Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:04 AM - Re: first flight (RAS)
2. 04:32 AM - Re: OAT Probe location (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
3. 05:08 AM - Re: OAT Probe location (rveighta)
4. 05:09 AM - Re: OAT Probe location (Alex Peterson)
5. 06:07 AM - Re:engine break- in / no fairings (Dale Ensing)
6. 07:33 AM - Re: OAT Probe location (Jeff Dowling)
7. 07:34 AM - Injector Balancing (Chuck Jensen)
8. 08:15 AM - Re: Injector Balancing (Scott Bilinski)
9. 08:55 AM - Re: OAT Probe location (sportav8r@aol.com)
10. 08:59 AM - Re: OAT Probe location (sportav8r@aol.com)
11. 09:37 AM - Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR (Knicholas2@aol.com)
12. 10:16 AM - Re: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR (Chuck Jensen)
13. 10:48 AM - Re: first flight (Hull, Don)
14. 10:52 AM - Re: first flight (GMC)
15. 10:57 AM - Re: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR (sportav8r@aol.com)
16. 11:14 AM - Re: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR (Ron Lee)
17. 12:29 PM - Re: OAT Probe location (Chris W)
18. 01:07 PM - Re: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR (Dale Ensing)
19. 01:25 PM - Re: first flight (Sam Buchanan)
20. 01:36 PM - Re: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR (Ed Bundy)
21. 01:51 PM - Re: OAT Probe location (BELTEDAIR@aol.com)
22. 02:09 PM - Re: first flight (linn walters)
23. 03:16 PM - Re: first flight (Sam Buchanan)
24. 04:10 PM - Re: OAT Probe location (Kevin Horton)
25. 05:43 PM - ()
26. 06:07 PM - Re: OAT Probe location "as it relates to cabin cooling" (Bill Schlatterer)
27. 06:17 PM - Re: first flight (Alex Peterson)
28. 06:51 PM - Re: first flight (Jerry Springer)
29. 07:23 PM - fresh engines and new airplanes (Sam Buchanan)
30. 08:07 PM - Re: fresh engines and new airplanes (Darrell Reiley)
31. 08:18 PM - Re: first flight (JOHN STARN)
32. 08:42 PM - Re: first flight (Jerry Springer)
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: first flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices@btinternet.com>
Hi,
It is in the Van's manual.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: first flight
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
>> I seriously suffer from RVgrin, we broke through the magic 200MPH this
>> afternoon on the second flight. This is without wheelpants or leg
>> fairings.
>> It is recommended to fly without if you use factory new engines.
>
> Why? It seems like one would want to run the engine as cool as possible
> when breaking it in. Flying without fairings will run the engine hotter.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6A N66AP 641 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
>
>
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: | OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Anywhere in the wing root works.
Mine just hang in there strapped to a wire bundle
NACA inlet was 8degF high for me too.
Mike
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rveighta
Subject: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: rveighta <rveighta@earthlink.net>
Guys, when I was finishing up my RV-8A, I placed the OAT probe in the
NACA air duct. Never been happy with it -temps run too hot. Now that I'm
in the same building spot with my rv-8 I'm wondering where a better
location might be? Maybe in the leading edge of the wing/fuselage
fairing?
Appreciate any ideas......
Walt Shipley
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: | OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: rveighta <rveighta@earthlink.net>
Terry, I put mine in the left NACA vent and it runs around 10 degrees too hot.
Walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Watson <terry@tcwatson.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Walt,
As you know but other builders might not, the 8 & 8A have two NACA vents,
one in the fuselage and one in the bottom of the right wing. It has always
seemed to me that the one in the right wing would be a good place for the
OAT probe, so that's the direction I have run my probe wires. Which one did
you install it in in your 8A?
Terry
RV-8A finishing?
