Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:40 AM - Re: New pitot/ static offerings (Kevin Horton)
2. 03:33 AM - Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern (alan@reichertech.com)
3. 04:54 AM - Re: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes) (Charles Heathco)
4. 05:22 AM - Re: Just trashing my first flap!! (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
5. 05:29 AM - "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? (Charles Heathco)
6. 07:00 AM - Re: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes) (Tony Marshall)
7. 07:28 AM - Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? (Mike Robertson)
8. 07:32 AM - Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? (sportav8r@aol.com)
9. 08:24 AM - Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern (Bob J)
10. 08:25 AM - Re: Re: Sources for electrical system design (Hal Kempthorne)
11. 08:46 AM - Re: Bomber pattern WAS: Joy Riding in the Pattern (Hal Kempthorne)
12. 09:04 AM - Re: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes) (flynlow)
13. 09:06 AM - 'New' proficiency/currency rules for experimentals (SCOTT SPENCER)
14. 09:08 AM - Mooney spinner (flynlow)
15. 09:55 AM - DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (Ron Lee)
16. 10:05 AM - Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller Advertisement (LeastDrag93066@aol.com)
17. 10:06 AM - Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? (sportav8r@aol.com)
18. 10:12 AM - Re: Re: Sources for electrical system design (Paul Folbrecht)
19. 10:12 AM - Re: Re: Sources for electrical system design (James E. Clark)
20. 10:12 AM - New Rule N 8700.42 (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
21. 10:24 AM - Mufflers for RVs (Was Re: Noisy Airplanes) ()
22. 10:33 AM - Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
23. 10:38 AM - Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
24. 12:05 PM - Microfastener website (John Danielson)
25. 12:38 PM - Re: Microfastener website (Jeff Point)
26. 12:38 PM - New rule N8700.42 does not apply to RVers (Mike Draper)
27. 12:47 PM - Re: Microfastener website (Richard McBride)
28. 12:58 PM - Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (Robert St.Denis)
29. 01:05 PM - Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? (Mike Robertson)
30. 01:57 PM - Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (Larry Bowen)
31. 02:35 PM - Re: Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller Advertisement (Ted Lumpkin)
32. 05:07 PM - Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern (bill shook)
33. 05:07 PM - Re: Zenith-List: New Regulation or licence to fly experimental (cgalley)
34. 05:13 PM - Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle (John Lawson)
35. 06:03 PM - Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern (RV6 Flyer)
36. 07:03 PM - Re: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle (LarryRobertHelming)
37. 07:48 PM - oil door Hinges (sarg314)
38. 07:58 PM - Re: Just trashing my first flap!! (Allen Fulmer)
39. 08:18 PM - Re: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle (David E. Nelson)
40. 08:22 PM - Firewall Insulation (Bobby Hester)
41. 08:49 PM - cowl fit (sarg314)
42. 09:10 PM - Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (David Fenstermacher)
43. 09:35 PM - UMA LIGHTS VS WIRING KIT (Bruno)
44. 09:42 PM - Comments from Today's Tour & Demo (Brad Oliver)
45. 10:23 PM - Re: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle (Jim Jewell)
46. 11:08 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question ()
47. 11:08 PM - Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question ()
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: New pitot/ static offerings |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 11-May-05, at 10:56 AM, Evan and Megan Johnson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
> <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
>
> A few months ago there was a thread about the poor choices available
> for pitot tubes and static port kits. We have just received our first
> batch of CNC machined pitot tubes and they look beautiful! Please have
> a look http://www.evansaviationproducts.com/Other%20Products.htm
> The pitot kit comes complete with the mast and all of the hardware you
> need for a super clean installation. I believe this is the only kit
> available right now as a complete package....most others require you
> to go searching for the components from different sources. You will
> find a significant cost savings with the kit as well as really nice
> hardware. We are currently prototyping a heated version, but it is
> still a bit down the road.
> Cheers,
> Evan Johnson
> www.evansaviationproducts.com
> (530)247-0375
> (530)351-1776 cell
>
>
The pitot tubes look great.
The static ports look great too, but people need to understand that a
flush port may not provide an accurate static source on RVs. It seems
that the static pressure in the area of the recommended aft fuselage
location is not the same as the free-stream ambient pressure. The
protruding pop rivet head is needed, as it forces the air flow to
accelerate around it, causing the pressure at the static port to be
decreased.
Several builders have found that flush static ports resulted in
indicated airspeeds and altitudes that were too low. One report showed
a difference of about 10 kt in indicated airspeed, and 100 - 200 ft of
altimeter error at cruise speed. Many other builders probably haven't
done the testing to know the difference, and they might just wonder why
their RV's indicated airspeeds are a bit lower than everyone else's RV.
If looks are more important to you than accurate airspeed and altitude
indications, then by all means go for flush static ports.
There is lots of info in the archives on this, including reports from
people who found flush static ports gave them errors in IAS and/or
altitude.
Info on how to test your static system accuracy is on my web site:
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/rvlinks/ssec.html
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
RV-8 - Finishing Kit
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
--> RV-List message posted by: alan@reichertech.com
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
> <mstewart@iss.net>
>
> Points addressed below:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com [mailto:gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com]
> Subject: Joy Riding in the Pattern
<...>
> <snip>
>
> Also, to avoid doing aerobatics in the pattern by definition (far
> 91.307), bank angles must be limited to 60 degree bank. Many RV 180
> breaks are done at high initial speeds and large (up to 90 degree)
> initial bank angles. There is nothing making this cool to the FAA.
> Again some think it looks great but it tends to get people excited
> in a bad way when they see a 90 degree bank in the pattern.
>
> <snip> I did not recommend any aerobatic maneuvers or even suggest how
> to execute the maneuver.
<...>
CFR 91.307 does not address or "define" aerobatics. It addresses
parachutes and parachuting. It explains that occupants *other* *than*
*crew* *members* must wear a parachute if the aircraft exceeds 60 degrees
bank or 30 degrees pitch. It does not *limit* the angles of bank or
pitch.
CFR 91.307 is included below. Look through it all, but in particular,
read through 91.307(c). Note that many high-performance aerobatic
aircraft can reach high nose-up angles easily, but that may also be the
angle needed for their Vx/Vy.
If you want to argue the aerobatic flight angle, at least reference the
correct CFR: 91.303. Note, though, that that CFR does not limit angles
either. It simply states this:
"For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an
intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's
attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not
necessary for normal flight."
That, of course, opens up interpretation as to "normal flight". I have
not reproduced the entire CFR 91.303 here. I'll leave that as an exercise
for those who want to argue it to do the research first.
#####
91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available
for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved
type and
(1) If a chair type (canopy in back), it has been packed by a certificated
and appropriately rated parachute rigger within the preceding 120 days; or
(2) If any other type, it has been packed by a certificated and
appropriately rated parachute rigger
(i) Within the preceding 120 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness are
composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic fiber or
materials that are substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, or
other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or
(ii) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is
composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or materials not
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person
may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United
States except in accordance with part 105 of this chapter.
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute,
no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember)
may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any
certificate or rating when given by
(i) A certificated flight instructor; or
(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with 61.67 of
this chapter.
(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means
(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical
standard order (C23 series); or
(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or
AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation
or specification number.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91255,
62 FR 68137, Dec. 30, 1997; Amdt. 91268, 66 FR 23553, May 9, 2001]
#####
--
Alan Reichert
Priv, Inst, SEL
RV-8 N927AR (reserved)
Prepping Horizontal/Vertical Stabilizers for Assembly
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: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
I have read with interest the "swiss muffler" blog, and also the info on RV mufflers
on Aircraft Exaust site, I will call them when they open and post my findings.
