Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:17 AM - Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider (Doug Gray)
2. 05:19 AM - Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props (Darrell Reiley)
3. 05:40 AM - Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props (cgalley)
4. 06:45 AM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Vic Jacko)
5. 06:57 AM - Fuel Senders (Vincent Welch)
6. 07:03 AM - Awesome Missouri flyin this weekend (Frazier, Vincent A)
7. 07:14 AM - Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props (Paul Folbrecht)
8. 07:37 AM - FAA FSDO website and FAA Aircraft Certification website (Philip Condon)
9. 07:39 AM - Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider (Jerry Grimmonpre)
10. 07:44 AM - Re: Re: Long glide to landing (owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com)
11. 07:52 AM - compression testing (Wheeler North)
12. 07:57 AM - Online FAA Forms and paperwork web site (Philip Condon)
13. 08:15 AM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Rob Prior (rv7))
14. 08:24 AM - Re: Re: Long glide to landing (Rob Prior (rv7))
15. 08:38 AM - Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props (Paul Folbrecht)
16. 08:57 AM - Hartzell service and trip report (long) (Frazier, Vincent A)
17. 08:59 AM - Re: Re: Long glide to landing (Charles Rowbotham)
18. 09:48 AM - break in (RVer273sb@aol.com)
19. 10:07 AM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Gordon or Marge Comfort)
20. 10:57 AM - Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider (Ed Holyoke)
21. 11:41 AM - Re: Hartzell service and trip report (long) (Mickey Coggins)
22. 11:44 AM - Re: break in (Darrell Reiley)
23. 12:02 PM - Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing (Garth Shearing)
24. 12:10 PM - Re: Long glide to landing ()
25. 02:11 PM - Re: Hartzell service and trip report (long) (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
26. 02:53 PM - Re: Fuel Senders (cgalley)
27. 02:56 PM - Re: compression checking an engine (Hal Kempthorne)
28. 03:07 PM - Re: compression checking an engine ()
29. 03:10 PM - Re: Re: Long glide to landing (Kevin Horton)
30. 03:13 PM - Wiring diagram (D Paul Deits)
31. 03:16 PM - Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider (Kyle Boatright)
32. 03:33 PM - Re: Fuel Senders (Vic Jacko)
33. 03:36 PM - Re: Fuel Senders (Vic Jacko)
34. 03:46 PM - Andair fuel valve/Gascolator FS (Darwin N. Barrie)
35. 04:38 PM - Re: break in (RVer273sb@aol.com)
36. 05:00 PM - Hangar space needed (wanted?) June 16-23 at KBRD (Jerry Huether)
37. 05:31 PM - Off Topic - Air Combat (JTAnon@aol.com)
38. 05:56 PM - Re: Fuel Senders (Charlie England)
39. 05:59 PM - Re: Off Topic - Air Combat (Doug Rozendaal)
40. 06:17 PM - Re: break in (Darrell Reiley)
41. 06:30 PM - Landing Lights (Paul Rice)
42. 06:53 PM - Re: Landing Lights (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
43. 07:07 PM - Re: Fuel Senders (Evan and Megan Johnson)
44. 07:15 PM - Manifold pressure to primer port (George Inman)
45. 07:21 PM - Re: break in (LarryRobertHelming)
46. 07:28 PM - Re: Landing Lights (Richard E. Tasker)
47. 07:31 PM - Re: Re: Long glide to landing (Doug Rozendaal)
48. 07:44 PM - Re: Landing Lights (Bill VonDane)
49. 08:19 PM - Re: Off Topic - Air Combat (Christopher Dahl)
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: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
> If you block up the slider during fitting and assembly of the aft skirts,
> they will then fit quite nice and snug when you remove the blocks. The only
> air/rain we have that leaks into the slider is the very tiny bit that comes
in
> around the sliding rail cap at the top due to the low pressure in this area.
> One of these days I'll fashion a way to plug this area.
>
> IMO the slider is a pretty tight fit if done well.
>
>
> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 742hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
How high did you block the slider for this method?
Also, how did you seal the side skirts?
Doug Gray
On approach to slider anxiety...
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: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
Will do... I just know how phone calls all day can pull people off task. Emails
can be answered at their convenience... You would think it would help?
Darrell
Jeff Orear <jorear@new.rr.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Reiley"
Subject: Re: RV-List: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props
> --> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley
>
> I think the Catto Prop is a great product. I emailed them for detailed
> information but never got a reponse?
Darrell:
Craig Catto is a very busy guy lately, with all us RV guys sending business
his way. Hopefully he has not responded to your email because he is busy
working on my prop!! ;
)
Best way to contact him is to give him a call.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
moving to the airport on 5/11
Peshtigo, WI
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
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: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Vibration is generally not an issue with non-metallic props as they are self
dampening.
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props
> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>
> Same here. Probably just doesn't check email often. Seems to be a very
> small
> operation. I'll give him a call in a week or two if he doesn't write
> back.
>
> One concern I would have would be regarding vibration testing. Has it
> been
> done with his props? With what engines? Have you ever read the RVator
> article
> about the necessity for real vibration testing for every prop/engine
> combination? It is indeed a necessity.
>
> Another (minor) area would be concerning the flyoff period - no 25 hour
> period
> with that prop. Then again I don't think the experimental Lycs could ever
> qualify for that anyway?
>
> --- Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley
>> <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
>>
>> I think the Catto Prop is a great product. I emailed them for detailed
>> information but never got a reponse?
>>
>> Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com> wrote:--> RV-List message posted
>> by:
>> Paul Folbrecht
>>
>>
>> First of all, for anybody who followed the thread, I did decide to go
>> with
>> the
>> 9A over the 7. I was originally going to just put my order on hold until
>> I
>> got
>> a chance to fly both the 7A and 9A but did enough research and got enough
>> private mails from people on the list to convince me. And I'm never going
>> to
>> get the chance to fly either in IMC as a demo anyway. I sort of liked the
>> possibility of sport aerobatics at some point but XC and especially IFR
>> suitability and stability are much more important to me. Can't have
>> everything.
>>
>> (It wasn't that I didn't know the differences between the 9 and the 7 - I
>> did
>> -
>> but I guess I had convinced myself that since many ppl fly IFR in 6s/7s,
>> I
>> could too. And maybe I could, but I'd rather have the stable ride.
>> Single-pilot IMC in my C-152 is demanding enough for me - I'd rather not
>> increase the workload.)
>>
>> Going to the 9 is fitting, though, since seeing the 9A prototype at OSH
>> 2000
>> was what initially inspired me to get my PPL. It was the first kitplane I
>> ever
>> wanted, and now I've come full-circle indeed. (I was almost embarrassed
>> to
>> call Van's again after just changing my order from a 10 to a 7A, but the
>> girl
>> laughed and said this is not terribly uncommon. They hadn't started
>> putting
>> together my QB kit.)
>>
>> Question regarding engines. I'm not at all sure I'd want to go FI (I'm
>> trying
>> to keep the costs down, since my panel is gonna cost a bundle, and I like
>> the
>> simplicity of the carb), but I noticed that Van's offers no FWF kit for
>> the
>> IO-320. I am sure there are those out there with FI 320s - how much of a
>> pain
>> was it? Where is your servo mounted? Are you using the stock cowl with
>> the
>> scoop?
>>
>> 2nd question: Experiences with the 3-bladed Catto prop? It looks to me
>> like
>> they make great stuff. I did search the archive and see some positive
>> reports.
>> I would be really interested in seeing numbers to compare to the 79 pitch
>> Sensenich that Van's recommends.
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>>
>> Darrell Reiley
>> Round Rock, Texas
>> RV 7A #70125
>> N622DR (reserved)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
Alex, I believe you may be correct. I would be good if someone had a
chance to test the drag in both configurations.
Thanks for you insight.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex & Gerry Peterson"
> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Just one more thought to unfuel the fire (pun intended)
>>
>> If you want to extend your glide with a windmilling prop then
>> keep the
>> throttle wide open (assuming it is not running) to reduce
>> the pumping
>> losses.
>
> Vic, I believe least drag would be with the throttle closed. Consider the
> intake stroke - yes, there would be power needed to pull the piston down
> against the lower manifold pressure. However, most of that would be
> recovered during the "compression" stroke, when this same lower pressure
> in
> the cylinder "pulls" the piston back up. With the throttle open, a full
> charge of air approximately at ambient pressure needs to be compressed to
> around 125 psi on the compression stroke, being released suddenly into the
> exhaust pipe when the exhaust valve opens.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A 612 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
Gentlemen,
I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats are
sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the floats
by
hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way to
free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
follow the level.
Any ideas?
Vince
RV-8A
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: | Awesome Missouri flyin this weekend |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
"Flash"!
THIRD ANNUAL REBEL'S BLUFF FLYIN Now that Sun n Fun is over, it's time
to fly to the Third Annual Rebel's Bluff FlyIn for Rocket's and Van's RV
Aircraft on May 7th, 2005. Come in about 10:00AM for an Ozarks Style
Bar-B-Que lunch with all the fixin's (catered by the First Baptist
Ladies Group), and some great comaradrie.
