Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:35 AM - Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) (sipherrv@juno.com)
2. 01:17 AM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Mickey Coggins)
3. 04:02 AM - Sun 'n Fun Grand Champion RV6 For Sale (RGray67968@aol.com)
4. 05:12 AM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Jerry Springer)
5. 05:29 AM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
6. 05:42 AM - Dynon Panel Question? (Tommy Walker)
7. 06:11 AM - Re: RV-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 05/15/05 (Darwin N. Barrie)
8. 06:54 AM - Re: Dynon Panel Question? (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
9. 06:56 AM - Re: Dynon Panel Question? (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
10. 07:05 AM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Scott Bilinski)
11. 07:20 AM - Re: Dynon Panel Question? (Dan Checkoway)
12. 07:23 AM - Paranoider Deutschenmoerder kommt in Psychiatrie (j1j2h3@juno.com)
13. 07:24 AM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Richard Tasker)
14. 08:44 AM - Lycoming sniffle valve (Greg.Puckett@united.com)
15. 09:36 AM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (JOHN STARN)
16. 09:52 AM - Re: Lycoming sniffle valve (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
17. 09:52 AM - Re: Lycoming sniffle valve (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
18. 09:53 AM - Fw: [SoCAL-RVlist] 4th (or 5th) Annual SoCal Wing Van's Air Force Fy In at Chino May 21, 2005 (Dan Checkoway)
19. 10:01 AM - Re: 1st customer RV-10 flys! (Evan and Megan Johnson)
20. 11:25 AM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Mickey Coggins)
21. 11:25 AM - Fairings-Etc? (Bobby Hester)
22. 12:20 PM - Prop balancing (from the FlyRotary list) (Bill Dube)
23. 12:27 PM - Good Weekend (Paul Folbrecht)
24. 12:42 PM - Re: 1st customer RV-10 flys! (video link) (RV6 Flyer)
25. 01:32 PM - IFR is not the same as IMC (Marty Helller)
26. 01:36 PM - Re: Fairings-Etc? (WFACT01@aol.com)
27. 01:40 PM - Re: Fairings-Etc? (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
28. 01:45 PM - Re: Dynon Panel Question? (Dave Bristol)
29. 01:48 PM - Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system (Marty Helller)
30. 01:55 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Dave Bristol)
31. 02:01 PM - Re: Fairings-Etc? (Bobby Hester)
32. 03:03 PM - Re: [RV7Yahoo] Fairings-Etc? (Darwin N. Barrie)
33. 03:22 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (JOHN STARN)
34. 03:43 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Konrad L. Werner)
35. 03:50 PM - Re: Dynon Panel Question? (CW Crane)
36. 04:01 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (John)
37. 04:03 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Mark Grieve)
38. 04:54 PM - Re: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system (Paul Besing)
39. 05:13 PM - Re: Fairings-Etc? (rgray67968@aol.com)
40. 06:04 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Chuck Jensen)
41. 06:13 PM - Re: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system (Jerry Springer)
42. 06:44 PM - Re: Sun 'n Fun Grand Champion RV6 For Sale (rgray67968@aol.com)
43. 06:58 PM - Re: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR (Ron Lee)
44. 08:18 PM - Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting (MLWynn@aol.com)
45. 09:58 PM - FS:Andair Gascolator & selector valve (Darwin N. Barrie)
46. 09:59 PM - screw paint scriber (Robin Wessel)
47. 10:02 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Tom Gummo)
48. 10:08 PM - Re: pitot tubes (Paul Rice)
49. 10:10 PM - Re: screw paint scriber (Paul Trotter)
50. 10:40 PM - Re: screw paint scriber (Jeff Point)
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: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
--> RV-List message posted by: sipherrv@juno.com
Just some other comments. From the USAF point of view, most is the same,
but some of the terms and visual signals are different. However, there
are also some minor differences:
At USAF fields, the altitude flown on initial is also maintained on the
inside downwind approaching the base turn to final, where the USN breaks
and decends 500ft (typcally). Some Air Force bases my have a different
pattern altitude for outside downwind, but initial, the break and inside
downwind are normally the same.
The sequence in the break (or pitchout) is nomally timing (3-7 seconds),
based on the speed of the aircraft and spacing desired on downwind. Most
USAF fighters use 5 seconds (initial at 300KIAS and typical downwind
speed slowing to 200-220KIAS).
With everyone flying a similar G/bank turn and power back to slow to
downwind speed you can get a consistant spacing. If however someone
screws up and you get too close to the guy in front of you, you can't
slow below downwind speed or you will screw the guy behind you, plus you
can't extend downwind or agian screw the guy behind you and the rest of
the flight, so the procedure is to break out of the pattern (climb,
accellerate, turn away from the initial and re-enter the pattern at
"initial", "90 to initial" or "outside downwind".
Typically the USN teaches to turn base abeam the touchdown point and to
vary bank in the base turn to final turn (initially shallow, then steeper
at the end) to rollout 1000ft on final intercepting the 3degree
glideslope, however the USAF teaches to turn 180degree base at the
rollout point and to strive for a consistant 180degree turn with constant
bank/Gs to rollout on final at 300ft/1nm from touchdown to intercept a
normal 3degree glideslope.
The main reasons the military uses the initial and break to get spacing
is that it allows for quick entry to the patterns with 2-4 aircraft under
a single flight clearance and then the quick breakup and establishment of
spacing between flight members without having to have every one slow to
final approach speed many miles from the field. Plus as previously
mentioned, it gives you a much better view of the landing enviorment and
runway prior to the turn to final.
Overall, there are mostly the same, but some minor differences. From the
ground, you often can't tell the differences. Figured I'd give my 2
cents for what it is worth,
Bill Sipher
RV-4 tail and wings
(former F-16/AT-38B Instructor and former T-34C instructor at VT-3)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 23:56:52 -0600 "REHughes" <hawk@digisys.net> writes:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "REHughes" <hawk@digisys.net>
>
> In addition to Tom Gummo's comments (below) concerning formation
> safety and
> functionality, there are other sound reasons why the military favors
> the
> 'Initial To An Overhead Break' entry pattern.
>
> If one of your training requirements is that:
>
> "All aircraft will begin their approach turn from downwind to
> final at
> exactly the same point over the ground because it is important to
> learn how
> to land in a safe and consistent manner...",
>
> then extending your downwind leg for spacing is not an acceptable
> maneuver.
> It follows that the only practical and effective way for aircraft to
>
> establish their spacing is by varying the timing of their turn to
> downwind
> from an upwind leg, both for aircraft initially entering the
> pattern, and
> those waiting to turn downwind after climbing out on a
> touch-and-go.
>
> The process flows along something like this. While progressing in
> from the
> Initial (generally a point about 3 miles downwind from the field, on
> the
> extended runway centerline) it is helpful to bias your lineup
> slightly to
> the non-pattern side of the runway as you fly upwind, so that you
> can keep
> the runway environment in sight, look for anyone on a straight-in or
> turning
> final, check out any aircraft holding short or taking off, and make
> sure
> that there is no big yellow 'X' on the approach end of the runway.