I for one highly dislike the noise our planes produce and so do a lot of
other people. Like it or not, airports everywhere are under attack for just
the noise factor. I am sure many would defend their right to make as much noise
as they want and would point to the fact that we in the USA are not under any
noise restrictions YET. I woulnt mind giving up a small amount of performance
for a quieter plane. Charlie heathco
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: Just trashing my first flap!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 5/11/05 9:59:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
ibspud@adelphia.net writes:
> I'd say throw those devices away and get
> a pressure regulator or better yet a combination regulator/oiler/water
> trap. You need to oil your tool from time to time.
>>>>
Agree on use of regulator- a good regulator at the compressor is the way to
go, but best avoid any automatic oiler- If an oiler is placed upstream of the
hoses, these same hoses can not be used for any priming or painting as they
will be contaminated with oil- it's easy to just add a few drops of oil to the
gun inlet occasionally, or before each extended riveting or drilling session to
keep your tool well-lubed! Also consider that using larger hoses will reduce
the pressure drop once the tool is activated- the plastic coiled hose is
particularly notorious for this- all that going round & round adds centrifugal
force to the air, slowing it down as Gs build in the airstream! 8-)
(well, not really on the G stuff, but don't use 'em for riveting, anyway!)
Also be sure to drain your compressor tank regularly- amazing how much water
is in the air, particularly in humid locations.
From The PossumWorks in TN
Mark Phillips -6A, flying
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly passengers in
homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to flying passengers only
in planes in which they are qualified and experienced. Currency and proficiency
rules apply to those who take people for rides in their experimental aircraft
and EAA says current pilots have until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have
the necessary category and class ratings for the aircraft they fly.
This is the first Ive heard of this, am I the only one in the dark about it? charlie
heathco (this is from Avweb)
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tony Marshall" <tony@lambros.com>
Having watched this noise thread....I guess I love the noise of
airplanes.....one of the many things I enjoy about them. I understand that
many dont feel this way. For this reason we probably should be moving in
the direction of quieter engines and better controlled props.
Dont be deceived into believing that the airport/airplane dissidents will go
away though....the only way many will be happy is if your engine simply
doesn't run. We can then all sit out on the ramp, in formation, making
engine noises as far as many of them are concerned. But....be sure, someone
will protest that, too. While some airplane/airport detractors have
legitimate concerns, the 'rush' of many, if not most, comes simply from
being 'involved'....not really having a dog in the fight. I wish they knew
how much they were messing with the wholesome enjoyment of a lot of good
people.
Tony Marshall
RV6
Polson, MT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes)
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
>
> I have read with interest the "swiss muffler" blog, and also the info on
> RV mufflers on Aircraft Exaust site, I will call them when they open and
> post my findings. I for one highly dislike the noise our planes produce
> and so do a lot of other people. Like it or not, airports everywhere are
> under attack for just the noise factor. I am sure many would defend their
> right to make as much noise as they want and would point to the fact that
> we in the USA are not under any noise restrictions YET. I woulnt mind
> giving up a small amount of performance for a quieter plane. Charlie
> heathco
>
>
>
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: | "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
It is a new requirement that came out just recently with the light sport
changes. It is in FAR 61.31(k)(2). This is the FAR that previously made it
possible for multi-engine Experimental aircraft to be flown without having a
multi-engine pilot's certificate. The wording in 61.31(k)(1) has not
changed and still excludes non-type certificate aircraft from needing a
categroy and class rating. But 61.31(k)(2) changed clarifying that a
categroy and class rating is needed if a passenger is being carried. For
the vast majority of people this will mean nothing new as the FAA has been
including wording in the aircraft Operating Limitations requiring a categroy
and class rating since the mid 90's. Only if you have an aircraft that was
completed prior to that time and do not have a paragraph about categroy and
class rating in your operating limitations do you need to worry about this.
A new order, 8700.42 gives all the details and is available at:
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/n8700-42.doc
If you do happen to be in the categroy needing new operating limitations
and/or ratings added to your pilot's certificate the procedures are also in
this order. The good news is that you will be able to use the flight time
you already have in your aircraft to get these newly required ratings.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
>From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:28:11 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
>
>The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly
>passengers in homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to
>flying passengers only in planes in which they are qualified and
>experienced. Currency and proficiency rules apply to those who take people
>for rides in their experimental aircraft and EAA says current pilots have
>until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have the necessary category and class
>ratings for the aircraft they fly.
>
>This is the first Ive heard of this, am I the only one in the dark about
>it? charlie heathco (this is from Avweb)
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Like you, Charlie, I somehow missed out on the public comment period on this new
rule ;-)
I couldn't believe my eyes when I read & re-read the AvWeb's report on it: the
paperwork required and the revised license which sounds like it will only permit
the pilot to fly in the experimental make & model for which pax-carrying permission
is sought, and no other aircraft, even when solo. That is so bizarre,
it can't be right. Even the D. C. Swamp mentality isn't that screwed up.
Great example of fixing a non-existent problem by heavy-handed regulation.
I'm beginning to think we need an unauthorized small aircraft overflight of the
DC airspace about twice a day, to keep the gummint hunkered in their bunkers,
and the citizens safe and free.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Heathco <cheathco@comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly passengers in
homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to flying passengers only
in planes in which they are qualified and experienced. Currency and proficiency
rules apply to those who take people for rides in their experimental aircraft
and EAA says current pilots have until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have the
necessary category and class ratings for the aircraft they fly.
This is the first Ive heard of this, am I the only one in the dark about it?
charlie heathco (this is from Avweb)
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: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob J <rocketbob@gmail.com>
On 5/11/05, gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
> If it is a towered airport they can approve your Flight of 6 RVs and 180 Break.
Than you are golden. At a non-towered airport and a formation of RVs cuts someone
off flying downwind/base/final, that is rude and possibly dangerous. If
you are in radio contact with
I have on many occasions led flights of 5-7 RV's in formation into
busy airports at flyins and have had few problems. The trick is to
request POLITELY and explicitly of any aircraft in the pattern that
they yield to the formation on the overhead break. 99% of the time
they will happily yield, life is good. An example of this: I will
specifically ask that the "cessna on long downwind please yield for
the formation flight of 6 on the overhead break to land, we would like
to break to the left at two second intervals starting at the runway
threshold, tight circle to land." If they don't yield or respond,
then we go on to make another pass for the break to land until traffic
conditions permit us to do what we're going to do. Any problems with
this usually are the result of the pilots flying downwind, don't know
what to do or aren't listening. Folks, I don't mean to sound arrogant
but my experience has been the airways are full of pilots that don't
have a clue, and frequently use their ears instead of their eyes, or
don't think while they're flying, or in the case of the latest DC ADIZ
incursion, don't do any preflight planning.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 600+ hours F1 under const
do not archive
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: Sources for electrical system design |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne@sbcglobal.net>
60 amps! Wow! So you can run your compressor and drill press?
hal
Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
I did some reading. I think I will go with the B&C alternator. I think I will
need the 60A too which is $600 - ouch!!
--- LARRY ADAMSON wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "LARRY ADAMSON"
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Folbrecht
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Sources for electrical system design
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com
>
>
> This alternator debate has been a tough one. I have a 60 internally regulated
> alt. from Van's. A few years ago, I installed the O.V, protection that opened
> the main cable from the alt. to battery. Turns out, that removing the alt
> field voltage won't shut down an internally regulated alternator, and
> disconnecting from the battery can cause a load dump. Haven't yet flown the
> plane, but it looks like I'm taking out the O.V. (over voltage) setup. There
> is a good discussion of this on the Matronics Aeroelectric list during the
> last month.
>
>
> Seriously? I thought all the hard decisions had been made. Damn!
