Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:01 AM - Re: Flap Brace Dimpling (Jamie Painter)
2. 04:25 AM - Re: Weight reduction (Vic Jacko)
3. 05:17 AM - Re: Weight reduction (James E. Clark)
4. 05:34 AM - Re: Re: Rivet Cutting (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
5. 05:35 AM - Re: Weight reduction (Bob 1)
6. 05:40 AM - Re: Weight reduction (Kevin Williams)
7. 06:01 AM - Re: Weight reduction now LSA (CBRxxDRV@aol.com)
8. 06:13 AM - Re: Weight reduction (Dwight Frye)
9. 06:17 AM - Re: 7A - lower cowl exit air attach brackets (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
10. 06:40 AM - Re: Weight reduction (Vic Jacko)
11. 06:56 AM - Re: Weight reduction (dsvs@comcast.net)
12. 07:20 AM - Re: Weight reduction (Evan and Megan Johnson)
13. 07:24 AM - Re: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions (Evan and Megan Johnson)
14. 07:48 AM - Re: Weight reduction (Doug Rozendaal)
15. 08:35 AM - Re: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions (Bobby Hester)
16. 08:53 AM - Items for sale (Paul Brown)
17. 10:07 AM - Re: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions (John Danielson)
18. 10:08 AM - Re: Weight reduction (John Danielson)
19. 10:49 AM - Re: Weight reduction (Jeff Point)
20. 10:51 AM - Re: Weight reduction (linn walters)
21. 11:45 AM - Re: Weight reduction (Vic Jacko)
22. 11:47 AM - Re: Weight reduction (Vic Jacko)
23. 03:57 PM - Re: Handheld Radio (Gould, Richard AE1 NAVTESTWINGPAC 561000E)
24. 06:14 PM - Re: Weight reduction (Kevin Horton)
25. 06:14 PM - Re: EXPERIMENTAL Signage/ WAS: Weight reduction (John D. Heath)
26. 07:06 PM - acro LSA was Re: Weight reduction (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
27. 07:34 PM - Re: Re: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions ()
28. 08:07 PM - Re: Rivet Cutting (Steve & Denise)
29. 08:08 PM - Re: Re: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions (DonVS)
30. 08:09 PM - Re: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions (Bobby Hester)
31. 08:27 PM - RV-10 HS building question (Bill and Tami Britton)
32. 08:48 PM - RV-10 wing kit shipping price (Bill and Tami Britton)
33. 10:02 PM - Re: RV-10 wing kit shipping price (Paul Rice)
34. 10:06 PM - Re: Handheld Radio (Mickey Coggins)
35. 10:09 PM - Re: acro LSA was Re: Weight reduction (Alison and Neil)
36. 11:32 PM - Re: Weight reduction (Bob 1)
37. 11:49 PM - Re: EXPERIMENTAL Signage/ WAS: Weight reduction (Bob 1)
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: | Flap Brace Dimpling |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter@jpainter.org>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Becker" <ctbecker@atlanticbb.net>
>
> I just made the same mistake and the callout for the blind rivets for the QB
> asks for a CR3212 4-6 which is a flush head cherry max. Any thoughts as to
> why a flush head is requested?
Where do you see this callout? Is this a different drawing the Quickbuilders
get?
do not archive
>
> Charlie Becker
> N464CB(r) RV8A
> Wings
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jamie Painter
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Flap Brace Dimpling
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter@jpainter.org>
>
>
>> I would do just that, we QB builders us the MS-142 (I think) "pop" rivets.
>> Those rivets can't be seen once the flap is mounted anyway so no one will
>> know you "cheated".The idea of drilling out rivets almost always seems
> more
>> painful than it turns out to be. I've wasted weeks agonizing over drilling
>> out a few rivets, thinking of alternatives etc when 30 minutes of work and
>> the problem would have been solved.
>>
>> Neil McLeod
>> 7 QB N748M Finishing
>
> I called Van's, talked to Ken, and he said the 'best' thing to do would be
> to
> just drill out the flap brace and then put it back on with MSP-42's. I hate
> to do that, since now my wings will look like QB wings. ;-) You're right
> though, no one will ever see it. I'll just chalk this one up to a lesson
> learned and drill 'em out.
>
> --
> Jamie D. Painter
> RV-7A wings almost done...
> http://rv.jpainter.org
>
>
--
Jamie D. Painter
RV-7A wings N622JP (reserved)
http://rv.jpainter.org
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Jim, I played the part of Don Quixote in the musical Man of La Mancha and I
encourage you to pursue your dream of the super light Van,s!
Just a few points:
If you really get the weight down the stall speed will fall with the weight
reduction. If you were to build the RV-9 which has the longer wing and put
a 115 horse 914 Rotax in it you may achieve your weight goal. An have an
airplane which will stall "just right" The VW engine also sounds good.
How to balance the plane is the next issue.
How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move the
center of effect lift to the rear. Mount the battery in the rear. Do not
use strobes or nav lights and use minimum radios and instruments. I was
shocked to see the RV-10 that Van flew into New Braunfels, TX did not have
nav lights or strobes.
If you make it a one passenger airplane then you do not need a ELT as I
remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning passengers
this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on the
airplane another gram of weight saved.
"This is my quest to follow that star no matter how hopeless no matter how
far" "to fight for the right to keep flying"
Good luck with your quest. Now if I could only find my horse, sword and
Dulcinea.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: <j1j2h3@juno.com>
Subject: RV-List: Weight reduction
> --> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>
> "To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear with
> unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
>
> The FAA is forcing me to go to Light Sport Aircraft by making it
> impossibly expensive to maintain my medical. Among many other things,
> they are requiring that I get a test of my pacemaker every 4 weeks (my
> doctor says once every 6 months is adequate). This costs about $330 and
> there is no way my insurance will pay for it that often. Then I will
> need a stress test with ECG and eye evaluation with field of vision test
> Then since my medical is a special issuance, it can not be renewed by a
> local AME, but must be submitted to Oklahoma City. I had to get all of
> these tests last year to get my medical reinstated, but I thought it was
> a one-time requirement, and my doctors were able to do the tests as part
> of my post-operative checkup. After I submitted all of the data, it took
> 6 months for approval. Altogether, I figure it will cost me $1500 -
> $2000 a year for 6 months of flying.
>
> Sooo .... this is where the impossible dream starts - I want to build my
> RV-7 as a Light Sport Aircraft. Requirements are 1320 lb gross weight,
> 138 mph top speed straight and level, and 51 mph stall speed w/o flaps.
> Stall speed of the RV-7 at 1400 lb gross weight is 51 mph (probably with
> flaps). Weight of 1320 pounds will lower this, but I may have to add
> vortex generators to get it lower without flaps. Limiting speed to 138
> mph maximum is no problem - I'll just use a prop that can not get above
> this at max engine rpm's, and I'll have terrific climb performance. The
> weight is the biggie.
>
> I figure I could bring the plane in at about 1000 lb empty weight with an
> O-320 engine by watching construction carefully, foregoing paint, and
> eliminating any luxuries such as sound insulation. However, this is
> still about 200 lb too much to make the gross weight of 1320 lb., even
> with only 20 gallons of fuel.
>
> Sooo, I'm going to have to take some drastic measures. The RV 7 will
> cruise at 172 mph with 88 horsepower (55% of 160). Extrapolating, I
> would only need 55 hp for 138 mph. I can get a VW-based engine with a
> PSRU that will give me 100 hp. With a prop that limited top speed to 138
> mph, this should still give me an acceptable climb rate. This engine
> would weigh 100 lb less than the O-320. To maintain the center of
> gravity, I would extend the motor mount and cowl.
>
> Now, I still need 100 lb more weight reduction, and this is where the
> going gets tough and is the real reason for this post. With the reduced
> gross weight and speed, I should be able to reduce some of the structure.
> The question is how much and where. I would appreciate any suggestions.
> If need be, I can eliminate the electrical system, since I'll only be
> able to fly day VFR anyway.
>
> I've checked the archives using "weight reduction" as a search string,
> but didn't find a whole lot.
>
> I know I am committing heresy by proposing to cripple a fine plane in
> this manner, but I can't find any other aircraft that would measure up to
> it, even in its crippled condition. It still will cruise faster than a
> 172, still be aerobatic, and will still have the same delightful control
> harmony.
>
> Jim Hasper - RV7
>
> Jim Hasper - RV-7
> Giving new meaning to the term "slow build"
> Franklin, TN
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Jim,
Have you considered waiting until Van's finishes their LSA effort?
