---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 12/18/05: 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:12 AM - Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? (Steve Sampson) 2. 05:43 AM - RV8A for Sale (Mark & Gina Steffensen) 3. 05:51 AM - Cabin heat system 1" heat box What do you think about it? (Chopper 2) 4. 06:59 AM - MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid (Glen Matejcek) 5. 07:34 AM - Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid (Ed Anderson) 6. 07:54 AM - Re: FW: RV-4 for sale (Douglas Kohser) 7. 08:14 AM - Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? (Jeff Dowling) 8. 09:24 AM - Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? (Rob Prior (rv7)) 9. 09:52 AM - Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? (LessDragProd@aol.com) 10. 10:22 AM - Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? (Dan Beadle) 11. 10:27 AM - Re: Cabin heat system 1" heat box What do (Charlie Kuss) 12. 10:50 AM - Re: ATF as brake fluid was MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Charlie Kuss) 13. 11:13 AM - Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid (Tim Olson) 14. 11:38 AM - Re: Cabin heat system 1" heat box What do you think about it? (Chopper 2) 15. 11:54 AM - Re: DOT-5 Brake Fluid (Charlie Kuss) 16. 12:59 PM - Test, Ignore... (Matt Dralle) 17. 01:59 PM - Insurance and Brake Fluid (Ed Anderson) 18. 02:49 PM - Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid (Sam Buchanan) 19. 04:00 PM - ATF@-15C (Jerry2DT@aol.com) 20. 04:12 PM - Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid (Ed Anderson) 21. 04:39 PM - Re: ATF@-15C (Ed Anderson) 22. 04:54 PM - Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid (Kevin Horton) 23. 05:27 PM - Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid (Ed Anderson) 24. 07:30 PM - Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid (Charlie Kuss) 25. 08:14 PM - Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid (Sam Buchanan) 26. 08:44 PM - Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid (randall) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:12:37 AM PST US From: "Steve Sampson" Subject: Re: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? --> RV-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" Where is this 'new information' from VANS published? I would be interested to read what they have actually said. Thanks, Steve. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Horton" Subject: Re: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? > --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > > Van had to make a bunch of assumptions when he determined spar > bending loads vs gross weight. He only recommends engines up to the > weight of an Lycoming IO-360, so you can be sure that he assumed the > wing would be supporting no more than that engine, plus a Hartzell, > plus normally expected avionics and instruments. Adding weight in > the fuselage has a much more significant effect on spar bending loads > than adding fuel. > > I strongly recommend that anyone who has an engine/prop combination > that is heavier than a counterweighted IO-360 plus Hartzell should > not do aerobatics at greater than 1550 lb gross weight unless they > clear it with Van's. > > Kevin Horton > > On 17 Dec 2005, at 15:46, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote: > >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" >> >> >> License to abuse the plane? How about a license to add 250lbs to all >> weights we have been calculating? Seems that is now the case. >> Im no design engineer, but the manufacturer just gave me license to >> add >> another major chunk of weight in my fuse. I would say that's a pretty >> big deal. Oh, and lets not forget that this for the gross weight also. >> >> Mike >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway >> To: rv-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? >> >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" >> >>> Just my $0.02. I will be following Vans' published recommendations >> for >>> aerobatic weights. >> >> Ditto. I don't necessarily think it's a positive thing that this "new >> information" has come to light. It's not a license to abuse your >> aircraft. > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System > on behalf of the London Business School community. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > -- > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:43:55 AM PST US From: "Mark & Gina Steffensen" Subject: RV-List: RV8A for Sale --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark & Gina Steffensen" Lister's, Making room in my hanger for my soon to be completed RV10 forces the sale on my RV8A. Additional Info on my web site: http://home.comcast.net/~miltonlax1/RV8A.html Mark Steffensen Atlanta, GA Do not archive ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:51:50 AM PST US From: "Chopper 2" Subject: RV-List: Cabin heat system 1" heat box What do you think about it? --> RV-List message posted by: "Chopper 2" There was some talk here the other day(I think RobRay) about reducing the heat lines from 2" to 1" and I couldn't resist showing what we did for my RV3. The intake is 1" scat and uses the regular manifold around the right exhaust pipe (with reduction adapters). The unique thing is the box we made up. It works great and can be regulated normally. Take a look at it here http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/m2mustang/album?.dirde0c&.srcph&store&prodid&.donehttp%3a//photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos If there is interest in this heating system we can make up any of the components for you. Comments? Thanks, Mike Kellems NX29AT Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:59:19 AM PST US From: "Glen Matejcek" Subject: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" HI Bob- Re: "300psi with someone in the cockpit pushing as reasonably ...if synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I wouldn't think that there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your torque converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc." You raise an interesting point. My question, and I'm sure we have some automotive experts on the list who can answer it, is does an automatic tranny only operate on positive pressure, or does some function rely on springs in the absence of pressure? The reason I ask is that while you can develop the pressure to apply the brakes when your ATF has turned to peanut butter, will they release fully when you get off the pedals? Glen Matejcek aerobubba@earthlink.net ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:34:42 AM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: Re: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" Here is a quote from a Canadian friend who tried ATF in his brakes. I tried using ATF, as I'd also read good reports on it, however recently I had to fill the system after changing the tires & brakes and found that it was impossible to fill the system at -15C, so with great difficulty I purged and flushed the ATF out of the system and am now using DOT5. ATF may be suitable for use in warmer climates, but didn't cut it up here in the frozen north. not that may of us are "blessed" with -15C weather (thankfully), but might be a factor in your decision. Ed A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Matejcek" Subject: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid > --> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" > > > HI Bob- > > Re: "300psi with someone in the cockpit > pushing as reasonably ...if synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I > wouldn't think that > there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your torque > converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc." > > You raise an interesting point. My question, and I'm sure we have some > automotive experts on the list who can answer it, is does an automatic > tranny only operate on positive pressure, or does some function rely on > springs in the absence of pressure? The reason I ask is that while you can > develop the pressure to apply the brakes when your ATF has turned to peanut > butter, will they release fully when you get off the pedals? > > Glen Matejcek > aerobubba@earthlink.net > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:54:32 AM PST US From: "Douglas Kohser" Subject: RE: RV-List: FW: RV-4 for sale --> RV-List message posted by: "Douglas Kohser" It looks like an agreement was reached this morning for this plane. Consider it sold....... do not archive > [Original Message] > From: Douglas Kohser > To: > Date: 12/17/05 7:36:14 AM > Subject: RV-List: FW: RV-4 for sale > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Douglas Kohser" > > > I'm posting this for a friend of a friend. It is located in the Atlanta, GA area. I'm not sure but there might even be some tools involved. O time on engine since overhaul. I believe the engine is 160 HP, but not positive. Contact Jere as listed below for more information. > > Douglas Kohser > dckoh@mindspring.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jere Rosser > To: Doug Kohser > Subject: Charlie,s RV-4 > > > RV-4 airframe 90% completed, overhauled 0-320 with Prince Prop, all VFR instruments, Panel Mount GPS(Garmin), Transponder with Mode C, Com, and Antennae. All support equipment included, tech data and etc. Have to sell due to poor health. $21,000.00. Contact Jere Rosser at 770-592-1943. > > > What do you think Doug? > Jere > > > Let fate take it's course directly to your email. > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:46 AM PST US From: "Jeff Dowling" Subject: Re: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" Just a quick question. How many guys are out there pulling 6 g's? I'll bet most aren't pulling more than 4, which gives a nice margin of safety on structural limits if you may have somehow overloaded your plane. do not archive Shemp/Jeff Dowling RV-6A, N915JD 235 hours Chicago/Louisville ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" Subject: RE: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? > --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" > > On 12:46:18 2005-12-17 "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" > wrote: >> License to abuse the plane? How about a license to add 250lbs to all >> weights we have been calculating? Seems that is now the case. >> Im no design engineer, but the manufacturer just gave me license to >> add another major chunk of weight in my fuse. I would say that's a >> pretty big deal. Oh, and lets not forget that this for the gross >> weight also. > > This is exactly why armchair engineers should resign themselves to sitting > in their armchairs. > > Van's wording, as reported in the original email, says nothing about being > able to add weight to your fuselage, and nothing about increasing overall > gross weight. It definitely does not say that you can add 250lb to all of > the weights you've been calculating. > > Van has given you nothing. All you have is the word of someone on the > RV-List who claims to have talked to Van (*), and claims that we can > magically carry full fuel into an aerobatic flight when previously that > was > believed to be unwise. > > Until you have *in writing from Van*, a statement that you can add 250lb > to > your fuselage, or to your wings while doing acro, I suggest that you > accept > the numbers you were given when you bought your kit. There is no free > lunch and these airplanes are as safe as they are because people aren't > pushing them to their limits on every flight. > > If you want to magically believe that your airplane just got 10% stronger > overnight, that's your decision. > > -Rob > > * - Not to say that the original poster didn't talk to Van, or that this > wasn't what Van said. Just a word to the wise that you