>
> Is it that big a deal? I admit I'm not expert, but I've never had an
> alternator failure (Ok, in my measly 300 hours) or heard of one firsthand
> even
> on airplanes with very old alternators. Which I think are all externally
> regulated.. I guess it's another point to research.. and I guess there is
> probably a reason why a B&C alternator costs 2x what the one Mattituck
> supplies
> does.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bomber pattern WAS: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne@sbcglobal.net>
The bomber pattern yesterday was not at all frustrating but then I was in no hurry.
The B-17 arrived in Paso Robles yesterday afternoon as I was approaching the airport.
He did fly very large pattern. To follow him in one would have to be
very patient. He was so far away that someone got in the way and he had to go
around once. I followed around on his right about a thousand feet above and
a bit behind. I later wondered if that is about where crews would first spot
an enemy fighter.
He did not seem to have prepared himself for the landing at this uncontrolled airport.
After landing he asked for the ground control frequency.
hal
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: | Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "flynlow" <flynlow@usaviator.net>
Hello;
Cant resist, forgive me. It would seem to me in that case that we would all
need to install windshield wipers on the inside of our canopies. You know,
all those lips flapping making airplane sounds and the spit flying.......
Sorry but I just couldn't resist.
Bud Silvers
RV-8 wings done starting on fuselage.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tony Marshall
Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes)
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tony Marshall" <tony@lambros.com>
Having watched this noise thread....I guess I love the noise of
airplanes.....one of the many things I enjoy about them. I understand that
many dont feel this way. For this reason we probably should be moving in
the direction of quieter engines and better controlled props.
Dont be deceived into believing that the airport/airplane dissidents will go
away though....the only way many will be happy is if your engine simply
doesn't run. We can then all sit out on the ramp, in formation, making
engine noises as far as many of them are concerned. But....be sure, someone
will protest that, too. While some airplane/airport detractors have
legitimate concerns, the 'rush' of many, if not most, comes simply from
being 'involved'....not really having a dog in the fight. I wish they knew
how much they were messing with the wholesome enjoyment of a lot of good
people.
Tony Marshall
RV6
Polson, MT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes)
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
>
> I have read with interest the "swiss muffler" blog, and also the info on
> RV mufflers on Aircraft Exaust site, I will call them when they open and
> post my findings. I for one highly dislike the noise our planes produce
> and so do a lot of other people. Like it or not, airports everywhere are
> under attack for just the noise factor. I am sure many would defend their
> right to make as much noise as they want and would point to the fact that
> we in the USA are not under any noise restrictions YET. I woulnt mind
> giving up a small amount of performance for a quieter plane. Charlie
> heathco
>
>
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: | 'New' proficiency/currency rules for experimentals |
--> RV-List message posted by: SCOTT SPENCER <aerokinetic@sbcglobal.net>
From AvWeb...
I'm sure many of you have already been aware of this, but I don't remember seeing
any list traffic or discussion of it.
Anyway, after calling the EAA to confirm this I was told that this only really
applies to those who are flying experimental aircraft for which category and class
they are not rated as a pilot, i.e... a private pilot with a single-engine-land
rating who is operating an experimental helicopter. There is and has been
for decades, a loophole in the rules which allows pilots of experimentals to
do this sort of thing mainly for the purpose of developing new types of aircraft
like say powered lift a few years back -there was no recognized category
for it (although there is now) and so it was impossible to be rated properly in
category and class. So... AvWeb has really not worded it as it should have been
worded. The statement "make and model" will really not apply to us since we
are properly rated as to category and class (assuming we all have airplane single-engine-land
ratings), and no, we're not all going to have to go out and
have logbooks entries made and get new licenses to ca
rry
passengers in our RV's. This will affect mainly the gyroplane, powered-lift and
rotorcraft guys as I see it. It didn't help that AvWeb included a picture of
an RV-4 in their article.
-Scott Spencer N4ZW (CFII, ATP)
The article follows:
The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly passengers
in homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to flying passengers only
in planes in which they are qualified and experienced. Currency and proficiency
rules apply to those who take people for rides in their experimental aircraft
and EAA says current pilots have until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have
the necessary category and class ratings for the aircraft they fly. Those who
always fly solo will not need to fly through the bureaucratic hoops. Under the
new notice, which was issued April 21, affected pilots will have fill out a
form and make sure their recreational or higher certificate is in order. Flying
passengers requires that the pilot have at least five hours as PIC in the category,
class, make and model of the experimental aircraft in question between
Sept. 1, 2004, and Aug. 31, 2005. An authorized flight instructor must make a
logbook entry attesting to the pilot's proficiency w
ith the
aircraft and then the pilot must show the log to a designated pilot examiner or
FAA Operations Inspector. A new pilot certificate will then be issued restricting
the pilot to flying that particular experimental aircraft (or any others
for which he or she has done the paperwork).
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "flynlow" <flynlow@usaviator.net>
Hello group;
I have an IO 360 A1A 200 hp angle valve engine with a Hartzel Constant Speed
Propeller. Engine, prop and spinner came from a Mooney M20. Question is can
I use my spinner or do I have to use the one from Vans? My spinner bulkhead
attaches to ring gear and it looks like we will have to modify the cowling
to make it work. Has anyone done this before? If so how has it worked?
Please advise. Thanking you all in advance.
Bud Silvers
RV-8 under construction in Colorado
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: | DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> Folks, I don't mean to sound arrogant
>but my experience has been the airways are full of pilots that don't
>have a clue, and frequently use their ears instead of their eyes, or
>don't think while they're flying, or in the case of the latest DC ADIZ
>incursion, don't do any preflight planning.
Where I live 100 mile visibility is typical and visibility around 30 miles
seems like "IFR" conditions. Can someone explain how a person
could fly over DC even not using GPS? Where conditions hazy and
five miles visibility?
Ron Lee
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: | Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller Advertisement |
--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
NEW! JAA/FAA certified 2 blade aluminum constant speed MT-Propeller
MT-Propeller has developed a new high performance 2 blade aluminum propeller
for eliminating certain disadvantages of regular 2 blade aluminum constant
speed propellers.
The 2 blade aluminum MT-Propeller has the following:
- No RPM restrictions for undampened crankshaft Lycoming ( )O-360- series
engines.
- Latest available high efficiency airfoils
- Scimitar blade shape for noise reduction and high performance.
- Smooth running due to close tolerance manufacturing (CNC machined)
The new aluminum MT-Propeller is available for Lycoming and Continental
engines developing up to 300 hp. The maximum diameter is 203 cm (80 inches).
The Lycoming ( )O-360-series MT-Propeller is typically a 72 inch diameter
and includes a spinner assembly installed at the factory to match your cowl.
This allows delivery to be a bolt on propeller assembly. Minimum blade
diameter is 68 inches.
Price is $6,399 plus shipping and any applicable taxes.
13" diameter spinner assembly set for 1 1/2" cowl spacing installed on
propeller.
No cost option: Spinner color - White, Red, Black, Grey, Yellow or left in
primer only.
"Hi-Glo" option - $450 (The "Hi-Glo" option gives the Kevlar/Epoxy spinner
the appearance of a polished aluminum (or chrome) spinner dome.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
Custom Aircraft Propeller - A division of Less Drag Products, Inc.
_www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com/)
(805) 795-5377
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Mike- I went to the link and read the regs; my legalese-challenged eyes glazed
over rather quickly... I had always thought "category and class" meant that "ASEL"
would cover it for a fixed-wing experimental that was not "high-performance"
without any further endorsements. Have I been operating my RV illegally
(with pax) all these years?