I don't know how fast you can make the mod's you mention or what is involved
in getting it "approved" but it may in the end be faster and cheaper to see
what they come up with.
Not trying to delay the dream, just point out a potentially different, but
at least as effective route to get there.
James
{SNIP}
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rivet Cutting |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Me too.
do not archive
Dan Hopper
RV-7A (Flying -- thinking about building another one)
In a message dated 3/29/05 10:12:41 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
rv7ator@yahoo.com writes:
Sure Steve,
I'd really like to know the supplier that you get your rivets from.
Thanks,
Ed -7
waiting on QB wings and fuse
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: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
>
> How to balance the plane is the next issue.
>
> How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move the
> center of effect lift to the rear.
Certainly in the spirit of....
"To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear with
unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
> remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning passengers
> this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on
the
> airplane another gram of weight saved.
?> Vic
What FAR makes this so?
My A&P/AI won't sign off my annual condition inspection without these on my
single place RV-3.
Do not archive.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
I think vik is spot on with the suggestion of a rotax engine. They have
really evolved over the years and are a great option for ecconomy and light
weight builds.
Further, I wasn't aware that vans was coming out with a LSA class of plane.
Does anyone have any links?
Jim you might also want to consider trading you're RV7 project for an RV3
i.e. something smaller and lighter this would give you a lighter airframe
and you could drop in a 100hp continental or possibly a rotax.
From: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Weight reduction
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Jim, I played the part of Don Quixote in the musical Man of La Mancha and I
encourage you to pursue your dream of the super light Van,s!
Just a few points:
If you really get the weight down the stall speed will fall with the weight
reduction. If you were to build the RV-9 which has the longer wing and put
a 115 horse 914 Rotax in it you may achieve your weight goal. An have an
airplane which will stall "just right" The VW engine also sounds good.
How to balance the plane is the next issue.
How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move the
center of effect lift to the rear. Mount the battery in the rear. Do not
use strobes or nav lights and use minimum radios and instruments. I was
shocked to see the RV-10 that Van flew into New Braunfels, TX did not have
nav lights or strobes.
If you make it a one passenger airplane then you do not need a ELT as I
remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning passengers
this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on the
airplane another gram of weight saved.
"This is my quest to follow that star no matter how hopeless no matter how
far" "to fight for the right to keep flying"
Good luck with your quest. Now if I could only find my horse, sword and
Dulcinea.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: <j1j2h3@juno.com>
Subject: RV-List: Weight reduction
> --> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>
> "To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear with
> unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
>
> The FAA is forcing me to go to Light Sport Aircraft by making it
> impossibly expensive to maintain my medical. Among many other things,
> they are requiring that I get a test of my pacemaker every 4 weeks (my
> doctor says once every 6 months is adequate). This costs about $330 and
> there is no way my insurance will pay for it that often. Then I will
> need a stress test with ECG and eye evaluation with field of vision test
> Then since my medical is a special issuance, it can not be renewed by a
> local AME, but must be submitted to Oklahoma City. I had to get all of
> these tests last year to get my medical reinstated, but I thought it was
> a one-time requirement, and my doctors were able to do the tests as part
> of my post-operative checkup. After I submitted all of the data, it took
> 6 months for approval. Altogether, I figure it will cost me $1500 -
> $2000 a year for 6 months of flying.
>
> Sooo .... this is where the impossible dream starts - I want to build my
> RV-7 as a Light Sport Aircraft. Requirements are 1320 lb gross weight,
> 138 mph top speed straight and level, and 51 mph stall speed w/o flaps.
> Stall speed of the RV-7 at 1400 lb gross weight is 51 mph (probably with
> flaps). Weight of 1320 pounds will lower this, but I may have to add
> vortex generators to get it lower without flaps. Limiting speed to 138
> mph maximum is no problem - I'll just use a prop that can not get above
> this at max engine rpm's, and I'll have terrific climb performance. The
> weight is the biggie.
>
> I figure I could bring the plane in at about 1000 lb empty weight with an
> O-320 engine by watching construction carefully, foregoing paint, and
> eliminating any luxuries such as sound insulation. However, this is
> still about 200 lb too much to make the gross weight of 1320 lb., even
> with only 20 gallons of fuel.
>
> Sooo, I'm going to have to take some drastic measures. The RV 7 will
> cruise at 172 mph with 88 horsepower (55% of 160). Extrapolating, I
> would only need 55 hp for 138 mph. I can get a VW-based engine with a
> PSRU that will give me 100 hp. With a prop that limited top speed to 138
> mph, this should still give me an acceptable climb rate. This engine
> would weigh 100 lb less than the O-320. To maintain the center of
> gravity, I would extend the motor mount and cowl.
>
> Now, I still need 100 lb more weight reduction, and this is where the
> going gets tough and is the real reason for this post. With the reduced
> gross weight and speed, I should be able to reduce some of the structure.
> The question is how much and where. I would appreciate any suggestions.
> If need be, I can eliminate the electrical system, since I'll only be
> able to fly day VFR anyway.
>
> I've checked the archives using "weight reduction" as a search string,
> but didn't find a whole lot.
>
> I know I am committing heresy by proposing to cripple a fine plane in
> this manner, but I can't find any other aircraft that would measure up to
> it, even in its crippled condition. It still will cruise faster than a
> 172, still be aerobatic, and will still have the same delightful control
> harmony.
>
> Jim Hasper - RV7
>
> Jim Hasper - RV-7
> Giving new meaning to the term "slow build"
> Franklin, TN
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight reduction now LSA |
--> RV-List message posted by: CBRxxDRV@aol.com
In a message dated 3/30/05 8:41:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
kevinsky18@hotmail.com writes:
> Further, I wasn't aware that vans was coming out with a LSA class of plane.
>
> Does anyone have any links?
>
Go to Vansaicraft.com and then "Whats New"
Not much there just a little tease :)
Low Wing, 2 place side by side, Rotax 912 80 to 100hp
Van needs to loose the Rotax Idea and at least use a Jabaru
if not a small Cont or Lyco.
RV-4
RV-8 QB .... Fuselage (canoe)
Sal Capra
Lakeland, FL
My Home Page
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: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye <dwight@openweave.org>
On Wed Mar 30 08:39:25 2005, Kevin Williams wrote :
>[ ... snip ... ]
>Further, I wasn't aware that vans was coming out with a LSA class of plane.
>Does anyone have any links?
>[ ... snip ... ]
Look at :
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/what-new.htm
... the third section on the page. Interesting!
-- Dwight
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 7A - lower cowl exit air attach brackets |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Walter,
You're right it is tight in that area. I think I used 5 minute epoxy to
hold the washers and nuts in place. You can put short screws or bolts with
washers (too short to engage the nylon) in from the bottom with no U-620B piece
in there, and let the epoxy set up. Then remove the bolts and install the
U-620B. It never has to be taken off again.
Don't worry about weakening the mount, it has lots of other gussets and
welds in that area. I doubt seriously if those 2 small holes will put it over
the edge.
Hope this helps.
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A (Flying -- now in the paint shop)
hopperdhh at aol.com
In a message dated 3/29/05 12:14:04 P.M. US Eastern Standard Time,
walter@tondu.com writes:
Applies to 7A builders only. Sorry for the double post.
The lower cowl exit air attach brackets specify attaching the U-620B
to the lower weldment gusset on the engine mount gear socket by
drilling two holes in the gusset and bolting the 620 to it.
Unfortunately, the plans that Vans provides are outdated and were
probably drawn for RV6 installations, not sure.
http://www.rv7-a.com/Plans/45%20cowling%20installation%20rv-7.pdf
The problem is that the gusset is so small that drilling two
holes in it (#12) is next to impossible. Getting washers and
nuts behind the gusset will be an acrobatic act or near
impossible, plus, I don't really want to drill any holes in
the gussets, I would like to keep my nosegear assembly as strong
as possible.
I called Vans and Tom wasn't aware of any changes in the gear
weldment but was going to check.
I suggested that I could use Adel clamps on the engine mount
tubes and hold it in place that way and he agreed this would
be satisfactory and in fact might add some shock absorbing too.
I just wanted to know if there was a better way. Am I the
only one that has run into this issue?
Thanks,
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Sorry, I don't know where to find the info but it is there. The purpose
of the placard and the word experimental is for the benefit of the passenger
you would be carrying. I suspect you won't be taking anyone with you in
the RV_3!
