post until now. Have you gotten the answer to your
questions yet?
A few years ago I replaced by 122 ring gear with 149 one. I don't remember
replacing the motor, which is the same as yours (big old Prestolite), so it
must work with both 122 or 149 ring gears. I do remember observing the
teeth on the 149 ring gear were beveled slightly more than the other gear.
Hope this helps.
Anh
-10
----- Original Message -----
From: "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl@gvtc.com>
Subject: RV-List: Starter Motor
> --> RV-List message posted by: "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl@gvtc.com>
>
> I need to know how to tell if a particular 12 volt Prestolite starter
motor is used with a 122 or a 149 tooth ring gear. The motor in question has
9 teeth on its drive gear and is stamped with the following:
> A/E P/N 2041
> Part No. MZ4222R
>
> For the future, does anyone know how to tell which ring gear matches a
starter by looking solely at the drive gear?
> Thanks,
> Ivan Haecker -4 1175 hrs. S. Cen. TX
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
Message 54
| 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: | Building an RV to sell |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Spicer" <spike@spikesplace.org>
It might sound simplistic, but I think you should build what you want to
build. I am building not to fly but to build because I love it like you.
What intrigues you? Pick that and go with it. Its for your enjoyment
after all. Besides, you might want to keep it and sell the 6 when your
done.
-- John
www.rivetbangers.com - Building more than RV's
www.spikesplace.org/cgi-php/serendipity - Builder's Log
---
Message 55
| 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: Starter Motor |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
According to the archives:
149 tooth ring gear needs ten or more teeth on the starter drive gear.
122 tooth ring gear needs nine teeth on the starter drive gear.
Dave B
DejaVu wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "DejaVu" <wvu@mail.ameritel.net>
>
>Ivan,
>Didn't see your post until now. Have you gotten the answer to your
>questions yet?
>A few years ago I replaced by 122 ring gear with 149 one. I don't remember
>replacing the motor, which is the same as yours (big old Prestolite), so it
>must work with both 122 or 149 ring gears. I do remember observing the
>teeth on the 149 ring gear were beveled slightly more than the other gear.
>Hope this helps.
>Anh
>-10
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl@gvtc.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Starter Motor
>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl@gvtc.com>
>>
>>I need to know how to tell if a particular 12 volt Prestolite starter
>>
>>
>motor is used with a 122 or a 149 tooth ring gear. The motor in question has
>9 teeth on its drive gear and is stamped with the following:
>
>
>>A/E P/N 2041
>>Part No. MZ4222R
>>
>>For the future, does anyone know how to tell which ring gear matches a
>>
>>
>starter by looking solely at the drive gear?
>
>
>>Thanks,
>>Ivan Haecker -4 1175 hrs. S. Cen. TX
>>
>>
>>---
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>---
>
>
>
>
Message 56
| 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: Starter Motor |
--> RV-List message posted by: KIMSEYCO@aol.com
149 tooth ring gears teeth are shaped like a u at the root and the 122
toothe gear is more like a " V ". THE STARTER is different foe each. tom kimsey
Message 57
| 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: Building an RV to sell |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hi Scott,
Don't rule out building a 10 They should find a good market by the time you
got one done.
Happy building,
Jim in Kelowna
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "james frierson" <tn3639@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Building an RV to sell
> --> RV-List message posted by: "james frierson" <tn3639@hotmail.com>
>
> I recently finished an RV6A and I miss the building process. Don't get me
> wrong, I do love to fly it and I am looking forward to going places in it.
> But, I do love the building part as well and having done it once and
> having
> all the tools and a place to do it a second one will go much faster.
>
> I am trying to get a feel for what the market looks like for these things.
> I
> talked to Vans and they indicated that the 7 is the best seller. I have
> noticed their are a lot of 8's for sell at prices around 100k. I have also
> noticed the lack of 7's for sell as well. Is there a market for the 7's? I
> know the issues with liabilities as the archives are full but I believe
> that
> if you build it right you won't have any problems. So my question is two
> fold. Is there a market and which plane to build? Right now I am leaning
> towards a 7A, 180hp w/CS prop and an IFR panel. But I could be wrong....
>
> Looking forward to input.
>
> Scott
> RV6A Flying
> Do not archive
>
>
>
Message 58
| 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: RV8 and aerobatics |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Stein Bruch wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
>
>Don't worry, you're not alone!
>
>I managed to screw up a perfectly "easy" hammerhead a few weeks ago and fell
>over on my backside. Not a huge problem, but emarrasing none the less. My
>"friend" who was along for the ride asked, "what maneuver was that we just
>did". I made something up so it sounded like I meant to do it.....don't
>know if he believed it or not:)
>
>Cheers,
>Stein.
>
Stein, in aerobatic parlance what you did is a wifferdill. Great
maneuver. The neat thing about wifferdills is that they seldom look the
same twice, and when a pilot really tries to duplicate a really neat
wifferdill ...... he usually fails miserably. Wifferdills are
especially good when viewed from the ground, though, so the pilot never
gets to really appreciate the maneuver.
Linn
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>P.S., this is the 1st one of these after MANY that I've fallen out of in
>long while....like other said, BE CAREFULL and know what to do in case the
>plane screws up!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Freeman
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: RV8 and aerobatics
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
>
>Ahh...it may be that I'm blessed with more talent in the area of
>screwing up ;-)
>
>
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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! --
|