What really caught my eye was the verbiage defending the reason for the regs: an
increasing trend in experimental accidents with pax aboard. The FAA's response
to this data appears not to involve investigating the EFFECT OF PASSENGERS
on the aircraft involved in these accidents, but on granting almost "shall-issue"
rubber-stamp license endorsements to the pilots of those aircraft. If the
trend is rising for pax-carrying experimental fatalities, let's dig into why
the CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS causes increased numbers of crashes: are the aircraft
overloaded? Are pax grabbing the controls and pulling wings off? Are pilots
acting stupid with a captive audience aboard? If it's an uptrend for experimental
crashes in general, and fatality absolute numbers are climbing only because
a crash with pax aboard _by definition_ kills more people than an aircraft
crashed solo, then let's be logical and scrutinize experimental accidents in
general, admitting that pax are not a contributing
variable to the crashes themselves.
At any rate, I am without a clue how the proposed issuance of new license endorsements
based on prior expereince might do anything to reduce the fatality statistics;
it's all symbolism trumping substance. How many pax fatalities occur
in the first five hours that a pilot flies a new make and model? If it's significant,
then forbid that behavior for the first 5 hours. Why the license endorsement?
Prediction: I foresee the FAA certifying night proficiency using the
same "logic" - issuing every airman a license with a night flight endorsement
- valid only for 90 days, of course, in keeping with the night flight currency
regs we already have on the books. Or maybe issuing every airline pilot an
endorsed license after he passes a blood alcohol test, such license only good
for flight on the day of issue, to cut down on the number of flight crews flying
under the influence... I fail to see why every reg needs to appear reincarnated
as a license endorsement; it's already illega
l to bust these regs! (Reminds me of gun control - lets' reduce murder by making
it illegal; oh, wait, it already is - ya think making it double-illegal will
help?)
I would sincerely appreciate your assistance with understand this. The rule announcement
comes on the heels of a vey bad day for GA in the Washington ADIZ,
a day that made one pilot look foolish, and the federal security apparatus look
like a cross between Chicken Little and a two-ton, rabid gorilla.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
It is a new requirement that came out just recently with the light sport
changes. It is in FAR 61.31(k)(2). This is the FAR that previously made it
possible for multi-engine Experimental aircraft to be flown without having a
multi-engine pilot's certificate. The wording in 61.31(k)(1) has not
changed and still excludes non-type certificate aircraft from needing a
categroy and class rating. But 61.31(k)(2) changed clarifying that a
categroy and class rating is needed if a passenger is being carried. For
the vast majority of people this will mean nothing new as the FAA has been
including wording in the aircraft Operating Limitations requiring a categroy
and class rating since the mid 90's. Only if you have an aircraft that was
completed prior to that time and do not have a paragraph about categroy and
class rating in your operating limitations do you need to worry about this.
A new order, 8700.42 gives all the details and is available at:
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/n8700-42.doc
If you do happen to be in the categroy needing new operating limitations
and/or ratings added to your pilot's certificate the procedures are also in
this order. The good news is that you will be able to use the flight time
you already have in your aircraft to get these newly required ratings.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
>From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:28:11 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
>
>The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly
>passengers in homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to
>flying passengers only in planes in which they are qualified and
>experienced. Currency and proficiency rules apply to those who take people
>for rides in their experimental aircraft and EAA says current pilots have
>until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have the necessary category and class
>ratings for the aircraft they fly.
>
>This is the first Ive heard of this, am I the only one in the dark about
>it? charlie heathco (this is from Avweb)
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Seems that 40A may not cover max current draw. More research needs to be done.
If it turns out 40A will cover the draw then I'll go with 40.
--- Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne@sbcglobal.net>
>
> 60 amps! Wow! So you can run your compressor and drill press?
>
> hal
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
For others that may be sorting through on this, yet another angle.
The 60 amp is what I decided to do as well.
Some of my logic ...
My Piper consistently uses in the high 30's to low 40's amps. I monitor it
and based on the way I prefer to fly (lights on etc. and with admittedly
older radios) that is what it takes.
Our RV6 in theory should have been just fine with the 35 amp alternator from
Van's, **BUT** I noticed that based on the way I prefer to fly (lights on in
somewhat busy area), once I slowed down to enter the pattern, that
alternator definitely was NOT delivering 35 amps. Nowhere near it. By the
time I turn final, I had a bright red low voltage light staring me in the
face. I was not happy with that. My **estimates**, as far as I can recall
(data not currently handy), that 35 amp'er may have looked more like a 20
amp'er under certain conditions.
So I switched it out for Van's 55(?) amp'er. Even with it, on a long taxi at
very low idle (not a problem condition) I can get to low voltage on the
PC680.
So when it came to RV under construction that is electrically dependent, and
with a lot more electrical "stuff" (toys), I took the "lazy way out" and
went ahead and ordered the 60 amp'er from B&C to complement the 20 amp'er
(Z-14). Of course, I do believe that based on data received either from Bob
or B&C the B&C 40 amp unit delivers closer to rated current at low RPM that
the one 35 amp unit from Van's. And maybe that is part of what one pays for.
But for me the extra $$ was worth the peace of mind.
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
| server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hal Kempthorne
| Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:23 AM
| To: rv-list@matronics.com
| Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Sources for electrical system design
|
| --> RV-List message posted by: Hal Kempthorne
| <hal_kempthorne@sbcglobal.net>
|
| 60 amps! Wow! So you can run your compressor and drill press?
|
| hal
|
| Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com> wrote:
| --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
|
|
| I did some reading. I think I will go with the B&C alternator. I think I
| will
| need the 60A too which is $600 - ouch!!
|
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: | New Rule N 8700.42 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
What looks disturbing to me is that in sect. 5. GUIDANCE it specifically
states: "The pilot certificate will be issued with the limitiation "Authorized
Experimental Aircraft: [Category] and [Class] rating [Make] and [Model]" for the
aircraft authorized to be operated. This reference to Make and Model appears
several more times, and is shown on Figure 5 "Baxter built- Mini 500" and
Figure 6 "Weaver built Mini 500". Is this to be interpreted to mean my re-issued
certificate limits me to pax transport in "Phillips built RV-6A" only and
would preclude me from carrying pax in a "Rosales built RV-6A", a "Hotchkiss built
RV-7A" or even a "Buchannan built RV-6"? (supposing one of these guys would
even let me NEAR their airplanes!)
Mark Phillips
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: Mufflers for RVs (Was Re: Noisy Airplanes) |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Mark:
It sure looks like a new product they are offering, MUFFLER and heat Muff. I can
recommend aircraft exhaust in general, as I have a custom exhaust system from
them. Good quality. As far as cabin heat muff and muffler (noise suppressor)
in one I can't say. Looks like they combined the two.
How much quieter? I can't speak to the muffler, as my 4 into 1 are straight pipes
with no muffler. However one thing I did have them do on my pipes is weld
the optional porcupine studs on the pipe where the heat muff goes, as they show
on their web site. They improve heat transfer and you get much more heat.
Good find Mark, George
Mark Schrimmer <mschrimmer@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Mufflers for RVs (Was Re: Noisy Airplanes)
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Schrimmer <mschrimmer@pacbell.net>
Has anybody used the exhaust system from Aircraft
Exhaust Technologies http://www.aircraftexhaust.net?
According to their web site, they have a stainless
steel crossover system that includes two mufflers that
are small enough to fit inside the cowl of an RV-6,
RV-6A, RV-7, RV-7A, RV-8, RV-8A, RV-9, or RV-9A.
Besides reducing sound, they are supposed to increase
cabin heat, too.