Regards,
Vic
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Weight reduction
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
>
>>
>> How to balance the plane is the next issue.
>>
>> How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move the
>> center of effect lift to the rear.
>
> Certainly in the spirit of....
> "To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear with
> unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
>
>
>> remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning
>> passengers
>> this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on
> the
>> airplane another gram of weight saved.
>
> ?> Vic
>
>
> What FAR makes this so?
> My A&P/AI won't sign off my annual condition inspection without these on
> my
> single place RV-3.
>
>
> 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: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
Vic,
When I registered my single place glider the FAA and I had the same argument.
Their response was put the experimental placard in or you can nopt register it.
I fought and looked hard for any help from the FAR's. There is no exemption
for single seat experimental as far as the placard. Don
ASW20C
RV7 Fuse
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>
> Sorry, I don't know where to find the info but it is there. The purpose
> of the placard and the word experimental is for the benefit of the passenger
> you would be carrying. I suspect you won't be taking anyone with you in
> the RV_3!
>
> Regards,
>
> Vic
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Weight reduction
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
> >
> >>
> >> How to balance the plane is the next issue.
> >>
> >> How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move the
> >> center of effect lift to the rear.
> >
> > Certainly in the spirit of....
> > "To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear with
> > unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
> >
> >
> >> remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning
> >> passengers
> >> this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on
> > the
> >> airplane another gram of weight saved.
> >
> > ?> Vic
> >
> >
> > What FAR makes this so?
> > My A&P/AI won't sign off my annual condition inspection without these on
> > my
> > single place RV-3.
> >
> >
> > Do not archive.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
There it is!....That's what I would be doing! Sell the RV7, buy a piper cub
and bank the extra money until the new Vans LSA is available. The value of
the Cub is consistently climbing so you may even make a few bucks on it in
the couple of years you need it. There is really no good reason to try to
slow down and lighten your RV7.....if nothing else you will likely destroy
its value.
Cheers..
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
----- Original Message -----
From: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Weight reduction
> --> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
>
> Jim,
>
> Have you considered waiting until Van's finishes their LSA effort?
>
> I don't know how fast you can make the mod's you mention or what is
involved
> in getting it "approved" but it may in the end be faster and cheaper to
see
> what they come up with.
>
> Not trying to delay the dream, just point out a potentially different, but
> at least as effective route to get there.
>
> James
>
>
> {SNIP}
>
>
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: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
Happy to help Eric. If you have any fuel tank questions, feel free to
contact me anytime. I have built hundreds of them and I can likely help you
with any problems that may arise. Sealing some RV 10 tanks today....big job,
lots of goo.
cheers....
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
>
> Evan,
>
> We received the drawing and instructions today.
> Thanks for sending the info, it will be a great help to "know" what we're
> doing!
> Let us know if we can help you in any way.
>
> Eric & Andy.
> RV-8A in NC
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:13:04 -0800
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
> <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
>
> Send me your address Eric....I believe I have an extra set of drawings for
> this. I have installed a ton of these now and its no big deal....just
takes
> time.
>
> Evan Johnson
> www.evansaviationproducts.com
> (530)247-0375
> (530)351-1776 cell
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
> >
> > We're building a RV-8 fuel tank with capacitance fuel senders.
> >
> > The capacitance sensor kit is second hand and did not come with
> > instructions.
> >
> > Could some tell us were to go to get the instruction or fax/scan them
to
> us?
> >
> > Thanks
> > ERic-
> > RV-8 wings/tanks
> >
> >
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
Buy a Taylorcraft instead. They fly 10 times better than a Cub, (same
airfoil as an RV), they are cheaper and 10 to 20 mph faster.
I have an L-2 which is not on the LSA list, 5# too heavy is what I hear, but
I tell people, The L-2 is a Cub with leg room and they hooked up the
ailerons. The BC-65's and BC-12D's are great little airplanes and one of the
best values in aviation.
Cubs are highly over-rated, unless you are doing Bush work. Then they beat
the T-crate hands down.
That should start a "discussion." Standing by with my asbestos underwear!
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
Do not archive!
" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
>
> There it is!....That's what I would be doing! Sell the RV7, buy a piper
> cub
> and bank the extra money until the new Vans LSA is available. The value of
> the Cub is consistently climbing so you may even make a few bucks on it in
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: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
Evan and Megan Johnson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
>
>Happy to help Eric. If you have any fuel tank questions, feel free to
>contact me anytime. I have built hundreds of them and I can likely help you
>with any problems that may arise. Sealing some RV 10 tanks today....big job,
>lots of goo.
>cheers....
>Evan Johnson
>www.evansaviationproducts.com
>(530)247-0375
>(530)351-1776 cell
>
>
How do you reccomend sealing the round plate on the end? I used fuel
lube on the cork gasket and prosealed around the edge but I do not think
it is going to be a good seal. I am thinking about removeing it cleaning
it up and just prosealing the cover in place with out the cork.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Brown" <nightmare@adelphia.net>
Listers, I am updating my panel and have some items that I will be putting on
E-bay soon. I thought I would give you guys a chance first. If anybody is interested,
let me know.
SIZE MAKE Description
YEAR
3 1/8 Bendix Airspeed 240MPH
3 1/8 RC Allen Horizon Indicator Mod RCA22-7
2002
3 1/8 Mitchell Aircraft Recording Manual Tach 327 on meter TSO'ed
3 1/8 United Instruments Alt 20K
1981
3 1/8 Cessna DG
3 1/8 United Instruments VSI 0-4000 Type III
1995
3 1/8 Navaid AP-1 no servo
2 1/4 UMA Manufold Pressure Mechanical 10-35 inhg
2 1/4 UMA Fuel Pressure Mechanical 0-10 psi
2 1/4 UMA Suction Mechanical 1-10 in Mercury
2 1/4 Isspro (2) Fuel gauges
2 1/4 Westach Voltmeter 0-16V
2 1/4 KS Avionis Mixture Mizer EGT Monitor
2 1/4 Aerospace Logic EGT fro 4 cy EGT-100-4
New
Paul
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: | Capacitance Fuel sender instructions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Danielson" <johnd@wlcwyo.com>
I used just fuel lube without any problems. Easy to remove the sending
unit if you need to.
John L. Danielson
RV-6
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Hester
Subject: Re: RV-List: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
Evan and Megan Johnson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
<evmeg@snowcrest.net>
>
>Happy to help Eric. If you have any fuel tank questions, feel free to
>contact me anytime. I have built hundreds of them and I can likely help
you
>with any problems that may arise. Sealing some RV 10 tanks today....big
job,
>lots of goo.
>cheers....
>Evan Johnson
>www.evansaviationproducts.com
>(530)247-0375
>(530)351-1776 cell
>
>
How do you reccomend sealing the round plate on the end? I used fuel
lube on the cork gasket and prosealed around the edge but I do not think
it is going to be a good seal. I am thinking about removeing it cleaning
it up and just prosealing the cover in place with out the cork.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Danielson" <johnd@wlcwyo.com>
I totally agree with Doug.
You'll save a bunch of money, and you'll always get your money out of
the Taylorcraft.
John L. Danielson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Rozendaal
Subject: Re: RV-List: Weight reduction
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
Buy a Taylorcraft instead. They fly 10 times better than a Cub, (same
airfoil as an RV), they are cheaper and 10 to 20 mph faster.
I have an L-2 which is not on the LSA list, 5# too heavy is what I hear,
but
I tell people, The L-2 is a Cub with leg room and they hooked up the
ailerons. The BC-65's and BC-12D's are great little airplanes and one of
the
best values in aviation.
Cubs are highly over-rated, unless you are doing Bush work. Then they
beat
the T-crate hands down.
That should start a "discussion." Standing by with my asbestos
underwear!
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
Do not archive!
" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
>
> There it is!....That's what I would be doing! Sell the RV7, buy a
piper
> cub
> and bank the extra money until the new Vans LSA is available. The
value of
> the Cub is consistently climbing so you may even make a few bucks on
it in
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: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
This is half right. The EXPERIMENTAL placard needs to be in place even
in a single place. The "This aircraft is amatuer built...blah blah"
placard is not needed for a single place.
Jeff Point
>nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning passengers
>this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on the
>airplane another gram of weight saved.
>
>
>
>
>
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: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
The passenger warning doesn't have to be there on a single place, but
the word 'experimental' still has to be there. I was the unfortunate
spotlight for the NTSB on my Pitts, and they accepted the 'experimental'
on the data-plate affixed to the baggage door .... on the turtledeck.