should take > everything you read on the 'net with a grain of salt unless it's backed up > with some proof. > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:24:54 AM PST US From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" Subject: Re: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" On 16:49:21 2005-12-17 Jerry Springer wrote: > Had breakfast with Van this morning and he comfirmed he talked to > Randy about it. His only comment was that he hoped Randy posted it > correctly and knowing Randy I believe he did. Could you ask Van to put a notice of some kind on the Vans website that clarifies this? A "service bulletin" or "techical update" or something? If they're not willing to do that, then perhaps an explanation why not, if it's really something safe to do? I believe Van said it, but as any lawyer will tell you: if it's not in writing, it doesn't exist. If Van will stand behind it with a published written clarification, it makes me a lot more confident. -Rob ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:52:58 AM PST US From: LessDragProd@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? --> RV-List message posted by: LessDragProd@aol.com Hi All, A consideration on the aerobatic weight calculation. It could be a very bad assumption to say the wing spar will always fail first. A long time ago I used to do stress analysis. I made some basic assumptions about the RV-3 spar. I ran the calculations for the RV-3 standard dry wing, and for the optional 12.5 gallon tank in each wing. Again, this was a long time ago. I remember that the addition of 150 pounds in the wing allowed a 100 pound increase in the gross weight. However, I wasn't willing to assume that the wing spar was the first failure point. Since I didn't have a finite element analysis program available at that time to analyze the complete airframe, I took the following very simplistic approach. Van designed the RV-3 around a 170 pound pilot. Easy for him. Impossible for me. Assuming the pilots seat is the first point of failure, I did the following calculation. Standard pilot weight divided by my weight. This is the pilot weight factor. In my case, something less than 1. Multiple 6 G's by the pilot weight factor. Whichever number is less becomes your aircraft's aerobatic G factor. For my RV-3 with me in it, I had a 4 G RV-3. This is a phantasm fact I developed for myself and my RV-3. Since I haven't pulled more than 3 G's doing aerobatics, it worked for me. (I used to pull 4 G's regularly, so I wouldn't be the leader in "follow the leader". But that's another story.) Regards, Jim Ayers Phantasm - Something that doesn't exist, but seems real in the mind. RV-3 sn 50 N47RV In a message dated 12/18/2005 8:17:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, shempdowling2@earthlink.net writes: --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" Just a quick question. How many guys are out there pulling 6 g's? I'll bet most aren't pulling more than 4, which gives a nice margin of safety on structural limits if you may have somehow overloaded your plane. do not archive Shemp/Jeff Dowling RV-6A, N915JD 235 hours Chicago/Louisville ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:22:47 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? From: "Dan Beadle" --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" Interesting thoughts. I too would have a similar derating based on pilot weight (fewer pilots fit the 170# model). I wonder where the point of failure is for the seat loading in the original design. Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LessDragProd@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel? --> RV-List message posted by: LessDragProd@aol.com Hi All, A consideration on the aerobatic weight calculation. It could be a very bad assumption to say the wing spar will always fail first. A long time ago I used to do stress analysis. I made some basic assumptions about the RV-3 spar. I ran the calculations for the RV-3 standard dry wing, and for the optional 12.5 gallon tank in each wing. Again, this was a long time ago. I remember that the addition of 150 pounds in the wing allowed a 100 pound increase in the gross weight. However, I wasn't willing to assume that the wing spar was the first failure point. Since I didn't have a finite element analysis program available at that time to analyze the complete airframe, I took the following very simplistic approach. Van designed the RV-3 around a 170 pound pilot. Easy for him. Impossible for me. Assuming the pilots seat is the first point of failure, I did the following calculation. Standard pilot weight divided by my weight. This is the pilot weight factor. In my case, something less than 1. Multiple 6 G's by the pilot weight factor. Whichever number is less becomes your aircraft's aerobatic G factor. For my RV-3 with me in it, I had a 4 G RV-3. This is a phantasm fact I developed for myself and my RV-3. Since I haven't pulled more than 3 G's doing aerobatics, it worked for me. (I used to pull 4 G's regularly, so I wouldn't be the leader in "follow the leader". But that's another story.) Regards, Jim Ayers Phantasm - Something that doesn't exist, but seems real in the mind. RV-3 sn 50 N47RV In a message dated 12/18/2005 8:17:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, shempdowling2@earthlink.net writes: --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" Just a quick question. How many guys are out there pulling 6 g's? I'll bet most aren't pulling more than 4, which gives a nice margin of safety on structural limits if you may have somehow overloaded your plane. do not archive Shemp/Jeff Dowling RV-6A, N915JD 235 hours Chicago/Louisville ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 10:27:45 AM PST US From: Charlie Kuss you think about it? Subject: Re: RV-List: Cabin heat system 1" heat box What do you think about it? --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss you think