Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:19 AM - Re: Re: New pitot/ static offerings ()
2. 06:42 AM - Re: RV-List Digest:33 Msgs - 05/09/05 (Kdh347@aol.com)
3. 07:11 AM - Short field landings. (Charles Heathco)
4. 07:15 AM - locating Terry Adams (Charles Heathco)
5. 09:28 AM - Re: Short field landings. (Kyle Boatright)
6. 09:37 AM - Microballon Survivability (DAVID REEL)
7. 10:35 AM - Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (Finn Lassen)
8. 01:13 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude ()
9. 03:06 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Richard E. Tasker)
10. 04:17 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Jerry Springer)
11. 06:26 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Richard E. Tasker)
12. 09:42 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Vanremog@aol.com)
13. 10:44 PM - Sun 'n Fun Grand Champion RV6 For Sale (rgray67968@aol.com)
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: <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> From: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> Date: 2005/05/12 Thu AM 05:37:56 EDT
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
I'm one of the ones Kevin helped with this symptom (RV-4 w/flush static ports).
Always indicated about 10 kts slow at cruise but I never cared about that. Had
an altimeter failure & on 1st flight after replacing it, I actually glanced
at it while doing a high speed pass down my home strip. It indicated that I was
about 150 ft below ground level. Installing pop rivet heads over the static
ports cured the altimeter error (could be a dangerous thing in controlled or high
traffic environment) and gave me a 10 kt faster plane to boot. ;-)
Charlie
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: RV-List Digest:33 Msgs - 05/09/05 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kdh347@aol.com
please remove me from all lists
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: | Short field landings. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
The 3 pt landing posts had brief mention of short field. My question for the group
is what is the shortest strip you can safely get in and out of with a 150
hp FP 6A, and can you get it in, but maybe not out? I have noreal short field
exp yet, but would think it would come out shorter than in. (In my cherokee, Im
sure I could get it in a strip that it wouldnt come out of.) In practicing for
short field, the AOA gets uncomfortably high, and I dont want to drag my tail,
Ive seen couple planes with tail bottoms boogered up. 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: | locating Terry Adams |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
I heard that Terry Adams, (SNJ) was now based in San Antonio/ Beorne area, and
Im planning a trip this week to look for prop there. Im sure someone on the list
would have a contact for him, I would like to look him up. Charlie heathco,
pls reply to my email. Do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Short field landings. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net>
This has been discussed back and forth on the list, and there should be a
couple of hours worth of reading in the archives...
That said, unless you're a very skilled pilot and are able to use 100% of
the performance of the airplane, the TO distance in an RV is going to be
shorter than the landing distance. With excellent approaches and no wind, I
would take my lightly loaded RV-6 (160 hp) into a smooth 1,000' strip and
still have a comfort level. Sure, I could use a 750' strip for landing and
a 500' strip for takeoff, but that would remove virtually all of the margin
for error. With a loaded airplane, the distances increase by 50% or so,
even more if the surface isn't in good shape.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: Short field landings.
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
>
> The 3 pt landing posts had brief mention of short field. My question for
> the group is what is the shortest strip you can safely get in and out of
> with a 150 hp FP 6A, and can you get it in, but maybe not out? I have
> noreal short field exp yet, but would think it would come out shorter than
> in. (In my cherokee, Im sure I could get it in a strip that it wouldnt
> come out of.) In practicing for short field, the AOA gets uncomfortably
> high, and I dont want to drag my tail, Ive seen couple planes with tail
> bottoms boogered up. charlie heathco
>
>
>
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: | Microballon Survivability |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
I'm thinking of applying a thin coat of dry epoxy/microballon filler to the surface
of my forward baggage compartment door to remove some large but shallow depressions
left over from shaping the outer door panel to the curvature of the
fuselage. Either that or do the whole thing over right & use the ribs and inner
panel to pull the surface to the correct curve. Anyway, I'm wondering if
anyone reading this may have such shallow patches on their airplane and would
care to comment on how well the patch held up. I'd hate to have the appearance
ruined by cracks or edge separation lines after going to all that work in the
name of better appearance.
Dave Reel - RV8A
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: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
Yes you can. At least in my RV-3. Not good for the tail section though.
Lots of smoking rivits in the bulkheads holding the tailspring assembly.
Doing full-stall landings often results in tailwheel touching first when
a bit of a gust lifts up the wings. A crosswind gust may cause
significant side-load on the tailspring.
