Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:50 AM - Cardiovascular problem (Glen Matejcek)
2. 06:00 AM - Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Glen Matejcek)
3. 06:32 AM - FW: H-6 Performance Numbers (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
4. 07:09 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Rob Prior (rv7))
5. 07:19 AM - Re: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 (Tim Olson)
6. 07:38 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Bruce Gray)
7. 07:40 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Olen Goodwin)
8. 07:42 AM - Re: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 (Bruce Gray)
9. 07:49 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (LessDragProd@aol.com)
10. 07:56 AM - GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service (Richard Reynolds)
11. 07:58 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Rob Prior (rv7))
12. 08:04 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (LessDragProd@aol.com)
13. 08:16 AM - Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service (Dan Checkoway)
14. 08:22 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Olen Goodwin)
15. 08:23 AM - Re: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 (John Huft)
16. 08:29 AM - Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service (Greg Young)
17. 08:31 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Ken Simmons)
18. 08:41 AM - Re: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 (Mickey Coggins)
19. 08:47 AM - Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service (Chuck Jensen)
20. 08:57 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Ken Simmons)
21. 09:33 AM - Flight Envelope (Vincent Welch)
22. 09:45 AM - Rate of climb at higher altitudes (Ron Lee)
23. 10:32 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Gordon or Marge Comfort)
24. 11:35 AM - flap actuator template cover (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
25. 11:47 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Tedd McHenry)
26. 11:50 AM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (David Leonard)
27. 12:21 PM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Mickey Coggins)
28. 12:22 PM - Re: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A ()
29. 12:25 PM - Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Tedd McHenry)
30. 12:30 PM - Re: Spraylat removal (PGLong@aol.com)
31. 12:51 PM - Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A (Mickey Coggins)
32. 01:57 PM - Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service (Richard Reynolds)
33. 02:13 PM - Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service (Ralph E. Capen)
34. 04:38 PM - New ePanel Builder / flash developers... (Bill VonDane)
35. 05:23 PM - Re: Vne and Control Flutter (Vanremog@aol.com)
36. 05:26 PM - Re: Spraylat removal (RGray67968@aol.com)
37. 06:30 PM - VNY BUR Experimental Restrictions (Robin Marks)
38. 07:28 PM - Re: VNY BUR Experimental Restrictions (Ed Holyoke)
39. 07:56 PM - Re: Spraylat removal (Dick DeCramer)
40. 08:46 PM - Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service (Kelly McMullen)
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: | Cardiovascular problem |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Bert-
Sorry to hear of your difficulties. To answer your questions and get good
guidance, I would strongly recommend getting in touch with EAA and finding
the Aeromedical Advisors in your area. I've used their (FREE) services,
and was quite impressed. These are AME's who are dedicated to your success
and volunteer to help us little guys out.
Also, I've used some of the same guys who staff Virtual Flight Surgeons
(another poster has mentioned them) and can't say enough good about their
efficacy.
I know none of this answers your direct question, but these references can.
Good luck!
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: | Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Jim et al-
> Vne is defined by FAR Part 23 as 90% of the design velocity.
One of the many factors that goes into determining Vne is that it be no
more than .9 times Vd, which is actually Design Diving Speed.
See
http://www.astech-engineering.com/systems/avionics/aircraft/faapart23g.html#
General
Vd has several criteria to meet, including no flutter and a mathematical
relationship to Vc, design cruise speed.
As an aside, for those wishing to debate the small vs. large registration
number issue, the definition of Vc could be fuel for the fire ; - ).
WRT gusts, the plane (again, under part 23...) is to sustain a 25 fps
vertical gust at Vd(!) and a 50 fps gust at Vc. This can make for a
peculiar V-n diagram, as shown at the bottom of
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-333.html
>I've been following this thread, but may have missed something. My question
>is: What is the Vne based on? Flutter or gust loads?
Yup. Plus more...
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: | FW: H-6 Performance Numbers |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Anyone care to answer this question? I would be happy to cross post the answers
back to the Subie group.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
________________________________
From: subaruaircraft@yahoogroups.com [mailto:subaruaircraft@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of eaainc@aol.com
Subject: Re: [subaruaircraft] Re: H-6 Performance Numbers
OK, Tom just posted RV7A performance in cruise at 8000 feet. We now need the
same from another average customer built aircraft with the O-360. The once I
have flown in are not close to published ideal performance. Who has flown in
one and what do you see on a normal flight
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: subaruaircraft@yahoogroups.com [mailto:subaruaircraft@yahoogroups.com <mailto:subaruaircraft@yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Thomas Moore
Subject: [subaruaircraft] H-6 Performance Numbers
On my flight to FL from OR in Sept, I recorded these performance numbers for the
H6. The most efficient RPM is between 2200 and 2300 prop rpm depending on the
cruise altitude. Although I did not get a complet set of numbers, these will
give some idea of the performance that can be expected.
Alt OAT Rpm MAP F/F KTAS
7.5 73 2220 22.4 6.9 144
7.5 77 2700 22.1 8.5 165
9.5 67 2200 20.7 5.9 140
9.5 62 2300 20.4 6.2 144
9.5 63 2700 20.1 7.8 160
These numbers where with the 3rd lower radiator and oil cooler mounted just forward
of the firewall. They are also with the MT prop and the dual SuperTrap mufflers.
The new 2.56 reduction unit may change these numbers. We will see.
Tom Moore
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: | Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 14:54:45 2005-12-24 "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The amount of
> time which will pass between this event and when the same air
> disturbance passes the elevator is inversely related to the TAS, not
> IAS.
This is true. However, the effect that disturbance will have on the
elevator is directly related to the IAS, not the TAS. As you climb, the
effect that disturbance will have as it passes the elevator will be
lessened, as the air is less dense and needs to "build up" against the
elevator before it will have the same affect as at sea level. If you climb
while keeping your TAS constant, any exciting forces that would cause
flutter are getting smaller the higher you go.
The question is whether the decrease in excitation force is enough to
outpace the increase in the frequency of the application of that force.
Since the force is related to the dynamic pressure (IAS), which is a
"velocity squared" term, and the frequency is related to the TAS, which is
a "velocity" term, if your TAS stays constant as you climb, your excitation
force drops off rather quickly.
So i'm still not convinced that the TAS has anything to do with flutter.