They did discuss that fact that it was a single place (no passenger
warning) and that the 'experimental' placard must be visible as you
enter the cockpit ..... and in my case it did.
Linn
Vic Jacko wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>
>Sorry, I don't know where to find the info but it is there. The purpose
>of the placard and the word experimental is for the benefit of the passenger
>you would be carrying. I suspect you won't be taking anyone with you in
>the RV_3!
>
>Regards,
>
>Vic
>
>Do not archive
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Weight reduction
>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>> How to balance the plane is the next issue.
>>>
>>>How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move the
>>>center of effect lift to the rear.
>>>
>>>
>>Certainly in the spirit of....
>>"To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear with
>>unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning
>>>passengers
>>>this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>airplane another gram of weight saved.
>>>
>>>
>>?> Vic
>>
>>
>>What FAR makes this so?
>>My A&P/AI won't sign off my annual condition inspection without these on
>>my
>>single place RV-3.
>>
>>
>>Do not archive.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Ok, just trying to save a gram or two!
Regards
Vic
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <dsvs@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Weight reduction
> --> RV-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
>
> Vic,
> When I registered my single place glider the FAA and I had the same
> argument. Their response was put the experimental placard in or you can
> nopt register it. I fought and looked hard for any help from the FAR's.
> There is no exemption for single seat experimental as far as the placard.
> Don
>
> ASW20C
> RV7 Fuse
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Sorry, I don't know where to find the info but it is there. The
>> purpose
>> of the placard and the word experimental is for the benefit of the
>> passenger
>> you would be carrying. I suspect you won't be taking anyone with you in
>> the RV_3!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vic
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
>> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Weight reduction
>>
>>
>> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> How to balance the plane is the next issue.
>> >>
>> >> How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move
>> >> the
>> >> center of effect lift to the rear.
>> >
>> > Certainly in the spirit of....
>> > "To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear
>> > with
>> > unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
>> >
>> >
>> >> remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning
>> >> passengers
>> >> this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental"
>> >> on
>> > the
>> >> airplane another gram of weight saved.
>> >
>> > ?> Vic
>> >
>> >
>> > What FAR makes this so?
>> > My A&P/AI won't sign off my annual condition inspection without these
>> > on
>> > my
>> > single place RV-3.
>> >
>> >
>> > Do not archive.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Thanks for the info,
I don't mind being half right as long as I am half right all the time!
Vic
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Point" <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Weight reduction
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
> This is half right. The EXPERIMENTAL placard needs to be in place even
> in a single place. The "This aircraft is amatuer built...blah blah"
> placard is not needed for a single place.
>
> Jeff Point
>
>>nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning passengers
>>this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on
>>the
>>airplane another gram of weight saved.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Gould, Richard AE1 NAVTESTWINGPAC 561000E" <richard.j.gould@navy.mil>
Ed,
I have a Vertex-Standard (formerly Yaesu) VXA-200 and I love it. I can't say that
I use it everyday, but I have certainly used it enough to get to know it well.
LIKES:
Sturdy metal construction (tough little sucker)
Lighted Keyboard
Able to display frequency OR alphanumeric (CMA ATIS, JOSHUA APP, etc)
Jacks for headset
Altimeter/Barometer/Temperature Sensor
MANY Pre-Programmed frequencies
VOR Indicator
DISLIKES:
Not terribly intuitive, but manageable (just takes practice)
Doesn't inflate into a liferaft
Rick Gould
RV-4 Whidbey Island, WA
FLY NAVY!
__I__
--O--O--( )--O--X--
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>
>Jim, I played the part of Don Quixote in the musical Man of La Mancha and I
>encourage you to pursue your dream of the super light Van,s!
>
>
>Just a few points:
>
>
>If you really get the weight down the stall speed will fall with the weight
>reduction. If you were to build the RV-9 which has the longer wing and put
>a 115 horse 914 Rotax in it you may achieve your weight goal. An have an
>airplane which will stall "just right" The VW engine also sounds good.
>
> How to balance the plane is the next issue.
>
>How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move the
>center of effect lift to the rear. Mount the battery in the rear. Do not
>use strobes or nav lights and use minimum radios and instruments. I was
>shocked to see the RV-10 that Van flew into New Braunfels, TX did not have
>nav lights or strobes.
>
>If you make it a one passenger airplane then you do not need a ELT as I
>remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning passengers
>this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on the
>airplane another gram of weight saved.
>
>"This is my quest to follow that star no matter how hopeless no matter how
>far" "to fight for the right to keep flying"
>
>Good luck with your quest. Now if I could only find my horse, sword and
>Dulcinea.
>
>Vic
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <j1j2h3@juno.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Weight reduction
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>>
>> "To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear with
>> unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
>>
>> The FAA is forcing me to go to Light Sport Aircraft by making it
>> impossibly expensive to maintain my medical. Among many other things,
>> they are requiring that I get a test of my pacemaker every 4 weeks (my
>> doctor says once every 6 months is adequate). This costs about $330 and
>> there is no way my insurance will pay for it that often. Then I will
>> need a stress test with ECG and eye evaluation with field of vision test
>> Then since my medical is a special issuance, it can not be renewed by a
>> local AME, but must be submitted to Oklahoma City. I had to get all of
>> these tests last year to get my medical reinstated, but I thought it was
>> a one-time requirement, and my doctors were able to do the tests as part
>> of my post-operative checkup. After I submitted all of the data, it took
>> 6 months for approval. Altogether, I figure it will cost me $1500 -
>> $2000 a year for 6 months of flying.
>>
>> Sooo .... this is where the impossible dream starts - I want to build my
>> RV-7 as a Light Sport Aircraft. Requirements are 1320 lb gross weight,
>> 138 mph top speed straight and level, and 51 mph stall speed w/o flaps.
>> Stall speed of the RV-7 at 1400 lb gross weight is 51 mph (probably with
>> flaps). Weight of 1320 pounds will lower this, but I may have to add
>> vortex generators to get it lower without flaps. Limiting speed to 138
>> mph maximum is no problem - I'll just use a prop that can not get above
>> this at max engine rpm's, and I'll have terrific climb performance. The
>> weight is the biggie.
>>
>> I figure I could bring the plane in at about 1000 lb empty weight with an
>> O-320 engine by watching construction carefully, foregoing paint, and
>> eliminating any luxuries such as sound insulation. However, this is
>> still about 200 lb too much to make the gross weight of 1320 lb., even
>> with only 20 gallons of fuel.
>>
>> Sooo, I'm going to have to take some drastic measures. The RV 7 will
>> cruise at 172 mph with 88 horsepower (55% of 160). Extrapolating, I
>> would only need 55 hp for 138 mph. I can get a VW-based engine with a
>> PSRU that will give me 100 hp. With a prop that limited top speed to 138
>> mph, this should still give me an acceptable climb rate. This engine
>> would weigh 100 lb less than the O-320. To maintain the center of
> > gravity, I would extend the motor mount and cowl.
>>
>> Now, I still need 100 lb more weight reduction, and this is where the
>> going gets tough and is the real reason for this post. With the reduced
>> gross weight and speed, I should be able to reduce some of the structure.
>> The question is how much and where. I would appreciate any suggestions.
>> If need be, I can eliminate the electrical system, since I'll only be
>> able to fly day VFR anyway.
>>
>> I've checked the archives using "weight reduction" as a search string,
>> but didn't find a whole lot.
>>
>> I know I am committing heresy by proposing to cripple a fine plane in
>> this manner, but I can't find any other aircraft that would measure up to
>> it, even in its crippled condition. It still will cruise faster than a
>> 172, still be aerobatic, and will still have the same delightful control
>> harmony.
>>
> > Jim Hasper - RV7
Jim,
It seems like you have already started construction on the RV-7 when
the health issue roadblock came up. That is a crying shame, as it is
extremely unlikely that you will be able to modify the RV-7 to be a
worthwhile LSA. You want to cut out 100 lb of structure, yet you
still want it to be strong enough to be aerobatic. These
requirements are incompatible.
You might think that reducing the engine weight would allow you to
lighten the structure in the forward fuselage. But, as you noted,
you will need to extend the engine mount for CG reasons. The longer
engine mount will increase the loads on the engine mount attach
points, so that will eat up much of the margin.