Mark
---------------------------------
Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 5/12/05 11:57:38 AM Central Daylight Time,
ronlee@pcisys.net writes:
> Where I live 100 mile visibility is typical and visibility around 30 miles
> seems like "IFR" conditions. Can someone explain how a person
> could fly over DC even not using GPS? Where conditions hazy and
> five miles visibility?
>>>>
Where "I" live, 100 mile vis would be a miracle. BUT- regardless of vis, if
a pilot doesn't have a darn good idea where he is, particularly when he also
KNOWS restricted airspace is anywhere near route of flight and doesn't turn
around NOW and figure out where he is, he needs to be banned from flying, period.
Too many ways to avoid this- attention to a sectional, cheap GPS, VORS, a
simple 180 or picking up the mic and asking for a squawk code til location known
sure would have saved us all a lot of future grief and current tax $$$!
Haven't heard their side of the story yet, but if it was anything short of a
goosestrike or alien intervention, I hope the PIC gets booked but good! Am I
pi$$ed? You betcha...
Mark Phillips - do not archive
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: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
Also curious why no NPRM? Not enough of us experimental drivers to exercise
enough clout to raise enough of a stink to keep them from gagging us with this
new rule?
Mark Phillips - do not archive
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: | Microfastener website |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Danielson" <johnd@wlcwyo.com>
Has Microfastener.com changed their web address? I can't seem to get on
their web site.
John L. Danielson
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: Microfastener website |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Don't forget the "S"
http://www.microfasteners.com/
Jeff Point
Has Microfastener.com changed their web address? I can't seem to get on
their web site.
>
>
>
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: | New rule N8700.42 does not apply to RVers |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mike Draper <mdraper@nww.com>
According the EAA, new requirements would not apply to RVers.... See
example A.
ATTENTION, EXPERIMENTAL/HOMEBUILT PILOTS
Category and Class Rating Required to Carry Passengers
May 9, 2005 - On April 21, 2005, FAA Flight Standards reinforced a
regulatory requirement for passenger-carrying experimental/amateur-built
aircraft pilots to have category and class ratings for the aircraft they
intend to fly. The new Notice, N 8700.42, also provides a "grandfather"
clause allowing current pilots without the required ratings a limited window
of opportunity (through August 31, 2005) to obtain them. This new policy
does not apply to pilots flying experimental aircraft who do not carry
passengers.
Here's the procedure:
1. The airman must complete an FAA Form 8710-1.
2. The airman must currently hold a Recreational Pilot certificate or
higher.
3. The airman must have at least five hours as pilot in command flight time
in the category, class, make, and model of experimental aircraft between
September 1, 2004 and August 31, 2005.
4. An authorized flight instructor must provide a logbook endorsement that
the applicant is proficient to act as PIC of that category, class, make, and
model of experimental aircraft.
5. The airman must make an appointment with a DPE or an FAA Operations
Inspector (ASI), who will verify that 1-4 are completed correctly, then
issue the new certificate. No DPE or ASI flight evaluation is required.
6. The new pilot certificate will be issued with the following restriction
placed on it: "Authorized Experimental Aircraft: (category) and (class),
(make) and (model)."
Examples:
a. Pilots who hold a private pilot SEL airplane category and class rating
certificate, and fly a SEL experimental aircraft, no action is required.
b. Pilots who hold a private pilot SEL airplane category and class rating
certificate, and fly a multi-engine experimental aircraft (MEL), will need
to comply with the new requirements.
c. Pilots who hold a private pilot SEL airplane category and class rating
certificate, and who fly an experimental single-engine sea plane, will need
to comply with the new requirements.
d. Pilots who hold a private pilot Glider category and class rating
certificate, and who fly an experimental single-engine helicopter, will need
to comply with the new requirements.
Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DARs) or FAA Inspectors (ASIs)
will continue issuing operating limitations without this new requirement,
until the FAA issues the revision based on notice N 8700.42. However, at the
time the operating limitations are issued, DARs/ASIs will brief the
builder/owner of the new requirement.
This new requirement does not do away with requirement for the pilot to meet
FAR 61.31(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), or (j).
Mike Draper
RV-8 (fuse)
N468RV
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: Microfastener website |
Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:44:15 -0400
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard McBride" <rickrv8@msn.com>
It came up okay for me at http://www.microfasteners.com/<http://www.microfasteners.com/> Perhaps the "s" will make the difference.
Rick McBride
----- Original Message -----
From: John Danielson<mailto:johnd@wlcwyo.com>
To: rv-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:01 PM
Subject: RV-List: Microfastener website
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Danielson" <johnd@wlcwyo.com<mailto:johnd@wlcwyo.com>>
Has Microfastener.com changed their web address? I can't seem to get on
their web site.
John L. Danielson
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: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robert St.Denis" <rob@iahu.ca>
In the video, the plane was clearly visible from the ground, I would imagine similar
visibility from where he was sitting
On May 12, 2005 12:52 pm, Ron Lee wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>
> > Folks, I don't mean to sound arrogant
> >but my experience has been the airways are full of pilots that don't
> >have a clue, and frequently use their ears instead of their eyes, or
> >don't think while they're flying, or in the case of the latest DC ADIZ
> >incursion, don't do any preflight planning.
>
> Where I live 100 mile visibility is typical and visibility around 30 miles
> seems like "IFR" conditions. Can someone explain how a person
> could fly over DC even not using GPS? Where conditions hazy and
> five miles visibility?
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
There was one. It was included with the Light Sport rule changes NPRM.
Mike Robertson
>From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:36:42 EDT
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
>
>Also curious why no NPRM? Not enough of us experimental drivers to
>exercise
>enough clout to raise enough of a stink to keep them from gagging us with
>this
>new rule?
>
>Mark Phillips - do not archive
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Haze is often the rule May-Sept east of the App. Mtns. And it's often worse
aloft than it is down low too. Still no excuse for what happened.
-
Larry Bowen, RV-8 in NC, 100 miles vis about 5 days/yr.
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Do not archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Lee [mailto:ronlee@pcisys.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:52 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern)
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>
> > Folks, I don't mean to sound arrogant but my experience
> has been the
> >airways are full of pilots that don't have a clue, and
> frequently use
> >their ears instead of their eyes, or don't think while
> they're flying,
> >or in the case of the latest DC ADIZ incursion, don't do any
> preflight
> >planning.
>
> Where I live 100 mile visibility is typical and visibility
> around 30 miles seems like "IFR" conditions. Can someone
> explain how a person could fly over DC even not using GPS?
> Where conditions hazy and five miles visibility?
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller Advertisement |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ted Lumpkin <tlump51@sbcglobal.net>
Jim,
How much does it weigh?
Ted
LeastDrag93066@aol.com wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
NEW! JAA/FAA certified 2 blade aluminum constant speed MT-Propeller
MT-Propeller has developed a new high performance 2 blade aluminum propeller
for eliminating certain disadvantages of regular 2 blade aluminum constant
speed propellers.
The 2 blade aluminum MT-Propeller has the following:
- No RPM restrictions for undampened crankshaft Lycoming ( )O-360- series
engines.
- Latest available high efficiency airfoils
- Scimitar blade shape for noise reduction and high performance.
- Smooth running due to close tolerance manufacturing (CNC machined)
The new aluminum MT-Propeller is available for Lycoming and Continental
engines developing up to 300 hp. The maximum diameter is 203 cm (80 inches).
The Lycoming ( )O-360-series MT-Propeller is typically a 72 inch diameter
and includes a spinner assembly installed at the factory to match your cowl.
This allows delivery to be a bolt on propeller assembly. Minimum blade
diameter is 68 inches.
Price is $6,399 plus shipping and any applicable taxes.
13" diameter spinner assembly set for 1 1/2" cowl spacing installed on
propeller.