Apart from Ken's article, this is the first i've heard about it, and I
can't find another reference either on the Internet, in FAR part 23, or in
my textbooks, that supports your claim.
I'm open to being convinced, however. Do you have, or can you find, a
readily available reference that discusses this in more than laymans terms?
It appears from other articles that gliders frequently have IAS charts for
higher altitudes, there must be some mathematical explanation to back those
up?
-Rob
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: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Just to "Fire-Up" the brake fluid discussion again....did
you notice in today's AVweb articles...top of the news was
brake fires in Cirrus:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/540-full.html
For those not able to get to the link, this should be most of it (below)
Cirrus To Issue SB On Brake Overheating, Fires
Don't Ride The Brakes
Cirrus Design plans to issue a Service Bulletin on all its aircraft
in response to a spate of brake fires (the most recent of which occurred
Dec. 9) that have caused serious damage to at least five aircraft. The
SB will call for the installation of color-changing temperature sensors
on the brake components so that pilots can tell -- during the preflight
-- if the brakes have been previously overheated. Cirrus spokesman Ian
Bentley said overheating can cause failure of an O-ring. Failure of the
O-ring allows flammable brake fluid to leak onto potentially hot parts.
If they're hot enough, the brake fluid ignites and causes a stubborn
fire that can really make a mess of a low-wing plastic airplane. The
latest such incident occurred at David Wayne Hooks Memorial Airport in
Houston and appears to be typical of the others. According to the NTSB
preliminary report, the pilot had taxied almost a mile before stopping
for his run-up and that's when the tower called him to tell him the
right gear was on fire. He and his two passengers got out and tried to
put the fire out with the on-board extinguisher, which apparently was
not up to the task. A couple of mechanics from a nearby hangar managed
to put the fire out with larger extinguishers but not before both the
gear and wing were substantially damaged.
Improper Brake Use To Blame, Says Cirrus
Bentley said Cirrus has studied the incidents extensively and
determined there are no design or equipment faults at work, and for
Cirrus this leaves only "operator error" as the cause. Unlike many
aircraft pilots may be transitioning from, Cirruses have a free
castering nosewheel and are steered only with differential braking, plus
some positive or negative contribution from the rudder (dependant on
relative wind). Bentley said some pilots may have a tendency to overuse
the brakes to compensate for excessive power settings or may simply be
riding the brakes. Last June, the company e-mailed all its customers
(click here for a pdf version) with an owner service advisory that
warned them not to overtax the brakes, which Cirrus also says are more
than adequate for an airplane with the performance and weight of a
Cirrus. Bentley said that after the first reported brake fire, Cirrus
and the brake manufacturer, Parker Hannefin, intentionally overheated
sets of brakes and cycled them 19,000 times without a failure. Bentley
said the components must be subjected to "significant overheating" to
cause a fire. Thanks to the multi-function display installed on most
Cirruses, Bentley said they have hard data to show how the overheating
occurs. The MFD records engine RPM and speed. If the speed drops and the
engine RPM stays the same, the only place that energy can go, according
to Cirrus, is into the brakes. "This isn't speculation. There's a lot of
real information around," he said. In at least one case, it appears the
plane was taxied with the parking brake on, says Cirrus.
Company Looks At Prevention First
Bentley said Cirrus is doing everything it can to prevent
brake-related fires. "We do take these things very seriously," he said.
In most cases, he said, the fires have occurred on club or rental
aircraft that see a lot of different pilots (the most recent incident
was an exception). Cirrus believes the heat sensors will be most
beneficial in those cases because they'll give pilots an indication of
whether the brakes have been abused by those before them. And, although
Cirrus says the factory-installed brakes are a common installation on
aircraft of similar size and exceed design standards, the company will
be offering -- as retrofit kits only -- higher-capacity brakes. The
larger brakes have bigger rotors capable of dissipating more heat, thus
reducing the chance of overheating. Bentley said the kits will likely be
most popular with fleet operators, who will see some of that investment
returned in longer brake life. The beefier brakes will not be offered as
an option on new aircraft, but if you tend to taxi in a fully loaded
airplane one mile downhill with a blustery quartering tailwind after
landing fast, perhaps the retrofit kit is an appropriate investment.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170
Current section: Panel Wiring
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Ed Anderson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> Hi G
>
> The documentation I have says that MIL-H-83282 if fully compatible
> with your standard GA brake system including compatible with
> MIL-H-5606.
>
> If you mix it you simply lower the flash point from the 450F of the
> MIL-H-5606 to something in-between - based on amount of each fluid in
> the mixture.
>
> Here is a URL with lots of info :
> http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_178.htm
>
> MIL-H-83282 replaces MIL-H-5606. It is dyed red so it can
> be distinguished from incompatible fluids. MIL-H-83282 has
> a synthetic hydrocarbon base and contains additives to provide
> the required viscosity and antiwear characteristics, which
> inhibit oxidation and corrosion. It is used in hydraulic
> systems having a temperature range of-40=B0F to +275=B0F. Flash
> point, fire point, and spontaneous ignition temperature of
> MIL-H-83282, which is fire resistant, exceeds that of MIL-H-5606 by
> more than 200=B0F. The fluid extinguishes itself when the
> external source of flame or heat is removed. Hydraulic fluid
> MIL-H-83282 is compatible with all materials used in systems
> presently using MIL-H-5606. It maybe combined with MIL-H-5606
> with no adverse effect other than a reduction of its fire-resistant
> properties. MIL-H-83282 is now required in the main systems
> of all fleet aircraft previously using M! IL-H-5606.
>
> To me, other than the fact that its hard to find in quantities less
> than a gallon, that the MIL-H83283 is a no-brainier for swapping out
> your old 5606 next annual and replacing it. Its designed for
> aircraft brake systems, is fire resistant, and has a 200F higher
> flash point.