Seattle
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rveighta
Subject: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: rveighta <rveighta@earthlink.net>
Guys, when I was finishing up my RV-8A, I placed the OAT probe in the NACA
air duct. Never been happy with it -temps run too hot. Now that I'm in the
same building spot with my rv-8 I'm wondering where a better location might
be? Maybe in the leading edge of the wing/fuselage fairing?
Appreciate any ideas......
Walt Shipley
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: | OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> Mine is in the NACA inlet and reads 8-10 deg C high.
> Worthless location.
>
> Ron Lee
Just as another data point, mine is also in the NACA inlet, and reads dead
on in all conditions (thermistor based system). I think many of the errors
people see with NACA located temperature probes have to do with the location
of the reference junction (in the case of thermocouple based systems) or
from heat conducting out through the wiring to the unit from underneath the
panel. Even while idling in hot weather, my unit reads within 1 degree of
what the ATIS reads, and has done so consistently for four years. In flight
I see the same readings that others flying with me with probes in all sorts
of locations see. That is a big breeze blowing by from the prop compared to
leaks of hot air coming from the cowl hinges. Something other than those
leaks is causing the majority of the errors, IMO.
Alex Peterson
RV6A N66AP 641 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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:engine break- in / no fairings |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
Hi Alex,
It is recommended by Van and engine books/people to create drag and
therefore load on the engine during break-in. All the while watching the
temps of course.
Dale Ensing
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: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2@earthlink.net>
I put mine in the gear leg intersection fairing between the gear leg and
wing. Is pretty inconspicuous and seems to work fine. I coiled the extra
cable inside the fairing which makes it easy to remove.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
220 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "rveighta" <rveighta@earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-List: OAT Probe location
> --> RV-List message posted by: rveighta <rveighta@earthlink.net>
>
> Guys, when I was finishing up my RV-8A, I placed the OAT probe in the NACA
> air duct. Never been happy with it -temps run too hot. Now that I'm in the
> same building spot with my rv-8 I'm wondering where a better location
> might be? Maybe in the leading edge of the wing/fuselage fairing?
>
> Appreciate any ideas......
>
> Walt Shipley
>
>
>
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: | Injector Balancing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Anyone have a reference or recommendation for a shop that does injector
balancing, in this case for an IO-540 (in a Velocity, not RV or HRII).
I went through the process with GAMI but they ended up at a dead end.
One cylinder's injector was limit rich and another was limit lean, but
the spread was still above 1.5 gph...this after checking induction,
valve train lashing, spider, et al. GAMI says its 'unusual' but not
unheard of, even though there is nothing specifically wrong with the
engine.
So, I'm looking for a shop that I can go to that will put hands-on to
double check everything and come up with an injector solution.
Currently, I run with 2 cylinders LOP and the other 4 ROP (per GRT
EIS/EFIS). It works but it's not right. Suggestions?
Chuck
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: Injector Balancing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Air Flow Performance can make the injector nozzles for you, I would think.
They made some custom ones for me, I think they were about 15 bucks a
piece. They have a flow bench which means they can make anything you need.
http://www.airflowperformance.com/
At 10:32 AM 7/26/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
>
>Anyone have a reference or recommendation for a shop that does injector
>balancing, in this case for an IO-540 (in a Velocity, not RV or HRII).
>I went through the process with GAMI but they ended up at a dead end.
>One cylinder's injector was limit rich and another was limit lean, but
>the spread was still above 1.5 gph...this after checking induction,
>valve train lashing, spider, et al. GAMI says its 'unusual' but not
>unheard of, even though there is nothing specifically wrong with the
>engine.
>
>So, I'm looking for a shop that I can go to that will put hands-on to
>double check everything and come up with an injector solution.
>Currently, I run with 2 cylinders LOP and the other 4 ROP (per GRT
>EIS/EFIS). It works but it's not right. Suggestions?