Rebel's Bluff (N37 06.1 W93 52.2) is located two miles north of Mt
Vernon Municipal Airport (2MO), and just west of Mt Vernon, Missouri.
About 150 miles SSE of Kansas City, MO, and 140 east of Tulsa, OK. The
runway 14/32 is 2,200' of very smooth sod by 60' wide. Use 122.9 (Mt
Vernon's) UNICOM frequency and announce "landing at Rebel's Bluff." AV
Gas 100LL will be available for approximately $2.50/gallon.
Rain date is May 14th if it is a complete washout. RSVP would be greatly
appreciated to your host Les Featherston at lwfeatherston@aol.com or
call 417-466-4663 at home, or 417-425-3595 cell.
Overnighters can stay at the Super 8 for $53, or camping by the creek
(with flush toilet) is available. Looking forward to seeing all of you
again. Les
************************************************************************
Les has a gorgeous Harmon. Pics on my pireps page if you're interested.
http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/Pilot%20reports.html I
plan to go to the flyin. I've been to Les's flyin previously and it was
very nice. If anyone wants more info and can't reach Les, feel free to
call me... 812-464-1839 M-F Vince
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: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Thanks for the comments, Jeff. (If you didn't recognize the name, I'm a new Ch
18 member & we chatted a bit (with Glenn) at last Tuesday's meeting.)
I'd have to say that testimony goes a long way towards me buying a Catto.
Since RVs are his speciality I'd be surprised if he's not at least matching
Sensenich numbers. And he's even cheaper than they are.
And you're right about the looks, that's for sure! I've long lusted after a
three-bladed prop but thought the CS MT was about the only choice. $$$.
~Paul Folbrecht, PP-SEL-IA
~C-152 N89795, MWC
~RV-9A QB ordered
> I'll second what others have written about communicating with Craig. I
> just bought a prop from him (took delivery three days before leaving for
> SnF) and had a lot of communication back and forth. He had computer
> problems so email was out. He always answers the phone or returns calls
> quickly. Very good guy to deal with. He did tell me that about 90% of
> his business nowadays is making 3 blade props for RVs.
>
> My prop is a 3 blade Catto, 66 inch pitch and 76 inch pitch. It is on
> an Aerosport Power/ Superior O-360, carb, 8.5 pistons, one mag and one
> Lightspeed II ignition. Pretty stock engine. I talked with Craig at
> some length about the prop pitch. I explained that I wanted a prop
> which was not quite a cruise, but closer to a cruise than a climb prop.
> The Sterba wood prop which it replaced (and is now on Ebay if anyone is
> interested- shameless plug) was just such a prop. I was willing to
> sacrifice a couple knots of top end for better short field performance.
> Craig assured me that I would see an increase in top end with no loss of
> acceleration or short field performance.
>
> Well, the proof is in the pudding. I saw about a 5 kt increase in
> cruise (75%, 8K ft standard) from 172 to 177 ktas. I hit 180 ktas at
> 4500 ft racing a 200HP/ Hartzell blended airfoil RV-8 (I was nose to
> nose with him at full throttle for several minutes, until he pushed the
> RPM up past 2400!) I saw a pretty substantial decrease in static RPM
> (around 180 or so) but seem to have no loss of acceleration or takeoff
> distance. I guess the prop produces more thrust at lower RPM than the
> old one. As for real world cruise- around 2500 RPM gives TAS in the low
> 160s with burns around 8.5-9 GPH, depending on altitude. A fixed pitch
> prop just has to turn too damn fast to get real power out of the engine,
> but gas is expensive and I like to baby the engine anyway.
>
> The prop changed the feel of the engine a lot. It now feels and sounds
> more like a 6 cylinder engine than a 4 banger. I can't say it's
> quieter, but it's a different, higher frequency type of noise. There
> are a couple rough RPM ranges down low. Not any more so than with my
> old prop, but it seems more noticable in comparison. I have yet to get
> it dynamically balanced but that is in the works.
>
> One more thing- my wheel landings seem to have gotten better. I think
> that subconsciously I am no longer worried about a prop strike with the
> small diameter prop;)
>
> Oh, one more thing- it looks cool as hell!
>
> Jeff Point
> RV-6
> Milwaukee WI
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | FAA FSDO website and FAA Aircraft Certification website |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Philip Condon" <pcondon@mitre.org>
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/fsdo/index.cfm
&
http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/av-info/dst/amateur/ambuilt_aif.ht
m
Flight Standards Region and Field Offices
* Includes International Field Offices
&&
You can find additional amateur-built aircraft related information by
visiting the links provided above:
FAA Order 8130.2, "Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related
Products".
FAA Order 8130.33, "Designated Airworthiness Representatives: Amateur-Built
and Light-Sport Aircraft Certification Functions".
Advisory Circular 20-27, "Certification and Operation of Amateur-Built
Aircraft".
Advisory Circular 20-139, "Commercial Assistance During Construction of
Amateur-Built Aircraft".
Advisory Circular 21-12, "Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate,
Form 8130-6".
Advisory Circular 90-89, "Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight
Testing Handbook".
Advisory Circular 65-23, "Certification of Repairpersons (Experimental
Aircraft Builders)".
Advisory Circular 39-7, "Airworthiness Directives".
Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIB) which may be applicable
to amateur-built aircraft or to products installed on them.
Related Amateur-built Aircraft Forms:
AC Form 8050-88 (PDF) "Affidavit of Ownership for Amateur-Built Aircraft".
FAA Form 8000-38, "Fabrication/Assembly Operation Checklist". (See Fig. 4-15
in Order 8130.2 linked above)
FAA Form 8130-12 "Eligibility Statement: Amateur-Built Aircraft".
FAA Form 8130-6 "Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate".
FAA Form 8610-2, "Airman Certification and/or Rating Application".
We provide an amateur-built aircraft overview page and an amateur-built
registration, marking and inspection technical content page as well.
The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) web site contains additional
amateur-built information that you may find useful.
As always, contact your local FAA Flight Standards District Office or
Manufacturing and Inspection District Office for direct assistance in
meeting your amateur-built aircraft airworthiness needs.
----
Questions about this page? Accessibility Privacy Policy
For Further Information, please contact:
Federal Aviation Administration
Production and Airworthiness Division, AIR-200, Suite 815
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20591
Office: 202-267-8361 FAX: 202-267-5580
Page Last Updated: March 11, 2005
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: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
List readers ...
Is the problem, of a leaking canopy, due to vent air (heated or cooling)
coming in and slightly pressurizing and billowing out through the
cockpit/canopy cracks?
Opinions.
When the ram air enters but has no outlet in the airframe, it would seem
that engineering an outlet would help to keep the cockpit/canopy junctions
tighter.
Is there a known low pressure area on the airframe that will promote "flow
through" ventilation without generating noise or allowing exhaust gases in?
It seems that an engineered flow through vent system would help with the
noise of escaping air around the canopy.
Has anyone tried a flow through venting system?
Jerry Grimmonpre
Huntley IL 7a building my shop
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider
> --> RV-List message posted by: "randall" <rv6n6r@comcast.net>
>
> The slider is indeed difficult to seal on the sides. Mine fits as tight as
> any I've seen, but even if done perfectly there're still gaps that are
> hard
> to completely seal with any kind of seal material, due to the geometry
> when
> it opens and closes. In fact I wouldn't mind hearing from others as to how
> they did that. No water comes in and I fly in the rain a fair amount, and
> I
> don't notice the cold air except on really cold days. But there's a fair
> amount of wind noise from the gaps at the back that I just can't seam to
> seal, and I'd like to get it as quiet as I can.
>
> Randall Henderson, RV-6
> Portland, OR
>
>>>
>> > I would like to know if the tip up canopies seal better than the
>> > sliders
>> > do around the fuselage sides? I have heard that the sliders leak a
>> > fair
>> > amount of air around the sides of the canopy in flight. If anyone can
>> > help me out with this please e-mail me.
>> >
>> > Robin
>> > RV3B Kit 11356
>> > Minnesota
>> > RMCKEE@MN.RR.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: Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by:
People, just a back to basics word. IMHO, correct me if I am wrong. Here
goes:
Best glide rate is a function of incidence, not of speed. Best glide speed
is an average. A heavily loaded plane will have a best glide speed faster
than a lightly loaded plane, but the incidence will be the same. Same thing
for stall - a heavily loaded plane will stall at a faster speed than a
lightly loaded plane, but in both cases at an identical incidence.
Air density, i.e. temperature, altitude, will also affect the best glide
speed value. That is another reason for getting an AOA, which I happily have
installed on my left wing. If you suddenly become a glider, get your AOA
onto your best glide incidence; keep it there and forget the speed, you
might gain a few hundred feet or a couple of miles.