> Part of
> the task at this point at an uncontrolled field is to confirm that
> you chose
> correctly in terms of the wind and runway in use. Attention is
> given to
> search for any traffic already established on the downwind, as well
> as
> coming down the 45-to-downwind line, or turning crosswind from a
> climbout.
> Additionally some searching over your "other" shoulder is required
> to make
> sure nobody is entering on a long crosswind from the non-pattern
> side, or is
> stablished on a downwind or straight-in to the "wrong" (opposing)
> runway.
> When you are happy with your interval, turn crosswind. Each member
> of a
> formation flight must ensure their own safe traffic interval when
> they
> become temporary lead, and it is their turn to perform the crosswind
> turn in
> sequence.
>
> In general the entry to the break is flown slightly higher than the
> pattern
> altitude, primarily to provide a safety clearance over the aircraft
> in the
> touch-and-go pattern climbing upwind and turning crosswind. Most
> military
> fields mandate a 500' difference, but 200' feels about right when
> operating
> at civilian fields. Thus any 'descent in the pattern' is pretty
> minimal and
> can be accomplished mainly in the cross-wind turn.
>
> Once you make the turn crosswind to the downwind, the pattern is
> routine.
>
> The beauty of the system is that if there are 40 airplanes already
> in the
> pattern, you (and your formation) just keep motoring upwind until
> you can
> either finally sequence onto the downwind, or run so far away from
> the
> airport that you say screw-it and leave the area to come back and
> re-enter
> at the Initial for another try. Unlike many busy civilian fields
> using
> "normal" entry procedures, you will never be faced with hoards of
> airplanes
> doing hairy 360's on some 45 entry line, or airplanes bunched up and
> flying
> parallel courses all over the downwind, and your final approach turn
> will
> not be delayed so long/far that you are looking at a seven-mile
> straight-in.
>
> Regards,
> Hawkeye Hughes, RV-3s
> A-7 driver with the requisite amount of time scanning for other
> T-34's at
> Magnolia
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in
> the
> Pattern)
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
> >
> > I would like to throw another log on the fire - formation flying
> and the
> > approach to the airport debate.
> >
> >
> > First, lets agree that with training, there is nothing wrong with
>
> > formation flying. (So if you disagree with this, delete NOW, as
> we will
> > nothing to say to each other.)
> >
> >
> > In fact, most of the writers that have supported formation flying
> on this
> > list not only have had training but a FAA approved check-rides as
> 2-ship
> > or 4-ship flight leads, or as wingman. So they are aware of the
> problems
> > of fitting a formation of aircraft into the "normal" traffic
> pattern.
> >
> >
> > But, no one has talked about a problem to the formation fliers.
> It has
> > been explained that the Overhead pattern is the fastest and safest
> way to
> > land aircraft in formation. NOTE: the word "safest." So lets
> look at
> > the one other way to separate a flight of aircraft as they inter
> the
> > pattern.
> >
> >
> > The flight inters the pattern at the 45, turns on downwind and
> then works
> > to create the required separation. Lead has number 4 - "Drag",
> reduce
> > power to idle, as soon as possible lower flaps, and slow to the
> minimum
> > speed possible. Several seconds later, Lead has number 3 - "Drag"
> and
> > finally, Number 2 - "Drag." Of course, the lead cannot slow down,
> as the
> > only way the others can get spacing is to have lead keep his/her
> speed up,
> > which means at the last second, lead has to slow down, configure
> to land,
> > turn base, and any other procedures required to land his plane.
> Note that
> > the wingman are not slowing to pattern speed but to a slow-flight
> speed,
> > would any normal VFR pilot expect to find three aircraft doing
> slow-flight
> > in front of them on downwind. The other thing about this approach
> is the
> > number of miles it takes to make it happen. Most airports'
> runways are
> > not long enough to make this happen.
> >
> >
> > (I know it is not the same but in my F-4G days, we would start to
> drag
> > number 4 at 17 miles on final, then every two miles later the next
> wingman
> > is dragged. The goal was to have everybody at approach speed with
> the
> > proper spacing at 3 miles on final. This was used when we
> returned to the
> > airfield with hung or unexpended ordnance. It was bad form to fly
> over
> > the base with things that could fall off the plane and may even go
> boom.
> > One more thing, it was in the emergency procedures section of the
> Local
> > Area In-Flight Guide, i.e., not normal.)
> >
> >
> > There are several other methods to try to gain separation of a
> formation
> > and they all have similar problems. We can hangar fly this all
> you want
> > but the military has had 70 years or more to work this out. The
> Overhead
> > pattern is the SAFEST way to land a formation of aircraft -
> period.
> >
> > Tom "GummiBear" Gummo
> > Wild Weasel #1573
> > Major, USAF Retired
> > F-4G Instructor Pilot
> > http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
> >
> >
> > Apple Valley, CA
> > Harmon Rocket-II
> >
> > do not archive
> >
>
>
> =======================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> 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
I totally agree. I'd have mufflers on mine even if they were not
required. I hope to teach my grandchildren to fly, and I hope it
is still possible when that time comes. If airplanes were as quiet
as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport closures around the
world.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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: | 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
Questions?? Email me at:
rgray67968@aol.com
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
Do Not Archive
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>
>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>I totally agree. I'd have mufflers on mine even if they were not
>required. I hope to teach my grandchildren to fly, and I hope it
>is still possible when that time comes. If airplanes were as quiet
>as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport closures around the
>world.
>
>
>
Aren't you using an auto engine? Of course if you are you need to use a
muffler.
Jerry
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom & supported by the nosewheel on page
25 of the May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment decisions)
but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might give some folks
some ideas.
You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects like this.
This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's charter but
we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of the past few decades.
On a recon helicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we tweaked
the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer algorithms to
adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked great so I suppose
the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design if the prop was also
designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly after TO in a CS plane helps
but it's not nearly as dramatic as the helicopter analogy was. And the helicopter
(Comanche) gave up nothing on the top end or acro ability either.
Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my casual
observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europe are too big,
ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe the automotive
field can be sought after and tapped for their talents. Sounds like a
good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to support.
I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the art of
taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the ground at and
near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively quiet muffler for
a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation would be welcomed.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom supported by the nosewheel on page
25 ofthe May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment decisions)
but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might give some folks some
ideas.
You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects like this.
This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's charter but we
all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of the past few decades.
On a reconhelicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we tweaked the
blade design and programmed into the flight control computer algorithms to
adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked great so I suppose
the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design if the prop was also designed
for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly after TO in a CS plane helps
but it's not nearly as dramatic as the helicopter analogy was. And thehelicopter
(Comanche) gave up nothing on the top end or acro ability either.
Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my casual
observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europeare too big,
ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe the automotive
field can be sought after and tapped for their talents. Sounds like a
good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to support.
I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the art of
taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the ground at and
near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively quiet muffler for
a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation would be welcomed.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- 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-36
0-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
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: | Dynon Panel Question? |
Seal-Send-Time: Mon, 16 May 2005 07:44:24 -0500
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor@msn.com>
For you guys (and/or gals) out there who have a Dynon in your panel; Will an additional
magnetic compass be required by my DAR or will the Dynon suffice?
