Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:07 AM - Re: What's a "VOR" ??? (Rick Galati)
2. 05:42 AM - Re: Rudder Riveting Question (Charlie Kuss)
3. 06:08 AM - Re: What's a "VOR" ??? (LARRY ADAMSON)
4. 06:34 AM - poor radio xmit quality (Grenwis@aol.com)
5. 06:47 AM - Re: Question Re: Tru Trak (Andrew Barker)
6. 06:56 AM - Re: VOR Antenna limitations (CustomACProp@aol.com)
7. 06:59 AM - Firewall insulation (Glen Matejcek)
8. 07:19 AM - Re: What's a "VOR" ??? (Jamie Painter)
9. 07:48 AM - Re: What's a "VOR" ??? (Paul Besing)
10. 07:55 AM - Re: VOR Antenna limitations (Dave Bristol)
11. 08:01 AM - Re: VOR Antenna limitations (Knicholas2@aol.com)
12. 08:34 AM - Re: poor radio xmit quality (Dave Bristol)
13. 08:40 AM - Re: VOR Antenna limitations (Dan Checkoway)
14. 08:48 AM - Re: What's a "VOR" ??? (Paul Folbrecht)
15. 09:19 AM - Re: Insurance rates for RV's (GreenoL)
16. 09:55 AM - Re: What's a "VOR" ??? (GMC)
17. 10:10 AM - Re: What's a "VOR" ??? ()
18. 10:14 AM - Re: What's a "VOR" ??? (Jim Oke)
19. 10:15 AM - Re: VOR Antenna limitations ()
20. 10:47 AM - Re: VOR Antenna limitations (sportav8r@aol.com)
21. 11:10 AM - SOT: GPS/NAV Switch (Matthew Brandes)
22. 12:05 PM - Re: SOT: GPS/NAV Switch (Paul Folbrecht)
23. 12:11 PM - Re: Re: What's a "VOR" ??? (DonVS)
24. 12:46 PM - Re: SOT: GPS/NAV Switch (Jim Wampler)
25. 01:05 PM - induction tubes (Wheeler North)
26. 01:22 PM - Sequence/timing of major tasks in QB kit (finishing/panel/engine)... (Paul Folbrecht)
27. 01:54 PM - IO VS O-540s (Marcus Cooper)
28. 02:02 PM - Re: What's a "VOR" ??? (SCOTT SPENCER)
29. 02:19 PM - Re: Rudder Riveting Question (MLWynn@aol.com)
30. 02:28 PM - Re: IO VS O-540s (Bob J)
31. 03:11 PM - Air Speed Indicator Error (LarryRobertHelming)
32. 03:47 PM - Re: Air Speed Indicator Error (Dave Bristol)
33. 03:56 PM - Re: Re: VOR Antenna limitations (Wayne Glasser)
34. 04:58 PM - Re: Air Speed Indicator Error (Stein Bruch)
35. 06:31 PM - Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance (Jeff Orear)
36. 06:51 PM - Re: Air Speed Indicator Error (LarryRobertHelming)
37. 06:55 PM - Re: Firewall insulation (LarryRobertHelming)
38. 07:22 PM - Re: Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance (Walter Tondu)
39. 07:37 PM - Re: Air Speed Indicator Error (Charlie England)
40. 07:44 PM - Re: Air Speed Indicator Error (Dave Bristol)
41. 09:46 PM - Re: Air Speed Indicator Error (James E. Clark)
42. 10:24 PM - Re: Re: What's a "VOR" ??? (Ed Holyoke)
43. 10:50 PM - Re: Re: What's a "VOR" ??? (DonVS)
44. 10:57 PM - Re: Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance (Derrick Aubuchon)
45. 11:52 PM - HS Rib Fluting (Brad Oliver)
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: What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
In today's frenetic world of 24/7 commerce and navigation driven more and more
by GPS dependency, for the benign people-friendly door unlocking service that
can come with the ONSTAR equipped SUV, for an unblinking world in which the golf
cart with the low battery you rented unerringly displays the distance to the
hole from your position on the fairway and as a bonus, the club house will quickly
radio you to speed up play when you find yourself looking for a lost ball
somewhere off the remote fringes of the 14th hole, for the professional over
the road transportation workers and your local UPS driver who's second to second
whereabouts are constantly monitored by satellite, I'd like to think of my
"VOR" equipped RV as a VALUABLE OPTIONAL RECIEVER.
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
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: Rudder Riveting Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Michael,
I managed to build my 8A rudder without using any blind rivets. I cut the
lightening hole Vans mentions in that "box" reinforcement piece. I borrowed
a friend's Tatco squeezer and his 4" yoke. By using the longest flat set I
owned on one end, and the shortest set on the "ram" end, I was able to
reach in through the lightening hole to squeeze all those rivets. I believe
I've got a photo or two of how I did this, if you are interested.
Charlie Kuss
>--> RV-List message posted by: MLWynn@aol.com
>
>Hi all,
>
>I should be ready to rivet my rudder this weekend, assuming I can get the
>priming done sometime this week. At the base of the rudder, where the rudder
>brace R-710 sits on the rib R-704, there is either limited or no access to
>the
>shop side of the rivets when riveting the skin on. Is there a trick to
>getting
>this spot riveted? I would normally squeeze everything on the outer
>ribs/skin
>interface. I assembled this area and am sort of lost on how to approach it.
> Blind rivets would work, but I would like to avoid them for the sake of
>uniformity.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Michael Wynn
>RV-8, Empennage
>San Ramon, California
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03@msn.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Besing
Subject: RE: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ???
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" paul@kitlog.com
I've been using moving map GPS since the first available map handhelds of the
early nineties. I feel that I've always had a much better idea of exactly where
I am, than I ever did with tracking VOR's. I wouldn't be lost, the second the
GPS signal disappears, since I had a "much" greater awareness of the surroundings
and nearest airports to start with.
IMO, if you really don't know where you are with a GPS, then you probably wouldn't
know for sure, when zig zagging VOR to VOR either. Needless to say, I'm with
the camp that believes the VOR is "past" history.
>Plus, all the newer pilots (and older ones that use GPS exclusively) that
>don't use VOR's would have problems. I've done BFR's with people and when I
>put them under the hood and turn of the GPS, they are completely lost, even
>though they have a capable VOR right in front of them. It would cause many
>problems. Again, for a short time, but I bet it would warrant serious
>airspace restrictions until they got it sorted out.
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: | poor radio xmit quality |
--> RV-List message posted by: Grenwis@aol.com
My RV-6A radio transmit quality is very bad and I am asking for ideas as to
what to look for.
I have an Icom A200 radio and a Flightcom FC-403 stereo intercom. When I
transmit at engine idle, the transmitted signal sounds like high static with my
voice weakly buried in the noise. The sound in my headset is normal. At
full power, the feedback of static that I hear is quite loud and ATC complains
about readability. The static overwhelms my voice in the signal.
* I have one electronic ignition and one magneto. I have connected the
P-lead shield on the magneto to ground. Should there be a capacitor here?
* The mic jacks are mounted so that they don't short to ground
* the mic returns connect together and then connect only to the intercom mic
return pin.
* power for the radio and intercom come from the avionics bus on the EXP2
power board.
* I've tried turning off alternator in flight, strobes, running on elec ign
only, magneto only, pos lights -- no change in headset feedback.
Any thoughts as to what to try would be appreciated.