No cost option: Spinner color - White, Red, Black, Grey, Yellow or left in
primer only.
"Hi-Glo" option - $450 (The "Hi-Glo" option gives the Kevlar/Epoxy spinner
the appearance of a polished aluminum (or chrome) spinner dome.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
Custom Aircraft Propeller - A division of Less Drag Products, Inc.
_www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com/)
(805) 795-5377
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: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
--> RV-List message posted by: bill shook <billshook2000@yahoo.com>
> Folks, I don't mean to sound arrogant
> but my experience has been the airways are full of pilots that don't
> have a clue, and frequently use their ears instead of their eyes, or
> don't think while they're flying, or in the case of the latest DC ADIZ
> incursion, don't do any preflight planning.
I would respectfully suggest that some of those that aren't 'listening' might very
well
be listening and also looking at the hobbs which determines how much that day costs
them...then having a flight of 6 say 'oh, excuse me but we're going to need you
to
extend your downwind so that we don't have to wait in line..thanks'
I know you don't mean it rudely, but the guy who has been waiting in line for 10
minutes
never does like to have someone walk straight to the front..even if he is doing
everyone
the honor of pulling a formation break. The people with no clue that you are referring
to are likely just not choosing to hit the transmit button when they tell you to
take a
flying leap. :-) Personally, I wouldn't mind extending a flying day by a few
minutes
to accomodate some RV's but then again I suppose that depends on how many times
they've
done that to me that particular month.
Just another viewpoint.
Bill
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
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: Zenith-List: New Regulation or licence to fly experimental |
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
No NEW license is required. The regs now say you must have a license for
the type aircraft flown. You are flying a single engine land with the
appropriate license.
It was formulated so that you must have the right ratings to fly such things
as rotorcraft, helicopters, and kites. Many have been flying them without
the ratings and here is a chance to up-date via a log book entry their past
experience in for example a gyrocopter without going thru the entire
learning sequence, check rides, and examinations.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc@qconline.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: New Regulation or licence to fly experimental
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
>
> Hi Guys,
> On the Aeroelectric list the new regulation accessed below
> will require a new form, examination and compliance sheet to
> be able to fly with passengers for sport pilot licences and higher.
> T'would seem there'll be a backlog of work for instructors for a while
> if this isn't misread. It seems very clear, for a Government document.
>
> <<http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/n8700-42.doc>>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Larry McFarland - 601HDS with passengers
>
>
>
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: | Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Lawson <rv6builder48138@yahoo.com>
I'm about to install the baffle on the left fuel tank
of my RV-6. I've found some good hints in the
archives for installing the baffle, but I could use
some suggestions and 'war stories' about ensuring that
I have a leak-free baffle. If it matters any, I've
installed a flop tube for fuel and a capacitance fuel
quantity system.
Any thoughts on where and how to apply the pro-seal,
and where you folks have encountered the most
problems? Where have you experienced leaks around the
baffle?
John Lawson (RV-6...left wing for what seems like forever)
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
On an overhead approach at an NON-Towered airport, I always arrive at
INITIAL 500 foot above TPA. If other aircraft are in the pattern, I stay
500' above TPA. Will adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the
traffic established in the pattern. My flight pitchout will be at TPA IF and
ONLY IF there are NO other aircraft in the pattern.
It works. The most aircraf that I have ever had in formation to arrive at a
NON Towered airport is 12. We have had NO traffic problems when using the
above method at NON Towered airports.
Take a look at the way airports are arranged in my area:
https://aviationtoolbox.org/members/kyler/tools/map_explorer?image=-1699463%2C-262139%2C25&scale=50&selected.x=371&selected.y=172
Maybe I am the only one that remembers what it was like flying a rental.
Anytime that I am in formation and there are other aircraft established in
the pattern, I YIELD the runway to them.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,666 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: bill shook <billshook2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Joy Riding in the Pattern
--> RV-List message posted by: bill shook <billshook2000@yahoo.com>
> Folks, I don't mean to sound arrogant
> but my experience has been the airways are full of pilots that don't
> have a clue, and frequently use their ears instead of their eyes, or
> don't think while they're flying, or in the case of the latest DC ADIZ
> incursion, don't do any preflight planning.
I would respectfully suggest that some of those that aren't 'listening'
might very well
be listening and also looking at the hobbs which determines how much that
day costs
them...then having a flight of 6 say 'oh, excuse me but we're going to need
you to
extend your downwind so that we don't have to wait in line..thanks'
I know you don't mean it rudely, but the guy who has been waiting in line
for 10 minutes
never does like to have someone walk straight to the front..even if he is
doing everyone
the honor of pulling a formation break. The people with no clue that you
are referring
to are likely just not choosing to hit the transmit button when they tell
you to take a
flying leap. :-) Personally, I wouldn't mind extending a flying day by a
few minutes
to accomodate some RV's but then again I suppose that depends on how many
times they've
done that to me that particular month.
Just another viewpoint.
Bill
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
I did mine according to the construction manual and I do not have any leaks.
I think the key is preparation. Scuff, Clean and scuff and clean the
surfaces that get prosealed. Wear gloves to keep your oily hands off the
surfaces. Clean/soak your rivets in MEK or Lacquer Thinner or Coleman Fuel.
Carefully put a thin line of proseal on the edges that come together in
making the seal. Using too much of the stuff makes clean up a big bear.
Take your time in doing the riveting right. The proseal does not set up
that quickly. When done, set the tank away somewhere for not less than a
month before pressure testing. Give it longer if you can to full cure. I
let mine sit for 6 months before pressure testing. Put your prosealed
clecos into a bucket of MEK.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up Slow Build It Flies TMX-O360 Sensenich FP Dynon
Garmin 430/340/327/601A
Tru Trak AP ACS2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Lawson" <rv6builder48138@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle
> --> RV-List message posted by: John Lawson <rv6builder48138@yahoo.com>
>
> I'm about to install the baffle on the left fuel tank
> of my RV-6. I've found some good hints in the
> archives for installing the baffle, but I could use
> some suggestions and 'war stories' about ensuring that
> I have a leak-free baffle. If it matters any, I've
> installed a flop tube for fuel and a capacitance fuel
> quantity system.
>
> Any thoughts on where and how to apply the pro-seal,
> and where you folks have encountered the most
> problems? Where have you experienced leaks around the
> baffle?
>
> John Lawson (RV-6...left wing for what seems like forever)
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
FWIW, I found a concealed hinge that I believe will work well for an oil
door. It is like the hinges from McMaster-Carr that I have seen
referenced on the list before, except that it is made of aluminum
instead of steel.
http://www.guden.com/display-chh.asp
The Guden part number is NHAL9290. I think if it is positioned
properly, it should allow the door to swing open about 120 deg., so it
should stay propped open.
--
Tom Sargent
RV-6A, Cowling
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: | Just trashing my first flap!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer@charter.net>
Thanks all for the suggestions and encouragement. I have a regulator coming
off the tank so I think I will back it down to 30-35psi or so and see how
that goes. And I will try the splitting wedge idea for a bucking bar.
Thanks again,
Allen Fulmer
RV7 Ailerons
Alexander City, AL
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Albert Gardner
Subject: Re: RV-List: Just trashing my first flap!!
--> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud@adelphia.net>
Since those devices restrict flow but don't drop the pressure, my theory is
that the first hit from the rivet gun is at whatever the line pressure is
and then the restricted flow keeps the pressure from building up on
subsequent hits. As soon as you stop riveting, the line pressure will build
up again ready for the next smile. I'd say throw those devices away and get
a pressure regulator or better yet a combination regulator/oiler/water
trap. You need to oil your tool from time to time.