Finn
Chris W wrote:
>What about a 1 point landing? Can't you bring the tail wheel down first
>in an RV and wouldn't that be the slowest landing? A friend of mine
>said he did that in a super cub one time when he had to land in a very
>short distance.
>
>
>
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
> Date: 2005/05/11 Wed PM 12:30:53 EDT
> To: RV-list <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
>
> I was just curious how high you would have to be for the sound level on
> the ground to be low enough that it probably wouldn't be hard in
> someones house. Maybe there is a formula of x DB drop per 1000 feet of
> altitude. Does anyone know?
>
> --
> Chris W
It's known as the inverse square rule or law. Sound from a point source decreases
with the inverse of the square of the distance ratio. Twice as far, 1/4 the
sound level. In dB, it's 10*log of the ratio.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acoustic/invsqs.html
Charlie
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
The real problem is that the response of human ear is anything but
linear. Specifically, it takes a reduction in sound (noise) power of
10X to make sound seem half as loud. Or more specifically it takes a 10
db change to make something seem twice or half as loud.
To make a specific noise level change by 10 db you have to change the
distance by the square root of 10 (or approx 3.16). So to make the
sound of your plane seem half as loud you have to move 3.16 times as far
away.
I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
little planes.
In any case, anything we can do to reduce the noise our planes generate
will reduce the number of people who will object. My RV9A will have a
muffler when I finish.
Dick
Bob Hodgson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Hodgson" <bob@hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>
>Chris,
>
>Noise level decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so doubling the
>distance (height) gives you a quarter of the noise, which is a 6 dB
>reduction in sound pressure level.
>
>I did a college study once which concluded that a conventional aircraft with
>an 0-360 and no muffler would have to be up at 9000ft to give 60 dBA SPL on
>the ground, a design specifically for low noise would be around 2000ft, and
>a compromise (standard aircraft with a muffler) around 6700 ft. All at max
>rated power and rpm as per FAR 36.
>60 dBA was chosen as a target below which complaints were unlikely.
>
>There were a whole stack of conservative assumptions made in getting those
>figures, so they're only barely useful as a very rough guide.
>
>Bob
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
>>From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
>>Subject: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>I was just curious how high you would have to be for the sound level on
>>the ground to be low enough that it probably wouldn't be hard in
>>someones house. Maybe there is a formula of x DB drop per 1000 feet of
>>altitude. Does anyone know?
>>
>>--
>>Chris W
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
----
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 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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
You can put all the mufflers on you want and it won't change a thing. I
live under the approach to
runway 30 and runway 02 at Hillsboro(HIO) and RV's fly over my house
everyday (remember
Hillsboro, OR is right in the middle of RV country:) RVs are no louder
or more obnoxious than
any of the other type of airplanes that fly overhead. Once again when
you really listen to aircraft
noise the engine noise itself is just a subtle rumble, it is the props
that make all of the noise that is
obnoxious to people. Since this noise thread started I have been paying
particular attention to the
different types of aircraft and the noise they make. A Cessna 150 is
just as bad as Nike's jets that
fly overhead. If people would reduce power a bit after takeoff the noise
is reduced by a considerable
amount. It is the constant speed props that are left in flat pitch that
are really annoying.
Of course Helicopters take the prize for noise. Point is your RV without
a muffler is creating no more noise
than any other aircraft.
Jerry
Richard E. Tasker wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
>
>The real problem is that the response of human ear is anything but
>linear. Specifically, it takes a reduction in sound (noise) power of
>10X to make sound seem half as loud. Or more specifically it takes a 10
>db change to make something seem twice or half as loud.
>
>To make a specific noise level change by 10 db you have to change the
>distance by the square root of 10 (or approx 3.16). So to make the
>sound of your plane seem half as loud you have to move 3.16 times as far
>away.
>
>I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
>who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
>ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
>little planes.
>
>In any case, anything we can do to reduce the noise our planes generate
>will reduce the number of people who will object. My RV9A will have a
>muffler when I finish.
>
>Dick
>
>Bob Hodgson wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Hodgson" <bob@hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>>
>>Chris,
>>
>>Noise level decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so doubling the
>>distance (height) gives you a quarter of the noise, which is a 6 dB
>>reduction in sound pressure level.