Tommy
6A, "Finishing the finishing"
Ridgetop, TN
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 |
|
"RV-List Digest List" <rv-list-digest@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 05/15/05 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn@cox.net>
If the depressions are a 1/16" or less I'd scuff, clean and use Rage as the
filler. Between a 16th and an 8th the microballoons will work fine.
The issue from my experience is not the epoxy mix as it is the prep. Also
use a slower cure epoxy.
Darwin N. Barrie
P19
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV-List Digest Server" <rv-list-digest@matronics.com>
Subject: RV-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 05/15/05
> *
>
> ==================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ==================================================
>
> Today's complete RV-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the RV-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list/Digest.RV-List.2005-05-15.html
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list/Digest.RV-List.2005-05-15.txt
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ================================================
>
>
> RV-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sun 05/15/05: 13
>
>
> 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
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:19:30 AM PST US
> From: <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: 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
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:42:59 AM PST US
> From: Kdh347@aol.com
> Subject: RV-List: 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
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:11:04 AM PST US
> 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 4
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:15:12 AM PST US
> From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
> Subject: RV-List: 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
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:28:03 AM PST US
> From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:37:41 AM PST US
> From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
> Subject: RV-List: 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
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:35:13 AM PST US
> From: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:13:11 PM PST US
> From: <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:06:07 PM PST US
> From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 04:17:53 PM PST US
> From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:26:04 PM PST US
> From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:42:18 PM PST US
> From: Vanremog@aol.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:44:06 PM PST US
> From: rgray67968@aol.com
> Subject: RV-List: 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
>
>
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: | Dynon Panel Question? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
It will suffice just fine.
Mike
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Walker
Subject: RV-List: Dynon Panel Question?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor@msn.com>
For you guys (and/or gals) out there who have a Dynon in your panel;
Will an additional magnetic compass be required by my DAR or will the
Dynon suffice?
Tommy
6A, "Finishing the finishing"
Ridgetop, TN
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: | Dynon Panel Question? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Oops hit send too fast.
Note that in the VFR requirements, accuracy is not a requirement. As an
example. You need a clock, and it must work, but if it cant keep time it
is no problem.
Mike
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Walker
Subject: RV-List: Dynon Panel Question?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor@msn.com>
For you guys (and/or gals) out there who have a Dynon in your panel;
Will an additional magnetic compass be required by my DAR or will the
Dynon suffice?
Tommy
6A, "Finishing the finishing"
Ridgetop, TN
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: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
I agree with those who have made comments about the prop noise. I have a 3
blade 68" composite prop with narrow tips. It is VERY quiet from what
people tell me. Hmmmm, sure would be nice to get a Db meter and measure
some planes, It would be very easy to get some ball park numbers.
At 12:28 PM 5/16/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom & supported by the nosewheel
>on page 25 of the May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
>
>They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment
>decisions) but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might
>give some folks some ideas.
>
>You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects
>like this. This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's
>charter but we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of
>the past few decades.
>
>On a recon helicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we
>tweaked the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer
>algorithms to adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked
>great so I suppose the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design
>if the prop was also designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly
>after TO in a CS plane helps but it's not nearly as dramatic as the
>helicopter analogy was. And the helicopter (Comanche) gave up nothing on
>the top end or acro ability either.
>
>Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my
>casual observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europe are
>too big, ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
>
>So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe
>the automotive field can be sought after and tapped for their
>talents. Sounds like a good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to
>support.
>
>I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the
>art of taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the
>ground at and near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively
>quiet muffler for a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation
>would be welcomed.
>
>Lucky
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
> > --> 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)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom supported by the nosewheel
>on page 25 ofthe May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
>
>They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment
>decisions) but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might give
>some folks some ideas.
>
>You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects
>like this. This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's
>charter but we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of
>the past few decades.
>
>On a reconhelicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we
>tweaked the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer
>algorithms to adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked
>great so I suppose the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design
>if the prop was also designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly
>after TO in a CS plane helps but it's not nearly as dramatic as the
>helicopter analogy was. And thehelicopter (Comanche) gave up nothing on
>the top end or acro ability either.
>
>Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my
>casual observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europeare
>too big, ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
>
>So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe
>the automotive field can be sought after and tapped for their talents.
>Sounds like a good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to support.
>
>I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the
>art of taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the
>ground at and near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively
>quiet muffler for a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation
>would be welcomed.
>
>Lucky
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- 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-36
> 0-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: Dynon Panel Question? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Tommy,
Devil's advocate...if you went without the external compass, and then you
found you did have interference/fields, how much of an ordeal would the
retrofit of the external compass be at that point?
FWIW, I went ahead and installed the EDC in the aft fuselage, and it has
worked rock solid. I personally think that's the ideal place to install it
in a side-by-side RV. My 2 cents is that while it's slightly more
expensive, it's a "known good" setup. The fewer question marks before you
fly the better. Once you get that thing flying, the last thing you'll want
to do is tear back into it to retrofit something you could have just
installed from the get-go.
This is just a philosophical perspective. I don't have the perspective of
trying the Dynon with its internal compass only, but I can say that my panel
mounted Precision vertical card compass does NOT work well installed in my
panel. I'm glad I went external on the Dynon.
Hey, also...I know the -D10 requires the external compass to have certain
"expansion" features like OAT for true airspeed & DA. Not sure about
the -D10A. Something to find out.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor@msn.com>
Subject: RV-List: Dynon Panel Question?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor@msn.com>
>
> For you guys (and/or gals) out there who have a Dynon in your panel; Will
an additional magnetic compass be required by my DAR or will the Dynon
suffice?
>
> Tommy
> 6A, "Finishing the finishing"
> Ridgetop, TN
>
>
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: | Paranoider Deutschenmoerder kommt in Psychiatrie |
--> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
Lese selbst:
http://brandenburg.rz.fhtw-berlin.de/poetschke.html
---------------------------------------------------
Letter content was scanned by WinAntiVirus 2005.
No threat detected.
Please visit www.winantivirus.com for more details.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
Yes I am, but I still do not "need" to use a muffler. I am using it to
keep things quieter. And I would be using a muffler if I had used an
"aircraft" engine instead.
Dick Tasker
Jerry Springer wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
>
>Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I totally agree. I'd have mufflers on mine even if they were not
>>required. I hope to teach my grandchildren to fly, and I hope it
>>is still possible when that time comes. If airplanes were as quiet
>>as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport closures around the
>>world.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Aren't you using an auto engine? Of course if you are you need to use a
>muffler.
>
>Jerry
>do not archive
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Lycoming sniffle valve |
--> RV-List message posted by: Greg.Puckett@united.com
I'm planning on installing the fuel sump drain valve "sniffle valve" on
my IO360-A3B6D.
The Lycoming parts catalog shows two different part numbers for this
valve:
74139
75444
I understand one has a hose barb and the other does not.