Rick Grenwis
N613G - RV6AQB - 45 hours
_http://rickgrenwis.tripod.com/rv6a_ (http://rickgrenwis.tripod.com/rv6a)
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: Question re: Tru Trak |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Andrew Barker" <Andrew@trutrakap.com>
John,
Do not install anything at this time. The installation is done in the
fuselage of the RV-6. When you get to the fuselage, I would recommend that
you at least run the wiring to the servo. If you would like to talk about
your options, please give me a call. I am pretty much always here.
Andrew Barker
General Manager
TruTrak Flight Systems
PH: 479-751-0250 Ext.222
Toll Free: 1-866-TruTrak
www.trutrakap.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Lawson" <rv6builder48138@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Question re: Tru Trak
> --> RV-List message posted by: John Lawson <rv6builder48138@yahoo.com>
>
> I've tried to contact Tru Trak three times thru their
> web site, with no response. Has anyone else had the
> same problem?
>
> My question to them: I'm partway thru building the
> left wing of my RV-6. If I choose to install a Tru
> Trak product, is there anything I need to/can install
> in the wing, while I'm working on it?
>
> John
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1115 (20050530) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.nod32.com
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna limitations |
--> RV-List message posted by: CustomACProp@aol.com
Hi Kim,
The Sportcraft antenna is a groundplane antenna. The airframe is the
antenna.
1.) Make certain the VOR antenna is mounted as far forward in the wingtip as
possible.
2.) Make certain that the NAV light, strobe light, and/or landing light
wires all are routed along the front edge of the antenna with the adle clamps
provided.
3.) Make certain that the base of the antenna is grounded to the wing skin
with at least four screws/nutplates.
When installed properly, the Sportcraft NAV antenna is thre best there is.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/31/2005 2:39:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Subject: RV-List: VOR Antenna limitations
--> RV-List message posted by: Knicholas2@aol.com
When I built my RV9A I built it for IFR certification. (I don't necessarily
think long "hard" IFR in a single engine is a good idea, but it is nice to
get through those Seattle marine layers). That has been argued
elsewhere....
Anyway... I installed the Archer nav antennas in the wing tips. THey work
well UNLESS the VOR is on the wrong side of the plane and the fuselage
blocks
the signal. This makes for an unsafe (and illegal) approach if you lose
your
signal. I am trying to avoid the ugly "towel bar" VOR antennas. What are
others doing to compensate for this?
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
Seattle
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Firewall insulation |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi All-
I'm rapidly closing in on hanging the engine, and am researching firewall insulation
/ blankets. Do folks have an experience based opinion on the value of the
heat and sonic benefits VS. the cost, hassle, and weight issues? How about
front side vs. backside installations? With a FWF blanket, do you simply penetrate
the blanket for the fasteners and then clamp the material between the firewall
and the item, or do you cut the blanket out around the footprint of the
item?
TIA-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
RV-8, smoke stayed in the wires, gear fairings start today!
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter@jpainter.org>
There are several things that bother me with regard to over-dependence on the
GPS system. Here are just some of the problems that could bring the system to
it's knees.
1) It's already been mentioned, but the US military has absolute control of
the GPS system and our use of it is at their discretion. They have the
ability to limit GPS usage in a particular geographic area. Given the
hyper-sensitive nature of terrorism threats, etc. it's not unreasonable to
believe that the military may find it justified from time to time to limit GPS
access in certain regions.
2) Solar flares have been known to disrupt other satellites before (I'm not
sure if any in the GPS constellation), but non-the-less...solar activity can
have an affect on the network.
3) There are several emerging space-capable nations (China and others). The
GPS constellation is sitting in space unprotected. It is not unreasonable to
assume that these satellites would be a target if a space-capable nation
wished to do us harm. It's not like they would be that hard to target since
they are transmitting a continuous signal and the very nature of GPS depends
upon us knowing precisely where the satellites are. They may not be capable
of bringing down satellites now...but I would be that within 20 years they
will be.
Granted, these scenarios could be considered highly unlikely and perhaps even
fodder for the tin-foil hat crowd, but I don't think redundancy in aviation
navigation is a bad thing.
For the every day VFR pilot, I really don't see a problem with a GPS (with a
paper chart) as the only electronic navigational aid, only that the national
airspace system should maintain a good number of VORs.
do not archive
--
Jamie D. Painter
RV-7A center fuselage
http://rv.jpainter.org
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: | What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <paul@kitlog.com>
Look at how long NDB's have been in service. Tax dollars still keep them
running. Just a backup instrument approach procedure, but they're out
there. When did the VOR's come out, anyone know? I would guess in the 50's
or so. I bet they keep them turned on for another 25 years.
Yes, the technology is antiquated, but it works. Being that the ILS is
received on a VOR/LOC/GS receiver, that will only help its longevity. Maybe
GPS will replace navigation for airport to airport flying, but the ILS will
remain for a long time.
Paul Besing
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 LARRY ADAMSON
Subject: Re: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ???
--> RV-List message posted by: "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03@msn.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Besing
Subject: RE: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ???
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" paul@kitlog.com
I've been using moving map GPS since the first available map handhelds of
the early nineties. I feel that I've always had a much better idea of
exactly where I am, than I ever did with tracking VOR's. I wouldn't be
lost, the second the GPS signal disappears, since I had a "much" greater
awareness of the surroundings and nearest airports to start with.
IMO, if you really don't know where you are with a GPS, then you probably
wouldn't know for sure, when zig zagging VOR to VOR either. Needless to
say, I'm with the camp that believes the VOR is "past" history.
>Plus, all the newer pilots (and older ones that use GPS exclusively) that
>don't use VOR's would have problems. I've done BFR's with people and when
I
>put them under the hood and turn of the GPS, they are completely lost, even
>though they have a capable VOR right in front of them. It would cause many
>problems. Again, for a short time, but I bet it would warrant serious
>airspace restrictions until they got it sorted out.
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: VOR Antenna limitations |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
Bob Archer's instructions for the VOR antenna say:
"NEVER connect two antennas together through a coupler thinking this
would produce better all around coverage. Due to the distance between
the antennas and resulting phasing effects the resulting radiation
pattern would have an extreme number of lobes."
And at the end of the instructions:
NOTE: DO NOT connect two antennas together!!!
Dave -6 So Cal
Tim Olson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
>I feel the same way...reception before looks and drag. But, I had been
>hoping to use an archer in each wingtip for each NAV radio. I *think*
>the reference I saw was relating to NAV's. I also know that if you use
>a signal splitter (not the proper name) for the nav signal to 2 radios,
>you end up with less signal available for each radio. While I've had
>no problems in my current plane with this, I thought that the
>one-antenna-per wingtip thing was just the ticket. Now I'm thinking
>maybe a cat whiskers with a splitter might be the way it has to be.
>Still have to think about that one. I'll run the wires to the wing
>either way just in case.
>
>
>Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
>
>
>
>
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: VOR Antenna limitations |
--> RV-List message posted by: Knicholas2@aol.com
In a message dated 5/30/2005 10:07:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rv6_flyer@hotmail.com writes:
Thanks for the input from everyone. Allow me to respond to some of the
questions.
You must have installed the antenna incorrectly if you are having a problem.
IF I installed them wrong I don't know what I did wrong. Each wingtip NAV
antenna seems to work well, I just can't get good reception from the opposite
side of the fuselage. If there is a trick I missed, PLEASE let me know
what I did wrong.