>
>
> Ed A
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> To:
> <rv-list@matronics.com> Subject: RV-List: Re: Insurance and Brake
> Fluid
>
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>>
>> The standard aircraft red brake fluid is highly flammable and has
>> low flash point. That is why the military and airlines don't use
>> it. So the approved stuff is the dangerous stuff. ATF (synthetic)
>> is safer. I can't address the freezing issue but a little googling
>> I am sure would turn up some answers. I forgot the spec for the
>> better approved Mil spec aerospace brake fluid stuff is, but it
>> cost more and available only in larger quantities (I think a
>> gallon). You could likely get some small amount at a JET FBO. The
>> down side it is not really compatible with standard brake fluid. I
>> plan on using the better stuff. The argument is you may not be able
>> to get it on a trip. My answer is I find the brakes need little
>> maintenance, except pads and if I had to I am sure I could get the
>> Mil spec stuff. Granted the good old Red stuff is easier to get,
>> the higher flash point of the Mil Spec makes me feel better. Just
>> look at the Matronics picture of the the RV brake fire. Ouch. G
>>
>>
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: | Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Before Stoddard-Hamilton went belly-up they were experimenting with the new
Super Glasair III. It was a standard GIII fitted with a 350HP Lycoming and a
monster blower. The test pilot had it up to FL350 and doing 400KTAS. They
started encountering mach limiting control problems.
Let's just sweep the wings, ad a couple of 600 lb thrust torches on the
wings and reinvent the poor mans ME-262.
Do Not Archive this drivel.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Prior (rv7)
Subject: RE: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 14:54:45 2005-12-24 "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The amount of
> time which will pass between this event and when the same air
> disturbance passes the elevator is inversely related to the TAS, not
> IAS.
This is true. However, the effect that disturbance will have on the
elevator is directly related to the IAS, not the TAS. As you climb, the
effect that disturbance will have as it passes the elevator will be
lessened, as the air is less dense and needs to "build up" against the
elevator before it will have the same affect as at sea level. If you climb
while keeping your TAS constant, any exciting forces that would cause
flutter are getting smaller the higher you go.
The question is whether the decrease in excitation force is enough to
outpace the increase in the frequency of the application of that force.
Since the force is related to the dynamic pressure (IAS), which is a
"velocity squared" term, and the frequency is related to the TAS, which is
a "velocity" term, if your TAS stays constant as you climb, your excitation
force drops off rather quickly.
So i'm still not convinced that the TAS has anything to do with flutter.
Apart from Ken's article, this is the first i've heard about it, and I
can't find another reference either on the Internet, in FAR part 23, or in
my textbooks, that supports your claim.
I'm open to being convinced, however. Do you have, or can you find, a
readily available reference that discusses this in more than laymans terms?
It appears from other articles that gliders frequently have IAS charts for
higher altitudes, there must be some mathematical explanation to back those
up?
-Rob
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: | Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My question is:
does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in question? Possibly
the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't even enter into this
particular situation. Possibly not.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
>
> Hi Jim et al-
>
> > Vne is defined by FAR Part 23 as 90% of the design velocity.
>
> One of the many factors that goes into determining Vne is that it be no
> more than .9 times Vd, which is actually Design Diving Speed.
>
> See
>
http://www.astech-engineering.com/systems/avionics/aircraft/faapart23g.html#
> General
>
> Vd has several criteria to meet, including no flutter and a mathematical
> relationship to Vc, design cruise speed.
>
> As an aside, for those wishing to debate the small vs. large registration
> number issue, the definition of Vc could be fuel for the fire ; - ).
>
> WRT gusts, the plane (again, under part 23...) is to sustain a 25 fps
> vertical gust at Vd(!) and a 50 fps gust at Vc. This can make for a
> peculiar V-n diagram, as shown at the bottom of
> http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-333.html
>
> >I've been following this thread, but may have missed something. My
question
> >is: What is the Vne based on? Flutter or gust loads?
>
> Yup. Plus more...
>
> Glen Matejcek
> aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
>
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: | Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
OK, I'll bite.
I think that a properly designed brake system should be able to take pilot
abuse (riding the brakes). If it won't, then it should be fixed.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV-List: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606
--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Just to "Fire-Up" the brake fluid discussion again....did
you notice in today's AVweb articles...top of the news was
brake fires in Cirrus:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/540-full.html
For those not able to get to the link, this should be most of it (below)
Cirrus To Issue SB On Brake Overheating, Fires
Don't Ride The Brakes
Cirrus Design plans to issue a Service Bulletin on all its aircraft
in response to a spate of brake fires (the most recent of which occurred
Dec. 9) that have caused serious damage to at least five aircraft. The
SB will call for the installation of color-changing temperature sensors
on the brake components so that pilots can tell -- during the preflight
-- if the brakes have been previously overheated. Cirrus spokesman Ian
Bentley said overheating can cause failure of an O-ring. Failure of the
O-ring allows flammable brake fluid to leak onto potentially hot parts.
If they're hot enough, the brake fluid ignites and causes a stubborn
fire that can really make a mess of a low-wing plastic airplane. The
latest such incident occurred at David Wayne Hooks Memorial Airport in
Houston and appears to be typical of the others. According to the NTSB
preliminary report, the pilot had taxied almost a mile before stopping
for his run-up and that's when the tower called him to tell him the
right gear was on fire. He and his two passengers got out and tried to
put the fire out with the on-board extinguisher, which apparently was
not up to the task. A couple of mechanics from a nearby hangar managed
to put the fire out with larger extinguishers but not before both the
gear and wing were substantially damaged.
Improper Brake Use To Blame, Says Cirrus
Bentley said Cirrus has studied the incidents extensively and
determined there are no design or equipment faults at work, and for
Cirrus this leaves only "operator error" as the cause. Unlike many
aircraft pilots may be transitioning from, Cirruses have a free
castering nosewheel and are steered only with differential braking, plus
some positive or negative contribution from the rudder (dependant on
relative wind). Bentley said some pilots may have a tendency to overuse
the brakes to compensate for excessive power settings or may simply be
riding the brakes. Last June, the company e-mailed all its customers
(click here for a pdf version) with an owner service advisory that
warned them not to overtax the brakes, which Cirrus also says are more
than adequate for an airplane with the performance and weight of a
Cirrus. Bentley said that after the first reported brake fire, Cirrus
and the brake manufacturer, Parker Hannefin, intentionally overheated
sets of brakes and cycled them 19,000 times without a failure. Bentley
said the components must be subjected to "significant overheating" to
cause a fire. Thanks to the multi-function display installed on most
Cirruses, Bentley said they have hard data to show how the overheating
occurs. The MFD records engine RPM and speed. If the speed drops and the
engine RPM stays the same, the only place that energy can go, according
to Cirrus, is into the brakes. "This isn't speculation. There's a lot of
real information around," he said. In at least one case, it appears the
plane was taxied with the parking brake on, says Cirrus.