Sweeping the wing is not really an option, as that would require a
whole new spar design, and it greatly increases the torsional loads
at the wing attachment, as the lift on the outer parts of the wing
would be trying to twist the wing nose down. So, you would need to
increase the structure to carry this increased torsional loads (i.e.
you need to increase the weight). Sweeping the wing would also
probably add a need for two more bellcranks in the aileron pushrods
(even more weight).
It seems very unlikely you could remove 100 lb of structure and still
have an aircraft that is safe to fly, let alone do aerobatics in.
If there is no hope of sorting out the license issue, then you really
should sell the kit. Then either purchase a real LSA, or wait for
Van to bring his LSA to the market (or both).
Good luck.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: EXPERIMENTAL Signage/ WAS: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q@direcway.com>
Look at AC20-27F paragraph 9.
John D. Heath
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Point" <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Weight reduction
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
> This is half right. The EXPERIMENTAL placard needs to be in place even
> in a single place. The "This aircraft is amatuer built...blah blah"
> placard is not needed for a single place.
>
> Jeff Point
>
>>nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning passengers
>>this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on
>>the
>>airplane another gram of weight saved.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Have't paid attention to the list of approved LSA A/C.
Is there a respectable acro capable plane in the bunch?
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko"
> >
> >Jim, I played the part of Don Quixote in the musical Man of La Mancha and I
> >encourage you to pursue your dream of the super light Van,s!
> >
> >
> >Just a few points:
> >
> >
> >If you really get the weight down the stall speed will fall with the weight
> >reduction. If you were to build the RV-9 which has the longer wing and put
> >a 115 horse 914 Rotax in it you may achieve your weight goal. An have an
> >airplane which will stall "just right" The VW engine also sounds good.
> >
> > How to balance the plane is the next issue.
> >
> >How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move the
> >center of effect lift to the rear. Mount the battery in the rear. Do not
> >use strobes or nav lights and use minimum radios and instruments. I was
> >shocked to see the RV-10 that Van flew into New Braunfels, TX did not have
> >nav lights or strobes.
> >
> >If you make it a one passenger airplane then you do not need a ELT as I
> >remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning passengers
> >this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on the
> >airplane another gram of weight saved.
> >
> >"This is my quest to follow that star no matter how hopeless no matter how
> >far" "to fight for the right to keep flying"
> >
> >Good luck with your quest. Now if I could only find my horse, sword and
> >Dulcinea.
> >
> >Vic
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From:
> >To:
> >Subject: RV-List: Weight reduction
> >
> >
> >> --> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
> >>
> >> "To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear with
> >> unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
> >>
> >> The FAA is forcing me to go to Light Sport Aircraft by making it
> >> impossibly expensive to maintain my medical. Among many other things,
> >> they are requiring that I get a test of my pacemaker every 4 weeks (my
> >> doctor says once every 6 months is adequate). This costs about $330 and
> >> there is no way my insurance will pay for it that often. Then I will
> >> need a stress test with ECG and eye evaluation with field of vision test
> >> Then since my medical is a special issuance, it can not be renewed by a
> >> local AME, but must be submitted to Oklahoma City. I had to get all of
> >> these tests last year to get my medical reinstated, but I thought it was
> >> a one-time requirement, and my doctors were able to do the tests as part
> >> of my post-operative checkup. After I submitted all of the data, it took
> >> 6 months for approval. Altogether, I figure it will cost me $1500 -
> >> $2000 a year for 6 months of flying.
> >>
> >> Sooo .... this is where the impossible dream starts - I want to build my
> >> RV-7 as a Light Sport Aircraft. Requirements are 1320 lb gross weight,
> >> 138 mph top speed straight and level, and 51 mph stall speed w/o flaps.
> >> Stall speed of the RV-7 at 1400 lb gross weight is 51 mph (probably with
> >> flaps). Weight of 1320 pounds will lower this, but I may have to add
> >> vortex generators to get it lower without flaps. Limiting speed to 138
> >> mph maximum is no problem - I'll just use a prop that can not get above
> >> this at max engine rpm's, and I'll have terrific climb performance. The
> >> weight is the biggie.
> >>
> >> I figure I could bring the plane in at about 1000 lb empty weight with an
> >> O-320 engine by watching construction carefully, foregoing paint, and
> >> eliminating any luxuries such as sound insulation. However, this is
> >> still about 200 lb too much to make the gross weight of 1320 lb., even
> >> with only 20 gallons of fuel.
> >>
> >> Sooo, I'm going to have to take some drastic measures. The RV 7 will
> >> cruise at 172 mph with 88 horsepower (55% of 160). Extrapolating, I
> >> would only need 55 hp for 138 mph. I can get a VW-based engine with a
> >> PSRU that will give me 100 hp. With a prop that limited top speed to 138
> >> mph, this should still give me an acceptable climb rate. This engine
> >> would weigh 100 lb less than the O-320. To maintain the center of
> > > gravity, I would extend the motor mount and cowl.
> >>
> >> Now, I still need 100 lb more weight reduction, and this is where the
> >> going gets tough and is the real reason for this post. With the reduced
> >> gross weight and speed, I should be able to reduce some of the structure.
> >> The question is how much and where. I would appreciate any suggestions.
> >> If need be, I can eliminate the electrical system, since I'll only be
> >> able to fly day VFR anyway.
> >>
> >> I've checked the archives using "weight reduction" as a search string,
> >> but didn't find a whole lot.
> >>
> >> I know I am committing heresy by proposing to cripple a fine plane in
> >> this manner, but I can't find any other aircraft that would measure up to
> >> it, even in its crippled condition. It still will cruise faster than a
> >> 172, still be aerobatic, and will still have the same delightful control
> >> harmony.
> >>
> > > Jim Hasper - RV7
>
> Jim,
>
> It seems like you have already started construction on the RV-7 when
> the health issue roadblock came up. That is a crying shame, as it is
> extremely unlikely that you will be able to modify the RV-7 to be a
> worthwhile LSA. You want to cut out 100 lb of structure, yet you
> still want it to be strong enough to be aerobatic. These
> requirements are incompatible.
>
> You might think that reducing the engine weight would allow you to
> lighten the structure in the forward fuselage. But, as you noted,
> you will need to extend the engine mount for CG reasons. The longer
> engine mount will increase the loads on the engine mount attach
> points, so that will eat up much of the margin.
>
> Sweeping the wing is not really an option, as that would require a
> whole new spar design, and it greatly increases the torsional loads
> at the wing attachment, as the lift on the outer parts of the wing
> would be trying to twist the wing nose down. So, you would need to
> increase the structure to carry this increased torsional loads (i.e.
> you need to increase the weight). Sweeping the wing would also
> probably add a need for two more bellcranks in the aileron pushrods
> (even more weight).
>
> It seems very unlikely you could remove 100 lb of structure and still
> have an aircraft that is safe to fly, let alone do aerobatics in.
>
> If there is no hope of sorting out the license issue, then you really
> should sell the kit. Then either purchase a real LSA, or wait for
> Van to bring his LSA to the market (or both).
>
> Good luck.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
Have't paid attention to the list of approved LSA A/C.
Is there a respectable acro capable plane in the bunch?
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <KHORTON01@ROGERS.COM>
-- RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <VICWJ@EARTHLINK.NET>
Jim, I played the part of Don Quixote in the musical Man of La Mancha and I
encourage you to pursue your dream of the super light Van,s!
Just a few points:
If you really get the weight down the stall speed will fall with the weight
reduction. If you were to build the RV-9 which has the longer wing and put
a 115 horse 914 Rotax in it you may achieve your weight goal. An have an
airplane which will stall "just right" The VW engine also sounds good.
How to balance the plane is the next issue.
How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move the
center of effect lift to the rear. Mount the battery in the rear. Do not
use strobes or nav lights and use minimum radios and instruments. I was
shocked to see the RV-10 that Van flew into New Braunfels, TX did not have
nav lights or strobes.
If you make it a one passenger airplane then you do not need a ELT as I
remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning passengers
this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on the
airplane another gram of weight saved.