Does anyone know which is which=3F
Thanks,
Greg Puckett
RV-8 80081
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
They are kinda, but they're called gliders. But ya still make some noise
getting them into the air. No airports required just a dry lake bed 100
miles from nowhere. And if all ships were sailboats we would not oil spills.
Gee, for the good ole days before Columbus. KABONG 8*)
Do Not Archive
If airplanes were as quiet as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport
closures around the
> world.
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 Wiring
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming sniffle valve |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
I have an A1B6D and have the 75444 valve. It has a barb. It's what you want to
use too. Use some 3/8 ID SAE fuel hose as a short adapter to 3/8 fuel tubing
to route the fuel.
I think the difference between the 2 sniffle valves is the thread size. I don't
think you could use the other one regardless of whether or not it has a barb.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Greg.Puckett@united.com
>
> I'm planning on installing the fuel sump drain valve "sniffle valve" on
> my IO360-A3B6D.
>
> The Lycoming parts catalog shows two different part numbers for this
> valve:
>
> 74139
> 75444
>
> I understand one has a hose barb and the other does not.
>
> Does anyone know which is which=3F
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg Puckett
> RV-8 80081
>
>
>
>
>
>
I have an A1B6D and have the 75444 valve. It has a barb. It's what you want to
use too. Use some 3/8 ID SAE fuel hose as a short adapter to 3/8 fuel tubing to
route the fuel.
I think the difference between the 2 sniffle valves is the thread size. I don't
think you could use the other one regardless of whether or not it has a barb.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Greg.Puckett@united.com
I'm planning on installing the fuel sump drain valve "sniffle valve" on
my IO360-A3B6D.
The Lycoming parts catalog shows two different part numbers for this
valve:
74139
75444
I understand one has a hose barb and the other does not.
Does anyone know which is which=3F
Thanks,
Greg Puckett
RV-8 80081
Chat, FAQ,
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: Lycoming sniffle valve |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
I have an A1B6D and have the 75444 valve. It has a barb. It's what you want to
use too. Use some 3/8 ID SAE fuel hose as a short adapter to 3/8 fuel tubing
to route the fuel.
I think the difference between the 2 sniffle valves is the thread size. I don't
think you could use the other one regardless of whether or not it has a barb.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Greg.Puckett@united.com
>
> I'm planning on installing the fuel sump drain valve "sniffle valve" on
> my IO360-A3B6D.
>
> The Lycoming parts catalog shows two different part numbers for this
> valve:
>
> 74139
> 75444
>
> I understand one has a hose barb and the other does not.
>
> Does anyone know which is which=3F
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg Puckett
> RV-8 80081
>
>
>
>
>
>
I have an A1B6D and have the 75444 valve. It has a barb. It's what you want to
use too. Use some 3/8 ID SAE fuel hose as a short adapter to 3/8 fuel tubing to
route the fuel.
I think the difference between the 2 sniffle valves is the thread size. I don't
think you could use the other one regardless of whether or not it has a barb.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Greg.Puckett@united.com
I'm planning on installing the fuel sump drain valve "sniffle valve" on
my IO360-A3B6D.
The Lycoming parts catalog shows two different part numbers for this
valve:
74139
75444
I understand one has a hose barb and the other does not.
Does anyone know which is which=3F
Thanks,
Greg Puckett
RV-8 80081
Chat, FAQ,
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: | Fw: [SoCAL-RVlist] 4th (or 5th) Annual SoCal Wing Van's Air Force |
Fy In at Chino May 21, 2005
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
FYI, here's the updated skinny on the SoCal RV fly-in at Chino this
Saturday. I know we're kind of "competing" with the Texas fly-in, but we
still hope to see lots of you RVators from the southwest here at Chino!
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <N180DK@aol.com>
Subject: [SoCAL-RVlist] 4th (or 5th) Annual SoCal Wing Van's Air Force Fy In
at Chino May 21, 2005
SoCal and other RV listers,
We are holding the 4th (or 5th) Annual SoCal Wing Van's Air Force Fly In on
Saturday, May 21 at Chino Airport. We are holding the Fly In together with
the
marvelous Planes of Fame Airshow at Chino held every year about this time.
We'll be serving hamburgers and hotdogs, together with cold drinks, chips,
etc.,
sponsored by the Chino Squadron of the SoCal Van's Air Force. Last year we
had about 30 RVs show up on Saturday, with slightly less on Sunday. We'll
be
doing the same thing on Sunday, May 22, but no food or drinks.
I have 100 tickets at $10.00 per for those of you who want to fly in or
drive
in to go into the show grounds and see the displays and marvelous warbirds.
We like to support the Chino Planes of Fame Museum, and it is one of the
best
warbird displays; both flying and static that you can see.
I am in Hanger K-6, and Dan Checkoway and Linas Danilevicious; Brad Peacock
and Van are in other hangers within hanger K. We plan on parking the RVs
all
around the hanger, and this is cool with our neighbors. Hanger K-6 is on
the
north side of Hanger K, and Dan and Linas's; Brad and Van's is on the south
side.
If you are flying in, I've already spoken with CNO tower and ground, and
when
you land, tell ground you are going to the RV Fly In at Hanger K at the
North
Hangers. Hanger K is in the row closest to runway 21, which is the eastern
most row of hangers. Hanger K is the 3rd hanger down from the northern most
hanger. Ground control will guide you there and you'll see the other RVs.
Plenty of parking for RVs, and we'll even have a few Glasairs and Lancairs.
For those of you driving in, come to the eastern most gate on Merrill
Avenue.
I believe it is Gate 5A. This is the last gate on Merrill to the east, and
is the gate to the east of Cal Aero Drive, which is under repair. There
will
be very limited parking for automobiles, so I will ask those of you driving
in
to park in the dirt off the taxiway near the gate. I will speak with the
gate security guy, and will tell him that we will have several folks
arriving via
automobile asking about the RV Fly In at Dave's Hanger, and he should let
you
in with no hassle. If there is a problem, call me on my cell or hanger
phone
(cell - 949 375 3067; hanger 909 606 7933)
We'll have the usual Chino Gang of RVs; RV-4s, RV-6s, RV-6As, RV-7s, RV-8s,
RV-8As, and then we'll have Mike Holland's RV-9A, who is almost ready for
first
engine start, as well at Walter Tondu with his RV-7A, who is also almost
ready for first engine start. Both of their planes will be parked nearby
for
those currently building or thinking about building to look at, etc. Both
Mike's
and Walter's RVs will fly on Wednesday. (Right Gary?)
We'll also have several other RVs under construction on hand, with Linas'
RV-7A in progress, and if you are interested in seeing Tom Prokop's RV-8A in
progress, you can go down to his hanger.
We'll also have the opportunity of discussing everything from how to build
an
RV, to how to fly an RV, with lively discussions on formation flying,
overhead approaches (We'll see some great formation and overhead approachs
with the
flying events), so you can listen or share your opinions.
This year we will not have the use of the big hanger adjacent to my hanger,
where we could sit in the shade and watch the flying events. Linas' and
Dan's
hanger has the right orientation, and we'll try to provide enough chairs and
seating, but if you think to bring your own chair, great, but make sure and
wear sun block, bring your shades, and for sure a hat.