Albert Gardner
RV-9A 872RV
Yuma, AZ
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer@charter.net>
I don't have a pressure gage on the gun but one of
> those little regulators with a numbered knob you can adjust. Setting has
> stayed the same for wings and ailerons. By the time I reduced the
> "regulator" on the gun back to where it had been the damage had been done
> and I was too frustrated to be able to think straight anyway.
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: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle |
15, 2004) at 05/12/2005 10:16:44 PM,
Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.3FP1|December
15, 2004) at
05/12/2005 10:17:15 PM,
Serialize complete at 05/12/2005 10:17:15 PM
--> RV-List message posted by: "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson@pobox.com>
Hi John,
I built the tanks pretty much according to instructions/plans. I used a small
syringe to apply the proseal at the leading edges (both inside and out). One
tank came out leak free. The other had a _small_ leak in one of the corners
where the baffle meets up with the outer rib which meets up with the skin. So
I'd make sure I had plenty in this area. Instead of mixing _another_ batch of
proseal, per the archives, I used LocTite 509 (green) and it preassure tested
great several days later.
Regards,
/\/elson
RV-7A
Austin, TX
On Thu, 12 May 2005, John Lawson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: John Lawson <rv6builder48138@yahoo.com>
>
> I'm about to install the baffle on the left fuel tank
> of my RV-6. I've found some good hints in the
> archives for installing the baffle, but I could use
> some suggestions and 'war stories' about ensuring that
> I have a leak-free baffle. If it matters any, I've
> installed a flop tube for fuel and a capacitance fuel
> quantity system.
>
> Any thoughts on where and how to apply the pro-seal,
> and where you folks have encountered the most
> problems? Where have you experienced leaks around the
> baffle?
>
> John Lawson (RV-6...left wing for what seems like forever)
>
>
--
~~ ** ~~ If you didn't learn anything when you broke it the 1st ~~ ** ~~
time, then break it again.
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Firewall Insulation |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
Looking for the best firewall insulation that has been test over time
and stays stuck. I've heard some peoples have not stayed stuck.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
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: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
My cowl is drilled & clecoed to the hinges all around the firewall and
fits pretty well except for the upper cowl at the right side about 2
1/2" above the lower edge. That 3 or 4 inch section at the side that
has no hinge to support it. It sticks out about 3/16". Even if I push
the lower edge into alignment, as it will be when the 2 halves are
joined, it still bows out about 3/16 a couple inches above that.
Tom G. at Vans suggested that when the 2 halves of the cowl are joined,
I can use the lower cowl to pull down on the upper cowl to pull it
further into place, but I just don't think that's going to work. It
takes about a 10 pound force normal to the surface to push it into
alignment with the fuselage. I don't think the lower cowl can pull down
hard enough. And, I don't like the idea of building a big strain into
the cowl.
I think I'm going to have to mount something to the firewall flange to
pull it in. A 2 inch section of piano hinge or perhaps a camloc would
do it. The hinge is undesirable because it's invisible from the outside
and some one who doesn't expect it to be there might damage the cowl
trying to get it off after having pulled the 2 standard hinge pins.
Does anybody have any suggestions before I do something irreversible?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowl.
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: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Fenstermacher" <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
I agree.
I live in DC and also am good friends with an FAA investigator (He
investigates the controllers if a screw-up takes place - not the PIC).
Anyway... what the press doesn't report is that incursions happen almost
daily. This one made the news 'cuz the Crap-itol was evacuated because the
line of flight would have taken him over the really sensitive areas.
The sad fact is that this happens way too frequently. And when I say
almost daily, I mean it. After hearing all the trouble GA causes, it's a
wonder anybody is allowed to fly.
Dave
Do Not Archive
>
>
> Where "I" live, 100 mile vis would be a miracle. BUT- regardless of vis,
if
> a pilot doesn't have a darn good idea where he is, particularly when he
also
> KNOWS restricted airspace is anywhere near route of flight and doesn't
turn
> around NOW and figure out where he is, he needs to be banned from flying,
period.
> Too many ways to avoid this- attention to a sectional, cheap GPS, VORS,
a
> simple 180 or picking up the mic and asking for a squawk code til
location known
> sure would have saved us all a lot of future grief and current tax $$$!
>
>
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: | UMA LIGHTS VS WIRING KIT |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bruno <rv4@videotron.ca>
Hello Listers
I searched the archives , but couldn't find the info so
here it is.
I just bought a few UMA lights to upgrade the panel of my
RV-4 to night flying and as such I have bought UMA Lights from Aircrafts
Spruce with the required inverter and a wiring kit as advertised in the
manual.
I was very surprised when I got my order to find as the
wiring kit only a wire with a terminal at one end to attach to the small
"pig tails" and about 12" of blue wire.
My question to listers who have install the same kind of lights is : Is the
wiring kit it?
Is a wiring kit required for each and every light bezel??
I also bought one of Vans rheostat kit ( The one with 4 connections) is this
kit good enough for a full set of Vans gauges and 3--4 others instruments
lights or do I need something more " powerful) ??
Thanks you for your time
You may reply "off" list if you wish
Bruno Dionne
RV-4 C-GDBH
Rv4@videotron.ca
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: | Comments from Today's Tour & Demo |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brad Oliver" <brad@rv7factory.com>
Hopped on an early morning flight to Portland today, rented a car and drove
down to Van's. Got the tour and demo flight... here are some
notes/observations from the day.
- I was amazed to see just how much activity there is at the factory.
Everyone was busy on the phone, packing boxes, or making parts. The
operation was bigger/busier that I had imagined.
- I was a tad bit disappointed to learn the RV-7 had left for a show in
Texas, so I got to fly the RV-9A instead. That was fine by me as I was
really interested in seeing how comfortable I was in the cockpit, and since
the 7 and 9 share the same fuse, it served the purpose.
- I was very impressed with the flying qualities of the 9. That being said,
a few things surprised me;
a) The lack of adverse-yaw and thus the very minimal rudder input needed to
fly the plane. The lack of rudder authority also surprised me. I've been
flying a Citabria for 4 years and some aerobatics in a Pitts S2-C; I guess I
am just accustomed to flying with my feet. I am not sure if I really liked
not needing much rudder as somehow I felt as though flying wasn't as much of
a challenge without it. Challenge may be the wrong choice of words, but
let's go with it for now. Anywhoooo... not trying to start a debate, just
MY observations... mileage may vary.
b) Stall was a non-event. Probably the most benign stalling airplane I have
ever flown. The buffet came on like a light (instantly) and went away just
as fast.
c) Stick forces were heavier than I would have thought, but only minimal
inputs were needed.
Conclusion: Overall I was very impressed with the airplane... especially the
performance envelope.
- I was surprised to learn they encourage customers to buy the A models (I
was told specifically that they push the A's). Maybe my demo pilot was
urging my in that direction, but when he learned I have been flying
taildraggers for several years, the conversation changed topics.
- The RV-9 is the staff fav (nothing new to report here) with Bruce, my
pilot, saying they often fight over who gets to fly it.
- General theme of the day: "Build it light!"
- I was told that the pilots do not like the airplanes with 200HP motors as
they are too nose heavy (see "Build it light"). I was encouraged to go with
the 180 over the 200 for the weight savings, as opposed to a few MPH, and
was told it will handle better with the 180.
I am sure there are a few more things I could think of to tell you, but I've
been up since 4:45 and have been on 3 airplanes (incl the RV-9), 2 buses, 2
trains, a rental car, and my own car... I am pretty much toast. ;-)
Oh, here are few pictures I took while there...
www.rv7factory.com/images/vans/
The last picture is the order for the Emp kit I submitted while there. =8
)
Regards,
Brad Oliver
RV-7 / Waiting on Tail / Spending $ on Tools!