"This is my quest to follow that star no matter how hopeless no matter how
far" "to fight for the right to keep flying"
Good luck with your quest. Now if I could only find my horse, sword and
&g
t; Dulcinea.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: <J1J2H3@JUNO.COM>
To: <RV-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Subject: RV-List: Weight reduction
-- RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
"To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear with
unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
The FAA is forcing me to go to Light Sport Aircraft by making it
impossibly expensive to maintain my medical. Among many other things,
they are requiring that I get a test of my pacemaker every 4 weeks (my
doctor says once every 6 months is adequate). This costs about $330 and
there is no way my insurance will pay for it that often. Then I will
need a stress test with ECG and eye evaluation with field of vision test
Then since my medical is a special issuance, it can not be renewed by a
local AME, but must be submitted to Oklahoma City. I had to get all of
these tests last year to get my medical reinstated, but I thought it was
a one-time requirement, and my doctors were able to do the tests as part
of my post-operative checkup. After I submitted all of the data, it took
6 months for approval. Altogether, I figure it will cost me $1500 -
$2000 a year for 6 months of flying.
Sooo .... this is where the impossible dream starts - I want to build my
RV-7 as a Light Sport Aircraft. Requirements are 1320 lb gross weight,
138 mph top speed straight and level, and 51 mph stall speed w/o flaps.
Stall sp
eed of the RV-7 at 1400 lb gross weight is 51 mph (probably with
flaps). Weight of 1320 pounds will lower this, but I may have to add
vortex generators to get it lower without flaps. Limiting speed to 138
mph maximum is no problem - I'll just use a prop that can not get above
this at max engine rpm's, and I'll have terrific climb performance. The
weight is the biggie.
I figure I could bring the plane in at about 1000 lb empty weight with an
O-320 engine by watching construction carefully, foregoing paint, and
eliminating any luxuries such as sound insulation. However, this is
still about 200 lb too much to make the gross weight of 1320 lb., even
with only 20 gallons of fuel.
Sooo, I'm going to have to take some drastic measures. The RV 7 will <B
R> cruise at 172 mph with 88 horsepower (55% of 160). Extrapolating, I
would only need 55 hp for 138 mph. I can get a VW-based engine with a
PSRU that will give me 100 hp. With a prop that limited top speed to 138
mph, this should still give me an acceptable climb rate. This engine
would weigh 100 lb less than the O-320. To maintain the center of
gravity, I would extend the motor mount and cowl.
Now, I still need 100 lb more weight reduction, and this is where the
going gets tough and is the real reason for this post. With the reduced
gross weight and speed, I should be able to reduce some of the structure.
The question is how much and where. I would appreciate any suggestions.
If need be, I can eliminate the electrical system, since I'll only be
ab
le to fly day VFR anyway.
I've checked the archives using "weight reduction" as a search string,
but didn't find a whole lot.
I know I am committing heresy by proposing to cripple a fine plane in
this manner, but I can't find any other aircraft that would measure up to
it, even in its crippled condition. It still will cruise faster than a
172, still be aerobatic, and will still have the same delightful control
harmony.
Jim Hasper - RV7
Jim,
It seems like you have already started construction on the RV-7 when
the health issue roadblock came up. That is a crying shame, as it is
extremely unlikely that you will be able to modify the RV-7 to be a
worthwhile LSA. You want to cut out 100 lb of structure, yet you
st
ill want it to be strong enough to be aerobatic. These
requirements are incompatible.
You might think that reducing the engine weight would allow you to
lighten the structure in the forward fuselage. But, as you noted,
you will need to extend the engine mount for CG reasons. The longer
engine mount will increase the loads on the engine mount attach
points, so that will eat up much of the margin.
Sweeping the wing is not really an option, as that would require a
whole new spar design, and it greatly increases the torsional loads
at the wing attachment, as the lift on the outer parts of the wing
would be trying to twist the wing nose down. So, you would need to
increase the structure to carry this increased torsional loads (i.e.
you need to increase the weight). Sweeping the wing would also
probably add a need for two more bellcranks in the ail
eron pushrods
(even more weight).
It seems very unlikely you could remove 100 lb of structure and still
have an aircraft that is safe to fly, let alone do aerobatics in.
If there is no hope of sorting out the license issue, then you really
should sell the kit. Then either purchase a real LSA, or wait for
Van to bring his LSA to the market (or both).
Good luck.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
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: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions |
--> RV-List message posted by: <smileyburnett@charter.net>
Where do you find fuel lube? ACS doesn't carry it.
>
> From: "John Danielson" <johnd@wlcwyo.com>
> Date: 2005/03/30 Wed PM 06:04:55 GMT
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rivet Cutting |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
For all those who asked here is the contact I use to complete my rivet
collection.
Not too much info on the website but give them a call. They have all 1/2
sizes.
I didn't publish the company originally because I was emailing on company
time and
info was at home.
Rapid Rivet & Fastener Corp.
121 Toledo St
Farmingdale, NY
11735
1-800-727-4378
http://www.rapidrivet.thomasregister.com/
Steve
Rv7A
> Time: 07:12:04 PM PST US
> From: Ed Van <rv7ator@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Rivet Cutting
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ed Van <rv7ator@yahoo.com>
>
> Sure Steve,
>
> I'd really like to know the supplier that you get your rivets from.
>
> Thanks,
> Ed -7
> waiting on QB wings and fuse
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 34
____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:29:55 PM PST US
> From: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: GNS430 - Navaid coupling (was Navaid works!)
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
>
> Tom,
>
> I use the CDI out feature of our KMD 150 to drive out Navaid. It works.
>
> It will "hunt" though for a while. What I find works best is to
"re-center"
> the CDI and basically get as close to on course as you can and then engage
> the AP to track.
>
> That is, line things up if you can and let it stabilized.
>
> There are some sensitivity settings that you might want to check on for
the
> Navaid (if you haven't already). I am assuming that the not holding track
> was that it was swinging from side to side (overshoot).
>
> Does the Garmin show how far you are "off-course"?
>
> James
>
>
to
little
>
>
> {SNIP}
>
disable
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 35
____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:54:56 PM PST US
> Subject: RV-List: Weight reduction
> From: j1j2h3@juno.com
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>
> "To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear with
> unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
>
> The FAA is forcing me to go to Light Sport Aircraft by making it
> impossibly expensive to maintain my medical. Among many other things,
> they are requiring that I get a test of my pacemaker every 4 weeks (my
> doctor says once every 6 months is adequate). This costs about $330 and
> there is no way my insurance will pay for it that often. Then I will
> need a stress test with ECG and eye evaluation with field of vision test
> Then since my medical is a special issuance, it can not be renewed by a
> local AME, but must be submitted to Oklahoma City. I had to get all of
> these tests last year to get my medical reinstated, but I thought it was
> a one-time requirement, and my doctors were able to do the tests as part
> of my post-operative checkup. After I submitted all of the data, it took
> 6 months for approval. Altogether, I figure it will cost me $1500 -
> $2000 a year for 6 months of flying.
>
> Sooo .... this is where the impossible dream starts - I want to build my
> RV-7 as a Light Sport Aircraft. Requirements are 1320 lb gross weight,
> 138 mph top speed straight and level, and 51 mph stall speed w/o flaps.
> Stall speed of the RV-7 at 1400 lb gross weight is 51 mph (probably with
> flaps). Weight of 1320 pounds will lower this, but I may have to add
> vortex generators to get it lower without flaps. Limiting speed to 138
> mph maximum is no problem - I'll just use a prop that can not get above
> this at max engine rpm's, and I'll have terrific climb performance. The
> weight is the biggie.
>
> I figure I could bring the plane in at about 1000 lb empty weight with an
> O-320 engine by watching construction carefully, foregoing paint, and
> eliminating any luxuries such as sound insulation. However, this is
> still about 200 lb too much to make the gross weight of 1320 lb., even
> with only 20 gallons of fuel.
>
> Sooo, I'm going to have to take some drastic measures. The RV 7 will
> cruise at 172 mph with 88 horsepower (55% of 160). Extrapolating, I
> would only need 55 hp for 138 mph. I can get a VW-based engine with a
> PSRU that will give me 100 hp. With a prop that limited top speed to 138
> mph, this should still give me an acceptable climb rate. This engine
> would weigh 100 lb less than the O-320. To maintain the center of
> gravity, I would extend the motor mount and cowl.
>
> Now, I still need 100 lb more weight reduction, and this is where the
> going gets tough and is the real reason for this post. With the reduced
> gross weight and speed, I should be able to reduce some of the structure.
> The question is how much and where. I would appreciate any suggestions.
> If need be, I can eliminate the electrical system, since I'll only be
> able to fly day VFR anyway.
>
> I've checked the archives using "weight reduction" as a search string,
> but didn't find a whole lot.
>
> I know I am committing heresy by proposing to cripple a fine plane in
> this manner, but I can't find any other aircraft that would measure up to
> it, even in its crippled condition. It still will cruise faster than a
> 172, still be aerobatic, and will still have the same delightful control
> harmony.