You mentioned you installed the nav antennas in the wing tips (plural). If
>>this is true, why would you have this issue? If not, could you install in
>>both wing tips and tie the nav antennas together?
According to Bob Nickols, you should not connect two antennas together.
Apparently you lose signal. I have two NAV-COM radios, each has its own
Archer antenna in the wing tips. THe localizer antenna is in the left wing tip.
It does not pick up the signal until I am approx. 30 degrees from intercept.
I am thinking of putting a cat whisker on just that radio. Which one do you
guys prefer?
Kim Nicholas
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: poor radio xmit quality |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
Rick,
The first thing that I'd try is to connect the mic and phones directly
to the A200, this will isolate the intercom and tell you whether or not
the intercom is the problem. You DID install auxiliary phone and mic
jacks didn't you? If not, this would be a good time because without them
it's going to be very difficult to troubleshoot.
If the intercom isn't the problem then it's likely shop time for the ICOM.
The easiest thing of course would be to swap the A200 with a known good
one, if you can find one.
You can probably rule out the antenna because it wouldn't cause static
in your sidetone.
Dave -6, So Cal
EAA Technical Counselor
Grenwis@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Grenwis@aol.com
>
>My RV-6A radio transmit quality is very bad and I am asking for ideas as to
>what to look for.
>
>I have an Icom A200 radio and a Flightcom FC-403 stereo intercom. When I
>transmit at engine idle, the transmitted signal sounds like high static with
my
>voice weakly buried in the noise. The sound in my headset is normal. At
>full power, the feedback of static that I hear is quite loud and ATC complains
>about readability. The static overwhelms my voice in the signal.
>* I have one electronic ignition and one magneto. I have connected the
>P-lead shield on the magneto to ground. Should there be a capacitor here?
>* The mic jacks are mounted so that they don't short to ground
>* the mic returns connect together and then connect only to the intercom mic
>return pin.
>* power for the radio and intercom come from the avionics bus on the EXP2
>power board.
>* I've tried turning off alternator in flight, strobes, running on elec ign
>only, magneto only, pos lights -- no change in headset feedback.
>
>Any thoughts as to what to try would be appreciated.
>
>Rick Grenwis
>N613G - RV6AQB - 45 hours
>_http://rickgrenwis.tripod.com/rv6a_ (http://rickgrenwis.tripod.com/rv6a)
>
>
>
>
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: VOR Antenna limitations |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Kim,
My Archer wing tip VOR antenna works better than any "conventional" antenna
I've used. Direction & shadowing has no effect whatsoever. Check that your
antenna is properly grounded to the airframe.
Here's a tip/trick:
http://www.rvproject.com/20040322.html
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Knicholas2@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: VOR Antenna limitations
> --> RV-List message posted by: Knicholas2@aol.com
>
> When I built my RV9A I built it for IFR certification. (I don't
necessarily
> think long "hard" IFR in a single engine is a good idea, but it is nice
to
> get through those Seattle marine layers). That has been argued
elsewhere....
>
> Anyway... I installed the Archer nav antennas in the wing tips. THey work
> well UNLESS the VOR is on the wrong side of the plane and the fuselage
blocks
> the signal. This makes for an unsafe (and illegal) approach if you lose
your
> signal. I am trying to avoid the ugly "towel bar" VOR antennas. What
are
> others doing to compensate for this?
>
> Kim Nicholas
> RV9A
> Seattle
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Paul Besing wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <paul@kitlog.com>
>
>Look at how long NDB's have been in service. Tax dollars still keep them
>running. Just a backup instrument approach procedure, but they're out
>there. When did the VOR's come out, anyone know? I would guess in the 50's
>or so. I bet they keep them turned on for another 25 years.
>
>
My instrument instructor told me that when he started his training in
the 90s, he was told not to bother learning the ADF as they would be
history in a few years.
Just like the 16-bit remnants in Windoze......
>Yes, the technology is antiquated, but it works. Being that the ILS is
>received on a VOR/LOC/GS receiver, that will only help its longevity. Maybe
>GPS will replace navigation for airport to airport flying, but the ILS will
>remain for a long time.
>
>
Yes, the ILS is going to continue to be valid and important for a great
many of us GA pilots for at least a decade or so, I'd say, as we won't
all be equipped to do WAAS precision approaches. At least, I won't
until the cost of units with 430/530-type capabilities comes down. I'm
sure I'm not alone. I'm putting a 300XL in the RV (unless reconed 430s
become available for $cheap in teh next year or so.. I doubt it).
And I for one like the piece of mind of a ground-based system as well,
superstitious or not.
One thing that is curious is that as of right now ATC seems to expect
everyone to be willing & able to accept direct clearances to anywhere
while IFR whether or not you've filed /G or even put something like "VFR
GPS" in your remarks. I get it all the time. And then I tell them I
can't go direct (legally) but I can fly a vector - and then give them
the vector to give me (from my Garmin 295). Same result, nice and legal.
do not archive
>Paul Besing
>RV-6A Sold
>Kitlog Builder's Software
>www.kitlog.com
>
>
>
>
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: Insurance rates for RV's |
--> RV-List message posted by: "GreenoL" <GreenoL@roberts.edu>
Just renewed with AIG; ground hull (not in motion) only at $50K & $1M
liability, for $740. This was down from about $1,000 for the prior
year. Approximately 1,000 hrs. total flight time, and 200 hrs. in type
since first flight June 2002. The first year I carried full hull, but
the last 2 years I have chosen to absorb the in-flight risk.
Sincerely,
Larry Greeno
EAA Chapter 44 Rochester, NY
N446A Type: RV-6A
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: What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: GMC <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
Jamie Painter wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter@jpainter.org>
>
>
>There are several things that bother me with regard to over-dependence on the
>GPS system. Here are just some of the problems that could bring the system to
>it's knees.
>
>1) It's already been mentioned, but the US military has absolute control of
>the GPS system and our use of it is at their discretion. They have the
>ability to limit GPS usage in a particular geographic area. Given the
>hyper-sensitive nature of terrorism threats, etc. it's not unreasonable to
>believe that the military may find it justified from time to time to limit GPS
>access in certain regions.
>
>2) Solar flares have been known to disrupt other satellites before (I'm not
>sure if any in the GPS constellation), but non-the-less...solar activity can
>have an affect on the network.
>
>3) There are several emerging space-capable nations (China and others). The
>GPS constellation is sitting in space unprotected. It is not unreasonable to
>assume that these satellites would be a target if a space-capable nation
>wished to do us harm. It's not like they would be that hard to target since
>they are transmitting a continuous signal and the very nature of GPS depends
>upon us knowing precisely where the satellites are. They may not be capable
>of bringing down satellites now...but I would be that within 20 years they
>will be.
>
>Granted, these scenarios could be considered highly unlikely and perhaps even
>fodder for the tin-foil hat crowd, but I don't think redundancy in aviation
>navigation is a bad thing.
>
>For the every day VFR pilot, I really don't see a problem with a GPS (with a
>paper chart) as the only electronic navigational aid, only that the national
>airspace system should maintain a good number of VORs.
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
I agree with Jamies comments above however from my point of view I see
the greatest danger and drawback to the GPS system as the apparent
monopoly on the update data. This coupled with the artificially short
(28 day) update period has soured me on the necessity of having a GPS
system for IFR use.