I would tend to think that the prop will have no effect on the best glide
incidence. Added drag will decrease the best glide slope but it will not
change the best glide incidence. This means that with an AOA, you can
maximize your distance whatever the conditions. If, once you got onto your
bets glide incidence you managed to time the ft/min drop and observed your
speed, you'll quickly know just how far you can go before touchdown.
Hope that I have not made some gross mistake - would appreciate some
knowledgeable aerodynamicists to confirm this issue. And if I am correct,
the above would be a compelling reason to install an AOA.
Michle
RV8 Fuselage
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 6:52 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Long glide to landing
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> The effort and experimentation in glide ratio flight test is excellent,
> but how will that work in an emergency. Tedd nice explanation of hi-key/
> 360 overhead approach.
>
>
> I guess what is important to me is how can I use this info in a real
> engine failure scenario.
>
>
> "100 and 1.4" (speed 100mph and 1.4 kt mile/per thousand altitude- or 600
> ft/ NM)
>
>
> So my first job after an engine failure/ loss of power would be get to
> best glide speed (initial target speed 100mph than adjust for weight,
> wind). Trim to that, while simultaneously trouble shooting engine (boost
> pump, switch tanks, mixture, carb heat, ignition etc... as required) and
> look for a landing spot within 1.4 kt miles per thousand feet agl. Fly the
> airplane.
>
>
> From what I got from all this that an RV will glide somewhere *10.5 to 1
> thru 8.7 to 1 ratio
>
> (*idle power). (Realistic engine out glide will be closer to the 8.7 to 1.
> Numbers above 9 or 10 seem to be affected by partial idle power or tail
> winds. A real light RV flown perfectly could do better than 8.7 to 1 but
> again I am looking for something conservative I can remember and use in an
> emergency, with a little margin for less than perfect speed control.)
>
>
> Also I got best glide (max distance) is some where in the 81kt - 95 kt
> range (varies with weight, altitude and head wind). Therefore I remember
> 100mph (bigger mark on a/s indicator) and adjust as needed for weight.
> Typical glide speed for RV best glide 84 kts = 96 mph. Min sink is under
> slower.
>
>
> Assuming engine is ka-put and I am making an emergency engine-out
> glide/landing, I would assume glide ratio closer to 8. 7 to 1 than 10.5 to
> 1, which sounds a little high. Therefore for every 1000 ft altitude I can
> glide 1.4 kt miles (sink approx 950 ft/min or 600 ft/NM).
>
>
> As far as windmilling prop or not, I assume the worst case, windmilling.
> The most critical condition is when you have little altitude, so I would
> not personally mess with trying to stop the prop. If I was at 12,000 agl
> and had time I might consider it, but I would try to get the engine
> running at first and keep the prop windmilling. I can't recall ever seeing
> this in a POH or in training. If you think you would attempt or consider
> trying to stop the prop (windmilling) in a real emergency, I would suggest
> you practice it first under controlled conditions. I have not, from what I
> hear is it takes near stall speed and may be even a touch of flaps? In the
> time messing with all that, how much altitude do you loose vs. just going
> to best glide and time lost making headway towards your intended landing
> site? Also no one has real good windmill vs stopped prop numbers. There
> has to be a trade off. Again unless I am real high and no chance of
> getting the engine started such as catastro
> phic
> failure vs carb ice that might melt and allow engine to start at lower
> (warmer) altitudes, than I am dubious at how practical it is. No argument
> stopped is less drag.
>
>
> Cheers George
>
>
> Glide ratio , glide distance , power off landing
>
>
>
>
>
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: | compression testing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.edu>
I guess it must depend on the size/strength of the person. I have been
doing them single person for over 20 years and have never had on get away
from me yet. But then again I am 250 lbs and admit that I was taught from
the very beginning on how to do it by myself.
Mike Robertson
I have a friend who has been in the industry for 30+ years. Was doing an
annual on an Piper a few hangars down. He came by looking kinda shaken, with
his armpit very bruised. The only two things he had to say were, "Sure glad
there was a rubber boat in the hangar" and "You can see the marks of my toes
dragging up the lower cowl as I went over the engine"
Still does it by himself, as do I, but he pays more attention these days...
W
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: | Online FAA Forms and paperwork web site |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Philip Condon" <pcondon@mitre.org>
http://forms.faa.gov/forms
I needed form 8610-2 and got it here.
http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8610-2.pdf
Thanks to EAA and DAS FED Mike Robertson
Keywords for future electronic searching
FAA paperwork forms application certificate rating applicant form online
forms faa website documents
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: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 22:47:16 2005-05-02 "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
> Slowing the aircraft
> below best glide speed to stop the prop and then regaining airspeed
> to best glide involves some loss of gliding range.
Actually that isn't a given. I worked this out once, it seems that the
break point is how high you are when you make the decision that you're
landing. If you're still above your normal circuit height, there will be a
net gain in gliding distance realised by stopping the prop. The reason is
that when you raise the nose to stop the prop, you climb a bit above your
(windmilling) ideal glide path. Once it's stopped, you may dip below the
ideal (windmilling) glide path briefly while you get your airspeed up to
best glide again, but the resulting new (prop stopped) glidepath will be
shallower and will end up crossing the previous path well before touchdown.
Now, this was worked out for a Cessna 150, and that only required slowing
to 55mph or so to stop the metal prop... Which isn't much below best glide.
If you've got a wooden prop, it's likely you won't need to raise the nose
much to stop the prop, so you won't lose much by doing so.
Still, I probably wouldn't try it unless I was over 2000' AGL, or unless I
knew the second it happened that I needed every inch of gliding distance to
make it to a field.
> For the reasons above I don't think stopping the
> prop is reasonable or even possible in many cases and therefore
> objected to calling it THE realistic condition.
I agree. There is never *one* answer to any situation.
-Rob
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: Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 7:43:39 2005-05-03 owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by:
> I would tend to think that the prop will have no effect on the best
> glide incidence. Added drag will decrease the best glide slope but it
> will not change the best glide incidence.
AOA is a very nice insrument to have, i'm surprised that generally it's
just the military that has them. They aren't particularly expensive, is
there some downside to them that people don't generally talk about?
And yes, you are correct. The AOA shouldn't change for best glide, but you
can be sure that with the reduced drag of the windmilling prop, that you
will have an increased *range* at that best glide incidence. Which means
you might make it over that last farmer's fence or powerline before hitting
your ideal landing spot.
> Hope that I have not made some gross mistake - would appreciate some
> knowledgeable aerodynamicists to confirm this issue. And if I am
> correct, the above would be a compelling reason to install an AOA.
Well, I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night... (just kidding, I
did take Aeronautical Engineering as a minor in university).
-Rob
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: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Ah. That makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing that out.
Do not archive
--- cgalley <cgalley@qcbc.org> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Vibration is generally not an issue with non-metallic props as they are self
> dampening.
>
> Cy Galley - Chair,
> AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
> A Service Project of Chapter 75
> EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
> EAA Sport Pilot
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: | Hartzell service and trip report (long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
> Guys,
>
> I just returned from Piqua, OH, home of Hartzell Propeller. It was a
> fabulous trip. No, I don't get anything to say this stuff.... to say
> that I was impressed would be a gross understatement.
>
> A little background first, I bought a new Hartzell two blade from Mark
> for my bird. Oddly, after 22 hours it developed a minor grease leak.
> Since it was still leaking 10 hours later, I thought I should check on
> it.
>
> I called Hartzell and they said "Bring it over and we'll fix it." No
> hassles, no grilling questions, no evading, no delays. They were very
> accommodating of my schedule even though I told them that it was not
> an emergency since I fly for fun and have no set schedule.
>
> I asked if we (John Crabtree went with me) could see the repair
> process since we were curious (clueless, really) about what is inside
> of one of these props. Not only did we get to see the overhaul
> facility, we got a tour of the manufacturing facility too. More about
> those later.
>
> I also wanted to get a dynamic balancing while I was there. WOW!
> Does that make a huge difference! I didn't think my vibration level
> was bad, but now it is very smooth. To say that I am pleased would
> also be a gross understatement. It's worth every penny of the
> approximately $180 cost.... chump change in aviation dollars. HIGHLY
> RECOMMENDED regardless of what you're swinging up front.
>
> John and I had arranged to arrive on Sunday morning. Even though
> those are not regular business hours, there were several people
> around. We were greeted like we were the most important people on
> earth, not like we were interrupting their weekend... which we were!
> After we put the planes in the Hartzell hangar, John and I hopped in
> the airport car and spent the rest of the day at the Wright-Patterson
> AF museum. WPAFM is a great museum. And it's free! Where else does
> the government give you anything worthwhile for FREE?
>
> The next morning we arrived back at the Hartzell hangar. My prop was
> already well along in the repair process so after checking on it, we
> hopped back into the company car and went to see one of the four
> Hartzell facilities in Piqua. We went to the facility that
> manufactures metal props. On the way to the facility, I got into the
> wrong lane, a turn lane. A Hartzell employee on her way to work
> spotted the airport car and knowing where we were supposed to be
> going, motioned for us to follow her. Now, that's customer service!