>
> Jim Hasper - RV7
>
> Jim Hasper - RV-7
> Giving new meaning to the term "slow build"
> Franklin, TN
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 36
____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 11:59:08 PM PST US
> From: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Part needed- Van's spinner bulkhead
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
> Thanks to all who responded. I got quite a few calls quickly. In fact
> I had the part arranged for within 30 minutes of posting. This list is
> great.
>
> Jeff
> do no archive
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Capacitance Fuel sender instructions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
ACS does carry EZ Turn, it is the same basic material. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
smileyburnett@charter.net
Subject: Re: RE: RV-List: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions
--> RV-List message posted by: <smileyburnett@charter.net>
Where do you find fuel lube? ACS doesn't carry it.
>
> From: "John Danielson" <johnd@wlcwyo.com>
> Date: 2005/03/30 Wed PM 06:04:55 GMT
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions
>
>
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: Capacitance Fuel sender instructions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
smileyburnett@charter.net wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: <smileyburnett@charter.net>
>
>Where do you find fuel lube? ACS doesn't carry it.
>
>
They have it, it's called EZ Turn:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cspages/ezturnlube.php
Check Wicks I think they have a smaller container.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
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: | RV-10 HS building question |
spamd4.ruraltel.net
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill and Tami Britton" <william@gbta.net>
RV-List:
RV-10 List:
When final drilling the skin holes on the horizontal stab with the #40 drill, are
the fairing attachment screw holes supposed to be drilled out also???
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
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: | RV-10 wing kit shipping price |
spamd2.ruraltel.net
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill and Tami Britton" <william@gbta.net>
RV-10 List:
I'm getting ready to order the RV-10 wing kit (slow build) and was curious about
shipping charges. I live in southwest Kansas. Anybody got any ballpark figures???
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
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: RV-10 wing kit shipping price |
Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:00:18 -0500
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
Hey Bill and Tami,
Don't know how much it would be to ship you wings, but I just got the bill
for my RV8QB wings and fuselage crates to NJ. $2000, a little more than I
had expected, but at least they will be here in a couple more days. That was
for about 1000 pounds of cargo.
Good luck with you 10
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill and Tami Britton" <william@gbta.net>
Subject: RV-List: RV-10 wing kit shipping price
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bill and Tami Britton" <william@gbta.net>
>
> RV-10 List:
>
> I'm getting ready to order the RV-10 wing kit (slow build) and was curious
> about shipping charges. I live in southwest Kansas. Anybody got any
> ballpark figures???
>
> Bill Britton
> RV-10 Emp #40137
>
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Handheld Radio |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> Rick Gould
> RV-4 Whidbey Island, WA
> FLY NAVY!
> __I__
> --O--O--( )--O--X--
>
Hi Rick,
Did your P-3 lose an engine?
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: Alison and Neil <alisonandneil@direcway.com>
I not sure what "list" or "respectable" mean in this context but the subject
has been bandied about the Acro list a bit and the speculation was that
possibly a small engined, simple and light example of Pitts S-1
appropriately propped to limit top speed, clipped Cub, or Taylorcraft might
qualify. Then there is the Rans S-9 and S-10....
Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucky" <luckymacy@comcast.net>
Subject: acro LSA was Re: RV-List: Weight reduction
> --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> Have't paid attention to the list of approved LSA A/C.
>
> Is there a respectable acro capable plane in the bunch?
>
> do not archive
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>>
>> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko"
>> >
>> >Jim, I played the part of Don Quixote in the musical Man of La Mancha
>> >and I
>> >encourage you to pursue your dream of the super light Van,s!
>> >
>> >
>> >Just a few points:
>> >
>> >
>> >If you really get the weight down the stall speed will fall with the
>> >weight
>> >reduction. If you were to build the RV-9 which has the longer wing and
>> >put
>> >a 115 horse 914 Rotax in it you may achieve your weight goal. An have an
>> >airplane which will stall "just right" The VW engine also sounds good.
>> >
>> > How to balance the plane is the next issue.
>> >
>> >How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move
>> >the
>> >center of effect lift to the rear. Mount the battery in the rear. Do not
>> >use strobes or nav lights and use minimum radios and instruments. I was
>> >shocked to see the RV-10 that Van flew into New Braunfels, TX did not
>> >have
>> >nav lights or strobes.
>> >
>> >If you make it a one passenger airplane then you do not need a ELT as I
>> >remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning
>> >passengers
>> >this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on
>> >the
>> >airplane another gram of weight saved.
>> >
>> >"This is my quest to follow that star no matter how hopeless no matter
>> >how
>> >far" "to fight for the right to keep flying"
>> >
>> >Good luck with your quest. Now if I could only find my horse, sword and
>> >Dulcinea.
>> >
>> >Vic
>> >
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From:
>> >To:
>> >Subject: RV-List: Weight reduction
>> >
>> >
>> >> --> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>> >>
>> >> "To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear
>> >> with
>> >> unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
>> >>
>> >> The FAA is forcing me to go to Light Sport Aircraft by making it
>> >> impossibly expensive to maintain my medical. Among many other things,
>> >> they are requiring that I get a test of my pacemaker every 4 weeks (my
>> >> doctor says once every 6 months is adequate). This costs about $330
>> >> and
>> >> there is no way my insurance will pay for it that often. Then I will
>> >> need a stress test with ECG and eye evaluation with field of vision
>> >> test
>> >> Then since my medical is a special issuance, it can not be renewed by
>> >> a
>> >> local AME, but must be submitted to Oklahoma City. I had to get all of
>> >> these tests last year to get my medical reinstated, but I thought it
>> >> was
>> >> a one-time requirement, and my doctors were able to do the tests as
>> >> part
>> >> of my post-operative checkup. After I submitted all of the data, it
>> >> took
>> >> 6 months for approval. Altogether, I figure it will cost me $1500 -
>> >> $2000 a year for 6 months of flying.
>> >>
>> >> Sooo .... this is where the impossible dream starts - I want to build
>> >> my
>> >> RV-7 as a Light Sport Aircraft. Requirements are 1320 lb gross weight,
>> >> 138 mph top speed straight and level, and 51 mph stall speed w/o
>> >> flaps.
>> >> Stall speed of the RV-7 at 1400 lb gross weight is 51 mph (probably
>> >> with
>> >> flaps). Weight of 1320 pounds will lower this, but I may have to add
>> >> vortex generators to get it lower without flaps. Limiting speed to 138
>> >> mph maximum is no problem - I'll just use a prop that can not get
>> >> above
>> >> this at max engine rpm's, and I'll have terrific climb performance.
>> >> The
>> >> weight is the biggie.
>> >>
>> >> I figure I could bring the plane in at about 1000 lb empty weight with
>> >> an
>> >> O-320 engine by watching construction carefully, foregoing paint, and
>> >> eliminating any luxuries such as sound insulation. However, this is
>> >> still about 200 lb too much to make the gross weight of 1320 lb., even
>> >> with only 20 gallons of fuel.
>> >>
>> >> Sooo, I'm going to have to take some drastic measures. The RV 7 will
>> >> cruise at 172 mph with 88 horsepower (55% of 160). Extrapolating, I
>> >> would only need 55 hp for 138 mph. I can get a VW-based engine with a
>> >> PSRU that will give me 100 hp. With a prop that limited top speed to
>> >> 138
>> >> mph, this should still give me an acceptable climb rate. This engine
>> >> would weigh 100 lb less than the O-320. To maintain the center of
>> > > gravity, I would extend the motor mount and cowl.
>> >>
>> >> Now, I still need 100 lb more weight reduction, and this is where the
>> >> going gets tough and is the real reason for this post. With the
>> >> reduced
>> >> gross weight and speed, I should be able to reduce some of the
>> >> structure.
>> >> The question is how much and where. I would appreciate any
>> >> suggestions.
>> >> If need be, I can eliminate the electrical system, since I'll only be
>> >> able to fly day VFR anyway.
>> >>
>> >> I've checked the archives using "weight reduction" as a search string,
>> >> but didn't find a whole lot.
>> >>
>> >> I know I am committing heresy by proposing to cripple a fine plane in
>> >> this manner, but I can't find any other aircraft that would measure up
>> >> to
>> >> it, even in its crippled condition. It still will cruise faster than a
>> >> 172, still be aerobatic, and will still have the same delightful
>> >> control
>> >> harmony.