Help me if I am wrong here guys but I believe that Jeppesen is the only
source for updates for all popular aviation GPS systems and a few years
of update subscriptions will pay for a so-called alternate navigation
system.
When one looks at the number of mistakes that are included in each
revision of aviation publications and GPS updates and then corrected by
notam it is apparent that all the informational changes in the system
could be checked more closely and then made for longer periods
(quarterly or greater).
My 6A requires the GPS database to be current for IFR however the
database expires if I take a long trip like OSH therefore my next RV
will be IFR legal without GPS however I will have a VFR unit for
situational awareness.
George in Langley BC
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: What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Chuck:
You may be declairing the death of VORs a little early. True in 10, 20, 50 years
VORs may be phased out. Who knows? As we all know the GPS is superior in many
ways to a VOR. However..
Your RV is not legal for IFR with an IFR GPS alone (Ref. Blue Mountain Avionics
and FARs).
I assume you are talking about IFR flight. I would agree for VFR a VOR is not needed
with a GPS; However, before you pat yourself on the back for declaring the
death of VORs, you should consider an RV is not legal for IFR with an IFR GPS
alone. Read the Regs., experimental aircraft are not exempt from having NAV
equipment suitable for ground (GROUND) stations to be used. Yes certified aircraft
may get away with certifying IFR without a VOR (but dont know of any); Check
the operation limitations for an experimental, FAR 91.205(d)(2)- navigational
equipment appropriate to the ground (GROUND) facilities to be used. You require
one ground based NAV unit and there is no exemption at this time. The airway
system is still the basis in the USA and is based on VORs.
>
>
>
>From: Chuck <chuck515tigger@yahoo.com> Subject: What's a "VOR" ???
> RV-List message posted by: Chuck <chuck515tigger@yahoo.com>
>
>Hey I ain't seen any good flamin' for awhile, so I'll see what I can stir up....
>
>VOR's are extinct! Yep they went the way of covered wagons, revolvers, and startin'
>fires with flint. EVERYONE is using GPS, pilotage and dead-reckoning.
Heck a'doodle >lining up 'dem cross hairs is for Sissies, student pilots, and
folks who can't afford 100 >bucks for a hand-held GPS that'll get you darn near
anywheres, anytime, anyhow ('cept >watch out for those F-18's when ya' blow
through one of 'dem darn alphabet-soup >areas).
>
>There, that ought to do it. Nomex britches on...
>
>Chuck
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Welcome to the politics of GPS and other hi-tech stuff - a topic that is
often more involved and convoluted than the actual technology being offered.
The usual responses to the issues raised below are that so many other
economically important users (ie., the transportation system) are now
dependant on GPS that the DOD's political masters would not allow GPS to be
significantly tampered with and that vulnerability and sustainability were
adequately considered during the design process as the military was not
about to put all its eggs into the GPS basket unless it was a very good
basket.
A purely strategic argument is that unless an enemy has a comparable
precision nav system ready to turn on at a moments notice, they are better
off leaving GPS alone and trying to exploit it themselves for military
purposes which gets into P vs C/A access issues and so on. Trying to knock
out 28 or so orbiting satellites in a short time without alerting the owner
of said satellites that something is happening is highly difficult as well.
(The low end terrorist types have no realistic way of disabling GPS
satellites.)
Others have recognized that some non-DOD GPS signals would be nice to have
so the Europeans are inching along towards their complementary Galileo
system in the usual Euro-bureaucracy way.
At the other end is the "tyranny of the installed user base". Turning off
all the VOR's would turn many hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment
into expensive paperweights over night and make for a lot of unhappy people
(= voters) who would turn to the "alphabet" organizations to make the case
to retain this "vital, necessary, etc." system. In any field, getting rid of
the old stuff is sometimes the hardest part of implementing something new.
Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter@jpainter.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ???
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter@jpainter.org>
>
>
> There are several things that bother me with regard to over-dependence on
> the
> GPS system. Here are just some of the problems that could bring the
> system to
> it's knees.
>
> 1) It's already been mentioned, but the US military has absolute control
> of
> the GPS system and our use of it is at their discretion. They have the
> ability to limit GPS usage in a particular geographic area. Given the
> hyper-sensitive nature of terrorism threats, etc. it's not unreasonable to
> believe that the military may find it justified from time to time to limit
> GPS
> access in certain regions.
>
> 2) Solar flares have been known to disrupt other satellites before (I'm
> not
> sure if any in the GPS constellation), but non-the-less...solar activity
> can
> have an affect on the network.
>
> 3) There are several emerging space-capable nations (China and others).
> The
> GPS constellation is sitting in space unprotected. It is not unreasonable
> to
> assume that these satellites would be a target if a space-capable nation
> wished to do us harm. It's not like they would be that hard to target
> since
> they are transmitting a continuous signal and the very nature of GPS
> depends
> upon us knowing precisely where the satellites are. They may not be
> capable
> of bringing down satellites now...but I would be that within 20 years they
> will be.
>
> Granted, these scenarios could be considered highly unlikely and perhaps
> even
> fodder for the tin-foil hat crowd, but I don't think redundancy in
> aviation
> navigation is a bad thing.
>
> For the every day VFR pilot, I really don't see a problem with a GPS (with
> a
> paper chart) as the only electronic navigational aid, only that the
> national
> airspace system should maintain a good number of VORs.
>
> do not archive
>
> --
> Jamie D. Painter
> RV-7A center fuselage
> http://rv.jpainter.org
>
>
>
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: VOR Antenna limitations |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Tim , I put mine on the bottom of my RV-4 under the horizontal tail and it worked
great, out of the way and looked great. The reception was excellent. Speed
loss at 200 mph due to drag I guess is less than mph.
I would remove the VOR antenna when I raced. It was easy to remove with two screws
from the outside of the airplane. I would secure the coax with a small piece
of safety wire and stuff the coax back into the fuselage. A little piece of
safety wire was left outside and taped over with speed tape to retrieve the coax
later when I hooked up the VOR antenna again.
Here are some pictures (long link):
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rv-8/vwp?.dir=/gmcjetpilot&.src=gr&.dnm=RV4-2.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rv-8/lst%3f%26.dir=/gmcjetpilot%26.src=gr%26.view=t
Cheers George
---------------------------
>
>
>Time: 02:31:39 PM PST US From: "Tim Bryan"
><flyrv6@bryantechnology.com> >Subject: Re: VOR Antenna limitations
> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
>
>You mentioned you installed the nav antennas in the wing tips (plural). If this
is true, why >would you have this issue? If not, could you install in both
wing tips and tie the nav >antennas together?
>
>Tim
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: VOR Antenna limitations |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Wonder if someone with mini-NEC or similar software would care to model this for
us and see... My armchair guess is that with the extreme separation in terms
of wavelengths, the resulting lobes and nulls would be numerous but very low
magnitude, appraoching insignificance. Takers?
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: VOR Antenna limitations
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
Bob Archer's instructions for the VOR antenna say:
"NEVER connect two antennas together through a coupler thinking this
would produce better all around coverage. Due to the distance between
the antennas and resulting phasing effects the resulting radiation
pattern would have an extreme number of lobes."
And at the end of the instructions:
NOTE: DO NOT connect two antennas together!!!