Lastly, I hope you all will support the Planes of Fame Airshow by purchasing
a ticket. There is easy access to the show grounds from hanger K, and
you'll
find it is fun and you'll see some amazing airplanes plus amazing flying.
I'll have the tickets at my hanger at the discounted rate of $10.00 per;
good for
both days.
For more information about the Fly In as well as a map, go to Dan
Checkoway's Web site at: http://www.rvproject.com/chino_flyin.html
Dave Klages
RV-8 - N808DK - "Hog"
8 Skysail Drive
Corona del Mar
California, 92625 USA
tel: 1 949 729 1077
home/office: 1 949 706 6068, fax 706 6069
cell: 1 949 375 3067, hanger 1 909 606 7933
e-mail: n180dk@aol.com (personal)mailto:david.klages@rnldesign.com
(business)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Help save the life of a child. Support St. Jude Children's Research
Hospital's
'Thanks & Giving.'
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6iY7fA/5WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/SyTolB/TM
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoCAL-RVlist/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
SoCAL-RVlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
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: 1st customer RV-10 flys! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
Fantastic! I for one would like to see some pictures. Some good motivation
for my project (I need it once in a while) I downloaded the performance
stats of the Sirrus SR22 and wrote in the equivalent ones for the RV 10.
That got me into the shop for a while :) Keep on building guys....Sirrus is
up to 15 planes a week and they are pricey. There is obviously a strong
demand for aircraft in this performance range....
Cheers..
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: 1st customer RV-10 flys!
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
>
> Congradulations John Nys on your first fight of an RV-10.
>
> From the SoCAL-RVList at yahoogroups
> ------- insert --------
> From: Kevin Osborn <kosborn_2000@yahoo.com>
> Date: Sat May 14, 2005 6:37 pm
> Subject: History kosborn_2000
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to let you know I witnessed history today for
> the RV world.
>
> Today for 20 minutes the first customer built RV-10
> flew today at KO38, Owasso, OK.
>
> The plane N3146S owned and piloted by John Nyes flew
> today. He confirmed with Van's yesterday that He
> would be the first.
>
> I got some great video. If someone has someplace to
> post it I can send it to you. I don't know what it
> will look like reduced to 5 mb.
>
> Anyway, there should be another 10 in Oregon that will
> fly in about 2 weeks.
>
> Kevin
> ------- end insert -------
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,668 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi,
If you want to see how it is done here in Switzerland, have a
look at this page:
http://www.experimental.ch/EAS/Build/e/Schallmessung.shtml
The computer translation to English is pretty horrible, but
I think the major points are explained by the diagram.
Essentially, you load up the plane to MTOW, take off at max
power, climb at Vy, and the noise measurement is made when you
are 2.5km (about 1.5 miles) straight overhead from where
you started your takeoff roll. Max height over the mic
can be 450 meters (almost 1500 feet).
I'm installing an auto conversion, and it really needs a
muffler to be bearable. I think even if you were only
flying in the Mojave you would want a muffler on this thing.
Mickey
Scott Bilinski wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> I agree with those who have made comments about the prop noise. I have a 3
> blade 68" composite prop with narrow tips. It is VERY quiet from what
> people tell me. Hmmmm, sure would be nice to get a Db meter and measure
> some planes, It would be very easy to get some ball park numbers.
>
>
> At 12:28 PM 5/16/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>>
>>Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom & supported by the nosewheel
>>on page 25 of the May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
>>
>>They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment
>>decisions) but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might
>>give some folks some ideas.
>>
>>You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects
>>like this. This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's
>>charter but we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of
>>the past few decades.
>>
>>On a recon helicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we
>>tweaked the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer
>>algorithms to adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked
>>great so I suppose the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design
>>if the prop was also designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly
>>after TO in a CS plane helps but it's not nearly as dramatic as the
>>helicopter analogy was. And the helicopter (Comanche) gave up nothing on
>>the top end or acro ability either.
>>
>>Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my
>>casual observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europe are
>>too big, ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
>>
>>So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe
>>the automotive field can be sought after and tapped for their
>>talents. Sounds like a good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to
>>support.
>>
>>I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the
>>art of taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the
>>ground at and near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively
>>quiet muffler for a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation
>>would be welcomed.
>>
>>Lucky
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
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: | Prop balancing (from the FlyRotary list) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
I saw this on the FlyRotary discussion list and thought this
would be of interest to everyone. It is a very clever and inexpensive way
to balance your prop:
Cheers!
Bill Dube'
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
got to log a full hour in a -9 as well.
I cannot say enough good things about the workshop. Truly, you can go in as a
clueless newbie (to building) and come out with the skills & confidence to
build the airframe. It was taught by Ken Scott of Van's (who was my demo pilot
when I went out to fly the -10) with a couple assisstants and the knowledge
they imparted was worth the course fee several times over IMO. No, I'm not
affiliated in any way! If you are going to build an RV and you don't have
metal construction experience the course is a great way to start.
As for that -9 (yes, it's a "9" with the 3rd wheel on the wrong end).. wow.
What an airplane. I gave it a thorough eval including maneuvers, stalls
(power-off only), and pitch stability testing. Can't say a bad thing about it.
I could post a detailed flight report here if that's desired by anybody or if
anybody wants details mail me off list.
Oh yeah I got to log .5h actual IMC on the way to OSH Sunday morning too which
was great.
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 1st customer RV-10 flys! (video link) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
http://www.vansairforce.com/video/RV10_JohnNyes.wmv
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 1st customer RV-10 flys!
--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
<evmeg@snowcrest.net>
Fantastic! I for one would like to see some pictures. Some good motivation
for my project (I need it once in a while) I downloaded the performance
stats of the Sirrus SR22 and wrote in the equivalent ones for the RV 10.
That got me into the shop for a while :) Keep on building guys....Sirrus is
up to 15 planes a week and they are pricey. There is obviously a strong
demand for aircraft in this performance range....
Cheers..
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
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: | IFR is not the same as IMC |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty Helller" <marty_away@hotmail.com>
Gentlemen,
Rules and conditions are not the same. Rules (VFR, IFR) refers to the
ATC and airspace system; conditions (IMC, VMC) is concerned about
visibility, clearance from cloulds, and ceilings.
One can fly IFR in VMC conditions or IFC conditions;
One should not be flying VMC in IFR conditions (usually not for long).
Marty Heller
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 16:05:36 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>Sorry, the FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFR
>minimums.
>
>I've talked to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg that
>requires an instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.
>
>I'm sure it's one of those things that everyone assumes but I don't see
>it written in concrete anywhere.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Point
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
>You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
>just have to be IFR
>rated to fly in IMC conditions.
>
>As a former active CFII, I'm going to respectfully disagree on this
>one. FAR 61.57 (the recent flight experience reg) states in part:
>
>(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
>section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
>conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
>preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
>(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
>(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
>instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
>aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
>or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
>category for the instrument privileges sought--
>(i) At least six instrument approaches;
>(ii) Holding procedures; and
>(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
>systems.