Company Looks At Prevention First
Bentley said Cirrus is doing everything it can to prevent
brake-related fires. "We do take these things very seriously," he said.
In most cases, he said, the fires have occurred on club or rental
aircraft that see a lot of different pilots (the most recent incident
was an exception). Cirrus believes the heat sensors will be most
beneficial in those cases because they'll give pilots an indication of
whether the brakes have been abused by those before them. And, although
Cirrus says the factory-installed brakes are a common installation on
aircraft of similar size and exceed design standards, the company will
be offering -- as retrofit kits only -- higher-capacity brakes. The
larger brakes have bigger rotors capable of dissipating more heat, thus
reducing the chance of overheating. Bentley said the kits will likely be
most popular with fleet operators, who will see some of that investment
returned in longer brake life. The beefier brakes will not be offered as
an option on new aircraft, but if you tend to taxi in a fully loaded
airplane one mile downhill with a blustery quartering tailwind after
landing fast, perhaps the retrofit kit is an appropriate investment.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170
Current section: Panel Wiring
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Ed Anderson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> Hi G
>
> The documentation I have says that MIL-H-83282 if fully compatible
> with your standard GA brake system including compatible with
> MIL-H-5606.
>
> If you mix it you simply lower the flash point from the 450F of the
> MIL-H-5606 to something in-between - based on amount of each fluid in
> the mixture.
>
> Here is a URL with lots of info :
> http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_178.htm
>
> MIL-H-83282 replaces MIL-H-5606. It is dyed red so it can
> be distinguished from incompatible fluids. MIL-H-83282 has
> a synthetic hydrocarbon base and contains additives to provide
> the required viscosity and antiwear characteristics, which
> inhibit oxidation and corrosion. It is used in hydraulic
> systems having a temperature range of-40=B0F to +275=B0F. Flash
> point, fire point, and spontaneous ignition temperature of
> MIL-H-83282, which is fire resistant, exceeds that of MIL-H-5606 by
> more than 200=B0F. The fluid extinguishes itself when the
> external source of flame or heat is removed. Hydraulic fluid
> MIL-H-83282 is compatible with all materials used in systems
> presently using MIL-H-5606. It maybe combined with MIL-H-5606
> with no adverse effect other than a reduction of its fire-resistant
> properties. MIL-H-83282 is now required in the main systems
> of all fleet aircraft previously using M! IL-H-5606.
>
> To me, other than the fact that its hard to find in quantities less
> than a gallon, that the MIL-H83283 is a no-brainier for swapping out
> your old 5606 next annual and replacing it. Its designed for
> aircraft brake systems, is fire resistant, and has a 200F higher
> flash point.
>
>
> Ed A
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> To:
> <rv-list@matronics.com> Subject: RV-List: Re: Insurance and Brake
> Fluid
>
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>>
>> The standard aircraft red brake fluid is highly flammable and has
>> low flash point. That is why the military and airlines don't use
>> it. So the approved stuff is the dangerous stuff. ATF (synthetic)
>> is safer. I can't address the freezing issue but a little googling
>> I am sure would turn up some answers. I forgot the spec for the
>> better approved Mil spec aerospace brake fluid stuff is, but it
>> cost more and available only in larger quantities (I think a
>> gallon). You could likely get some small amount at a JET FBO. The
>> down side it is not really compatible with standard brake fluid. I
>> plan on using the better stuff. The argument is you may not be able
>> to get it on a trip. My answer is I find the brakes need little
>> maintenance, except pads and if I had to I am sure I could get the
>> Mil spec stuff. Granted the good old Red stuff is easier to get,
>> the higher flash point of the Mil Spec makes me feel better. Just
>> look at the Matronics picture of the the RV brake fire. Ouch. G
>>
>>
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: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: LessDragProd@aol.com
Ken's RVator article was written around extra horsepower and turbocharged
engines. The concern is that this would allow IAS (cruise at Vne as an IAS) to
remain constant as you increase altitude. With a fixed IAS as the altitude
increases, TAS is increasing with altitude.
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 12/26/2005 7:12:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, rv7@b4.ca
writes:
if your TAS stays constant as you climb, your excitation
force drops off rather quickly.
So i'm still not convinced that the TAS has anything to do with flutter.
Apart from Ken's article, this is the first i've heard about it, and I
can't find another reference either on the Internet, in FAR part 23, or in
my textbooks, that supports your claim.
I'm open to being convinced, however. Do you have, or can you find, a
readily available reference that discusses this in more than laymans terms?
It appears from other articles that gliders frequently have IAS charts for
higher altitudes, there must be some mathematical explanation to back those
up?
-Rob
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: | GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds@macs.net>
When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend with
the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message:
"Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, 2104320
required. Cannot program desired service"
A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg card
versus my original 2 meg card.
Before I spend any money with Jeppesen/Garmin, where can I buy a AMD
AMC004CFLKA 4 meg card? A google search resulted in suppliers looking
for RFQs, not the usual Newark, etc.
Now the RANT/RAGE.
Jeppesen probably has know for a month (since the last update
11/22/05) that the 2 meg cards were not going to work. They have my
$350 for the subscription service, my name, and contact information.
NOT a word from them.
When I called them, their automatic answering service stated that
they were experiencing a high volume of call-ins and the problem is
the 2 meg card is too small. Call their "returns department".
If I truly needed the update to be legal for IFR, I would be VERRRRY
MAD.
Richard Reynolds
RV-6A N841RV
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 7:40:48 2005-12-26 "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net> wrote:
> Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My
> question is: does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in
> question? Possibly the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't
> even enter into this particular situation. Possibly not.
I recall being taught in university that the most common failure due to
overspeed is the horizontal stabilizer or elevator, followed shortly by the
wings.
As your (indicated :) airspeed increases, the nose-down pitching moment on
the wing also increases... Which requires an increase in the down-force
generated by the horizontal stab/elevator to balance it. It's apparently
not uncommon for either the elevator or the whole horizontal stab to fail
as someone tries to pull out of an oversped dive. When that happens,
without that downforce on the tail the plane will instantly pitch nose
down, which at that high speed means a failure of the wings due to sudden,
high, negative G.