>
> We arrived at the metal prop production facility, a state of the art
> operation to say the least, and met John Popel, a tech rep. John gave
> us some safety glasses and off we went. We saw everything. It was
> amazing. It's simply beyond my ability to type it all. If you are
> impressed by industrial equipment and appreciate the art that goes
> into producing a product, this is a must-see facility. John Popel had
> an amazing grasp of the minutest details and you could tell he is the
> kind of guy who is excited to go to work every day. John said that
> cameras were allowed in almost all areas... and wouldn't you know it,
> I didn't bring one along!! DOH! John said that a facility tour can
> be arranged for small groups easily. This would make a stupendous EAA
> chapter event. I learned more about props in 2 hours than I have in
> the last 20 years.
>
> While at the production facility, we also got to talk to Les Doud, a
> propeller integration engineer. Les also was a wealth of useful
> information. John and I asked him 500 questions. I asked if Hartzell
> had a job opening for me. LOL.
>
> Les explained to us what to look for in a prop, what was good, and
> what was bad. We tried to get some info on what products were in the
> pipeline and told them that we wanted a 25# prop with better
> performance... and it needed to cost less than $1000... and last
> forever. Les and John had every reason to whack us on the head, but
> instead simply said that they were working on it. LOL! Seriously,
> after seeing the effort that they put into their prop design,
> production, and service I almost felt guilty for paying as little as I
> did for mine.
>
> Crabtree and I headed back to the airport to see how my grease leak
> repair was coming along. When we arrived my prop was being rolled out
> to the Rocket. We inquired what, if any, problems were found.
> Everything looked OK was the reply. Mark, the lead mechanic,
> explained that occasionally a grease zerk check ball will dribble a
> little bit, or some of the petroleum distillates will escape from the
> grease with weather changes, age, etc., or it might have simply had a
> bit of stray grease get past the O-ring. I was happy to hear that
> nothing was wrong. It's very comforting to have THE experts look over
> your installation and say "Looks fine."
>
> While Mark was putting the prop back on the Rocket, John and I took
> the full tour of the overhaul facility. Steve Reindel showed us
> around the overhaul shop, which was a miniaturized version of the
> factory, with many of the same capabilities. Steve explained that
> Hartzell had overhauled their overhaul procedures, so to speak, so
> that they could beat the overhaul business competition is all
> categories: price, quality, and turnaround time. Seeing as how they
> got my prop in and turned around in just a few hours... I believe him!
> Although my prop was covered under warranty, the price Steve said I
> would have paid otherwise was quite reasonable... on the order of a
> few hundred dollars for the entire inspection, repair, and
> reinstallation. Wow!
>
> In summary:
> 1) Hartzell service rocks! (No, they didn't pay, coerce, or bribe me
> to say it.)
> 2) My teeny-weeny problem was given more attention than Air Force One
> probably gets.
> 3) Hartzell gives a great tour. Unbelievably informative. Highly
> recommended.
> 4) The cost was minimal. In airplane dollars, it was chump change for
> the entire trip.
> 5) My prop was inspected and installed by experts.... Priceless.
>
> Other trivia:
> 6) Never put more than 6 pumps of grease (1 ounce) into your prop
> during service, usually at annual. Use the proper grease. Make sure
> you take the opposite zerk out so you don't push grease past the seal.
> I didn't do any of these things since I haven't had to service my prop
> yet, but it must be a common user error because we heard it mentioned
> several times.
> 7) We also got to go to the air force museum... too cool. If you've
> never been there... why the heck not?
>
If you feel compelled to reply to this long message.... please SNIP out
the excess!
> Vince Frazier
> 3965 Caborn Road
> Mount Vernon, IN 47620
> 812-464-1839 work
> 812-985-7309 home
> F-1H Rocket, N540VF
> http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html
>
>
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: Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham@hotmail.com>
Michle,
I absolutely agree with you on purchasing and installing an AOA. It should
be the number one item on one's installation agenda.
Chuck Rowbotham
RV-8A
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Long glide to landing
>Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:43:39 +0200
>
>--> RV-List message posted by:
>
>People, just a back to basics word. IMHO, correct me if I am wrong. Here
>goes:
>
>Best glide rate is a function of incidence, not of speed. Best glide speed
>is an average. A heavily loaded plane will have a best glide speed faster
>than a lightly loaded plane, but the incidence will be the same. Same thing
>for stall - a heavily loaded plane will stall at a faster speed than a
>lightly loaded plane, but in both cases at an identical incidence.
>
>Air density, i.e. temperature, altitude, will also affect the best glide
>speed value. That is another reason for getting an AOA, which I happily
>have
>installed on my left wing. If you suddenly become a glider, get your AOA
>onto your best glide incidence; keep it there and forget the speed, you
>might gain a few hundred feet or a couple of miles.
>
>I would tend to think that the prop will have no effect on the best glide
>incidence. Added drag will decrease the best glide slope but it will not
>change the best glide incidence. This means that with an AOA, you can
>maximize your distance whatever the conditions. If, once you got onto your
>bets glide incidence you managed to time the ft/min drop and observed your
>speed, you'll quickly know just how far you can go before touchdown.
>
>Hope that I have not made some gross mistake - would appreciate some
>knowledgeable aerodynamicists to confirm this issue. And if I am correct,
>the above would be a compelling reason to install an AOA.
>
>Michle
>RV8 Fuselage
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: RVer273sb@aol.com
Any one have a proven breakin for an overhauled engine?
New bearings, new cylinders ect.
Stewart RV-4 Co.
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: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
It seems we're really arguing the definition of "realistic." I will
agree that a stopped prop represents the lowest drag configuration which
in turn nets better sink and glide ratio. What I don't agree with is
whether it is "realistic" (or wise) to do what it takes to get the prop
stopped in any given engine out. If it occurs at 400 AGL and 80 mph I
would assert that it is decidedly unwise as you'll be on the ground in
10-15 seconds. At 10,000 AGL and 170 kts you have more freedom to
optimize things. Somewhere in between there's a transition point from
unwise to possible to desireable. Slowing the aircraft below best glide
speed to stop the prop and then regaining airspeed to best glide
involves some loss of gliding range. How much and whether you can
recover it with the lower drag (and how long it takes) is anyones guess.
There are 4000 RVs flying and over a thousand folks on this list and
I've still not seen any performance data solid enough to do that kind of
trade-off study with any confidence. So we're left with our judgement to
decide. My reasoning is that at low altitude (pick your own definition,
0-3K AGL?) your options are most limited and fast and correct decisions
are most critical. It's not the time to approach stall in an emergency
and you've got enough other things to do in the time remaining. At high
altitude you may have many more options so the ability to eek out the
last bit of glide range may not be that valuable. You're likely to gain
more by correctly judging the effect of the wind on your range and
available airports. At any event I would leave stopping the prop until
after all the essentials are completed and all restart attempts are
done. At that point you've lost more altitude and marginalized the
benefits somewhat.
My view of "realistic" is what is conservatively attainable in real
world conditions. For the reasons above I don't think stopping the prop
is reasonable or even possible in many cases and therefore objected to
calling it THE realistic condition. It's certainly subjective so YMMV.
Regardless of your view, it's important to periodically evaluate your
views and practices.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
Greg: Good post. I have not tried to establish my RV-4's performance
with the prop either stopped or windmilling but do have some anecdotes
that may shed some light on what happens (or not). The first involves a
260hp Cherokee Six and its owner, my instructor. A discussion of the
time required to regain power after running a tank dry resulted in a
demonstration. While I was flying he moved the fuel selector to an
empty tank. Presently the engine stopped producing power. The change
in sound was not dramatic but was certainly perceptable. He then
switched to a tank with fuel and we timed the interval until restart. My
recollection is that it took 13 seconds. Seemed a long time. The
engine continued to turn at governed speed and most of the 13 seconds
were spent slowing down. Only a little altitude was lost near the end
of the 13 seconds. The second was a forced landing exercise in my -4.
We were at cruise at about 1500' AGL when the throttle (not the mixture)
was pulled. Since I was busy picking a spot and setting up for an
approach I did not time it but there was a lot of time available in
level flight before getting down to glide speed. The third was an
occasion when I was running prop performance tests. I had set up a two
way course between the Davis Besse and Enrico Fermi power plants over
the western end of Lake Erie. It was early in the morning and the air
was as stable as it gets around here during warm weather and I was at
full throttle and concentrating on holding altitude to plus or minus 10
feet when I ran a tank dry. Not very bright, I'll admit, but it
happened. It took perhaps 1 second to recognize what had happened, a
couple more to switch tanks and only 5 or 6 more to get power back. The
throttle was not moved, no altitude was lost though there may have been
a bobble when I reached for the fuel selector, and not more than 15
knots of speed were lost. Now a fourth incided occurs to me. At about
150' while climbing out of the airport in a 65 horse Aeronca Champ the
instructor pulled the throttle and said "where're you gonna put it?' I
dumped the stick and pointed at the biggest open space I could see.