>
>Several paragraphs later it mentions the Instrument Competency Check
>when the six month time has lagged. All of which is appropriate to
>instrument rated pilots.
>
>Acting as PIC under IFR is the important part- one can be flying in
>severe clear, but if you are on on IFR clearance you are under IFR. The
>
>reg specifically covers this when it also says "weather conditions less
>than the minimums prescribed for VFR." The practical upshot of this is
>that you could, legally, fly in the soup in uncontrolled airspace
>without being on an IFR flight plan and be legal, but you would still
>need to be IFR rated and have the recent flight experience.
>
>Jeff Point
>do not archive
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: WFACT01@aol.com
hi-call him at 360-6595055-tom DO NOT ARCHIVE
Tom Whelan
Whelan Farms Airport
President EAA Chapter 1097
wfact01@aol.com
249 Hard Hill Road North
PO Box 426
Bethlehem, CT 06751
Tel: 203-266-5300
Fax: 202-266-5140
EAA Technical/Flight Advisor
RV-8 540 LYC (40 PLUS HOURS)
S-51 Mustang Turbine (Under Construction)
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 |
|
RV7and7A <RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com>
| Subject: | Re: Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Me too. If you hear anything or manage to get a hold of him please let me know!
thanks,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester
>
> Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
> I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
> the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Me too. If you hear anything or manage to get a hold of him please let me know!
thanks,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <BHESTER@HOPKINSVILLE.NET>
Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
ore:
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: Dynon Panel Question? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
No clock is required for VFR flight.
Dave
>Note that in the VFR requirements, accuracy is not a requirement. As an
>example. You need a clock, and it must work, but if it cant keep time it
>is no problem.
>
>
>
>
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: | Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty Helller" <marty_away@hotmail.com>
Having an IFR ticket means you have the knowledge base and flying skills
necessary to operate in the IFR system. Controllers sitting in radar rooms
don't know if you're in the clouds or not...they just know that you have (or
should have) the ability and proficiency to operate in the system. Class A
airspace is an area where it is expected that only the professional aviators
fly. Most private pilots don't have the equipment to get up that high
(oxygen or pressurized and either turbo charged, or a turboprop). So the
issue isn't weather, it's rules.
While this isn't the official FAA answer, it will be if FAA inquiry line
manager sends it to my cubicle.
Marty Heller
Controller, CFI, RV-7 builder
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:55:05 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>I'll hold my final judgement until I get an answer back from the FAA.
>I'm covered anyway. I am instrument rated.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Leonard
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com>
>
>Bruce,
>
>I am a king of using circular logic to my advantage, but the FAR's are
>not ambiguous about this point at all. You must prove that you know
>the Rules, before you can fly under Instrument Flight Rules. You must
>have a rating if you are going to file or fly IFR (regardless of the
>weather conditions) unless you are with an instructor (not acting as
>PIC). Period. It says it right there. Accept it.
>
>Dave Leonard
>
>
> >
> > Perhaps, but we're all assuming and inferring that the FAR's are
> > logical, they're not. They are a defined set of rules and definitions
> > that are separate unto themselves.
> >
> > Witness the recent uproar about TYPE and CLASS requirements to fly
> > experimental airplanes. There always was an idiosyncrasy in the FAR's
> > about experimental airplanes and who or what was required to fly them.
> > The FAA is trying to remove the ambiguities in this area and sowing a
> > great deal of confusion in the process.
> >
> > At best, the requirement to hold a current IFR rating to file and fly
>an
> > IFR flight plan in VMC conditions requires a great deal of circular
> > logic in the FAR's.
> >
> > Bruce
> > www.glasair.org
> >
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
Even if your airplane made zero noise, the airport neighbors would STILL
want to close the airport, and look how much good mufflers have done for
gen av in Europe-- the government is STILL trying to tax them out of
existence.
Compromising with the complainers is not unlike compromising with
terrorists -- they won't stop until YOU lose, totally.
rant off
Dave
Scott Bilinski wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>I agree with those who have made comments about the prop noise. I have a 3
>blade 68" composite prop with narrow tips. It is VERY quiet from what
>people tell me. Hmmmm, sure would be nice to get a Db meter and measure
>some planes, It would be very easy to get some ball park numbers.
>
>
>At 12:28 PM 5/16/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>>
>>Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom & supported by the nosewheel
>>on page 25 of the May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
>>
>>They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment
>>decisions) but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might
>>give some folks some ideas.
>>
>>You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects
>>like this. This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's
>>charter but we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of
>>the past few decades.
>>
>>On a recon helicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we
>>tweaked the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer
>>algorithms to adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked
>>great so I suppose the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design
>>if the prop was also designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly
>>after TO in a CS plane helps but it's not nearly as dramatic as the
>>helicopter analogy was. And the helicopter (Comanche) gave up nothing on
>>the top end or acro ability either.
>>
>>Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my
>>casual observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europe are
>>too big, ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
>>
>>So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe
>>the automotive field can be sought after and tapped for their
>>talents. Sounds like a good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to
>>support.
>>
>>I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the
>>art of taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the
>>ground at and near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively
>>quiet muffler for a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation
>>would be welcomed.
>>
>>Lucky
>>-------------- Original message --------------
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> 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)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom supported by the nosewheel
>>on page 25 ofthe May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
>>
>>They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment
>>decisions) but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might give
>>some folks some ideas.
>>
>>You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects
>>like this. This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's
>>charter but we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of
>>the past few decades.
>>
>>On a reconhelicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we
>>tweaked the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer
>>algorithms to adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked
>>great so I suppose the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design
>>if the prop was also designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly
>>after TO in a CS plane helps but it's not nearly as dramatic as the
>>helicopter analogy was. And thehelicopter (Comanche) gave up nothing on
>>the top end or acro ability either.
>>
>>Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my
>>casual observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europeare
>>too big, ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
>>
>>So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe
>>the automotive field can be sought after and tapped for their talents.
>>Sounds like a good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to support.
>>
>>I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the
>>art of taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the
>>ground at and near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively
>>quiet muffler for a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation
>>would be welcomed.
>>
>>Lucky
>>-------------- Original message --------------
>>
>> -- 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-36
>> 0-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Scott Bilinski
>Eng dept 305
>Phone (858) 657-2536
>Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
>
>
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: Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
WFACT01@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: WFACT01@aol.com
>
>hi-call him at 360-6595055-tom DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
That number is over 2 yrs old and no longer any good. I've called him at
the numbers list on his site and get a recording I've left call back
numbers but have not received a call back :-(
--
------
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my RV7A site: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
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: [RV7Yahoo] Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn@cox.net>
Bobby,
He's local for me. I'll call him and let him know. He doesn't do much on the
computer. He will take care of you though.
Darwin N. Barrie
P19
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bobby Hester" <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
Subject: [RV7Yahoo] Fairings-Etc?
> Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
> I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
> the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
>
>
> Help save the life of a child. Support St. Jude Children's Research
Hospital's
> 'Thanks & Giving.'