Dave -6 So Cal
Tim Olson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
>I feel the same way...reception before looks and drag. But, I had been
>hoping to use an archer in each wingtip for each NAV radio. I *think*
>the reference I saw was relating to NAV's. I also know that if you use
>a signal splitter (not the proper name) for the nav signal to 2 radios,
>you end up with less signal available for each radio. While I've had
>no problems in my current plane with this, I thought that the
>one-antenna-per wingtip thing was just the ticket. Now I'm thinking
>maybe a cat whiskers with a splitter might be the way it has to be.
>Still have to think about that one. I'll run the wires to the wing
>either way just in case.
>
>
>Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | SOT: GPS/NAV Switch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew@n523rv.com>
(Slightly off-topic... someone have place to get avionics questions
answered?)
I'm trying to figure out what sort of "external switch" I need to use for my
KLN-89B/KX-155/KI-209A installation. The 209A has the relay built in, I just
need some sort of external switch. Do I really need a full-blown annunciator
panel? Can I get by with a toggle switch? A Cessna I recently flew in had a
simple button that illuminated GPS or NAV when pressed. I'd like not to
spend $800+/- for an annunciator I really don't need.
Matthew Brandes,
Van's RV-9A (Electrical/FWF)
#90569
http://www.n523rv.com
EAA Chapter 1329 President
EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SOT: GPS/NAV Switch |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Sorry, can't answer your question, but you do know that the 89B won't be
IFR legal w/out the annunciator anyway, right?
do not archive
Matthew Brandes wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew@n523rv.com>
>
>(Slightly off-topic... someone have place to get avionics questions
>answered?)
>
>I'm trying to figure out what sort of "external switch" I need to use for my
>KLN-89B/KX-155/KI-209A installation. The 209A has the relay built in, I just
>need some sort of external switch. Do I really need a full-blown annunciator
>panel? Can I get by with a toggle switch? A Cessna I recently flew in had a
>simple button that illuminated GPS or NAV when pressed. I'd like not to
>spend $800+/- for an annunciator I really don't need.
>
>
>Matthew Brandes,
>Van's RV-9A (Electrical/FWF)
>#90569
>http://www.n523rv.com
>
>EAA Chapter 1329 President
>EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
>
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
This is almost correvt. A Garmin 480 is certified for primary nav and needs
no "land based backup".
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Chuck:
You may be declairing the death of VORs a little early. True in 10, 20, 50
years VORs may be phased out. Who knows? As we all know the GPS is superior
in many ways to a VOR. However..
Your RV is not legal for IFR with an IFR GPS alone (Ref. Blue Mountain
Avionics and FARs).
I assume you are talking about IFR flight. I would agree for VFR a VOR is
not needed with a GPS; However, before you pat yourself on the back for
declaring the death of VORs, you should consider an RV is not legal for IFR
with an IFR GPS alone. Read the Regs., experimental aircraft are not exempt
from having NAV equipment suitable for ground (GROUND) stations to be used.
Yes certified aircraft may get away with certifying IFR without a VOR (but
dont know of any); Check the operation limitations for an experimental, FAR
91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the ground (GROUND)
facilities to be used. You require one ground based NAV unit and there is no
exemption at this time. The airway system is still the basis in the USA and
is based on VORs.
>
>
>
>From: Chuck <chuck515tigger@yahoo.com> Subject: What's a "VOR" ???
> RV-List message posted by: Chuck <chuck515tigger@yahoo.com>
>
>Hey I ain't seen any good flamin' for awhile, so I'll see what I can stir
up....
>
>VOR's are extinct! Yep they went the way of covered wagons, revolvers,
and startin' >fires with flint. EVERYONE is using GPS, pilotage and
dead-reckoning. Heck a'doodle >lining up 'dem cross hairs is for Sissies,
student pilots, and folks who can't afford 100 >bucks for a hand-held GPS
that'll get you darn near anywheres, anytime, anyhow ('cept >watch out for
those F-18's when ya' blow through one of 'dem darn alphabet-soup >areas).
>
>There, that ought to do it. Nomex britches on...
>
>Chuck
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: SOT: GPS/NAV Switch |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Wampler <jwampler@cisco.com>
A great resource for avionics/electrical questions is the AeroElectric
Connection <http://www.aeroelectric.com/>. Join the email list and
ask your questions there.
-jim
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:10:14PM -0500, Matthew Brandes wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew@n523rv.com>
>
> (Slightly off-topic... someone have place to get avionics questions
> answered?)
>
> I'm trying to figure out what sort of "external switch" I need to use for my
> KLN-89B/KX-155/KI-209A installation. The 209A has the relay built in, I just
> need some sort of external switch. Do I really need a full-blown annunciator
> panel? Can I get by with a toggle switch? A Cessna I recently flew in had a
> simple button that illuminated GPS or NAV when pressed. I'd like not to
> spend $800+/- for an annunciator I really don't need.
>
>
> Matthew Brandes,
> Van's RV-9A (Electrical/FWF)
> #90569
> http://www.n523rv.com
>
> EAA Chapter 1329 President
> EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.edu>
> While changing the oil, I noticed blue fuel stains on the
> intake tube for cylinder #4 on my O-360-A1A. Checked with my
> local A&P, and he said the gasket where the tube goes into
> the cylinder is probably leaking. That certainly appears to
> be the case.
One thing that does occur is if the rubber boots get really hard and stiff
they won't flex well and will preload the tube as the engine warms up. This
eventually either gouges the gasket, or cracks the tube where it is flared
into a flange. This crack is hidden behind the mounting collar and can only
be seen by removing the tube and cleaning it up.
W
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: | Sequence/timing of major tasks in QB kit (finishing/panel/engine)... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
If you've built/are building a QB kit, I would like to hear from you on
approximately how long you spent on QB wings/fuse parts before you
needed to start on/order one of the following:
- Finishing kit
- FWF
- Panel
The empennage is going to take me a couple months or maybe less (I plan
a week off work to put in 80-100 hours on that sucker) and it seems
there is relatively little work on the QB wings/fuse themselves before
you are onto finishing/FWF/panel. So, I may have to start thinking
about ordering that finishing kit surprisingly soon (10-week lead time
according to Van's).
Another question I've got right now concerns the order of FWF and
panel. Which first? I had been thinking it would be the panel last, to
wait as long as possible to buy avionics, but it seems that letting the
engine sit for 6-12 months, and/or re-preserving it regularly, is
probably enough of a factor to make doing FWF last a better idea.
Opinions on this? I would also like to avoid getting a "temporary core"
for fitting if at all possible. (I don't plan to have a core rebuilt,
but to buy an experimental Lyc outright).
I realize I am probably planning a bit obsessively now - I would really
like to avoid any down-time waiting for components. As well as budget
accordingly for the big-ticket items down the road.
TIA.
~Paul
~QB 9A - delivery this weekend - #91176.
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
I searched the archives but couldn't find a specific discussion on this, so
I apologize if it's redundant. I'm trying to decide on an O-540 vs IO-540
for my RV-10. Some thoughts I had were:
Pluses for the IO-540:
No icing problems
More even burn between cylinders
Pluses for the O-540
Cheaper to overhaul the fuel system
Lower pressure aux fuel pump (ie much cheaper)
Potential to use auto fuel
I've had an IO-540 C4B5 before on my Skybolt and it was a great engine and I
am leaning toward that for the RV-10. However I'd sure appreciate any other
considerations, ideas and suggestions.
Thanks,
Marcus
QB fuselage will be here Thursday!
