---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 05/31/05: 45 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:07:43 AM PST US From: Rick Galati Subject: RV-List: re: What's a "VOR" ??? --> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:42:17 AM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: RV-List: Rudder Riveting Question --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:08:55 AM PST US From: "LARRY ADAMSON" Subject: Re: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ??? --> RV-List message posted by: "LARRY ADAMSON" ----- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:34:28 AM PST US From: Grenwis@aol.com Subject: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:47:59 AM PST US From: "Andrew Barker" Subject: Re: RV-List: Question re: Tru Trak --> RV-List message posted by: "Andrew Barker" 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" Subject: RV-List: Question re: Tru Trak > --> RV-List message posted by: John Lawson > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:56:06 AM PST US From: CustomACProp@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:59:21 AM PST US From: "Glen Matejcek" Subject: RV-List: Firewall insulation --> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:19:09 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ??? From: "Jamie Painter" --> RV-List message posted by: "Jamie Painter" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:48:53 AM PST US From: "Paul Besing" Subject: RE: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ??? --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" 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" ----- 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:27 AM PST US From: Dave Bristol Subject: Re: RV-List: VOR Antenna limitations --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:01:31 AM PST US From: Knicholas2@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:34:43 AM PST US From: Dave Bristol Subject: Re: RV-List: poor radio xmit quality --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:40:57 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV-List: VOR Antenna limitations --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:48:04 AM PST US From: Paul Folbrecht Subject: Re: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ??? --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht Paul Besing wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:19:36 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance rates for RV's From: "GreenoL" --> RV-List message posted by: "GreenoL" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:55:40 AM PST US From: GMC Subject: Re: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ??? --> RV-List message posted by: GMC Jamie Painter wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "Jamie Painter" > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:10:37 AM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ??? --> RV-List message posted by: 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 Subject: What's a "VOR" ??? > RV-List message posted by: Chuck > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:14:22 AM PST US From: Jim Oke Subject: Re: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ??? --> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke 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" Subject: Re: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ??? > --> RV-List message posted by: "Jamie Painter" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:15:40 AM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: Re: VOR Antenna limitations --> RV-List message posted by: 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" > >Subject: Re: VOR Antenna limitations > RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:47:13 AM PST US From: sportav8r@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 Subject: Re: RV-List: VOR Antenna limitations --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:10:48 AM PST US From: "Matthew Brandes" Subject: RV-List: SOT: GPS/NAV Switch --> RV-List message posted by: "Matthew Brandes" (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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:05:58 PM PST US From: Paul Folbrecht Subject: Re: RV-List: SOT: GPS/NAV Switch --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht 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" > >(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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:11:40 PM PST US From: "DonVS" Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ??? --> RV-List message posted by: "DonVS" 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: 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 Subject: What's a "VOR" ??? > RV-List message posted by: Chuck > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:46:13 PM PST US From: Jim Wampler Subject: Re: RV-List: SOT: GPS/NAV Switch --> RV-List message posted by: Jim Wampler A great resource for avionics/electrical questions is the AeroElectric Connection . 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" > > (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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:05:36 PM PST US From: Wheeler North Subject: RV-List: induction tubes --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:22:03 PM PST US From: Paul Folbrecht Subject: RV-List: Sequence/timing of major tasks in QB kit (finishing/panel/engine)... --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:54:23 PM PST US From: "Marcus Cooper" Subject: RV-List: IO VS O-540s --> RV-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:02:12 PM PST US From: SCOTT SPENCER Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ??? --> RV-List message posted by: SCOTT SPENCER 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:19:58 PM PST US From: MLWynn@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:28:43 PM PST US From: Bob J Subject: Re: RV-List: IO VS O-540s --> RV-List message posted by: Bob J On 5/31/05, Marcus Cooper 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:11:27 PM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:47:49 PM PST US From: Dave Bristol Subject: Re: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol 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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:56:27 PM PST US From: "Wayne Glasser" Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: VOR Antenna limitations --> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Glasser" 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: Subject: RV-List: Re: VOR Antenna limitations > --> RV-List message posted by: > > > 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" > >> >Subject: Re: VOR Antenna limitations > >> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" > >> > >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:58:41 PM PST US From: "Stein Bruch" Subject: RE: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:31:49 PM PST US From: "Jeff Orear" Subject: RV-List: Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:30 PM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" 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" Subject: RE: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error > --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" > > 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:55:52 PM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: RV-List: Firewall insulation --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:22:27 PM PST US From: Walter Tondu Subject: Re: RV-List: Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance --> RV-List message posted by: Walter Tondu 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:37:27 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England LarryRobertHelming wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:44:22 PM PST US From: Dave Bristol Subject: Re: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol 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" > >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" >To: >Subject: RE: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error > > > > >>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" >> >>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" >> >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:46:24 PM PST US From: "James E. Clark" Subject: RE: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error --> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" 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" | | | 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:24:05 PM PST US From: "Ed Holyoke" Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ??? --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" 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" 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: 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 Subject: What's a "VOR" ??? > RV-List message posted by: Chuck > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:50:28 PM PST US From: "DonVS" Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ??? --> RV-List message posted by: "DonVS" 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" 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" 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: 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 Subject: What's a "VOR" ??? > RV-List message posted by: Chuck > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:57:58 PM PST US From: Derrick Aubuchon Subject: Re: RV-List: Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance --> RV-List message posted by: Derrick Aubuchon 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 > > 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" >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:52:19 PM PST US From: "Brad Oliver" Subject: RV-List: HS Rib Fluting --> RV-List message posted by: "Brad Oliver" 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