Some thoughts:
If I set up speed reciprocals between those two nuclear power plants
today I would expect F16's with armed missiles pretty soon. Proper
response to power failure is totally dependent on height and flight
conditions at the time. A fast, clean airplane at high speed provides
more time to establish a course of action. If low and slow whether the
prop is turning or not, while not without consequence, likely must be
accepted as it is. Likewise, a slow, high drag bird like my neighbors
UPF7 requires a response different from that of an RV. If you have time
to experiment with stopping the prop without jeopardizing the outcome,
it's your hide you're playing with. If you are high and fast and can
zoom to a speed that stops the prop perhaps a better chance to succeed
can be found. If you screw it up, all bets are off.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
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: | Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
On the other hand, I raised the rear pin blocks by 2 washers before I
did my skirts. I removed the washers and the rear skirts were so tight
that the pins wouldn't fully engage. I ended up putting the washers back
under there and I'm hoping that maybe someday it'll settle enough to
remove one or both of them. The skirts were fitted by the work the twist
into them across a thigh method and then pulled down hard by a helper
while they were drilled and clecoed. The biggest deal is having the rear
of the canopy frame match the fuselage skin before hand. If it lines up
right, you can make the skirts fit. If not, you'll fight it.
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Gray
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider
--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
> If you block up the slider during fitting and assembly of the aft
skirts,
> they will then fit quite nice and snug when you remove the blocks.
The only
> air/rain we have that leaks into the slider is the very tiny bit that
comes in
> around the sliding rail cap at the top due to the low pressure in
this area.
> One of these days I'll fashion a way to plug this area.
>
> IMO the slider is a pretty tight fit if done well.
>
>
> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 742hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
How high did you block the slider for this method?
Also, how did you seal the side skirts?
Doug Gray
On approach to slider anxiety...
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: Hartzell service and trip report (long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>>AF museum. WPAFM is a great museum. And it's free! Where else does
>>the government give you anything worthwhile for FREE?
>>
Hi Vince, I know this was "tongue-in-cheek", but if you
come fly in Europe for a while, you'll be reminded of
all the great stuff the government in the US is giving you
for "free"!
Just in case you don't have time to do this, here are a
couple of items:
o) Free landings at public airports (Here in Switzerland
mine charges 25 USD, and each touch and go is counted!)
o) Free IFR ATC services (the charging scheme in Europe
is too complicated to describe, but trust me, it makes
the landing fees seem cheap)
So, when you read those "scare" articles from AOPA about how
they are working to save us from a fee-based system, pay attention!
Just about every pilot I've met is a Libertarian, but keep in
mind what privatization means for your favorite pastime. Those
of us flying in Europe are living it, and it ain't pretty.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
That will depend mostly on the cylinders you are using... steel, nickel, chrome
etc...
RVer273sb@aol.com wrote:--> RV-List message posted by: RVer273sb@aol.com
Any one have a proven breakin for an overhauled engine?
New bearings, new cylinders ect.
Stewart RV-4 Co.
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
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: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Garth Shearing" <Garth@islandnet.com>
Another lister gave his data on the stop prop and restart speeds for an RV.
Since I haven't completed the RV6A, I haven't tried to get the data myself.
Burt Rutan published the glide performance for my VariEze in the Owner's
Manual showing two scenarios: 1. The engine out with prop windmilling; and
2. the engine idling. The glide ratios for these are about 10 to 1 and 17
to 1 respectively. Later on, he tested the VariEze to obtain the speeds
necessary to stop the prop and to get it going again with a Continental
0-200 engine installed. These speeds were about 70 Knots and 110 Knots if I
recall correctly. If your engine stops when you are close to the ground,
stopping the prop is probably not an option as others have pointed out. But
at 8,000 feet altitude it's a slam dunk IMHO. BTW these start and stop
speeds will vary depending on actual aircraft model, engine, and propeller.
When I had my Continental engine failure in my VariEze due to a seized
exhaust valve, I obviously didn't have to consciously stop the prop. This
occurred at about 4.5 miles from the threshold of the airport runway I just
left at Victoria Intenational and I had just leveled out at 2,500 feet
(airport is at 63 feet AMSL). I was still at climb speed of 120 mph. I
declared an emergency and had to turn about 210 degrees to my left to
establish the glide directly to the button of runway 090. The wind was about
5-10 Knots coming from my left. I immediately started looking for a place
to land but soon determined that the runway was within gliding distance.
When I got near the airport I actually had to purposely lose altitude. I
could have used a closer runway. I landed about half way down the main
active 7,000 foot runway, where I could turn off onto a taxiway to get out
of the way. It turns out the gliding speed I used, about 100 mph, was about
15 mph above actual best gliding speed.
Since I know pretty accurately where I was when the engine failed, I can
calculate my actual gliding ratio which turns out to be something better
than 10 to 1 (worst case). So optimally the engine stopped gliding ratio
for the VariEze is probably about 12 to 1, or somewhat better than the prop
windmilling value.
An interesting side note. To be honest I can worry about a lot of things
when I'm flying but when this incident occurred I had no panic at all. I
just had a job to get done. I even thought I would lose it some time after
I landed. That didn't happen either. The guys in the firetrucks were a lot
more concerned than me. It's funny how your brain works.
Some of this is off topic, but I hope it's informative.
Garth Shearing
VariEze & 90% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris W" <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
> --> RV-List message posted by: Chris W
> <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
>
> Garth Shearing wrote:
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Garth Shearing" <Garth@islandnet.com>
>>
>>And I beg to differ with you, Greg. If you want minimum sink rate, low
>>drag, and maximum distance to glide, you have to reduce speed to stop the
>>prop, and then increase speed to best glide ratio. In the unlikely event
>>that the best glide ratio speed restarts the windmilling, then use a
>>slightly lower glide speed. In an engine out emergency, that is the
>>realistic and best condition.
>>
>>Don't ask me how I know.
>>
>>
>>
> How slow did you have to go to get the prop to stop? While I agree that
> it would be best to stop the prop and then go to best glide speed, if
> you are say less than 3000 ft AGL, don't you think there would be too
> little time to do that? Once I get my ticket and build my -7, I don't
> ever plan on being much less than 8,000 ft AGL except for takeoff &
> landing, very short trips and when crossing mountain peaks. In my part
> of the country 8,000 ft AGL isn't hard to do and with that much room, if
> the engine quits, you generally have at least 2 airports with in gliding
> range.
>
> --
> Chris W
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: Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>Doug wrote:
>I asked the pilot what the rate of decent was power off in his airplane. He said,
"I don't >know, I suppose around 500 fpm." I said we would go up over the
airport and pull the >mixture and find out. He was concerned about that. I
asked him why? He said "What if >it doesn't restart?" We land, I replied. If
anyone is concerned in the least about an engine >failure at 3000 AGL directly
over a 6500 x 250 ft runway they should not be flying single >engine airplanes.
>If you are not comfortable shutting down your engine over an airport, find a
>flight instructor and go do it ASAP. Unfortunately most flight instructors are
teaching to >gain experience rather than share it. If your flight instructor
is unwilling to do it, find a
>different flight instructor.
Doug:
The pilot in command is the pilot getting the BFR. The instructor giving a BFR
to a current pilot is not the PIC. When he said to you, "What if the engine does
not start?" that was a very valid question.
What if cut-off is used in training and the engine does not come back in time or
at all? The FAA would rightly blame the CFI. I think CFIs should provide realistic
training with out undue risk to the student or yourself. Doug if you feel
it is safe, that is your judgment call, but I respectively disagree with your
suggestion that a CFI who does not use idle cutoff is unworthy some how to
teach.
You don't have to simulate an emergency with a real emergency. Regardless what
is under you at the time, loss of power, intentional or not, in a single engine
airplane is always an emergency. Pulling mixture in flight has risks. Not sure
what you are advocating, but if you are suggesting dead stick landing practice
with the mixture in cut-off, I would say that is unnecessarily risky, and
I know if an accident resulted the FAA would agree. I agree at 3000 feet over
a long runway and engine failure should be no problem. However what if? Vehicle
on runway, you miss judge and the engine wont fire up? It has happened.
If you are alluding to simulating engine out glide, in a single engine airplane,
with partial power and flaps. That is a great idea. However you demonstrated
glide performance by actually using idle cutoff? Why? Could you not just tell
the pilot what the best glide ROD-rate of decent is and appropriate speed, without
shutting the engine down? BTW 900-1000 fpm @ 96 kts is a good number for
most RVs (1.4 to 1.6 nm/1000ft).
I know it is not as macho, and the law of INTENSITY says making it "real" enhances
learning but not if the student is scared. It sounds like you took that into
consideration and explained this. I would say just tell the student what to
expect from experience without demonstrating it with idle cutoff, and simulate
using partial flaps at idle power as you apparently did. Again great idea.
I would say anyone who has a CFI that says you must practice with idle cut-off,
whether at high altitude or low, go find another CFI, If you are not comfortable
with it. Even going to idle power has some risks, like carb ice, thus CFIs
check or clear the engine occasionally.