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: What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: SCOTT SPENCER <aerokinetic@sbcglobal.net>
If you want an IFR capable plane for cheap then VOR is usually your best option...
Certified IFR GPS setups for enroute and approach are typically *much* more
expensive... and require expensive updates/subscriptions.
Another thing to consider is that VOR antennae are used for localizer and ILS approaches
-and there is currently no available GPS setup that will allow descent
to minumums as low as ILS offers.
So GPS is great, I agree, but a good 'ol ILS will get you safely on the ground
in much worse weather.
Bottom line is that if you fly your RV IFR you will probably want VOR/LOC/ILS capability...
and GPS as well.
Scott
N4ZW
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Riveting Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: MLWynn@aol.com
Thanks to all for your advice. I will let you know how it goes.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Empennage
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: IO VS O-540s |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob J <rocketbob@gmail.com>
On 5/31/05, Marcus Cooper <coop85@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Potential to use auto fuel
You can run auto fuel in the IO-540. There are two rockets locally
with injected 540's that have no problems running it, if the quality
and alcohol content of the fuel are acceptable.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying 600+ hours, F1 under const.
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: | Air Speed Indicator Error |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed of my
RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm, in level flight,
at same altitude each run, recording the direction and Dynon and Van's ASI
reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed the TAS using Horton's TrueAirSpeedCALC
excel sheet. I did this series of three tests at rpm settings
of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI error factor ranged from -18 kts at
2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a column of
water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct and confirmed by
ATC with transponder testing.
So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or somehow in
my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from anyone that has
ideas or suggestions.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI indicates.
((:- }
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: Air Speed Indicator Error |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
Sounds like you might have a flush static port instead of Van's
"cheapie" pop rivet. That's the direction the error will be.
Dave
LarryRobertHelming wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
>I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed of my
RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm, in level flight,
at same altitude each run, recording the direction and Dynon and Van's
ASI reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed the TAS using Horton's
TrueAirSpeedCALC excel sheet. I did this series of three tests at rpm settings
of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI error factor ranged from -18 kts
at 2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
>
>I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a column of
water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct and confirmed by
ATC with transponder testing.
>
>So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or somehow in
my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from anyone that has
ideas or suggestions.
>
>Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI indicates.
((:- }
>
>
>
>
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: VOR Antenna limitations |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Glasser" <ku-tec@bigpond.net.au>
Hi George
Just wondering if you have any better quality images of the installation.
The ones on your link are too small to see clearly.
Regards
Wayne
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: VOR Antenna limitations
> --> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> Tim , I put mine on the bottom of my RV-4 under the horizontal tail and it
> worked great, out of the way and looked great. The reception was
> excellent. Speed loss at 200 mph due to drag I guess is less than mph.
>
>
> I would remove the VOR antenna when I raced. It was easy to remove with
> two screws from the outside of the airplane. I would secure the coax with
> a small piece of safety wire and stuff the coax back into the fuselage. A
> little piece of safety wire was left outside and taped over with speed
> tape to retrieve the coax later when I hooked up the VOR antenna again.
>
>
> Here are some pictures (long link):
>
>
> http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rv-8/vwp?.dir=/gmcjetpilot&.src=gr&.dnm=RV4-2.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rv-8/lst%3f%26.dir=/gmcjetpilot%26.src=gr%26.view=t
>
>
> Cheers George
>
>
> ---------------------------
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>Time: 02:31:39 PM PST US From: "Tim Bryan"
>
>><flyrv6@bryantechnology.com> >Subject: Re: VOR Antenna limitations
>
>> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
>
>>
>
>>You mentioned you installed the nav antennas in the wing tips (plural).
>>If this is true, why >would you have this issue? If not, could you
>>install in both wing tips and tie the nav >antennas together?
>
>>
>
>>Tim
>
>
>
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: | Air Speed Indicator Error |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Which static vents do you have?? More often than not, those types of errors
are fairly common with the "flush mount" or machined type ports that people
have installed. If you have the standard pop rivets, then it's probably
something else....
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
LarryRobertHelming
Subject: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed of
my RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm, in
level flight, at same altitude each run, recording the direction and Dynon
and Van's ASI reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed the TAS
using Horton's TrueAirSpeedCALC excel sheet. I did this series of three
tests at rpm settings of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI error
factor ranged from -18 kts at 2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a column
of water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct and
confirmed by ATC with transponder testing.
So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or somehow
in my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from anyone that
has ideas or suggestions.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI
indicates. ((:- }
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: | Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
Group:
I need to get some professional guidance, or maybe even therapy on this one.
Van's indicates that you must have at least 5/8" distance from the center of the
5/16" bolt hole in the rear spar attach to the edge of all aspects of the rear
spar. No questions asked!
The thing that confuses me (like alot of things confuse me lately) is What difference
does it make measuring from the center of the hole? If I wanted to drill
a 1/2" hole there, so long as have its center 5/8" from the edge of the material,
does that mean its ok?? I think not!
Doesn't the amount of material from the edge of the hole to the edge of the material
have more importance?
I ask all this because while drilling my rear spar bolt holes, my helper let the
reamer drift and we ended up with an oblong hole. So the plan is to ream out
to a 3/8" hole. The center of my hole is right in the center of both the rear
wing spar attach point and the fuselage attach point.
I asked a question regarding another problem I have with my incidence (I won't
elaborate...I don't want to cry on my keyboard) and the email response I got from
Vans stated that I can't ream out to a 3/8" hole because the edge distance
won't work. If I measure from where my holes are, even accounting for reaming
out to 3/8", I still would have 1/2" of material from the edge of the hole to
the edge of the spar attach point.. I am within 1/8" of being on the centerline
of the spar attach points.
So what is the problem with that?? If I place a 5/16" hole with its center 5/8"
from the edge of the material, I have just less than 1/2" of material from the
edge of the hole to the edge of the material. If I get that same amount only
using a 3/8" bolt, whats the harm in that?
Sure would appreciate any clarification on that folks.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
setting up the wings...while taking a few steps backward
Peshtigo, WI
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: Air Speed Indicator Error |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Well, I have the standard Van's static pop rivet vents. So, I don't think
that is it. And the altitude info is correct.
The one thing I did, which might be suspect, is come into the fuselage with
the per plans aluminum tubing but changed to plastic of a slightly larger
size. The larger plastic tube size fits snugly over the aluminum tubing.
Would that factor into presenting a lower pressure to the instruments? Any
other ideas?
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
>
> Which static vents do you have?? More often than not, those types of
> errors
> are fairly common with the "flush mount" or machined type ports that
> people
> have installed. If you have the standard pop rivets, then it's probably
> something else....
>
> Cheers,
> Stein.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> LarryRobertHelming
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed
> of
> my RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm, in
> level flight, at same altitude each run, recording the direction and Dynon
> and Van's ASI reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed the TAS
> using Horton's TrueAirSpeedCALC excel sheet. I did this series of three
> tests at rpm settings of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI error
> factor ranged from -18 kts at 2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
>
> I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a
> column
> of water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct and
> confirmed by ATC with transponder testing.
>
> So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or
> somehow
> in my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from anyone
> that
> has ideas or suggestions.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI
> indicates. ((:- }
>
>
>
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: Firewall insulation |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
I installed all the cables, wires, etc that go through the FW before
installing the insulation/soundproofing material on the pilot side of the
FW. I bought my material from Abby at Flightline Interiors. It is really
tough stuff and has held up well after 8 hours of test flying.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies, It Flies.........