about it? At 08:51 AM 12/18/2005, you wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "Chopper 2" > >There was some talk here the other day(I think RobRay) about reducing the >heat lines from 2" to 1" and I couldn't resist showing what we did for my >RV3. The intake is 1" scat and uses the regular manifold around the >right exhaust pipe (with reduction adapters). The unique thing is the box >we made up. It works great and can be regulated normally. Take a >look at it here >http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/m2mustang/album?.dirde0c&.srcph&store&prodid&.donehttp%3a//photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos >If there is interest in this heating system we can make up any of the >components for you. Comments? Thanks, Mike Kellems NX29AT >Do Not Archive Mike Does this box have an exhaust port to allow the heated air to escape when cabin heat is not desired? Please add another photo showing the bottom of the unit. Charlie Kuss PS I like your rather ingenious conversion of rear FI servo to Fwd servo. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 10:50:53 AM PST US From: Charlie Kuss (Hydraulic) Fluid Subject: Re: RV-List: ATF as brake fluid was MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss (Hydraulic) Fluid At 09:57 AM 12/18/2005, you wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" > > >HI Bob- > >Re: "300psi with someone in the cockpit >pushing as reasonably ...if synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I >wouldn't think that >there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your torque >converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc." > >You raise an interesting point. My question, and I'm sure we have some >automotive experts on the list who can answer it, is does an automatic >tranny only operate on positive pressure, or does some function rely on >springs in the absence of pressure? The reason I ask is that while you can >develop the pressure to apply the brakes when your ATF has turned to peanut >butter, will they release fully when you get off the pedals? > >Glen Matejcek >aerobubba@earthlink.net Glen, Automatic transmissions are all positive pressure devices. From experience, I can tell you that they don't like to work hard in extremely cold weather till the fluid comes up to operating temperature. This is why most vehicles use the radiator as an transmission oil cooler. The radiator also helps to speed heating of the ATF during cold weather. Comparison of ATF's use in the device it was intended for with use as a "disc" brake fluid is an apples to oranges comparison. I believe that the issue with poor cold temperature viscosity is POTENTIALLY valid. With drum brakes, the shoes are mechanically retracted by strong springs, which in turn drive the pistons of the wheel cylinders back. In a disc brake system, the ONLY retraction mechanisms are the suction caused by the retreating master cylinder piston and the slight stretching of the caliper O-ring. Cars and trucks use a square shouldered caliper bore O-ring. With the standard round O-rings used by Cleveland and Matco, I doubt that those O-rings would even offer any retraction due to O-ring stretch. The combination of thick fluid with this less than stellar retraction method of the caliper piston could lead to dragging brakes upon landing during cold weather operations. Not an issue to folks who live in Florida or California, but of great concern to Canadians, New Yorkers and folks from Wisconsin or Minnesota. I'm old enough to remember the disc brake problems that occurred with the Dodge Aspens and similar Plymouths. The Chrysler engineers thought that they could eliminate the problem of pistons sticking in the caliper due to rusting. They would also save weight and more importantly, money! The composite pistons were cheaper to make. Rusting occurs when owners don't flush their glycol based brake fluids every two years, like they should. When DOT 3 or 4 fluids are used for longer than this period of time in a humid climate, the fluid can no longer retain all of the absorbed moisture. Water precipitates out and sinks to the bottom of the master cylinder and caliper. The piston and iron caliper bore rust together, causing seized brakes. Chrysler's engineers made the piston out of a composite material, theorizing that it couldn't rust. However, the thermal expansion and contraction rates of the iron and the new piston material did not match. Additionally, although the composite pistons did not rust, they were relatively soft. The rust on the iron bore would embed itself into the pistons. The result was that the brake calipers were seizing while the cars were still under warranty. It occurred most during the winter months. I was living and working in Buffalo, NY at the time. The Great Lakes region of the country is both humid year round and cold during the winter. This area was a worst case scenario for this problem. This was one of those "better ideas" that wasn't. I rebuilt a lot of those calipers. My point here is that disc brake calipers can hang up quite easily from any number of causes. I have no experience using ATF as a brake fluid. I "would" however, expect the newer synthetic ATFs to be less affected by temperature extremes, than the mineral oil variety. I think someone using ATF who lives in a Northern climate could comment on this best. Charlie Kuss One repeatable experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:13:02 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson I'd be interested in finding out if the 2 cases now illustrated who had problems with ATF were using Synthetic ATF, or did they just use regular ATF. I know there is a significant difference between the 2. Looking at that previous link for the Mobil 1 synthetic ATF, I can't imagine that it would be a problem, although the anecdotal evidence is something to consider too. Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170 DO NOT ARCHIVE Ed Anderson wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" > > Here is a quote from a Canadian friend who tried ATF in his brakes. > > I tried using ATF, as I'd also read good reports on it, however recently I > had to fill the system after changing the tires & brakes and found that it > was impossible to fill the system at -15C, so with great difficulty I purged > and flushed the ATF out of the system and am now using DOT5. ATF may be > suitable for use in warmer climates, but didn't cut it up here in the frozen > north. > > not that may of us are "blessed" with -15C weather (thankfully), but might be a factor in your decision. > > Ed A > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Glen Matejcek" > To: > Subject: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid > > > >>--> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" >> >> >>HI Bob- >> >>Re: "300psi with someone in the cockpit >>pushing as reasonably ...if synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I >>wouldn't think that >>there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your torque >>converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc." >> >>You raise an interesting point. My question, and I'm sure we have some >>automotive experts on the list who can answer it, is does an automatic >>tranny only operate on positive pressure, or does some function rely on >>springs in the absence of pressure? The reason I ask is that while you can >>develop the pressure to apply the brakes when your ATF has turned to peanut >>butter, will they release fully when you get off the pedals? >> >>Glen Matejcek >>aerobubba@earthlink.net >> >> > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:38:23 AM PST US From: "Chopper 2" Subject: Re: RV-List: Cabin heat system 1" heat box What do you think about it? --> RV-List message posted by: "Chopper 2" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie Kuss you think about it?" >>There was some talk here the other day -- Do Not Archive > > Mike > Does this box have an exhaust port to allow the heated air to escape when > cabin heat is not desired? Please add another photo showing the bottom of > the unit. > Charlie Kuss > PS I like your rather ingenious conversion of rear FI servo to Fwd servo. > Charlie; Thanks, Yes it does port out the bottom - There will be a couple more pictures showing that later this afternoon. (if I can get a good enough angle through the lower cowl) - The whole thing is very compact and delivers a good deal of heat. Another builder is going to Y the system and put one of these on each side giving his passenger the option of adjusting his/her side. Mike > > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 11:54:54 AM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: RV-List: DOT-5 Brake Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss At 08:09 AM 12/17/2005, you wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "Ron Brown" > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" > >While on the subject of brake fluid; > >Does anybody out there have any experience with DOT-5 synthetic brake fluid? >Pros and Cons? > >Jim in Kelowna > >Jim, > >Nearly ALL Velocities use DOT5 since they feature Datsun/Nissan master >cylinders (which won't work with 5606) and MATCO calipers. Some folks have >converted the MATCOs to Clevelands. DOT5 works fine - just a bit expensive >at $30 a quart (NAPA). > >Ronnie Brown >N713MR - Velocity RG Jim, I've never used DOT 5 in an aircraft. I have used it in automobiles and motorcycles. Pros High dry boiling point 500 degrees F Does not burn Drop in replacement for 5606 No modifications needed. Because DOT 5 (not to be confused with DOT 5.1) is silicone based, it doesn't attack Buna N seals, like glycol based DOT 3, 4 or 5.1 fluids will. This makes it a drop in replacement for our RV brakes. It's high boiling point gives improved resistance to brake fade during extreme brake usage. Cons Does not absorb moisture Reduced lubrication qualities compared to both mineral oil based (5606, 83282 & ATF) fluids and glycol based (DOT 3, 4 & 5.1) fluids. Can entrain (cavitation) air bubbles with repeated rapid pedal application. (Probably not relevant to aircraft usage) Glycol based brake fluids absorb moisture. This is actually a good thing. DOT 3, 4 & 5.1 fluids with 2 to 4% moisture content will not freeze below -40F It is also why they must periodically be flushed and new fluid installed. After 1 to 2 years (depending on climate) the glycol becomes saturated with moisture. The moisture precipitates out and bad things start to happen. Since DOT 5 fluid will not absorb moisture, the following bad things will start to happen right away. Free water sinks to the low points of both the master cylinder and caliper. This free water will start to corrode the metals of these units. This causes premature failure of these units. Free water boils at 212F at sea level. It boils at even lower temps for you Rocky Mountain folks. Water boiling in your brake fluid (regardless of the fluid's chemistry) will cause brake fade at the boiling point of water (altitude dependent). Some auto racers use DOT 5 fluid. However, they flush the fluid weekly or monthly to remove moisture. I doubt that you want to chain yourself to this sort of maintenance schedule. My personal experiences with DOT 5 fluid when used like DOT 4 or 4 (flushed every year or two) is that it caused rapid wear of the master cylinder bore. The bore would bell mouth at the far end. Since motorcycle master cylinders are expensive, I went back to Super DOT 4 fluid like ATE Super Blue for my cars and bikes. See http://www.247-parts.com/leyline/ate_super_blue.shtml Glycol based brake fluids do not burn. They are gygroscopic, absorbing moisture which enters the system through the reservoir vent hole. They can only hold a finite amount of moisture in suspension. Because of this, they must be flushed out with clean, new