In defense of Doug he apparently he has supreme confidence in making a dead stick
landing and limits the risk by practice over a runway, but is that extra risk
for realistic training needed? It is not common to use idle cutoff and some
would say, including the FAA, not necessary. In the early days of multi-engine
training, engine failures were simulated with with idle cutoff mixture. Many
accidents resulted from this practice. Engine failures on takoff and landing
for multi-engine airplanes are now simulated with idle power (per the FAA PTS-practical
test standards). Feathering the engine is done by using simulated with
"zero thrust and partial power. I would say that is a good conservative approach
to carry over the SE airplanes.
Regards George CFI(CFII)(MEI), ATP
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com> Subject: Re: try-it-yourself fly-in
- was Long glide to landing Date: May 01, 2005
I was giving a BFR this week and I asked the pilot what the rate of decent
was power off in his airplane. He said, "I don't know, I suppose around 500
fpm." I said we would go up over the airport and pull the mixture and find
out. He was concerned about that. I asked him why? He said "What if it
doesn't restart?" We land, I replied. If anyone is concerned in the least about
an engine failure at 3000 AGL directly over a 6500 x 250 ft runway they should
not be flying single engineairplanes.
We pulled the mixture and flew best glide speed and the airplane came down
1000 fpm measured on my watch, not the VSI. The VSI showed about 800 fpm. We
found that 1/3 flaps and idle thrust simlated that decent, then we practiced
deadstick overhead 360 and 180 approaches to a specific point on the runway,
without going short. He did well and I would suspect his chances of
successfully making a deadstick landing increased dramatically.
If you are not comfortable shutting down your engine over an airport, find a
flight instructor and go do it ASAP.Unfortunately most flight instructors are teaching
to gain experience ratherbthan share it. If your flight instructor is
unwilling to do it, find a
different flight instructor.
A successful outcome from a bad situation is directly related to the
confidence the pilot has in that outcome. If you have realistically trained
for, and successfully completed deadstick landings on a point, you will have
a much higher level of confidence in the outcome and that increases the
likelyhood of a successful outcome WHEN (not if) the fire goes out.
Tailwinds,Doug Rozendaal
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: Hartzell service and trip report (long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Here here!
I enjoyed most of my 18 years of living in Europe but not for the flying. Here's
how I summarize flying cost wise in pilot terms - keeping in mind this is magazine
data is a few years old.
This info came from some civilian's (flying GA) trip report that was written up
in a magazine and I vaguely now remember it because I was at that location and
always wondered how Portugal would have charged the civilians.
One landing & takeoff at the dual use civilian/NATO base located at Lajes Field
AFB in the Azores Portugal about 10 to 15 years ago would have cost you about
$200 in their pay as you go system. Santa Maria (or was it San Miguel? forgot)
RAPCON and Lajes tower I believe billed by the radio call (separate charge
lines for air and ground calls) and this would have been a minimal comm fee,
the landing lights are a fee, the ramp fee regardless of whether or not you buy
gas, weather brief, flight plan filing, etc are what is in that bill. Nothing
to do with the fuel charge which was out of this world as well.
Even 20 years ago gas was something like 3 or 4 bucks a gallon as I recall with
taxes. Tax on automobiles was 100%. Yep, your $35K Audi on the local Azorean
economy cost you $70K with tax, thank you.
Now it's easy to understand why so many Europeans vacation to America and fly powered
planes here. They can't afford to do so there.
God Bless American Aviation Infrastructure!
Lucky
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
>
> >>AF museum. WPAFM is a great museum. And it's free! Where else does
> >>the government give you anything worthwhile for FREE?
> >>
>
> Hi Vince, I know this was "tongue-in-cheek", but if you
> come fly in Europe for a while, you'll be reminded of
> all the great stuff the government in the US is giving you
> for "free"!
>
> Just in case you don't have time to do this, here are a
> couple of items:
>
> o) Free landings at public airports (Here in Switzerland
> mine charges 25 USD, and each touch and go is counted!)
>
> o) Free IFR ATC services (the charging scheme in Europe
> is too complicated to describe, but trust me, it makes
> the landing fees seem cheap)
>
> So, when you read those "scare" articles from AOPA about how
> they are working to save us from a fee-based system, pay attention!
>
> Just about every pilot I've met is a Libertarian, but keep in
> mind what privatization means for your favorite pastime. Those
> of us flying in Europe are living it, and it ain't pretty.
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 Wiring
>
>
>
>
>
>
Here here!
Ienjoyed most of my 18 years of living in Europe but not for the flying.Here's
how I summarizeflying cost wisein pilot terms - keeping in mind this is magazine
data is a few years old.
This info came from some civilian's (flying GA) trip report that was written up
in a magazine andI vaguely nowremember it because I was at that locationand alwayswondered
howPortugal would have charged the civilians.
One landing takeoffat the dual use civilian/NATO base located at Lajes Field AFB
in the Azores Portugal about 10 to 15years ago would have cost you about $200
in their pay as you go system. SantaMaria (or was itSan Miguel? forgot) RAPCON
and Lajes tower I believe billed by the radio call (separatecharge lines for
air and ground calls) and this would have been a minimal comm fee, the landing
lights are a fee, the ramp fee regardless of whether or not you buy gas, weather
brief, flight plan filing, etc are what is in that bill. Nothing to do
with the fuel charge which was out of this world as well.
Even 20 years ago gas was something like 3 or 4 bucks a gallon as I recall with
taxes. Tax on automobiles was 100%. Yep, your $35K Audi on the local Azorean
economy cost you $70K with tax, thank you.
Now it's easy to understand why so many Europeans vacation to America and fly powered
planes here. They can't afford to do so there.
God Bless American Aviation Infrastructure!
Lucky
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <MICK-MATRONICS@RV8.CH>
AF museum. WPAFM is a great museum. And it's free! Where else does
the government give you anything worthwhile for FREE?
Hi Vince, I know this was "tongue-in-cheek", but if you
come fly in Europe for a while, you'll be reminded of
all the great stuff the government in the US is giving you
for "free"!
Just in case you don't have time to do this, here are a
couple of items:
o) Free landings at public airports (Here in Switzerland
mine charges 25 USD, and each touch and go is counted!)
o) Free IFR ATC services (the charging scheme in Europe
is too complicated to describe, but tru
st me, it makes
the landing fees seem cheap)
So, when you read those "scare" articles from AOPA about how
they are working to save us from a fee-based system, pay attention!
Just about every pilot I've met is a Libertarian, but keep in
mind what privatization means for your favorite pastime. Those
of us flying in Europe are living it, and it ain't pretty.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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: Fuel Senders |
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Sounds like you are going beyond the full position and the wiper is hanging
on the edge of the resistor. Probably will not happen in the wing.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Bellancas every day
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Senders
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats
> are
> sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the floats
> by
> hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
> remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way
> to
> free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
> follow the level.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Vince
> RV-8A
>
>
>
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: compression checking an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne@sbcglobal.net>
Yeah. Area on top of piston is about 20 sqin, length of stroke about 6
80 * 20 * 6 = 9600 lbs/in torque on crankshaft
36 inches to the tip of the prop
9600 / 36 = 270 in lbs at the tip = 22 ft lbs.
Easy to hold but if your grip slips and the force can change from static to dynamic
then run!
You might be able to stand on the flap (static) but don't jump up and down (dynamic).
I like to have a helper.
hal
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: compression checking an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Hal
Your numbers are a bit off. The stroke of an O-320 is 3.875". The 360 has a stroke
of 4.375" (not 6")
Charlie Kuss
---- Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Yeah. Area on top of piston is about 20 sqin, length of stroke about 6
>
> 80 * 20 * 6 = 9600 lbs/in torque on crankshaft
>
> 36 inches to the tip of the prop
>
> 9600 / 36 = 270 in lbs at the tip = 22 ft lbs.
>
> Easy to hold but if your grip slips and the force can change from static to dynamic
then run!
>
> You might be able to stand on the flap (static) but don't jump up and down (dynamic).
>
> I like to have a helper.
>
> hal
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>You don't have to simulate an emergency with a real emergency.
>Regardless what is under you at the time, loss of power, intentional
>or not, in a single engine airplane is always an emergency. Pulling
>mixture in flight has risks. Not sure what you are advocating, but
>if you are suggesting dead stick landing practice with the mixture
>in cut-off, I would say that is unnecessarily risky, and I know if
>an accident resulted the FAA would agree. I agree at 3000 feet over
>a long runway and engine failure should be no problem. However what
>if? Vehicle on runway, you miss judge and the engine wont fire up?
>It has happened.
>
>If you are alluding to simulating engine out glide, in a single
>engine airplane, with partial power and flaps. That is a great idea.
>However you demonstrated glide performance by actually using idle
>cutoff? Why? Could you not just tell the pilot what the best glide
>ROD-rate of decent is and appropriate speed, without shutting the
>engine down? BTW 900-1000 fpm @ 96 kts is a good number for most RVs
>(1.4 to 1.6 nm/1000ft).