>
>Chuck
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Agree. My installation (RV-6A) suffers the same drawbacks. I did some experimentation
awhile back (should be in the archives) which demonstrated that part
of the temp rise was from conducted heat through the cowl (boundary-layer air
picking up heat by passing over the cowl) and part was actual leakage of heated
air through the piano hinge junction between upper and lower cowl halves. What
REALLY peeved me was the realization that no only were my OAT's artificially
high and therefore almost worthless, but that the vent air I was relying on
for cockpit cooling was being bumped up about 8 degrees F over what should be
available from adiabatic cooling at altitude. Pilot and passenger comfort was
suffering (and still does). There is no easy way to plumb fresh air to an RV
cockpit that avoids both pre-heating and CO risk... there are ways, but no easy
ones that I can see. At least the wiring of an OAT probe in a suitable location
is not as much of a hassle as routing long len
gths of SCAT from a wing.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Mine is in the NACA inlet and reads 8-10 deg C high.
Worthless location.
Ron Lee
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: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
My experimentation included reading OAT from an independent, remote thermometer
mounted outside under the wing for one flight, and in the outlet for cabin cooling
air for another flight. It's not just heat seeping into the thermistor
probe in the NACA inlet (which has no "reference junction," by the way, since
it is not a thermocouple), as mine is amply insulated from the rear with expandable
urethane foam insulation... the air coming out of the freash air vent is
actually a measured 8 degrees F hotter than ambient. It's a sad but true data
point.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Peterson <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> Mine is in the NACA inlet and reads 8-10 deg C high.
> Worthless location.
>
> Ron Lee
Just as another data point, mine is also in the NACA inlet, and reads dead
on in all conditions (thermistor based system). I think many of the errors
people see with NACA located temperature probes have to do with the location
of the reference junction (in the case of thermocouple based systems) or
from heat conducting out through the wiring to the unit from underneath the
panel. Even while idling in hot weather, my unit reads within 1 degree of
what the ATIS reads, and has done so consistently for four years. In flight
I see the same readings that others flying with me with probes in all sorts
of locations see. That is a big breeze blowing by from the prop compared to
leaks of hot air coming from the cowl hinges. Something other than those
leaks is causing the majority of the errors, IMO.
Alex Peterson
RV6A N66AP 641 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: | Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR |
--> RV-List message posted by: Knicholas2@aol.com
Ok, I am having a brain cramp. I know that for IFR, the pitot-static
system and transponder have to be calibrated and certified every 24 months.
Does this have to be done for strictly VFR flying?
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
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: | Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Nope. For VFR, you just need an engine and two wings. Need a radio to
go into Class C and D and a radio/transponder into Class B.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Knicholas2@aol.com
Subject: RV-List: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR
--> RV-List message posted by: Knicholas2@aol.com
Ok, I am having a brain cramp. I know that for IFR, the pitot-static
system and transponder have to be calibrated and certified every 24
months.
Does this have to be done for strictly VFR flying?
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Hull, Don" <Donald.C.Hull@nasa.gov>
I think there may be a misunderstanding here...he was talking about wheel
pants and leg fairings, not the cowling. The engine probably would run hot
without the cowling...I know on the ground it would. But flying without
wheel fairings shouldn't affect the engine temperatures significantly.
Don Hull
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex Peterson
Subject: RE: RV-List: first flight
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
--> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> I seriously suffer from RVgrin, we broke through the magic 200MPH this
> afternoon on the second flight. This is without wheelpants or leg
> fairings. It is recommended to fly without if you use factory new
> engines.
Why? It seems like one would want to run the engine as cool as possible
when breaking it in. Flying without fairings will run the engine hotter.
Alex Peterson
RV6A N66AP 641 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: first flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: GMC <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
Yes it is, see RV-6 manual page 15-4
George in Langley BC
Do not archive
RAS wrote:
>Hi,
>
>It is in the Van's manual.
>
>Marcel
>
>
>
>>>I seriously suffer from RVgrin, we broke through the magic 200MPH this
>>>afternoon on the second flight. This is without wheelpants or leg
>>>fairings.