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
> Hi All-
>
> I'm rapidly closing in on hanging the engine, and am researching firewall
> insulation / blankets. Do folks have an experience based opinion on the
> value of the heat and sonic benefits VS. the cost, hassle, and weight
> issues? How about front side vs. backside installations? With a FWF
> blanket, do you simply penetrate the blanket for the fasteners and then
> clamp the material between the firewall and the item, or do you cut the
> blanket out around the footprint of the item?
>
> TIA-
>
> Glen Matejcek
> aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
> RV-8, smoke stayed in the wires, gear fairings start today!
>
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance |
--> RV-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
What did Vans recommend? That's what I would follow.
I would call (phone, not email) and make sure they understand
the situation. There's a fix for everything. You may not
like it but it will work.
On 05/31 8:29, Jeff Orear wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
>
> Group:
>
> I need to get some professional guidance, or maybe even therapy on this one.
>
> Van's indicates that you must have at least 5/8" distance from the center of
the 5/16" bolt hole in the rear spar attach to the edge of all aspects of the
rear spar. No questions asked!
>
> The thing that confuses me (like alot of things confuse me lately) is What difference
does it make measuring from the center of the hole? If I wanted to
drill a 1/2" hole there, so long as have its center 5/8" from the edge of the
material, does that mean its ok?? I think not!
>
> Doesn't the amount of material from the edge of the hole to the edge of the
material have more importance?
>
> I ask all this because while drilling my rear spar bolt holes, my helper let
the reamer drift and we ended up with an oblong hole. So the plan is to ream
out to a 3/8" hole. The center of my hole is right in the center of both the
rear wing spar attach point and the fuselage attach point.
>
> I asked a question regarding another problem I have with my incidence (I won't
elaborate...I don't want to cry on my keyboard) and the email response I got
from Vans stated that I can't ream out to a 3/8" hole because the edge distance
won't work. If I measure from where my holes are, even accounting for reaming
out to 3/8", I still would have 1/2" of material from the edge of the hole
to the edge of the spar attach point.. I am within 1/8" of being on the centerline
of the spar attach points.
>
> So what is the problem with that?? If I place a 5/16" hole with its center
5/8" from the edge of the material, I have just less than 1/2" of material from
the edge of the hole to the edge of the material. If I get that same amount
only using a 3/8" bolt, whats the harm in that?
>
> Sure would appreciate any clarification on that folks.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff Orear
> RV6A N782P (reserved)
> setting up the wings...while taking a few steps backward
> Peshtigo, WI
>
>
>
>
>
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
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: Air Speed Indicator Error |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
LarryRobertHelming wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
>Well, I have the standard Van's static pop rivet vents. So, I don't think
>that is it. And the altitude info is correct.
>
>The one thing I did, which might be suspect, is come into the fuselage with
>the per plans aluminum tubing but changed to plastic of a slightly larger
>size. The larger plastic tube size fits snugly over the aluminum tubing.
>Would that factor into presenting a lower pressure to the instruments? Any
>other ideas?
>Indiana Larry
>
This doesn't really help you much, but how do you know the altitude info
is correct? If your mode C is set up like most, it will see any static
errors the same as your altimeter. I first noticed my static system
error when I glanced at the altimeter during a high speed low pass at my
home runway (at about 100' below ground level).
Charlie
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: | Re: Air Speed Indicator Error |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
The fact that ATC verified the mode C reading just means that the mode C
agrees with the altimeter, which it should if both are working
correctly, however it doesn't mean that you are actually at the correct
altitude. If the static system pressure is incorrect it will affect both
equally, so you wouldn't see an error between them.
It's unlikely that both the ASI and Dynon are off the same amount, so it
almost has to be a pitot or static system error. If the pitot system
doesn't leak and the pitot tube is in the correct location and pointed
the right direction, then you need to take another close look at the
static system. The tubing size difference won't cause any problems
(unless it leaks) since there is no flow through it, only a pressure change.
My guess is a leak in the static system that somehow escaped detection
when you tested it.
Dave
LarryRobertHelming wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
>Well, I have the standard Van's static pop rivet vents. So, I don't think
>that is it. And the altitude info is correct.
>
>The one thing I did, which might be suspect, is come into the fuselage with
>the per plans aluminum tubing but changed to plastic of a slightly larger
>size. The larger plastic tube size fits snugly over the aluminum tubing.
>Would that factor into presenting a lower pressure to the instruments? Any
>other ideas?
>Indiana Larry
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
>>
>>Which static vents do you have?? More often than not, those types of
>>errors
>>are fairly common with the "flush mount" or machined type ports that
>>people
>>have installed. If you have the standard pop rivets, then it's probably
>>something else....
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Stein.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>>LarryRobertHelming
>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
>>
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>>
>>I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed
>>of
>>my RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm, in
>>level flight, at same altitude each run, recording the direction and Dynon
>>and Van's ASI reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed the TAS
>>using Horton's TrueAirSpeedCALC excel sheet. I did this series of three
>>tests at rpm settings of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI error
>>factor ranged from -18 kts at 2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
>>
>>I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a
>>column
>>of water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct and
>>confirmed by ATC with transponder testing.
>>
>>So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or
>>somehow
>>in my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from anyone
>>that
>>has ideas or suggestions.
>>
>>Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI
>>indicates. ((:- }
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: | Air Speed Indicator Error |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Well I recently ran into the same problem doing some of the flight testing
of a friend's RV9A.
Up to about 140kts IAS, it seems OK.
Tests on the ground with a manometer indicated nominal accuracy up to
200kts.
Above 140 kts when actually flying, it is WRONG. About 150kts reads as 142
kts or so. And 160kts read NO MORE THAN 145 kts or so.
Seemingly no leaks in the PITOT lines. Not sure yet on the static side as I
haven't tested that.
I suspect the "flush mount" static ports that my friend made on his lathe.
He is a real craftsman and felt he could get a better fit of the tubing by
make the ports.
WHAT I PLAN TO DO: (I may be silly, so don't laugh :-) )
1. Build up a "ramp" just before ONE of the ports using tape.
2. Fly and note any differences.
3. Add some tape to before the port on the other side.
4. Fly and note any differences.
I am assuming that there is a small amount of "high pressure" building up
above the static port.
The other thing I plan to do is compare altitude with that of another RV
flying near me at the same speed and height. I am suspecting they will read
the same altitude BELOW 140kts and I will read LOWER and ABOVE 140kts. If
this occurs, to me this will confirm the port being the problem.
Does this seem to make sense to the rest of you???
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
| server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryRobertHelming
| Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 6:09 PM
| To: rv-list@matronics.com
| Subject: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
|
| --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
| <lhelming@sigecom.net>
|
| I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed
| of my RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm,
| in level flight, at same altitude each run, recording the direction and
| Dynon and Van's ASI reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed
| the TAS using Horton's TrueAirSpeedCALC excel sheet. I did this series
| of three tests at rpm settings of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI
| error factor ranged from -18 kts at 2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
|
| I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a
| column of water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct
| and confirmed by ATC with transponder testing.
|
| So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or
| somehow in my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from
| anyone that has ideas or suggestions.
|
| Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI
| indicates. ((:- }
|
|
|
|
|
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: What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
That's because the 480 has a VOR/ILS built in.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DonVS
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
--> RV-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
This is almost correvt. A Garmin 480 is certified for primary nav and
needs
no "land based backup".