Given that every RV is a bit different (different ASI errors,
different VSI errors, different prop pitch, or low pitch stop setting
for a CS prop), how is one to determine what partial power and flap
combination properly simulates engine out unless you perform an
actual engine-out glide first? The parametres that properly simulate
an engine-out glide in one RV may be completely out to lunch in
another one.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits@comcast.net>
Earlier this year either as a result of a list entry or reviewing a lister's site,
I reviewed a well thought out wiring diagram. I have misplaced my copy.
Anyone remember the site etc.?
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: | Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net>
On the RV-6, there is a low pressure area along the side canopy skirts. This
is because the fuselage begins to narrow about 1/2 way back along the
skirts, and because that area also coincides with the low pressure area
above the wing. Flow through ventilation is the problem - air is sucked
into the cockpit through every other orifice in the airplane and exhausts
around the side skirts. You can cut a piece of foam pipe insulation in half
and place it between the slider tracks and the slider skirt to seal the area
in flight. I carry a couple of pieces of this stuff with me during cool
weather, and it makes a huge difference in the amount of cold air blowing
through the cockpit.
Adding more "exit" air ventilation would only make the problem worse.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
>
> List readers ...
> Is the problem, of a leaking canopy, due to vent air (heated or cooling)
> coming in and slightly pressurizing and billowing out through the
> cockpit/canopy cracks?
>
> Opinions.
>
> When the ram air enters but has no outlet in the airframe, it would seem
> that engineering an outlet would help to keep the cockpit/canopy junctions
> tighter.
>
> Is there a known low pressure area on the airframe that will promote "flow
> through" ventilation without generating noise or allowing exhaust gases
> in?
> It seems that an engineered flow through vent system would help with the
> noise of escaping air around the canopy.
>
> Has anyone tried a flow through venting system?
> Jerry Grimmonpre
> Huntley IL 7a building my shop
>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider
>
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: Fuel Senders |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Senders
> --> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Sounds like you are going beyond the full position and the wiper is
> hanging
> on the edge of the resistor. Probably will not happen in the wing.
>
> Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
> Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
> www.bellanca-championclub.com
> Actively supporting Bellancas every day
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Fuel Senders
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Gentlemen,
>>
>> I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats
>> are
>> sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the
>> floats
>> by
>> hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
>> remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way
>> to
>> free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
>> follow the level.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Vince
>> RV-8A
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Fuel Senders |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj@earthlink.net>
I will wager the sloshing of the fuel will do what you are doing when you
shake or jiggle it!
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Senders
> --> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Sounds like you are going beyond the full position and the wiper is
> hanging
> on the edge of the resistor. Probably will not happen in the wing.
>
> Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
> Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
> www.bellanca-championclub.com
> Actively supporting Bellancas every day
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Fuel Senders
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Gentlemen,
>>
>> I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats
>> are
>> sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the
>> floats
>> by
>> hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
>> remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way
>> to
>> free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
>> follow the level.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Vince
>> RV-8A
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Andair fuel valve/Gascolator FS |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn@cox.net>
Hi All,
I have a NIB Andair gascolator with 3/8" female fittings and quick drain valve
for sale. $185 (Spruce price $189.95 + 29.95)
Also, New mounted but never used Andair FS20-20-D2 fuel selector valve. This has
female fittings, 3/8" feed, 1/4" return. $380.
$550 for both + shipping
I'm changing directions and don't need these for my set up.
Darwin N. Barrie
P19
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: RVer273sb@aol.com
That would be mellenium for the cylinders.
Nitrided steel I believe.
Thanks,
Stewart
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: | Hangar space needed (wanted?) June 16-23 at KBRD |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Huether" <huether@charter.net>
Anyone have space for an RV6 at KBRD or nearby from June 16-23 for rent?
DNA
Jerry Huether
RV-6
Tualatin, OR
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: | Off Topic - Air Combat |
--> RV-List message posted by: JTAnon@aol.com
Gang,
Tomorrow I face off with a buddy in the Air Combat USA program. First time
for both of us.
Any last minute tips on how to smoke his butt?
Fighter Pilot Wannabee
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Senders |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
If you fly a Lyc, you've got nothing to worry about...
Charlie
;-)
cgalley wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
>Sounds like you are going beyond the full position and the wiper is hanging
>on the edge of the resistor. Probably will not happen in the wing.
>
>Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
> Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
> www.bellanca-championclub.com
> Actively supporting Bellancas every day
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Fuel Senders
>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
>>
>>Gentlemen,
>>
>>I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats
>>are
>>sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the floats
>>by
>>hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
>>remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way
>>to
>>free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
>>follow the level.
>>
>>Any ideas?
>>
>>Vince
>>RV-8A
>>
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: Off Topic - Air Combat |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
Don't pull the wings off!
Tailwinds,
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: <JTAnon@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Off Topic - Air Combat
> --> RV-List message posted by: JTAnon@aol.com
>
> Gang,
>
> Tomorrow I face off with a buddy in the Air Combat USA program. First
time
> for both of us.
>
> Any last minute tips on how to smoke his butt?
>
> Fighter Pilot Wannabee
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
Search this off of yahoo... http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182895-1.html
Should help...
Darrell
RVer273sb@aol.com wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: RVer273sb@aol.com
That would be mellenium for the cylinders.
Nitrided steel I believe.
Thanks,
Stewart
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: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
Hey All,
I was at Sun and Fun and saw that many of you have those small landing
lights in the wing tips. They look like the type Vans sell for the RV-10,
but vans says they will not work in the RV-8 wing tips, the parts person
said they are to hot and would melt the tip. Where would I find what I saw
in many planes at the airshow. I want to install them in the wing tip with
the strobe and the nav. light.
Thanks.
Paul
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: Landing Lights |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 05/03/2005 7:31:31 PM Central Standard Time,
rice737@msn.com writes:
I was at Sun and Fun and saw that many of you have those small landing
lights in the wing tips.
>>>
Hi Paul-
These are the ones I used-
http://www.autobarn.net/helopperdriv.html
55w each, which after a number of night landings I would say are "adequate"
just not outstanding. (sure wish I could find some 75w bulbs!) They offer a
really nice beam, fairly tight with enough to the sides to see the runway edges
well. The oval shape nests nicely into the outer curve of the newer style
tips. Got mine at the AutoZone or Advance Auto Parts, don't remember which, but
do a Google on "Optilux 1500" and you'll get a bunch of hits...
I also recessed my nav/strobe fixtures the depth of the baseplate for less
blanking of the main lights- I'll send a foto.
Mark Phillips
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: Fuel Senders |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
If they are not new you may have some sticky units....I have handled a lot
of these and the older the units (even if they have never been installed)
the stickier they tend to be. If they are really hanging up just chuck them
in favor of some new units. The wise on the list will remind you that you
should never count on the sender/instrument being accurate anyway.....I
agree, but why not at least try to have them close. My 2 cents....
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Senders
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats
are
> sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the floats
> by
> hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
> remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way
to
> free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
> follow the level.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Vince
> RV-8A
>
>
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: | Manifold pressure to primer port |
--> RV-List message posted by: "George Inman" <ghinman@mts.net>
What did others use to connect
Manifold press. to primer port
Primer fittings are 5/16 32
but some say to use AN816-4
Whch is 1/4 inch
The primer port on my
#4 cyl. seems a bit larger than 1/4"
GEORGE H. INMAN
ghinman@mts.net
CELL 204 799 7062
HOME 204 287 8334
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Suggest you use Google to search for "Lycoming break in"
That will find you several hits including this one
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/publications/keyReprints/operation/engineBreakIn.html
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up FLYING - Phase 1 Testing 1 hr done, 39 to go.
Much Fun, what work.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Reiley" <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: break in
> --> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
>
> Search this off of yahoo... http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182895-1.html
>
> Should help...
>
> Darrell
>
> RVer273sb@aol.com wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: RVer273sb@aol.com
>
> That would be mellenium for the cylinders.
> Nitrided steel I believe.
> Thanks,
> Stewart
>
>
>
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: Landing Lights |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
This is probably what you saw (although I wasn't at SnF this year).
http://www.creativair.com/cva/index.php?cPath=21
Dick Tasker
Paul Rice wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
>
>Hey All,
>
>I was at Sun and Fun and saw that many of you have those small landing
>lights in the wing tips. They look like the type Vans sell for the RV-10,
>but vans says they will not work in the RV-8 wing tips, the parts person
>said they are to hot and would melt the tip. Where would I find what I saw
>in many planes at the airshow. I want to install them in the wing tip with
>the strobe and the nav. light.
>Thanks.
>Paul
>
>
>
>
--
----
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
----
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: Long glide to landing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
George,
Thank you for your well thought out post. You make several good points and
it is clear we disagree. I do not want to argue your post point by point.
My thesis is this. I believe we have dumbed down training to accommodate
the low experience level of the instructors doing the training and the
result is dumber pilots.