>> >>
>> > > Jim Hasper - RV7
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> It seems like you have already started construction on the RV-7 when
>> the health issue roadblock came up. That is a crying shame, as it is
>> extremely unlikely that you will be able to modify the RV-7 to be a
>> worthwhile LSA. You want to cut out 100 lb of structure, yet you
>> still want it to be strong enough to be aerobatic. These
>> requirements are incompatible.
>>
>> You might think that reducing the engine weight would allow you to
>> lighten the structure in the forward fuselage. But, as you noted,
>> you will need to extend the engine mount for CG reasons. The longer
>> engine mount will increase the loads on the engine mount attach
>> points, so that will eat up much of the margin.
>>
>> Sweeping the wing is not really an option, as that would require a
>> whole new spar design, and it greatly increases the torsional loads
>> at the wing attachment, as the lift on the outer parts of the wing
>> would be trying to twist the wing nose down. So, you would need to
>> increase the structure to carry this increased torsional loads (i.e.
>> you need to increase the weight). Sweeping the wing would also
>> probably add a need for two more bellcranks in the aileron pushrods
>> (even more weight).
>>
>> It seems very unlikely you could remove 100 lb of structure and still
>> have an aircraft that is safe to fly, let alone do aerobatics in.
>>
>> If there is no hope of sorting out the license issue, then you really
>> should sell the kit. Then either purchase a real LSA, or wait for
>> Van to bring his LSA to the market (or both).
>>
>> Good luck.
>> --
>> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>> Ottawa, Canada
>> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Have't paid attention to the list of approved LSA A/C.
>
> Is there a respectable acro capable plane in the bunch?
>
> do not archive
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <KHORTON01@ROGERS.COM>
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <VICWJ@EARTHLINK.NET>
>
> Jim, I played the part of Don Quixote in the musical Man of La Mancha and
> I
> encourage you to pursue your dream of the super light Van,s!
>
>
> Just a few points:
>
>
> If you really get the weight down the stall speed will fall with the
> weight
> reduction. If you were to build the RV-9 which has the longer wing and put
> a 115 horse 914 Rotax in it you may achieve your weight goal. An have an
> airplane which will stall "just right" The VW engine also sounds good.
>
> How to balance the plane is the next issue.
>
>
> How about sweeping the wings back as far as practical which will move the
> center of effect lift to the rear. Mount the battery in the rear. Do not
> use strobes or nav lights and use minimum radios and instruments. I was
> shocked to see the RV-10 that Van flew into New Braunfels, TX did not have
> nav lights or strobes.
>
> If you make it a one passenger airplane then you do not need a ELT as I
> remember nor do you need the little placard on the dash warning passengers
> this is an experimental! You don't even need the word "experimental" on
> the
> airplane another gram of weight saved.
>
> "This is my quest to follow that star no matter how hopeless no matter how
> far" "to fight for the right to keep flying"
>
> Good luck with your quest. Now if I could only find my horse, sword and
> &g
> t; Dulcinea.
>
> Vic
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <J1J2H3@JUNO.COM>
> To: <RV-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
> Subject: RV-List: Weight reduction
>
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>
> "To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe, to bear with
> unbearable sorrow, to run where the brave dare not go... "
>
> The FAA is forcing me to go to Light Sport Aircraft by making it
> impossibly expensive to maintain my medical. Among many other things,
> they are requiring that I get a test of my pacemaker every 4 weeks (my
> doctor says once every 6 months is adequate). This costs about $330 and
> there is no way my insurance will pay for it that often. Then I will
>
> need a stress test with ECG and eye evaluation with field of vision test
> Then since my medical is a special issuance, it can not be renewed by a
> local AME, but must be submitted to Oklahoma City. I had to get all of
> these tests last year to get my medical reinstated, but I thought it was
> a one-time requirement, and my doctors were able to do the tests as part
> of my post-operative checkup. After I submitted all of the data, it took
> 6 months for approval. Altogether, I figure it will cost me $1500 -
> $2000 a year for 6 months of flying.
>
> Sooo .... this is where the impossible dream starts - I want to build my
> RV-7 as a Light Sport Aircraft. Requirements are 1320 lb gross weight,
> 138 mph top speed straight and level, and 51 mph stall speed w/o flaps.
> Stall sp
> eed of the RV-7 at 1400 lb gross weight is 51 mph (probably with
> flaps). Weight of 1320 pounds will lower this, but I may have to add
> vortex generators to get it lower without flaps. Limiting speed to 138
> mph maximum is no problem - I'll just use a prop that can not get above
> this at max engine rpm's, and I'll have terrific climb performance. The
> weight is the biggie.
>
> I figure I could bring the plane in at about 1000 lb empty weight with an
> O-320 engine by watching construction carefully, foregoing paint, and
> eliminating any luxuries such as sound insulation. However, this is
> still about 200 lb too much to make the gross weight of 1320 lb., even
> with only 20 gallons of fuel.
>
> Sooo, I'm going to have to take some drastic measures. The RV 7 will <B
> R> cruise at 172 mph with 88 horsepower (55% of 160). Extrapolating, I
> would only need 55 hp for 138 mph. I can get a VW-based engine with a
> PSRU that will give me 100 hp. With a prop that limited top speed to 138
> mph, this should still give me an acceptable climb rate. This engine
> would weigh 100 lb less than the O-320. To maintain the center of
> gravity, I would extend the motor mount and cowl.
>
> Now, I still need 100 lb more weight reduction, and this is where the
> going gets tough and is the real reason for this post. With the reduced
> gross weight and speed, I should be able to reduce some of the structure.
> The question is how much and where. I would appreciate any suggestions.
> If need be, I can eliminate the electrical system, since I'll only be
> ab
> le to fly day VFR anyway.
>
> I've checked the archives using "weight reduction" as a search string,
> but didn't find a whole lot.
>
> I know I am committing heresy by proposing to cripple a fine plane in
> this manner, but I can't find any other aircraft that would measure up to
> it, even in its crippled condition. It still will cruise faster than a
> 172, still be aerobatic, and will still have the same delightful control
> harmony.
>
> Jim Hasper - RV7
>
> Jim,
>
> It seems like you have already started construction on the RV-7 when
> the health issue roadblock came up. That is a crying shame, as it is
> extremely unlikely that you will be able to modify the RV-7 to be a
> worthwhile LSA. You want to cut out 100 lb of structure, yet you
> st
> ill want it to be strong enough to be aerobatic. These
> requirements are incompatible.
>
> You might think that reducing the engine weight would allow you to
> lighten the structure in the forward fuselage. But, as you noted,
> you will need to extend the engine mount for CG reasons. The longer
> engine mount will increase the loads on the engine mount attach
> points, so that will eat up much of the margin.
>
> Sweeping the wing is not really an option, as that would require a
> whole new spar design, and it greatly increases the torsional loads
> at the wing attachment, as the lift on the outer parts of the wing
> would be trying to twist the wing nose down. So, you would need to
> increase the structure to carry this increased torsional loads (i.e.
> you need to increase the weight). Sweeping the wing would also
> probably add a need for two more bellcranks in the ail
> eron pushrods
> (even more weight).
>
> It seems very unlikely you could remove 100 lb of structure and still
> have an aircraft that is safe to fly, let alone do aerobatics in.
>
> If there is no hope of sorting out the license issue, then you really
> should sell the kit. Then either purchase a real LSA, or wait for
> Van to bring his LSA to the market (or both).
>
> Good luck.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>
>
>
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: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
> Buy a Taylorcraft instead. They fly 10 times better than a Cub, (same
> airfoil as an RV), they are cheaper and 10 to 20 mph faster
>
> That should start a "discussion." Standing by with my asbestos underwear!
>
> Tailwinds,
> Doug Rozendaal
======================================
From unreliable memory.....
The T-Craft and Bonanza share the same 23012 airfoil.
Most Vans RV's use 24013.
RV-9 uses "a new Roncz airfoil"..
The old RV-3 used 21012?
Bob - no cub fan [airplane or baseball]
Do not archive
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: EXPERIMENTAL Signage/ WAS: Weight reduction |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
> Look at AC20-27F paragraph 9.
>
> John D. Heath
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You can also look here....
45.23 Display of marks; general
((b) When marks that include only the Roman capital letter "N" and the
registration number are displayed on limited or restricted category aircraft
or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator shall
also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin or cockpit, in
letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches in height, the words
"limited," "restricted," "experimental," or "provisional airworthiness," as
the case may be.
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! --
|