PS - I can't remember the name on the crate, but I saw someone from
Baltimore's fuse being packed while I was there... Check your mailbox soon.
;-)
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
This worked for me:
I sealed and riveted in small aluminium fillers to close up what I thought
where gaps at the corners of the rear baffle.
If you are using the canned stuff?, be very exacting about mixing the
sealant in accordance with directions on the container. My sealant called
for a ten to one ratio. I have watched some people patching up leaking seams
etc. with sealant that was mixed using the "that's about the right shade of
grey" system. {[8-;
For tool cleaning and general cleanups during the sealing process I took
several sheets of household paper towel and cut them up into six sections. I
put MEK into one of two containers with lids. Into that container I put a
one inch high stack of the now small paper wipes into the MEK and put the
lid over it. I put the remaining stack of dry wipes in the other container.
I used an artists pallet knife to apply and spread the sealant as needed.
Whenever things got out of hand or when done with the sealing session the
MEK wetted and dry wipes could be used and thrown away without fear of
tracking the ghastly goop all over the place. Putting the lid on the MEK
container when not in use cut down on the evaporation stink etc.
Be sure to dispose of the wipes with an eye towards fire safety!
I used about a pint of sealant to finish both of my 6a tanks. They tested
good at one and three quarter pounds pressure.
I used an automotive cooling system radiator pressure tester that has a gage
spread reading from 0 to 20 lb..
The small hand operated, six inch stroke plunger type pump with it's own
gage, allowed very good control of pressure regulation.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle
> --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> I did mine according to the construction manual and I do not have any
> leaks.
> I think the key is preparation. Scuff, Clean and scuff and clean the
> surfaces that get prosealed. Wear gloves to keep your oily hands off the
> surfaces. Clean/soak your rivets in MEK or Lacquer Thinner or Coleman
> Fuel.
> Carefully put a thin line of proseal on the edges that come together in
> making the seal. Using too much of the stuff makes clean up a big bear.
> Take your time in doing the riveting right. The proseal does not set up
> that quickly. When done, set the tank away somewhere for not less than a
> month before pressure testing. Give it longer if you can to full cure. I
> let mine sit for 6 months before pressure testing. Put your prosealed
> clecos into a bucket of MEK.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up Slow Build It Flies TMX-O360 Sensenich FP
> Dynon
> Garmin 430/340/327/601A
> Tru Trak AP ACS2002
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Lawson" <rv6builder48138@yahoo.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: John Lawson <rv6builder48138@yahoo.com>
>>
>> I'm about to install the baffle on the left fuel tank
>> of my RV-6. I've found some good hints in the
>> archives for installing the baffle, but I could use
>> some suggestions and 'war stories' about ensuring that
>> I have a leak-free baffle. If it matters any, I've
>> installed a flop tube for fuel and a capacitance fuel
>> quantity system.
>>
>> Any thoughts on where and how to apply the pro-seal,
>> and where you folks have encountered the most
>> problems? Where have you experienced leaks around the
>> baffle?
>>
>> John Lawson (RV-6...left wing for what seems like forever)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>"Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon Johanason?" http://www.flymore.com.au/
Not trying to tear down any claims, but I find 2" manifold RAM rise hard to believe?
The total RAM pressure at 240 MPH is 2 in-hg. How he is getting 2 in-hg?
It does not sound right, or am I missing something. Unless he is going 240
mph and getting 100% efficiency RAM pressure recovery, which is physically impossible,
I can't see those numbers.
His scoop inlet area is a very large and looks draggy. There is only so much air
you can stuff thru the area of the venturi or throttle body. Making the scoop
hole (area) bigger does not get more pressure, but it does get you more drag
as air will spill off the scoop. The magic number for scoop inlet area (mouth)
10% larger than the venturi throat area. Going a lot larger gets more drag,
not more pressure.
The claim of using prop thrust to gain induction RAM air is not new and has been
used before, with some limited sucses. Kent Paser (Speed with E conomy) and
found you need to be 5/8 inch from the prop and angled 10 degrees to aircraft
right, into the realtive slip stream, a combination of prop wash and free air
stream. There is some additional gain but it is nominal. Also the prop thrust
is poor near the hub and does not get to it's peak until you are at least out
1/2 span of the prop blade. From the pictures the scoop is well back from the
prop and close to the hub of the prop. The hub area is full of turbulent air and
not great for airflow. Again I could be wrong, but part of the scoop design
is art, or making it look right. I don't think there is any magic scoop shape,
however round tends to be the least drag for a given area.
Any intake scoop is going to have "spillage" and other losses. Even the best efforts
of others have only netted a total gain of 0.5 in -hg of manifold boost.
I find it hard to believe this scoop, using vans air-box as they state, is going
to gain that much, much less going 240 mph in a RV. I have been wrong before
(but only once : -) Since you need to go 240 MPH to get 2 in-hg in the first
place something sounds off. Can anyone comment on this. My experience is 0.50
to 0.75 in-hg max of MAP rise using Van's scoop and airbox is really the best
you can expect.
Thanks George
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon
Johanason? http://www.flymore.com.au/
"Extensive flight-testing has shown increases in excess of 2 of Manifold
Pressure Recovery at 1,500 and 1" of Manifold Pressure Recovery at 10,000.
These increases are improvements compared to Vans snorkel type induction
(not the rhino horn induction)."
---------------------------------
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: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>"Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon Johanason?" http://www.flymore.com.au/
Not trying to tear down any claims, but I find 2" manifold RAM rise hard to believe?
The total RAM pressure at 240 MPH is 2 in-hg. How he is getting 2 in-hg?
It does not sound right, or am I missing something. Unless he is going 240
mph and getting 100% efficiency RAM pressure recovery, which is physically impossible,
I can't see those numbers.
His scoop inlet area is a very large and looks draggy. There is only so much air
you can stuff thru the area of the venturi or throttle body. Making the scoop
hole (area) bigger does not get more pressure, but it does get you more drag
as air will spill off the scoop. The magic number for scoop inlet area (mouth)
10% larger than the venturi throat area. Going a lot larger gets more drag,
not more pressure.
The claim of using prop thrust to gain induction RAM air is not new and has been
used before, with some limited sucses. Kent Paser (Speed with E conomy) and
found you need to be 5/8 inch from the prop and angled 10 degrees to aircraft
right, into the realtive slip stream, a combination of prop wash and free air
stream. There is some additional gain but it is nominal. Also the prop thrust
is poor near the hub and does not get to it's peak until you are at least out
1/2 span of the prop blade. From the pictures the scoop is well back from the
prop and close to the hub of the prop. The hub area is full of turbulent air and
not great for airflow. Again I could be wrong, but part of the scoop design
is art, or making it look right. I don't think there is any magic scoop shape,
however round tends to be the least drag for a given area.
Any intake scoop is going to have "spillage" and other losses. Even the best efforts
of others have only netted a total gain of 0.5 in -hg of manifold boost.
I find it hard to believe this scoop, using vans air-box as they state, is going
to gain that much, much less going 240 mph in a RV. I have been wrong before
(but only once : -) Since you need to go 240 MPH to get 2 in-hg in the first
place something sounds off. Can anyone comment on this. My experience is 0.50
to 0.75 in-hg max of MAP rise using Van's scoop and airbox is really the best
you can expect.
Thanks George
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18@hotmail.com>
Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon
Johanason? http://www.flymore.com.au/
"Extensive flight-testing has shown increases in excess of 2 of Manifold
Pressure Recovery at 1,500 and 1" of Manifold Pressure Recovery at 10,000.
These increases are improvements compared to Vans snorkel type induction
(not the rhino horn induction)."
---------------------------------
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! --
|