>>>It is recommended to fly without if you use factory new engines.
>>>
>>>
>>Why? It seems like one would want to run the engine as cool as possible
>>when breaking it in. Flying without fairings will run the engine hotter.
>>
>>
>>
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: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
I believe if you have a transponder in the plane, it's supposed to be "on" whenever
in flight,and if it's being used, the calibration is also a requirement (the
static/encoder part, anyway). Having the transponder is optional, but using
it if you have it isn't. Others will no doubt correct that idea if it's wrong.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Jensen <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Nope. For VFR, you just need an engine and two wings. Need a radio to
go into Class C and D and a radio/transponder into Class B.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Knicholas2@aol.com
Subject: RV-List: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR
--> RV-List message posted by: Knicholas2@aol.com
Ok, I am having a brain cramp. I know that for IFR, the pitot-static
system and transponder have to be calibrated and certified every 24
months.
Does this have to be done for strictly VFR flying?
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
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: | Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
No time to look it up but I suspect that if you USE a transponder
it needs to be checked.
Ron Lee
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: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
>... the air coming out of the freash air vent is actually a measured 8 degrees
F hotter than ambient.
>
Really?! Out of curiosity, what air speed was that measurement taken at?
--
Chris W
Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
http://thewishzone.com
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: Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
Kim,
If you are asking about a Mode C transponder, yes the altitude reporting
must be checked/calibrated every two years by a certified technician? If not
mode C, I think the effective output of the transponder must still be
checked for position reporting.
Dale Ensing
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: first flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Hull, Don wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Hull, Don" <Donald.C.Hull@nasa.gov>
>
> I think there may be a misunderstanding here...he was talking about wheel
> pants and leg fairings, not the cowling. The engine probably would run hot
> without the cowling...I know on the ground it would. But flying without
> wheel fairings shouldn't affect the engine temperatures significantly.
> Don Hull
As I understand the deal, the reason for flying without wheelpants and
fairings when testing a new RV with a new engine is so the engine can be
broken in properly. Most engine-types agree that the best way to seat
the piston rings is with the use of high rpm under light load. The point
is to get rpm up while keeping CHT's down. This allows the rings to
"scuff-in" without heat-stressing the cylinders. This is also the reason
that some engine manuals suggest periods of high rpm interspersed with
lower rpm to prevent the cylinders from overheating.
However, if this routine if followed with a brand new RV with all
fairings installed, the pilot will quickly find himself operating the
plane way up in the speed range. This is not good for the first few
flights! Airspeed should be gradually increased during subsequent
flights as the airframe is proven to have no problems with high airspeed.
So the requirements of a new engine and a new airframe have opposing
goals. The best way to run the engine at high rpm and keep airspeed down
is to fly without wheelpants and fairings.
By the way, an RV that can hit 200mph in level flight without wheelpants
and fairings is a very impressive RV!!!! ;-)
Sam Buchanan
=========================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex Peterson
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: first flight
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
> --> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
>>I seriously suffer from RVgrin, we broke through the magic 200MPH this
>>afternoon on the second flight. This is without wheelpants or leg
>>fairings. It is recommended to fly without if you use factory new
>>engines.
>
>
> Why? It seems like one would want to run the engine as cool as possible
> when breaking it in. Flying without fairings will run the engine hotter.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6A N66AP 641 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
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: | Need FAR update - pitot-static, transponder in VFR |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Bundy" <ebundy@speedyquick.net>
This is one of the most misunderstood areas that I run into when giving a
BFR.
You *absolutely* need a transponder w/mode C to operate in Class C airspace.
Also to operate above Class B or C within the lateral boundaries. Also
required within 30nm of a Class B airport even outside the B airspace (the
"veil"). Also necessary above 10,000' MSL everywhere. (unless at or below
2500 agl)
There are a lot of places you can't go without a mode C transponder, but you
don't HAVE to have one. If you do have one, you don't have to use it if not
in the above mentioned airspace. However, if you do have one, and you do
use it, it has to have been checked within the preceding 2 years.