My recollection is that this was the failure mode of Steve Whittman's
tailwind when he died, but my memory could be fuzzy about that.
-Rob
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: LessDragProd@aol.com
Ken's RVator article seems to have been written so the limiting factor would
NOT have to be given out.
IMHO, Ken's RVator article is saying that cruising around at 20,000' at Vne
(IAS) does not provide an adequate margin of safety against the possibility
of flutter.
Regardless of any technical flaws in Ken's article, this message seems clear.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 12/26/2005 7:41:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ogoodwin@comcast.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My question is:
does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in question? Possibly
the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't even enter into this
particular situation. Possibly not.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Richard,
I, like you, use the Skybound USB programmer on the card for my GX60, and I
bumped into the same exact issue. They replaced my 2mb card with a 4mb card
for FREE. You need to go through the process with them if you want to avoid
spending money.
They overnighted the new card to me and gave me a postage-paid envelope to
return the old one. The whole thing took less than 3 days.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (747 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Reynolds" <rvreynolds@macs.net>
Subject: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service
> --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds@macs.net>
>
> When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend with
> the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message:
>
> "Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, 2104320
> required. Cannot program desired service"
>
> A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg card
> versus my original 2 meg card.
>
> Before I spend any money with Jeppesen/Garmin, where can I buy a AMD
> AMC004CFLKA 4 meg card? A google search resulted in suppliers looking
> for RFQs, not the usual Newark, etc.
>
> Now the RANT/RAGE.
>
> Jeppesen probably has know for a month (since the last update
> 11/22/05) that the 2 meg cards were not going to work. They have my
> $350 for the subscription service, my name, and contact information.
> NOT a word from them.
>
> When I called them, their automatic answering service stated that
> they were experiencing a high volume of call-ins and the problem is
> the 2 meg card is too small. Call their "returns department".
>
> If I truly needed the update to be legal for IFR, I would be VERRRRY
> MAD.
>
> Richard Reynolds
> RV-6A N841RV
>
>
>
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: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
Thanks do not archive.
org
----- Original Message -----
From: <LessDragProd@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
> --> RV-List message posted by: LessDragProd@aol.com
>
>
> Ken's RVator article seems to have been written so the limiting factor
would
> NOT have to be given out.
>
> IMHO, Ken's RVator article is saying that cruising around at 20,000' at
Vne
> (IAS) does not provide an adequate margin of safety against the
possibility
> of flutter.
> Regardless of any technical flaws in Ken's article, this message seems
clear.
>
> Regards,
> Jim Ayers
>
> In a message dated 12/26/2005 7:41:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> ogoodwin@comcast.net writes:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
>
> Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My question
is:
> does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in question?
Possibly
> the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't even enter into this
> particular situation. Possibly not.
>
>
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: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Huft <rv8@lazy8.net>
I agree that if an aircraft has a free swiveling nose wheel (or tail
wheel), then the brakes should be sized so that a pilot can make a long
cross wind taxi without starting a fire or damaging the downwind brake,
the one he will be riding the whole time.
But, when you say "riding the brake", you leave it open to those who
ride the brakes with more than idle power on, or who leave their parking
brake on, etc. Old engineer's saying "You can make it fool proof, but
you can't make it damn fool proof".
John
Bruce Gray wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>OK, I'll bite.
>
>I think that a properly designed brake system should be able to take pilot
>abuse (riding the brakes). If it won't, then it should be fixed.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
>Just to "Fire-Up" the brake fluid discussion again....did
>you notice in today's AVweb articles...top of the news was
>brake fires in Cirrus:
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/540-full.html
>
>For those not able to get to the link, this should be most of it (below)
>
>Cirrus To Issue SB On Brake Overheating, Fires
>Don't Ride The Brakes
>
> Cirrus Design plans to issue a Service Bulletin on all its aircraft
>in response to a spate of brake fires (the most recent of which occurred
>Dec. 9) that have caused serious damage to at least five aircraft. The
>SB will call for the installation of color-changing temperature sensors
>on the brake components so that pilots can tell -- during the preflight
>-- if the brakes have been previously overheated. Cirrus spokesman Ian
>Bentley said overheating can cause failure of an O-ring. Failure of the
>O-ring allows flammable brake fluid to leak onto potentially hot parts.
>If they're hot enough, the brake fluid ignites and causes a stubborn
>fire that can really make a mess of a low-wing plastic airplane. The
>latest such incident occurred at David Wayne Hooks Memorial Airport in
>Houston and appears to be typical of the others. According to the NTSB
>preliminary report, the pilot had taxied almost a mile before stopping
>for his run-up and that's when the tower called him to tell him the
>right gear was on fire. He and his two passengers got out and tried to
>put the fire out with the on-board extinguisher, which apparently was
>not up to the task. A couple of mechanics from a nearby hangar managed
>to put the fire out with larger extinguishers but not before both the
>gear and wing were substantially damaged.
>
>Improper Brake Use To Blame, Says Cirrus
>
> Bentley said Cirrus has studied the incidents extensively and
>determined there are no design or equipment faults at work, and for
>Cirrus this leaves only "operator error" as the cause. Unlike many
>aircraft pilots may be transitioning from, Cirruses have a free
>castering nosewheel and are steered only with differential braking, plus
>some positive or negative contribution from the rudder (dependant on
>relative wind). Bentley said some pilots may have a tendency to overuse
>the brakes to compensate for excessive power settings or may simply be
>riding the brakes. Last June, the company e-mailed all its customers
>(click here for a pdf version) with an owner service advisory that
>warned them not to overtax the brakes, which Cirrus also says are more
>than adequate for an airplane with the performance and weight of a
>Cirrus. Bentley said that after the first reported brake fire, Cirrus
>and the brake manufacturer, Parker Hannefin, intentionally overheated
>sets of brakes and cycled them 19,000 times without a failure. Bentley
>said the components must be subjected to "significant overheating" to
>cause a fire. Thanks to the multi-function display installed on most
>Cirruses, Bentley said they have hard data to show how the overheating
>occurs. The MFD records engine RPM and speed. If the speed drops and the
>engine RPM stays the same, the only place that energy can go, according
>to Cirrus, is into the brakes. "This isn't speculation. There's a lot of
>real information around," he said. In at least one case, it appears the
>plane was taxied with the parking brake on, says Cirrus.