I take a FAR 61.58 checkride every year in something, sometimes twice a
year, and the FAA requires (Per the ATP PTS) we do a shutdown, feather, and
restart, every time. I guess the FAA assumes that if you fly a large
(read over 12,500#) airplane you need more "realistic" training. I can
assure you that I am much better for that training/checking.
The airplane I was flying for the BFR in my post was a homebuilt and the
pilot had no idea of the sink rate and there was no book to look in.
I have done this with several pilots and based on my experience, the
learning that occurs far outweighs the risk. And you are absolutely
correct, the risk is mine! With regard to the risk the mixture cable is
exactly the same type of cable that controls the throttle and if it failing
is the concern it is exactly the same risk as the throttle. If the carb is
the concern, the chances of a throttle butterfly getting jammed are far
greater than the mixture needle valve getting jammed. I fly 60 year old
airplanes every weekend. Pulling the mixture over a 3000 feet over 6500
foot runway is a risk I can live with.
I see pilots who have learned to fly and successfully passed FAA checkrides,
and yet have no concept of how fast an airplane comes down and I continue to
see pilots who think they can turn back from an engine failure at 500 feet
and land on the runway they departed from.
I am also a FAR 135 check airmen for the local Charter service. Recently we
had a Seneca that had runout engines. We lined up all the Charter pilots,
some are long in the tooth, gray haired, or no haired types. We went up
high over the airport and shut one down and flew around on it. I do quite
a bit of training, and I can recognize when learning occurs. Learning
occurred. These guys got to see for real what single engine performance was
really like. Not simulated, not numbers on a page, but numbers on a barely
climbing altimeter in a lightly loaded Seneca. They got to see the
importance of raising the dead and splitting the ball. Learning occurred.
The restarts were a real eye-opener. One of the pilots had recently had a
precautionary shutdown for an oil pressure problem and he considered a
restart for landing. After a real restart, he said, "if I had tried to
restart when I planned, I would have never made the airport." Learning
occurred.
Is there risk associated with that type of training? You bet. Is there
reward? Absolutely. Can the risk be mitigated? I think so. Many ways. A
through briefing. Flying at altitudes that if the other engines quits we
still would have landed on the airport. The risk associated with a
shutdown, feather, and restart in a B-25 is probably 100 fold greater than
pulling the mixture in a light single engine airplane over a runway.
I believe the current state of flight training is terrible. I believe
flight instructors should be required to have 1000's of hours not a few
hundred. I believe instructors should be paid similar to other corporate or
airline pilots. (I am not, and do not want to be a full time flight
instructor, even if the pay was better) In short I believe there are lots
and lots of pilots out there who do not have a clue about the airplanes they
are flying, on several subjects, engine failures are one, but there is one
pilot in Iowa who has a better understanding, and I believe it was worth the
risk. But then you could find several people who would say I am one of the
clueless ones ;-)
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Long glide to landing
> --> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> >Doug wrote:
>
> >I asked the pilot what the rate of decent was power off in his airplane.
He said, "I don't >know, I suppose around 500 fpm." I said we would go up
over the airport and pull the >mixture and find out. He was concerned about
that. I asked him why? He said "What if >it doesn't restart?" We land, I
replied. If anyone is concerned in the least about an engine >failure at
3000 AGL directly over a 6500 x 250 ft runway they should not be flying
single >engine airplanes.
>
>
> >If you are not comfortable shutting down your engine over an airport,
find a
> >flight instructor and go do it ASAP. Unfortunately most flight
instructors are teaching to >gain experience rather than share it. If your
flight instructor is unwilling to do it, find a
> >different flight instructor.
>
>
> Doug:
>
>
> The pilot in command is the pilot getting the BFR. The instructor giving a
BFR to a current pilot is not the PIC. When he said to you, "What if the
engine does not start?" that was a very valid question.
>
>
> What if cut-off is used in training and the engine does not come back in
time or at all? The FAA would rightly blame the CFI. I think CFIs should
provide realistic training with out undue risk to the student or yourself.
Doug if you feel it is safe, that is your judgment call, but I respectively
disagree with your suggestion that a CFI who does not use idle cutoff is
unworthy some how to teach.
>
>
> You don't have to simulate an emergency with a real emergency. Regardless
what is under you at the time, loss of power, intentional or not, in a
single engine airplane is always an emergency. Pulling mixture in flight has
risks. Not sure what you are advocating, but if you are suggesting dead
stick landing practice with the mixture in cut-off, I would say that is
unnecessarily risky, and I know if an accident resulted the FAA would agree.
I agree at 3000 feet over a long runway and engine failure should be no
problem. However what if? Vehicle on runway, you miss judge and the engine
wont fire up? It has happened.
>
>
> If you are alluding to simulating engine out glide, in a single engine
airplane, with partial power and flaps. That is a great idea. However you
demonstrated glide performance by actually using idle cutoff? Why? Could you
not just tell the pilot what the best glide ROD-rate of decent is and
appropriate speed, without shutting the engine down? BTW 900-1000 fpm @ 96
kts is a good number for most RVs (1.4 to 1.6 nm/1000ft).
>
>
> I know it is not as macho, and the law of INTENSITY says making it "real"
enhances learning but not if the student is scared. It sounds like you took
that into consideration and explained this. I would say just tell the
student what to expect from experience without demonstrating it with idle
cutoff, and simulate using partial flaps at idle power as you apparently
did. Again great idea.
>
>
> I would say anyone who has a CFI that says you must practice with idle
cut-off, whether at high altitude or low, go find another CFI, If you are
not comfortable with it. Even going to idle power has some risks, like carb
ice, thus CFIs check or clear the engine occasionally.
>
>
> In defense of Doug he apparently he has supreme confidence in making a
dead stick landing and limits the risk by practice over a runway, but is
that extra risk for realistic training needed? It is not common to use idle
cutoff and some would say, including the FAA, not necessary. In the early
days of multi-engine training, engine failures were simulated with with idle
cutoff mixture. Many accidents resulted from this practice. Engine failures
on takoff and landing for multi-engine airplanes are now simulated with idle
power (per the FAA PTS-practical test standards). Feathering the engine is
done by using simulated with "zero thrust and partial power. I would say
that is a good conservative approach to carry over the SE airplanes.
>
>
> Regards George CFI(CFII)(MEI), ATP
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> From: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com> Subject: Re:
try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing Date: May 01, 2005
>
>
> I was giving a BFR this week and I asked the pilot what the rate of decent
> was power off in his airplane. He said, "I don't know, I suppose around
500
> fpm." I said we would go up over the airport and pull the mixture and
find
> out. He was concerned about that. I asked him why? He said "What if it
> doesn't restart?" We land, I replied. If anyone is concerned in the least
about an engine failure at 3000 AGL directly over a 6500 x 250 ft runway
they should not be flying single engineairplanes.
>
>
> We pulled the mixture and flew best glide speed and the airplane came down
> 1000 fpm measured on my watch, not the VSI. The VSI showed about 800 fpm.
We
> found that 1/3 flaps and idle thrust simlated that decent, then we
practiced
> deadstick overhead 360 and 180 approaches to a specific point on the
runway,
> without going short. He did well and I would suspect his chances of
> successfully making a deadstick landing increased dramatically.
>
> If you are not comfortable shutting down your engine over an airport, find
a
> flight instructor and go do it ASAP.Unfortunately most flight instructors
are teaching to gain experience ratherbthan share it. If your flight
instructor is unwilling to do it, find a
> different flight instructor.
>
>
> A successful outcome from a bad situation is directly related to the
> confidence the pilot has in that outcome. If you have realistically
trained
> for, and successfully completed deadstick landings on a point, you will
have
> a much higher level of confidence in the outcome and that increases the
> likelyhood of a successful outcome WHEN (not if) the fire goes out.
>
> Tailwinds,Doug Rozendaal
>
>
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: | Re: Landing Lights |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill VonDane" <bill@vondane.com>
www.creativair.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
Subject: RV-List: Landing Lights
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
Hey All,
I was at Sun and Fun and saw that many of you have those small landing
lights in the wing tips. They look like the type Vans sell for the RV-10,
but vans says they will not work in the RV-8 wing tips, the parts person
said they are to hot and would melt the tip. Where would I find what I saw
in many planes at the airshow. I want to install them in the wing tip with
the strobe and the nav. light.
Thanks.
Paul
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: Off Topic - Air Combat |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Christopher Dahl" <dahlhouse@volcano.net>
JT,,,think in 3D (three dimensions)...got my ol'friend in his Pitts with me
in my 4 by thinkin this way....CD
----- Original Message -----
From: <JTAnon@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Off Topic - Air Combat
> --> RV-List message posted by: JTAnon@aol.com
>
> Gang,
>
> Tomorrow I face off with a buddy in the Air Combat USA program. First
time
> for both of us.
>
> Any last minute tips on how to smoke his butt?
>
> Fighter Pilot Wannabee
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
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! --
|