There is no pitot-static test requirement for VFR flight.
Ed Bundy
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Nope. For VFR, you just need an engine and two wings. Need a radio to
go into Class C and D and a radio/transponder into Class B.
--> RV-List message posted by: Knicholas2@aol.com
Ok, I am having a brain cramp. I know that for IFR, the pitot-static
system and transponder have to be calibrated and certified every 24
months.
Does this have to be done for strictly VFR flying?
--
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: BELTEDAIR@aol.com
The temp rise may well be from air exiting the cowl openings and flowing back
along the fuselage to your air pickup. We relocated ours on top of the
fuselage aft of the antenna, aft of the slider limit. The inlets are oversized
for
climb cooling.
Jess
Belted Air
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: first flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Much as I hate to disagree with Sam, I'd like to make some points.
First, the best way to seat the rings is to get max pressure in the
cylinder. The rings aren't flat, and the high pressure forces the ring
to 'flatten' a little and thus seal better. That's as I understand it.
High RPMs aren't necessarily a requirement as much as a by-product of
the high pressures in the cylinder (which equates to more power) and may
be controlled by cranking in the pitch on a CS prop. On a FP prop, the
only thing you can do to keep the engine somewhat under redline
(depending on the pitch, of course) is to increase drag, which is (I'm
guessing here) why removal of the pants and gear fairings are
suggested. There is a caveat here. One of the byproducts of max power
is heat, and you should keep a close eye on the CHTs to prevent cooking
the cylinders. This means good baffling and enough airflow to keep max
CHTs in the 400 range. Oil temps are important to monitor also and
should be in the 170 to 220 (F) range.
I run the crap out of my O-360 in my Pitts ...... and I see 3200-3300 a
lot. My oil temps stay at the low end, 170 to 180 deg F. I don't know
what the CHTs or EGTs do (no instrumentation) so maybe ignorance is
bliss. What I did when breaking in the engine ..... the first and
second times ..... was full power leaned at something around 3000 ASL
and all cylinders (steel rings, chrome cylinders) seated in short time
.... about 8 hours. Hard to judge oil consumption since a lot is lost
through the inverted oil system and vent when doing really unusual
attitudes.
Hope this helps, rather than confuse! :-P
Linn
do not archive
Sam Buchanan wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>
>Hull, Don wrote:
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Hull, Don" <Donald.C.Hull@nasa.gov>
>>
>>I think there may be a misunderstanding here...he was talking about wheel
>>pants and leg fairings, not the cowling. The engine probably would run hot
>>without the cowling...I know on the ground it would. But flying without
>>wheel fairings shouldn't affect the engine temperatures significantly.
>>Don Hull
>>
>>
>
>
>As I understand the deal, the reason for flying without wheelpants and
>fairings when testing a new RV with a new engine is so the engine can be
>broken in properly. Most engine-types agree that the best way to seat
>the piston rings is with the use of high rpm under light load. The point
>is to get rpm up while keeping CHT's down. This allows the rings to
>"scuff-in" without heat-stressing the cylinders. This is also the reason
>that some engine manuals suggest periods of high rpm interspersed with
>lower rpm to prevent the cylinders from overheating.
>
>However, if this routine if followed with a brand new RV with all
>fairings installed, the pilot will quickly find himself operating the
>plane way up in the speed range. This is not good for the first few
>flights! Airspeed should be gradually increased during subsequent
>flights as the airframe is proven to have no problems with high airspeed.
>
>So the requirements of a new engine and a new airframe have opposing
>goals. The best way to run the engine at high rpm and keep airspeed down
>is to fly without wheelpants and fairings.