>
>Company Looks At Prevention First
>
> Bentley said Cirrus is doing everything it can to prevent
>brake-related fires. "We do take these things very seriously," he said.
>In most cases, he said, the fires have occurred on club or rental
>aircraft that see a lot of different pilots (the most recent incident
>was an exception). Cirrus believes the heat sensors will be most
>beneficial in those cases because they'll give pilots an indication of
>whether the brakes have been abused by those before them. And, although
>Cirrus says the factory-installed brakes are a common installation on
>aircraft of similar size and exceed design standards, the company will
>be offering -- as retrofit kits only -- higher-capacity brakes. The
>larger brakes have bigger rotors capable of dissipating more heat, thus
>reducing the chance of overheating. Bentley said the kits will likely be
>most popular with fleet operators, who will see some of that investment
>returned in longer brake life. The beefier brakes will not be offered as
>an option on new aircraft, but if you tend to taxi in a fully loaded
>airplane one mile downhill with a blustery quartering tailwind after
>landing fast, perhaps the retrofit kit is an appropriate investment.
>
>Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170
>Current section: Panel Wiring
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>Ed Anderson wrote:
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
>><eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>>
>>Hi G
>>
>>The documentation I have says that MIL-H-83282 if fully compatible
>>with your standard GA brake system including compatible with
>>MIL-H-5606.
>>
>>If you mix it you simply lower the flash point from the 450F of the
>>MIL-H-5606 to something in-between - based on amount of each fluid in
>>the mixture.
>>
>>Here is a URL with lots of info :
>>http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_178.htm
>>
>>MIL-H-83282 replaces MIL-H-5606. It is dyed red so it can
>>be distinguished from incompatible fluids. MIL-H-83282 has
>>a synthetic hydrocarbon base and contains additives to provide
>>the required viscosity and antiwear characteristics, which
>>inhibit oxidation and corrosion. It is used in hydraulic
>>systems having a temperature range of-40=B0F to +275=B0F. Flash
>>point, fire point, and spontaneous ignition temperature of
>>MIL-H-83282, which is fire resistant, exceeds that of MIL-H-5606 by
>>more than 200=B0F. The fluid extinguishes itself when the
>>external source of flame or heat is removed. Hydraulic fluid
>>MIL-H-83282 is compatible with all materials used in systems
>>presently using MIL-H-5606. It maybe combined with MIL-H-5606
>>with no adverse effect other than a reduction of its fire-resistant
>>properties. MIL-H-83282 is now required in the main systems
>>of all fleet aircraft previously using M! IL-H-5606.
>>
>>To me, other than the fact that its hard to find in quantities less
>>than a gallon, that the MIL-H83283 is a no-brainier for swapping out
>>your old 5606 next annual and replacing it. Its designed for
>>aircraft brake systems, is fire resistant, and has a 200F higher
>>flash point.
>>
>>
>>Ed A
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> To:
>><rv-list@matronics.com> Subject: RV-List: Re: Insurance and Brake
>>Fluid
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>The standard aircraft red brake fluid is highly flammable and has
>>>low flash point. That is why the military and airlines don't use
>>>it. So the approved stuff is the dangerous stuff. ATF (synthetic)
>>>is safer. I can't address the freezing issue but a little googling
>>>I am sure would turn up some answers. I forgot the spec for the
>>>better approved Mil spec aerospace brake fluid stuff is, but it
>>>cost more and available only in larger quantities (I think a
>>>gallon). You could likely get some small amount at a JET FBO. The
>>>down side it is not really compatible with standard brake fluid. I
>>>plan on using the better stuff. The argument is you may not be able
>>>to get it on a trip. My answer is I find the brakes need little
>>>maintenance, except pads and if I had to I am sure I could get the
>>>Mil spec stuff. Granted the good old Red stuff is easier to get,
>>>the higher flash point of the Mil Spec makes me feel better. Just
>>>look at the Matronics picture of the the RV brake fire. Ouch. G
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
I too am PO'd to not get any notice of the problem. Jepp has not been
particularly good about notifying Skybound users of problems in advance
and it took awhile to dig up the notice on their web site. The notice
says "Your 2MB card will be exchanged for a 4MB card." This implies at
no cost, which is what they should do and the stance I will take as I
don't intend to pay them for it. It was certainly poor timing to have
this discovery over the holidays but they have not handled it well. I'm
also miffed that they seem to have phone staffing to take your money for
new orders but shuffle our problem off to the returns line which is not
manned over the holiday.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
> --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds@macs.net>
>
> When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend
> with the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message:
>
> "Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152,
> 2104320 required. Cannot program desired service"
>
> A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg
> card versus my original 2 meg card.
>
> Before I spend any money with Jeppesen/Garmin, where can I
> buy a AMD AMC004CFLKA 4 meg card? A google search resulted in
> suppliers looking for RFQs, not the usual Newark, etc.
>
> Now the RANT/RAGE.
>
> Jeppesen probably has know for a month (since the last update
> 11/22/05) that the 2 meg cards were not going to work. They
> have my $350 for the subscription service, my name, and
> contact information.
> NOT a word from them.
>
> When I called them, their automatic answering service stated
> that they were experiencing a high volume of call-ins and the
> problem is the 2 meg card is too small. Call their "returns
> department".
>
> If I truly needed the update to be legal for IFR, I would be
> VERRRRY MAD.
>
> Richard Reynolds
> RV-6A N841RV
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: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com>
Done.
Ken
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: LessDragProd@aol.com
>--> RV-List message posted by: LessDragProd@aol.com
>
>
>Ken's RVator article seems to have been written so the limiting factor would
>NOT have to be given out.
>
>IMHO, Ken's RVator article is saying that cruising around at 20,000' at Vne
>(IAS) does not provide an adequate margin of safety against the possibility
>of flutter.
>Regardless of any technical flaws in Ken's article, this message seems clear.
>
>Regards,
>Jim Ayers
>
>In a message dated 12/26/2005 7:41:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>ogoodwin@comcast.net writes:
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
>
>Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My question is:
>does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in question? Possibly
>the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't even enter into this
>particular situation. Possibly not.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Anyone know what type of brake fluid Cirrus recommends?
> Just to "Fire-Up" the brake fluid discussion again....