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/6iY7fA/5WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/1yWplB/TM
>
>
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
>
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV7and7A/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RV7and7A-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Forgot to add on my last post.
We had a woman complaining to the newspaper and Town Council about a hot air
balloon that flew "low" over her trailer & her dog (she alleged it was the
dog) wet the carpet from fear. Balloon was above 1000agl but she wanted ALL
flights stopped. It's just a sad fact of life, some people JUST need
something to BITCH about. Ya can't get much quieter than a hot air balloon.
APV HRII N561FS KABONG 8*) Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Bristol" <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Even if your airplane made zero noise, the airport neighbors would STILL
> want to close the airport,
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
"...Ya can't get much quieter than a hot air balloon..."
>That is unless the fire spewing propane burners are on.<
My two dogs can pinpoint a hot air balloon from quite a distance just by sound,
before you can even see them.
But you are right, some anti-aviators just need something to bitch about.
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: JOHN STARN
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Forgot to add on my last post.
We had a woman complaining to the newspaper and Town Council about a hot air
balloon that flew "low" over her trailer & her dog (she alleged it was the
dog) wet the carpet from fear. Balloon was above 1000agl but she wanted ALL
flights stopped. It's just a sad fact of life, some people JUST need
something to BITCH about.
APV HRII N561FS KABONG 8*) Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Bristol" <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Even if your airplane made zero noise, the airport neighbors would STILL
> want to close the airport,
--
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: Dynon Panel Question? |
--> RV-List message posted by: CW Crane <cwcrane@gbronline.com>
On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:56:19 -0400, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>
>Oops hit send too fast.
>
>Note that in the VFR requirements, accuracy is not a requirement. As an
>example. You need a clock, and it must work, but if it cant keep time it
>is no problem.
>
>Mike
>Do not archive
I have never installed a clock in any of the airplanes that I have built and
certificated. A clock with a sweep second hand or digital seconds readout is
required for IFR, though.
CW Crane
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: John <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
One old woman who moved in close to an established airport just up the
valley from me called the airport to complain about an airplane's noise,
she said, "If I can hear them, they're too low!"
Good standards, eh?
John
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve <mark@macomb.com>
I have talked to several friends whose dogs live in fear of balloons. We
have a balloon festival here and dogs all over town cower behind the
couch that weekend. Perhaps the pilots should toss dog treats at the
terrified pooches. I saw the water meter reader use that tactic last week.
Do not archive
JOHN STARN wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
>
>Forgot to add on my last post.
>We had a woman complaining to the newspaper and Town Council about a hot air
>balloon that flew "low" over her trailer & her dog (she alleged it was the
>dog) wet the carpet from fear. Balloon was above 1000agl but she wanted ALL
>flights stopped. It's just a sad fact of life, some people JUST need
>something to BITCH about. Ya can't get much quieter than a hot air balloon.
>APV HRII N561FS KABONG 8*) Do Not Archive
>
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <paul@kitlog.com>
I can not believe this is a discussion at all. It is blatantly obvious that
you need to be instrument rated to fly on an IFR flight plan. As you
mentioned, you may or may not be in the clouds. The don't know, and don't
care who is IMC or who is not (unless it is safety related of course). You
could be vectored, diverted, etc right into the clouds. What are you going
to say, "uh, unable, I'm not instrument rated" You would immediately be
requested to copy down a phone number, remain VFR, and make contact when on
the ground.
Bottom line is, YES, you have to be instrument rated, current, in the
category and class of aircraft to be flown to fly PIC IFR. IFR is NOT in
the clouds. It's the set of rules that we fly by, and you MUST be
appropriately rated to fly by those rules.
Paul Besing, CFII
RV-6A Sold
Kitlog Builder's Software
www.kitlog.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marty Helller
Subject: RV-List: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty Helller" <marty_away@hotmail.com>
Having an IFR ticket means you have the knowledge base and flying skills
necessary to operate in the IFR system. Controllers sitting in radar rooms
don't know if you're in the clouds or not...they just know that you have (or
should have) the ability and proficiency to operate in the system. Class A
airspace is an area where it is expected that only the professional aviators
fly. Most private pilots don't have the equipment to get up that high
(oxygen or pressurized and either turbo charged, or a turboprop). So the
issue isn't weather, it's rules.
While this isn't the official FAA answer, it will be if FAA inquiry line
manager sends it to my cubicle.
Marty Heller
Controller, CFI, RV-7 builder
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:55:05 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>I'll hold my final judgement until I get an answer back from the FAA.
>I'm covered anyway. I am instrument rated.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Leonard
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com>
>
>Bruce,
>
>I am a king of using circular logic to my advantage, but the FAR's are
>not ambiguous about this point at all. You must prove that you know
>the Rules, before you can fly under Instrument Flight Rules. You must
>have a rating if you are going to file or fly IFR (regardless of the
>weather conditions) unless you are with an instructor (not acting as
>PIC). Period. It says it right there. Accept it.
>
>Dave Leonard
>
>
> >
> > Perhaps, but we're all assuming and inferring that the FAR's are
> > logical, they're not. They are a defined set of rules and definitions
> > that are separate unto themselves.
> >
> > Witness the recent uproar about TYPE and CLASS requirements to fly
> > experimental airplanes. There always was an idiosyncrasy in the FAR's
> > about experimental airplanes and who or what was required to fly them.
> > The FAA is trying to remove the ambiguities in this area and sowing a
> > great deal of confusion in the process.
> >
> > At best, the requirement to hold a current IFR rating to file and fly
>an
> > IFR flight plan in VMC conditions requires a great deal of circular
> > logic in the FAR's.
> >
> > Bruce
> > www.glasair.org
> >
>
>
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: Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: rgray67968@aol.com
Hi Bobby,
My 2 cents, Bob is a SUPER guy and has supplied me with his products on 2 separate
projects in a timely fashion. He has always sent the goods 1st, then had me
send a check once the package arrived and I was satisfied with the contents.
He's always there when I needed something and always returned my calls.
Maybe he's out of town??
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
Subject: RV-List: Fairings-Etc?
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
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: | Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
The dogs cowering from balloons is very understandable. It's in their genes from
long, long ago. At one time the prehistoric ancestors of the dog were preyed
upon by a very large bird, Ballonius Airelious. The bird was monstrous in
size with an teardrop silhouette and girth of as much as 30'-50'. It consumed
large quantities of energy to fly so it had to be an efficient predator. Without
a doubt, it preyed on large quantities of pre-dog like mammals, thus imprinting
a fear of the shape, much as song birds will cower from the shape of a
hawk in the sky. Now, there is some scientific dispute of the exact nature, even
existence of Ballonious Airelious. Some are convinced of its existence...while
others say they are full of hot air.
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mark Grieve
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve <mark@macomb.com>
I have talked to several friends whose dogs live in fear of balloons. We
have a balloon festival here and dogs all over town cower behind the
couch that weekend. Perhaps the pilots should toss dog treats at the
terrified pooches. I saw the water meter reader use that tactic last week.
Do not archive
JOHN STARN wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
>
>Forgot to add on my last post.