>
>By the way, an RV that can hit 200mph in level flight without wheelpants
>and fairings is a very impressive RV!!!! ;-)
>
>Sam Buchanan
>
>=========================
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex Peterson
>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: RV-List: first flight
>>
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
>>--> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I seriously suffer from RVgrin, we broke through the magic 200MPH this
>>>afternoon on the second flight. This is without wheelpants or leg
>>>fairings. It is recommended to fly without if you use factory new
>>>engines.
>>>
>>>
>>Why? It seems like one would want to run the engine as cool as possible
>>when breaking it in. Flying without fairings will run the engine hotter.
>>
>>Alex Peterson
>>RV6A N66AP 641 hours
>>Maple Grove, MN
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: first flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
linn walters wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
>
> Much as I hate to disagree with Sam, I'd like to make some points.
> First, the best way to seat the rings is to get max pressure in the
> cylinder. The rings aren't flat, and the high pressure forces the ring
> to 'flatten' a little and thus seal better. That's as I understand it.
> High RPMs aren't necessarily a requirement as much as a by-product of
> the high pressures in the cylinder (which equates to more power) and may
> be controlled by cranking in the pitch on a CS prop. On a FP prop, the
> only thing you can do to keep the engine somewhat under redline
> (depending on the pitch, of course) is to increase drag, which is (I'm
> guessing here) why removal of the pants and gear fairings are
> suggested. There is a caveat here. One of the byproducts of max power
> is heat, and you should keep a close eye on the CHTs to prevent cooking
> the cylinders. This means good baffling and enough airflow to keep max
> CHTs in the 400 range. Oil temps are important to monitor also and
> should be in the 170 to 220 (F) range.
<snip>
Linn, I think we are saying the same thing. Run the engine hard, keep
the cylinders from getting too hot, and fly without fairings to keep
airspeed in a reasonable range.
Sam Buchanan
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: OAT Probe location |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 26 Jul 2005, at 15:27, Chris W wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Chris W
> <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm@cox.net>
>
> sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> ... the air coming out of the freash air vent is actually a
>> measured 8 degrees F hotter than ambient.
>>
>>
> Really?! Out of curiosity, what air speed was that measurement
> taken at?
>
I'd also be interested to know how one measures the ambient
temperature so one can compare the output of the temp sensor to ambient.
At 170 kt TAS, the temperature increase due to ram rise would be
about 7 deg F. I.e, if you took the air coming in the NACA scoop,
and let it slow down so it is at rest with respect to the aircraft,
you would expect its temperature to be about 7 deg F hotter than the
ambient temperature. Just be glad you aren't racing for the
Unlimited Gold at Reno. At the speeds those guys are running, the
ram rise would be over 45 deg F, and the ambient temperature is
already pretty hot.
The ram rise in deg C is equal to the square of the TAS in kt divided
by 7592.
The ram rise in deg F is equal to the square of the TAS in mph
divided by 5587.
The amount of the ram rise sensed by the temperature sensor will
vary, depending on the probe's recovery factor. Good quality probes
supposedly have recovery factors of between 0.95 and 1, but some
probes may have lower recovery factors. The temperature measured by
the probe would be about:
IAT=OAT+K*(TAS
2/7592)
where IAT is the indicated air temperature reported by the probe, in
deg C
OAT is the actual ambient air temperature, in deg C,
K is the probe's recovery factor, and
TAS is the true airspeed in kt
You may be more familiar with the classical equation that relates ram
rise to Mach.
total air temperature/ambient air temperature = (1 + 0.2 * M
2), with
both temperatures expressed in either degrees Kelvin, or degrees
Rankin). Or,
OAT = (IAT + 273.15) / (1 + 0.2*K*M
2) - 273.15
where where IAT is the indicated air temperature reported by the
probe, in deg C,
OAT is the actual ambient air temperature, in deg C,
K is the probe's recovery factor, and
M is the Mach number.