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: | GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Jeppesen and Garmin....a marriage made in heaven.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Reynolds
Subject: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds@macs.net>
When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend with
the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message:
"Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, 2104320
required. Cannot program desired service"
A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg card
versus my original 2 meg card.
Before I spend any money with Jeppesen/Garmin, where can I buy a AMD
AMC004CFLKA 4 meg card? A google search resulted in suppliers looking
for RFQs, not the usual Newark, etc.
Now the RANT/RAGE.
Jeppesen probably has know for a month (since the last update
11/22/05) that the 2 meg cards were not going to work. They have my
$350 for the subscription service, my name, and contact information.
NOT a word from them.
When I called them, their automatic answering service stated that
they were experiencing a high volume of call-ins and the problem is
the 2 meg card is too small. Call their "returns department".
If I truly needed the update to be legal for IFR, I would be VERRRRY
MAD.
Richard Reynolds
RV-6A N841RV
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com>
Sorry about that. I replied to the wrong email.
Ken
DO NOT ARCHIVE
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com>
>
>Done.
>
>Ken
>
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: LessDragProd@aol.com
>Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:04:11 EST
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: LessDragProd@aol.com
>>
>>
>>Ken's RVator article seems to have been written so the limiting factor would
>>NOT have to be given out.
>>
>>IMHO, Ken's RVator article is saying that cruising around at 20,000' at Vne
>>(IAS) does not provide an adequate margin of safety against the possibility
>>of flutter.
>>Regardless of any technical flaws in Ken's article, this message seems clear.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Jim Ayers
>>
>>In a message dated 12/26/2005 7:41:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>>ogoodwin@comcast.net writes:
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
>>
>>Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My question is:
>>does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in question? Possibly
>>the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't even enter into this
>>particular situation. Possibly not.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
Gentlemen,
There have been several lengthy, interesting, and high level discussions
from the more learned in our group about Vne, Vc, Va, Vd, flutter, etc.
While these are all very informative, my goals are somewhat simpler. Does
anyone have an envelope curve for the RV-8A appropriately labeled with
velocities and G-loads? I have seen generic curves but nothing specific. I
see the general shape of the lines but I don't have enough data to produce
the curves exactly. Surely, these must exist somewhere. I understand that
my airplane is slightly different than every other RV-8A ever built, but
anything is better than what I have now.
Vince Welch
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: | Rate of climb at higher altitudes |
1.89 DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX Date: is 96 hours or more after Received: date
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Recently someone west of me was considering a turbocharger (at
least his partner was) in an RV8, IO360, CS prop so they could get
to 15000' to cross a mountain range then drop down. I can't find
the post so here is the info anyway.
RV-6A, carbureted O-360, fixed wood prop (Aymar-Demuth)
Altitude IAS (mph) Rate of climb (fpm)
13000' 120 600
14000' 120 500
Don't know if that affects your decision but a CS prop should
climb better than this.
Ron Lee
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: | Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
IMHO, Ken's RVator article is saying that cruising around at 20,000' at Vne
(IAS) does not provide an adequate margin of safety against the possibility
of flutter.
Regardless of any technical flaws in Ken's article, this message seems
clear.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
It is certainly clear. The question is, is it correct?
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
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 |
|
vansairforce@yahoogroups.com (RV yahoo)
| Subject: | flap actuator template cover |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Hi. Would someone please send me the link that was going around a couple of weeks
ago for the actuator cover. I printed it out so the length was the 9.1 inches
(or whatever it had on the drawing) but the template would actually produce
a product that just isn't big enough in length and width.
Message searches didn't turn it up.
Thanks,
lucky
do not archive
Hi. Would someone please send me the link that was going around a couple of weeks
ago for the actuator cover. I printed it out so the length was the 9.1 inches
(or whatever it had on the drawing) but the template would actually produce
a product that just isn't big enough in length and width.
Message searches didn't turn it up.
Thanks,
lucky
do not archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
The frequency of flow-induced vibration is linearly proportional to the
Strouhal number (ref. 1, below),
N = S*V/d
where N is frequency, S is the Strouhal number, V is (true) airspeed, and d is
wing chord. Therefore, for a given Strouhal number, the frequency of
flow-induced vibrations will increase linearly with true airspeed. Since, for
practical purposes, the natural frequencies of the airplane's structure are
constant, you get closer to the vibration-critical airspeed as TAS increases.
Now we need to determine what the Strouhal number is at sea level and what it
is at, say, FL250, to determine if there is any change to N.
The Strouhal number is itself a complex function of the Reynolds number.
Reynolds number is calculated as follows.
Re = V*d/v
where V is (true) airspeed, d is mean wing chord, and v is kinematic viscosity.
Kinematic viscosity is nearly constant with altitude, but varies with
temperature, so we have to consider the temperature change as well.
Assuming a true airspeed of 230 mph (Vne for an RV-6, ref. 5), and wing chord
of ~57 inches (ref. 5), the Reynolds number varies from ~10x10
6 at sea level
to ~20x10
6 at FL250. Since the horizontal stab could be the limiting factor,
we should consider that, too. The HS has a mean chord of about 33 inches
(measured from my own RV-6 tail), giving us a Reynolds number of ~6x10
6 at sea
level and ~12x10
6 at FL250. So the range of Reynolds number we're interested
in is 6x10
6 to 20x10
6.
In this range the Strouhal number is virtually constant (ref. 1, Fig. 11-10).
Therefore the premise of Ken's article, that the vibration-critical speed is
determined by TAS, not IAS, is correct for an RV-6 near 230 mph TAS.
References
----------
(1) Engineering Fluid Mechanics, Roberson and Crowe, 1975
(2) U.S. National Barometric Standard, Circ. 564, 1955
(3) The Design of the Airplane, Darrol Stinton, 1983
(4) Digital Dutch Atmospheric Calculator, www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc
(5) RV-6 plans from Van's Aircraft
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com>
Owen, You are hitting on the main point that Ken was trying to get at. We
don't really know for sure.
The point is that there MAY be an area where flutter considerations are the
limiting factor in an RV and everyone should be aware of that. The problem
with flutter is that it is so unpredictable. While dynamic pressures can be
readily calculated, not so with the effects of flutter. And I don't think
that ANYONE knows for sure.
We do know that flutter will probably occur at some airspeed and TAS MAY be
the important airspeed (depending on the mode of flutter).