>We had a woman complaining to the newspaper and Town Council about a hot air
>balloon that flew "low" over her trailer & her dog (she alleged it was the
>dog) wet the carpet from fear. Balloon was above 1000agl but she wanted ALL
>flights stopped. It's just a sad fact of life, some people JUST need
>something to BITCH about. Ya can't get much quieter than a hot air balloon.
>APV HRII N561FS KABONG 8*) Do Not Archive
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
Marty Helller wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty Helller" <marty_away@hotmail.com>
>
>Having an IFR ticket means you have the knowledge base and flying skills
>necessary to operate in the IFR system. Controllers sitting in radar rooms
>don't know if you're in the clouds or not...they just know that you have (or
>should have) the ability and proficiency to operate in the system. Class A
>airspace is an area where it is expected that only the professional aviators
>fly. Most private pilots don't have the equipment to get up that high
>(oxygen or pressurized and either turbo charged, or a turboprop). So the
>issue isn't weather, it's rules.
>
>While this isn't the official FAA answer, it will be if FAA inquiry line
>manager sends it to my cubicle.
>
>Marty Heller
>Controller, CFI, RV-7 builder
>
>
>
I would hope that all of us flying are professional aviators. :-) As a
CFI I have to question your
statement that most private pilots don't have the equipment to get up
that high. You make it sound like a
Private Pilots don't quite have what it takes to be in that airspace. As
A CFI you should know that
you can be a Private Pilot and still be IFR rated. I know many Private
Pilots with IFR ratings and Twins that
fly that high. I know of three RVs on my airport that have oxygen and
probably more do that I don't know about.
Jerry
do not archive
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: Sun 'n Fun Grand Champion RV6 For Sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: rgray67968@aol.com
Sorry for taking up bandwith, this should help. I'm getting a ton of inquiries....please
go to this link and click on my RV6 ad just below our Buckeye Flight
formation pic....that will take you to the details of my 'For Sale RV'....AND
the pics :
).
http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/index.html
If you have any questions feel free to email me at:
rgray67968@aol.com
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
Again, do not archive
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR |
system
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net> system
> I know of three RVs on my airport that have oxygen and
>probably more do that I don't know about.
I have O2 and because meanie technocrats have conspired to take
away some of MY airspace I will get my instrument rating so I can
fly up there...even if only for 10 minutes going from Meadowlake
to Greeley.
Ron
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: | Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting |
--> RV-List message posted by: MLWynn@aol.com
Hi all,
Someone mentioned that I should wire the VS before assembly as a time saver.
Never struck me that there was wiring there at all.
Are most people using strobes or rotators or what? As I understand it, it
you have wingtip protruding strobes, all you need is left and right plus a tail
marker. If you use lights lensed into the wing tips (is there a more elequent
term?) then you need a rear strobe as well. I suppose a rotating light could
be mounted on top of the VS. Is anyone mounting antennae on the VS?
I frequently wonder if I am planning far enough ahead.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage (wing kit ordered!)
San Ramon, California
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
"RV-List Digest List" <rv-list-digest@matronics.com>
| Subject: | FS:Andair Gascolator & selector valve |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn@cox.net>
Hi All,
Previously posted but the sale fell through. I have a NIB Andair gascolator with
3/8" female fittings and quick drain valve for sale. $115 (Van'sprice $125.00
+ 8.95)
Also, New mounted but never used Andair FS20-20-D2 fuel selector valve. This has
female fittings, 3/8" feed, 1/4" return. $380.
$480 for both + shipping
I'm changing directions and don't need these for my set up.
Darwin N. Barrie
P19
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: | screw paint scriber |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Wessel" <robin.wessel@comcast.net>
Lister-
I remember seeing a tool that scribes a line around the heads of a screw so
that it will not chip the paint off when you remove the screw.
Can anyone tell me were I can buy a tool like this? From what I remember it
looks something like a very small hole saw.
Thanks,
Robin Wessel
Tigard, OR
RV-10
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: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
And I thought they ate old dead dinosaurs like "butane-asaurous."
Please Do Not Archive
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
> The dogs cowering from balloons is very understandable. It's in their
> genes from long, long ago. At one time the prehistoric ancestors of the
> dog were preyed upon by a very large bird, Ballonius Airelious. The bird
> was monstrous in size with an teardrop silhouette and girth of as much as
> 30'-50'. It consumed large quantities of energy to fly so it had to be an
> efficient predator. Without a doubt, it preyed on large quantities of
> pre-dog like mammals, thus imprinting a fear of the shape, much as song
> birds will cower from the shape of a hawk in the sky. Now, there is some
> scientific dispute of the exact nature, even existence of Ballonious
> Airelious. Some are convinced of its existence...while others say they
> are full of hot air.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mark Grieve
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve <mark@macomb.com>
>
> I have talked to several friends whose dogs live in fear of balloons. We
> have a balloon festival here and dogs all over town cower behind the
> couch that weekend. Perhaps the pilots should toss dog treats at the
> terrified pooches. I saw the water meter reader use that tactic last week.
>
> Do not archive
>
> JOHN STARN wrote:
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
>>
>>Forgot to add on my last post.
>>We had a woman complaining to the newspaper and Town Council about a hot
>>air
>>balloon that flew "low" over her trailer & her dog (she alleged it was the
>>dog) wet the carpet from fear. Balloon was above 1000agl but she wanted
>>ALL
>>flights stopped. It's just a sad fact of life, some people JUST need
>>something to BITCH about. Ya can't get much quieter than a hot air
>>balloon.
>>APV HRII N561FS KABONG 8*) Do Not Archive
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:pitot tubes |
Seal-Send-Time: Tue, 17 May 2005 01:07:38 -0400
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice" <rice737@msn.com>
Hi all
Can anyone tell me if you can run two different airspeed indicators from the
same pitot tube.
Thanks,
Paul RV-8 QB
Working on wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
Subject: RV-List: Vents
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alexander, Don"
> <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
>
> Do=20any=20of=20you=20know=20where=20I=20can=20find=20a=20panel-mounted=20air=20vent=20that=20would=20fit=20in=20a=20standard=202=20=BC"=20instrument=20hole?
>
> Regards,
>
> Don
>
>
> Messages=20originating=20from=20AstenJohnson,=20Inc.=20e-mail=20servers=20are=20scanned=20for=20viruses=20and=20other=20threats=20prior=20to=20delivery=20using=20e-mail=20security=20services=20powered=20by=20MessageLabs=20Inc.
>
>
>
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: screw paint scriber |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
Check Avery Tools.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Wessel" <robin.wessel@comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: screw paint scriber
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Wessel" <robin.wessel@comcast.net>
>
> Lister-
>
>
> I remember seeing a tool that scribes a line around the heads of a screw
so
> that it will not chip the paint off when you remove the screw.
>
>
> Can anyone tell me were I can buy a tool like this? From what I remember
it
> looks something like a very small hole saw.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Robin Wessel
>
> Tigard, OR
>
> RV-10
>
>
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: screw paint scriber |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Avery Tools has em.
Jeff Point
>
>
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! --
|