The first time I saw the equation with TAS, I thought it must be an
approximation, as we are always told that ram rise is a function of
Mach. But, one day when I was bored, I dissected the equations and
found that the equation with TAS was mathematically equivalent to the
one with Mach.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: "" <rvpilot@access4less.net>
Linn is correct here. It's not necessarily high RPM that seats the rings, it"s
high manifold pressure. The higher MP forces the rings tighter against the cylinder
walls
and wears them in quicker. The object is to have the rings form their best seal
before a
layer of varnish forms on the Cyl. walls, at which point, further ring seating
effectively ceases.
For this reason, you should not go to high altitudes until break in is complete.
With
steel or Cerminil Cyls., break in is usually complete within 1 Hr. as evidenced
by a
stabilized oil consumption.
Bill Davis
rvpilot@access4less.net
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Much as I hate to disagree with Sam, I'd like to make some points.
First, the best way to seat the rings is to get max pressure in the
cylinder. The rings aren't flat, and the high pressure forces the ring
to 'flatten' a little and thus seal better. That's as I understand it.
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: | OAT Probe location "as it relates to cabin cooling" |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Perhaps an obvious question, but if the OAT is running 8-10 degrees hot,
does that infer that the air coming through the NACA duct for cabin cooling
is also 8 degrees hotter than ambient. If so, other than sheer volume it
would appear that a cold air intake in the front intake would be better for
passenger cooling. 8-10 degrees seems like a lot of difference in an
airplane without AC.
Is it worth the trouble to find a "cooler" intake area for cabin air? I fly
mostly in the South and it seems like cooling not heat is the issue most of
the time in this area.
Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ron Lee
Subject: Re: RV-List: OAT Probe location
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Mine is in the NACA inlet and reads 8-10 deg C high.
Worthless location.
Ron Lee
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: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
> I think there may be a misunderstanding here...he was talking about wheel
> pants and leg fairings, not the cowling. The engine probably would run
> hot
> without the cowling...I know on the ground it would. But flying without
> wheel fairings shouldn't affect the engine temperatures significantly.
> Don Hull
Flying without the wheel and gear fairings would be like flying a shallow
climb, and the engine will definitely run hotter. How much is hard to tell,
but it will be more than one would think. For the same power output (and
hence heat load, mixture being the same), the airspeed will be less, and
therefore less cooling air with no fairings. No way around it. Those who
have only flown overcooled training aircraft will have a hard time believing
the sensitivity of airspeed vs cooling in RV's. The -4's seem to have quite
a bit more cooling reserve than the other RV's, due in part to their higher
speeds for the same power.
Alex Peterson
RV6A N66AP 641 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: first flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
Alex Peterson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
>
>>I think there may be a misunderstanding here...he was talking about wheel
>>pants and leg fairings, not the cowling. The engine probably would run
>>hot
>>without the cowling...I know on the ground it would. But flying without
>>wheel fairings shouldn't affect the engine temperatures significantly.
>>Don Hull
>>
>>
>
>The -4's seem to have quite
>a bit more cooling reserve than the other RV's, due in part to their higher
>speeds for the same power.
>
>Alex Peterson
>RV6A N66AP 641 hours
>Maple Grove, MN
>
>
>
>
Alex I have to disagree with that. :-) I have a hard time getting oil
temps up to 160 unless it is
a 90 degree day, cylinder head temps run about 300-315 degrees in my
RV-6. But the biggest
thing I have to disagree about is a -4 being much faster than my -6 at a
given power setting.
Jerry
do not archive
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: | fresh engines and new airplanes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
rvpilot@access4less.net wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "" <rvpilot@access4less.net>
>
> Linn is correct here. It's not necessarily high RPM that seats the rings, it"s
> high manifold pressure. The higher MP forces the rings tighter against the cylinder
walls
> and wears them in quicker. The object is to have the rings form their best seal
before a
> layer of varnish forms on the Cyl. walls, at which point, further ring seating
effectively ceases.