fluid periodically. Glycol based fluids are not compatible with the Buna N O-rings found in our brake components. A switch would require replacement of all rubber parts with a material compatible with this fluid. There are several available. One of the best is 75 durometer Viton GLT. This material is compatible with all the above mentioned aviation brake fluids, ATF, DOT 5 and all the automotive glycol based brake fluids. You can use any of these fluids with it. It also has superior high temperature performance when compared to the stock Buna N (aka Nitrile) O-rings in our brakes. See operating range comparison below Buna N Viton GLT EPDM (used in cars) -35F to 248F -31F to 392F -65F to 302F See links below for source data http://www.marcorubber.com/buna.htm http://www.marcorubber.com/viton.htm Scroll down to 4th variant on page http://www.marcorubber.com/viton.htm EPDM is listed to compare Viton's capabilities with one of the most common materials used in automobiles. EPDM is NOT compatible with mineral based hydraulic fluids, such as 5606 or ATF. Interestingly, it is good for use with Skydrol. However Skydrol has draw backs which make it less than ideal for light aircraft use. (Toxic, not readily available at small airports, expensive, and burns at an elevated level) Your results with DOT 5 will vary depending on how humid your local climate is, and how often you flush out the old fluid with new (to remove any moisture present). Charlie Kuss ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 12:59:58 PM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: RV-List: Test, Ignore... --> RV-List message posted by: Matt Dralle Just a system test, please igore. Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 01:59:03 PM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" One factor you may want to consider is what if you use something other than hydraulic fluid approved for aircraft brakes and have a brake related accident? Would the typical insurance company cover the claim assuming they knew about the switch? I personally have my doubts. Ed Anderson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: Re: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid > --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" > > Here is a quote from a Canadian friend who tried ATF in his brakes. > > I tried using ATF, as I'd also read good reports on it, however recently I > had to fill the system after changing the tires & brakes and found that it > was impossible to fill the system at -15C, so with great difficulty I > purged > and flushed the ATF out of the system and am now using DOT5. ATF may be > suitable for use in warmer climates, but didn't cut it up here in the > frozen > north. > > not that may of us are "blessed" with -15C weather (thankfully), but might > be a factor in your decision. > > Ed A > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Glen Matejcek" > To: > Subject: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid > > >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" >> >> >> HI Bob- >> >> Re: "300psi with someone in the cockpit >> pushing as reasonably ...if synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I >> wouldn't think that >> there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your >> torque >> converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc." >> >> You raise an interesting point. My question, and I'm sure we have some >> automotive experts on the list who can answer it, is does an automatic >> tranny only operate on positive pressure, or does some function rely on >> springs in the absence of pressure? The reason I ask is that while you >> can >> develop the pressure to apply the brakes when your ATF has turned to >> peanut >> butter, will they release fully when you get off the pedals? >> >> Glen Matejcek >> aerobubba@earthlink.net >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 02:49:54 PM PST US From: Sam Buchanan Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan Ed Anderson wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" > > One factor you may want to consider is what if you use something other than > hydraulic fluid approved for aircraft brakes and have a brake related > accident? Would the typical insurance company cover the claim assuming they > knew about the switch? I personally have my doubts. Interesting point but I think one would have a hard time proving that there is any such thing as "approved" brake fluid in an aircraft with an experimental certificate. Using "Flintstone" brakes in an RV (they were common in early ultralights!) may not be very smart, but I don't think they would be considered illegal. Sam Buchanan ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 04:00:52 PM PST US From: Jerry2DT@aol.com Subject: RV-List: ATF@-15C --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com Todd, ATF freezing up at -15C (+5f)? This begs the question: Why do cars with auto transmissions operate at that temp? I experienced -20f in E. Washington once for a few days and cars operated fine once you got them started... Not to mention other kinds of hydraulic fluid... You'd think that if the ATF was frozen up, you would bust the tranny for sure. Not doubting, just wondering. Jerry Cochran Wilsonville, OR In a message dated 12/18/2005 12:14:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes: From: "Todd Bartrim" Subject: RE: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: "Todd Bartrim" Last year I switched to ATF, based on info from this list, where it seemed to have great reviews. Unfortunately due to a way too busy year I never had time to fly again until early this winter, but first I wanted to put on new tires and needed to purge the brake system. It was -15C on the day I was doing this (outside - no hangar) and there was absolutely no way I could get the ATF to flow in the brake lines. ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 04:12:00 PM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" >> >> One factor you may want to consider is what if you use something other >> than >> hydraulic fluid approved for aircraft brakes and have a brake related >> accident? Would the typical insurance company cover the claim assuming >> they >> knew about the switch? I personally have my doubts. > > > Interesting point but I think one would have a hard time proving that > there is any such thing as "approved" brake fluid in an aircraft with an > experimental certificate. > > Using "Flintstone" brakes in an RV (they were common in early > ultralights!) may not be very smart, but I don't think they would be > considered illegal. > > Sam Buchanan Probably right, Sam. Certainly not illegal from an FAA perspective, but figured if an insurance company wanted to show that you had access to readily available "aircraft" brake fluid and decided to used olive oil instead - the insure company lawyers could probably find some "reasonable person wouldn't..." type defense. Not going to worry about it myself, but just thought I would throw the thought on the fire {:>) Ed Anderson ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 04:39:58 PM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: Re: RV-List: ATF@-15C --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" Jerry, Todd posted this message to another list and I posted it to the RV list for information relative to someone having experience actually using the stuff. However, it was not that the ATF froze, it just became very, very thick and would not bleed from his lines at those temps. Perhaps auto transmission have relief valves to prevent damage at low temps until transmission temps warm up? Ed /a ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: RV-List: ATF@-15C > --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com > > > Todd, > > ATF freezing up at -15C (+5f)? This begs the question: Why do cars with > auto > transmissions operate at that temp? I experienced -20f in E. Washington > once > for a few days and cars operated fine once you got them started... Not to > mention other kinds of hydraulic fluid... You'd think that if the ATF was > frozen up, you would bust the tranny for sure. Not doubting, just > wondering. > > Jerry Cochran > Wilsonville, OR > > In a message dated 12/18/2005 12:14:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes: > > From: "Todd Bartrim" > Subject: RE: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Todd Bartrim" > > Last year I switched to ATF, based on info from this list, where it > seemed > to have great reviews. Unfortunately due to a way too busy year I never > had > time to fly again until early this winter, but first I wanted to put on > new > tires and needed to purge the brake system. It was -15C on the day I was > doing this (outside - no hangar) and there was absolutely no way I could > get > the ATF to flow in the brake lines. > > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 04:54:36 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 18 Dec 2005, at 19:11, Ed Anderson wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" > >>> >>> One factor you may want to consider is what if you use something >>> other >>> than >>> hydraulic fluid approved for aircraft brakes and have a brake >>> related >>> accident? Would the typical insurance company cover the claim >>> assuming >>> they >>> knew about the switch? I personally have my doubts. >> >> >> Interesting point but I think one would have a hard time proving that >> there is any such thing as "approved" brake fluid in an aircraft >> with an >> experimental certificate. >> >> Using "Flintstone" brakes in an RV (they were common in early >> ultralights!) may not be very smart, but I don't think they would be >> considered illegal. >> >> Sam Buchanan > > Probably right, Sam. Certainly not illegal from an FAA perspective, > but > figured if an insurance company wanted to show that you had access to > readily available "aircraft" brake fluid and decided to used olive oil > instead - the insure company lawyers could probably find some > "reasonable > person wouldn't..." type defense. > > Not going to worry about it myself, but just thought I would throw the > thought on the fire {:>) Let me see if I've got this right. You are flying a non-type certificated aircraft, powered by an auto-conversion engine (if I recall correctly), and you wonder whether an insurance company would find your choice of brake fluid unreasonable? Which clause in your policy are you afraid they might use? do not archive Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 05:27:39 PM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" >> >> Not going to worry about it myself, but just thought I would throw the >> thought on the fire {:>) > > Let me see if I've got this right. You are flying a non-type > certificated aircraft, powered by an auto-conversion engine (if I > recall correctly), and you wonder whether an insurance company would > find your choice of brake fluid unreasonable? Which clause in your > policy are you afraid they might use? > > do not archive > > Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) > Ottawa, Canada > http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 Ok, I think I see your point, Kevin {:>) Ed A ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 07:30:07 PM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss Ed, It wouldn't surprise me if an insurance company tried this ruse. However, I doubt that unless you bungled the brake installation, that they would have a case. Glycol based fluids are non flammable, have boiling points which are above the flash point of any Mil Spec mineral oil approved for light aircraft. Providing you flush the old fluid regularly (and document it in the log books), where is the performance downside? This area is no different than any other relating to OBAM aircraft. You could conceivably have a claim