>>
>>I did a college study once which concluded that a conventional aircraft with
>>an 0-360 and no muffler would have to be up at 9000ft to give 60 dBA SPL on
>>the ground, a design specifically for low noise would be around 2000ft, and
>>a compromise (standard aircraft with a muffler) around 6700 ft. All at max
>>rated power and rpm as per FAR 36.
>>60 dBA was chosen as a target below which complaints were unlikely.
>>
>>There were a whole stack of conservative assumptions made in getting those
>>figures, so they're only barely useful as a very rough guide.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
>>>Subject: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I was just curious how high you would have to be for the sound level on
>>>the ground to be low enough that it probably wouldn't be hard in
>>>someones house. Maybe there is a formula of x DB drop per 1000 feet of
>>>altitude. Does anyone know?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Chris W
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
I know, and with a muffler it will be a little quieter. Every little
bit helps. I want to be able to fly it for many years and don't want to
see any more airports close due to disgruntled neighbors complaining
about noise. If we all added mufflers and tried to be a little quieter
on takeoff we would aggravate less people.
Dick Tasker
Jerry Springer wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
>
>You can put all the mufflers on you want and it won't change a thing. I
>live under the approach to
>runway 30 and runway 02 at Hillsboro(HIO) and RV's fly over my house
>everyday (remember
>Hillsboro, OR is right in the middle of RV country:) RVs are no louder
>or more obnoxious than
>any of the other type of airplanes that fly overhead. Once again when
>you really listen to aircraft
>noise the engine noise itself is just a subtle rumble, it is the props
>that make all of the noise that is
>obnoxious to people. Since this noise thread started I have been paying
>particular attention to the
>different types of aircraft and the noise they make. A Cessna 150 is
>just as bad as Nike's jets that
>fly overhead. If people would reduce power a bit after takeoff the noise
>is reduced by a considerable
>amount. It is the constant speed props that are left in flat pitch that
>are really annoying.
>Of course Helicopters take the prize for noise. Point is your RV without
>a muffler is creating no more noise
>than any other aircraft.
>
>Jerry
>
>Richard E. Tasker wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
>>
>>The real problem is that the response of human ear is anything but
>>linear. Specifically, it takes a reduction in sound (noise) power of
>>10X to make sound seem half as loud. Or more specifically it takes a 10
>>db change to make something seem twice or half as loud.
>>
>>To make a specific noise level change by 10 db you have to change the
>>distance by the square root of 10 (or approx 3.16). So to make the
>>sound of your plane seem half as loud you have to move 3.16 times as far
>>away.
>>
>>I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
>>who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
>>ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
>>little planes.
>>
>>In any case, anything we can do to reduce the noise our planes generate
>>will reduce the number of people who will object. My RV9A will have a
>>muffler when I finish.
>>
>>Dick
>>
>>Bob Hodgson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Hodgson" <bob@hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>>>
>>>Chris,
>>>
>>>Noise level decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so doubling the
>>>distance (height) gives you a quarter of the noise, which is a 6 dB
>>>reduction in sound pressure level.
>>>
>>>I did a college study once which concluded that a conventional aircraft with
>>>an 0-360 and no muffler would have to be up at 9000ft to give 60 dBA SPL on
>>>the ground, a design specifically for low noise would be around 2000ft, and
>>>a compromise (standard aircraft with a muffler) around 6700 ft. All at max
>>>rated power and rpm as per FAR 36.
>>>60 dBA was chosen as a target below which complaints were unlikely.
>>>
>>>There were a whole stack of conservative assumptions made in getting those
>>>figures, so they're only barely useful as a very rough guide.
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
>>>>Subject: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I was just curious how high you would have to be for the sound level on
>>>>the ground to be low enough that it probably wouldn't be hard in
>>>>someones house. Maybe there is a formula of x DB drop per 1000 feet of
>>>>altitude. Does anyone know?
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Chris W
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
----
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 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:59:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
retasker@optonline.net writes:
I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
little planes.
==========================================
If you close all the airports and build houses, I guarantee that the
youngsters with their 1000W stereo equipped rice rockets blasting (c)rap music
when
they come to visit your neighbors would be a far worse fate. Do not archive.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
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: | Sun 'n Fun Grand Champion RV6 For Sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: rgray67968@aol.com
Go to this link for price, details, and lots of pics:
http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/index.html
Email me at:
rgray67968@aol.com
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
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! --
|