> For this reason, you should not go to high altitudes until break in is complete.
With
> steel or Cerminil Cyls., break in is usually complete within 1 Hr. as evidenced
by a
> stabilized oil consumption.
Granted. But those of us with fixed-pitch props have to resort to higher
rpm in order to pull more manifold pressure.
I think we are getting hung up on semantics. The point I was making is
the engine should not be flown gingerly, it needs to develop a lot of
power (rpm or MP, whatever your particular engine/prop requires) in
order to rapidly and reliably seat the rings. You guys with the CS props
can load the engine at lower rpm, us folks with the cheap props have to
wind up our engines (2400-2600 rpm) to get high MP unless we are flying
at sea level.
That's why a lot of us fly our new planes with new engines without the
pants and fairings so breaking in the cylinders won't result in higher
than desired airspeed.
Sam Buchanan
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: fresh engines and new airplanes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
Sam,
You are correct...
Thanks for your input!
Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan
rvpilot@access4less.net wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: ""
>
> Linn is correct here. It's not necessarily high RPM that seats the rings, it"s
> high manifold pressure. The higher MP forces the rings tighter against the cylinder
walls
> and wears them in quicker. The object is to have the rings form their best seal
before a
> layer of varnish forms on the Cyl. walls, at which point, further ring seating
effectively ceases.
> For this reason, you should not go to high altitudes until break in is complete.
With
> steel or Cerminil Cyls., break in is usually complete within 1 Hr. as evidenced
by a
> stabilized oil consumption.
Granted. But those of us with fixed-pitch props have to resort to higher
rpm in order to pull more manifold pressure.
I think we are getting hung up on semantics. The point I was making is
the engine should not be flown gingerly, it needs to develop a lot of
power (rpm or MP, whatever your particular engine/prop requires) in
order to rapidly and reliably seat the rings. You guys with the CS props
can load the engine at lower rpm, us folks with the cheap props have to
wind up our engines (2400-2600 rpm) to get high MP unless we are flying
at sea level.
That's why a lot of us fly our new planes with new engines without the
pants and fairings so breaking in the cylinders won't result in higher
than desired airspeed.
Sam Buchanan
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A "Reiley Rocket"
N622DR (reserved)
---------------------------------
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: first flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Same engine/prop, same power....the -4 has a lot less frontal area.....if
the -4 is not faster there is something wrong with the -4. I don't have drag
numbers on either plane but I'll bet Kevin does. (would the F-104 be faster
than a A-6 with the same HP/thrust ?? . A-6: 9,300X2, 18,600 thrust = 644
MPH, F-104: 17,500 thrust= Mach 2)) Drag-weight (frontal area ?) KABONG
8*) Do Not Archive
> thing I have to disagree about is a -4 being much faster than my -6 at a
> given power setting.
>
> Jerry
> do not archive
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: first flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
I don't have drag numbers either I have actual experience. :) A couple
of -4s
I have flown along side of with matching engines and props I was
actually faster than they were.
Generally a -4 is about 3-4 mph faster than an equally equipped -6.
Most of the -6s I am
aware of have a hard time getting temps up in operating range. The -6
also has for all practical
purposes a shorter wing span due to the wider fuselage, what that has
to do with anything I
don't know. :-)
Jerry
do not archive
JOHN STARN wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
>
>Same engine/prop, same power....the -4 has a lot less frontal area.....if
>the -4 is not faster there is something wrong with the -4. I don't have drag
>numbers on either plane but I'll bet Kevin does. (would the F-104 be faster
>than a A-6 with the same HP/thrust ?? . A-6: 9,300X2, 18,600 thrust = 644
>MPH, F-104: 17,500 thrust= Mach 2)) Drag-weight (frontal area ?) KABONG
>8*) Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>>thing I have to disagree about is a -4 being much faster than my -6 at a
>>given power setting.
>>
>>Jerry
>>do not archive
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|