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Chuck:
You may be declairing the death of VORs a little early. True in 10, 20,
50
years VORs may be phased out. Who knows? As we all know the GPS is
superior
in many ways to a VOR. However..
Your RV is not legal for IFR with an IFR GPS alone (Ref. Blue Mountain
Avionics and FARs).
I assume you are talking about IFR flight. I would agree for VFR a VOR
is
not needed with a GPS; However, before you pat yourself on the back for
declaring the death of VORs, you should consider an RV is not legal for
IFR
with an IFR GPS alone. Read the Regs., experimental aircraft are not
exempt
from having NAV equipment suitable for ground (GROUND) stations to be
used.
Yes certified aircraft may get away with certifying IFR without a VOR
(but
dont know of any); Check the operation limitations for an experimental,
FAR
91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the ground (GROUND)
facilities to be used. You require one ground based NAV unit and there
is no
exemption at this time. The airway system is still the basis in the USA
and
is based on VORs.
>
>
>
>From: Chuck <chuck515tigger@yahoo.com> Subject: What's a "VOR" ???
> RV-List message posted by: Chuck <chuck515tigger@yahoo.com>
>
>Hey I ain't seen any good flamin' for awhile, so I'll see what I can
stir
up....
>
>VOR's are extinct! Yep they went the way of covered wagons,
revolvers,
and startin' >fires with flint. EVERYONE is using GPS, pilotage and
dead-reckoning. Heck a'doodle >lining up 'dem cross hairs is for
Sissies,
student pilots, and folks who can't afford 100 >bucks for a hand-held
GPS
that'll get you darn near anywheres, anytime, anyhow ('cept >watch out
for
those F-18's when ya' blow through one of 'dem darn alphabet-soup
>areas).
>
>There, that ought to do it. Nomex britches on...
>
>Chuck
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: What's a "VOR" ??? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
Wrong!! Although there is a vor/ils built in to the 480 the gps portion is
certified without the requirement to hook up or use them. It is certified
(and it is the only unit that is under TSO C 146a levels 1,2,3) This is why
it is stand alone. The need for ground based equipment does not apply to
devices certified under C146a. Read it before you come back with flames (g)
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
That's because the 480 has a VOR/ILS built in.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DonVS
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
--> RV-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
This is almost correvt. A Garmin 480 is certified for primary nav and
needs
no "land based backup".
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Chuck:
You may be declairing the death of VORs a little early. True in 10, 20,
50
years VORs may be phased out. Who knows? As we all know the GPS is
superior
in many ways to a VOR. However..
Your RV is not legal for IFR with an IFR GPS alone (Ref. Blue Mountain
Avionics and FARs).
I assume you are talking about IFR flight. I would agree for VFR a VOR
is
not needed with a GPS; However, before you pat yourself on the back for
declaring the death of VORs, you should consider an RV is not legal for
IFR
with an IFR GPS alone. Read the Regs., experimental aircraft are not
exempt
from having NAV equipment suitable for ground (GROUND) stations to be
used.
Yes certified aircraft may get away with certifying IFR without a VOR
(but
dont know of any); Check the operation limitations for an experimental,
FAR
91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the ground (GROUND)
facilities to be used. You require one ground based NAV unit and there
is no
exemption at this time. The airway system is still the basis in the USA
and
is based on VORs.
>
>
>
>From: Chuck <chuck515tigger@yahoo.com> Subject: What's a "VOR" ???
> RV-List message posted by: Chuck <chuck515tigger@yahoo.com>
>
>Hey I ain't seen any good flamin' for awhile, so I'll see what I can
stir
up....
>
>VOR's are extinct! Yep they went the way of covered wagons,
revolvers,
and startin' >fires with flint. EVERYONE is using GPS, pilotage and
dead-reckoning. Heck a'doodle >lining up 'dem cross hairs is for
Sissies,
student pilots, and folks who can't afford 100 >bucks for a hand-held
GPS
that'll get you darn near anywheres, anytime, anyhow ('cept >watch out
for
those F-18's when ya' blow through one of 'dem darn alphabet-soup
>areas).
>
>There, that ought to do it. Nomex britches on...
>
>Chuck
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: | Re: Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance |
--> RV-List message posted by: Derrick Aubuchon <n184da@volcano.net>
The typical edge distance formula is twice the diameter of the bolt,,
that's were the 5/8" distance originates (5/16 x 2).
So if you drilled out to a 1/2' bolt, the required edge distance
would be at least 1" from center to edge.
Of course, there are exceptions in certain applications which call
for even more, but these are usually related to a specific installation.
Call Vans.
Derrick L. Aubuchon
RV-4: N184DA
Jackson/Westover -Amador County (O70)
n184da@volcano.net
> --> RV-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
>
> What did Vans recommend? That's what I would follow.
> I would call (phone, not email) and make sure they understand
> the situation. There's a fix for everything. You may not
> like it but it will work.
>
> On 05/31 8:29, Jeff Orear wrote:
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
>>
>> Group:
>>
>> I need to get some professional guidance, or maybe even therapy on
>> this one.
>>
>> Van's indicates that you must have at least 5/8" distance from the
>> center of the 5/16" bolt hole in the rear spar attach to the edge
>> of all aspects of the rear spar. No questions asked!
>>
>> The thing that confuses me (like alot of things confuse me lately)
>> is What difference does it make measuring from the center of the
>> hole? If I wanted to drill a 1/2" hole there, so long as have its
>> center 5/8" from the edge of the material, does that mean its
>> ok?? I think not!
>>
>> Doesn't the amount of material from the edge of the hole to the
>> edge of the material have more importance?
>>
>> I ask all this because while drilling my rear spar bolt holes, my
>> helper let the reamer drift and we ended up with an oblong hole.
>> So the plan is to ream out to a 3/8" hole. The center of my hole
>> is right in the center of both the rear wing spar attach point and
>> the fuselage attach point.
>>
>> I asked a question regarding another problem I have with my
>> incidence (I won't elaborate...I don't want to cry on my keyboard)
>> and the email response I got from Vans stated that I can't ream
>> out to a 3/8" hole because the edge distance won't work. If I
>> measure from where my holes are, even accounting for reaming out
>> to 3/8", I still would have 1/2" of material from the edge of the
>> hole to the edge of the spar attach point.. I am within 1/8" of
>> being on the centerline of the spar attach points.
>>
>> So what is the problem with that?? If I place a 5/16" hole with
>> its center 5/8" from the edge of the material, I have just less
>> than 1/2" of material from the edge of the hole to the edge of the
>> material. If I get that same amount only using a 3/8" bolt, whats
>> the harm in that?
>>
>> Sure would appreciate any clarification on that folks.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jeff Orear
>> RV6A N782P (reserved)
>> setting up the wings...while taking a few steps backward
>> Peshtigo, WI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Walter Tondu
> http://www.rv7-a.com
>
>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brad Oliver" <brad@rv7factory.com>
I've seen pictures, on other peoples sites, of a fluting diagram for the HS
ribs, but I don't have a diagram. I assume it is because many of the ribs
are now pre-drilled (and I will know where to flute), when previously they
were not. That correct?
Thanks,
Brad Oliver
RV-7 Emp
Livermore, CA
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! --
|