denied due to any number of "non stock" decisions you've made in regards to the building of your RV (or any other experimental aircraft type). I can understand why aircraft which fly into the flight levels might require a fluid which will not freeze at temperatures below -40F. If you feel you need that kind of performance and are willing to forgo using a non flammable brake fluid to get it, go ahead. After all, this IS experimental aviation. We are all allowed to use the materials we feel are best. I still haven't decided on what fluid I will use. It seems to me, the best way to short circuit this issue, is to make the insurance company aware of any and all modifications you've made to the stock design, prior to signing the contract. Honesty, after all, is the best policy. Charlie >--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" > >One factor you may want to consider is what if you use something other than >hydraulic fluid approved for aircraft brakes and have a brake related >accident? Would the typical insurance company cover the claim assuming they >knew about the switch? I personally have my doubts. > >Ed Anderson > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Anderson" >To: >Subject: Re: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid > > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" > > > > Here is a quote from a Canadian friend who tried ATF in his brakes. > > > > I tried using ATF, as I'd also read good reports on it, however recently I > > had to fill the system after changing the tires & brakes and found that it > > was impossible to fill the system at -15C, so with great difficulty I > > purged > > and flushed the ATF out of the system and am now using DOT5. ATF may be > > suitable for use in warmer climates, but didn't cut it up here in the > > frozen > > north. > > > > not that may of us are "blessed" with -15C weather (thankfully), but might > > be a factor in your decision. > > > > Ed A > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Glen Matejcek" > > To: > > Subject: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid > > > > > >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" > >> > >> > >> HI Bob- > >> > >> Re: "300psi with someone in the cockpit > >> pushing as reasonably ...if synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I > >> wouldn't think that > >> there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your > >> torque > >> converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc." > >> > >> You raise an interesting point. My question, and I'm sure we have some > >> automotive experts on the list who can answer it, is does an automatic > >> tranny only operate on positive pressure, or does some function rely on > >> springs in the absence of pressure? The reason I ask is that while you > >> can > >> develop the pressure to apply the brakes when your ATF has turned to > >> peanut > >> butter, will they release fully when you get off the pedals? > >> > >> Glen Matejcek > >> aerobubba@earthlink.net > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 08:14:06 PM PST US From: Sam Buchanan Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan Charlie Kuss wrote: > It seems to me, the best way to short circuit this issue, is to make the > insurance company aware of any and all modifications you've made to the > stock design, prior to signing the contract. Honesty, after all, is the > best policy. They will have to pry my experimental airworthiness certificate out of my cold, cold hands before I would ever agree to telling the insurance carrier of the mods in my RV-6! IT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!!!!!!!! The FAA and the laws of this land clearly state that I can have whatever mods I want in my experimental aircraft. If a carrier has a problem with this situation, they can do as many carriers have and stop insuring experimental aircraft. But if an insurer agrees to insure an experimental aircraft registered per the FARS, they have NO right to put restrictions on the airworthiness certificate that aren't placed there by the FARS, or to make insurability conditional on their interpretation of the FAA's experimental certificate. Having said that, I have no doubt that some insurers would LOVE to be able to dictate their ideas of how to manufacture a "safe" experimental aircraft. But this whole idea of letting our experimental aircraft slip toward a "standard" concept is scary. This is precisely what has happened in many European nations and why those builders must have every modified rivet approved by the powers that be. We must fight via every avenue available to us any effort to "standardize" our experimental aircraft! I am dismayed by the reports we have seen on this list of DAR's or FAA inspectors that want to add "their" pet requirements to the registration process. If we sit idly by and let busy-body inspectors or insurers begin enforcing personal modifications to the FARS as they see fit, we are well on our way to seeing the tremendous freedoms we possess under the experimental certification disappear. There.......I feel better............. Sam Buchanan ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 08:44:31 PM PST US From: "randall" Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid --> RV-List message posted by: "randall" How is this different than using a non-"approved" (by Lycoming) engine/prop combination? I wouldn't worry. Randall Henderson RV-6 PS. I know ZIP about brake fluid. Just commenting on the "insurance/approved" part of it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid > --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" > > One factor you may want to consider is what if you use something other than > hydraulic fluid approved for aircraft brakes and have a brake related > accident? Would the typical insurance company cover the claim assuming they > knew about the switch? I personally have my doubts. > > Ed Anderson > >