Ken hears about people putting big engines and turbos and says 'Be careful,
here is a factor you may want to consider....'
I suggest that anyone who feels the need to rage around at 250mph TAS should
either fly a different airframe better suited to the mission, or do the
flutter testing at a TAS 10% higher than where he plans to set as a TAS
limit. (and let me know what you find - because I am too chicken to do it
Dave Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6
On 12/26/05, Olen Goodwin <ogoodwin@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
>
> Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My question
> is:
> does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in
> question? Possibly
> the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't even enter into this
> particular situation. Possibly not.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> I suggest that anyone who feels the need to rage around at 250mph TAS should
> either fly a different airframe better suited to the mission, or do the
> flutter testing at a TAS 10% higher than where he plans to set as a TAS
> limit. (and let me know what you find - because I am too chicken to do it
Don't forget to strap on your Martin-Baker before you start. :-)
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A |
--> RV-List message posted by: <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
> Date: 2005/12/23 Fri AM 10:09:00 CST
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>
> LarryRobertHelming wrote:
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
> >
> > I think the plane should be called something other than an
> > RV7/A. It is not built/equipped as the kit designer specified. OH, and by
> > the way -- Good luck with getting the airworthiness certificate and
> > insurance. I hope like type risk takers do not alter my risk category of my
> > plans built RV7, nor prompt the FAA to come up with more regulations
> > concerning homebuilt experimental if they kill or harm someone. Builders
> > like this do us all a disservice in my opinion. I do not want to associate
> > with them; So, I do not get concerned if they gets mad, is embarrassed, or
> > what EVER. Wake up! We ain't just kids throwing bigger and bigger rocks
> > .......... .
>
>
> Interesting thread. I agree the points raised concerning W/B, flutter
> speed, insurance, and certification all are matters which the builder of
> a turbocharged RV-7A will need to address. Prudence and consideration
> for the aviation community dictates that any modifications be carefully
> considered and vetted for safety and airworthiness problems.
>
> But..........are we seeing the demise of "experimental aviation"?
>
> Wonder if Van had to tolerate nay-sayers when he decided to modify the
> wing of his Stits Playboy and install a larger engine, and then had the
> nerve to call the thing an RV-3?
>
> Wonder if all the Harmon and Team Rocket pilots wish their planes had
> been nipped in the design phase by those who said modifying an RV-4
> would result in the death of experimental aviation?
>
> Wonder how the Subie brethren view the opinions of those who say a
> turbocharger has no place in an RV?
>
> And........what would have happened if the innovative avionics industry
> had listened to the very vocal and insistent voices that yelled about
> solid-state accelerometers having no place in our panels??
>
> And pity the poor guy who is audacious enough to DESIGN HIS OWN PLANE!!!
>
> There is no doubt we are seeing pressure being exerted on the
> experimental aviation community by regulatory and insurance authorities.
> Our ability to modify their intents may be limited, but I find it
> interesting that in many cases, the biggest hurdle an innovator has to
> jump is the objections of fellow "experimental" aviation enthusiasts.
>
> Where would we be if folks like Van had decided that modifying/improving
> existing designs was just too........risky...................
>
> Sam Buchanan
I had a conversation with one of the engineers at Van's only a week or so ago about
this issue. He said that they have kicked around the idea of refusing to
sell to anyone who intends to install anything other than the recommended Lyc.
The reason given was that some believe that Van's is the mfgr instead of the
actual builder (meaning lawyers looking for deep pockets).
This attitude really could be the death of homebuilding as we know it. We should
remember that in the eyes of the FAA, each of us is the mfgr of our planes &
any other assumption will ultimately have much more negative impact than actual
practices by builders. If I get sued for something I did that was stupid, I
lose & the rest of you pay slightly higher premiums. If Van's gets sued for something
stupid I did, we all may lose the supplier of our kits.
In my not so legally qualified opinion, if Van chooses to exercise more & more
control over what builders do with RV kits, he is opening the door wider & wider
for the lawyers to walk through into his bank accounts, instead of builders'
accounts.
Charlie
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Sorry, some of my numbers got mangled. My caret character doesn't seem to
translate. The important Reynolds numbers from my post are (using "e" for the
exponent, instead of a caret):
~10x10e6 Re for wing at sea level and 250 mph IAS
~20x10e6 Re for wing at FL250 and 250 mph IAS
~ 6x10e6 Re for tail at sea level and 250 mph IAS
~12x10e6 Re for tail at FL250 and 250 mph IAS
So the important range of Re is 6x10e6 to 20x10e6. I'm hoping that somebody
can independently confirm those numbers, and also the relationship between
Strouhal number and Reynolds number.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
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: Spraylat removal |
--> RV-List message posted by: PGLong@aol.com
I just want to affirm that hi-pressure washing removes Spraylat with little
or no labor involved and does not mark the Plexiglas in any way. That was
the only solution that worked for me.
Pat Long
PGLong@aol.com
N120PL
RV4
Bay City, Michigan
3CM
Do Not Archive
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: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> In my not so legally qualified opinion, if Van chooses to exercise
> more & more control over what builders do with RV kits, he is opening
> the door wider & wider for the lawyers to walk through into his bank
> accounts, instead of builders' accounts.
You've got that right! I sure hope Van's understands this, too.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
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: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds@macs.net>
Dan,
Thanks for the information. If they reopen for business Tuesday
morning , I hope I will get the same "free service".
Richard Reynolds
On Dec 26, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Dan Checkoway wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> Richard,
>
> I, like you, use the Skybound USB programmer on the card for my
> GX60, and I
> bumped into the same exact issue. They replaced my 2mb card with a
> 4mb card
> for FREE. You need to go through the process with them if you want
> to avoid
> spending money.
>
> They overnighted the new card to me and gave me a postage-paid
> envelope to
> return the old one. The whole thing took less than 3 days.
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D (747 hours)
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Reynolds" <rvreynolds@macs.net>
> To: "Email RV" <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds@macs.net>
>>
>> When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend with
>> the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message:
>>
>> "Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, 2104320
>> required. Cannot program desired service"
>>
>> A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg card
>> versus my original 2 meg card.
>>
>> Before I spend any money with Jeppesen/Garmin, where can I buy a AMD
>> AMC004CFLKA 4 meg card? A google search resulted in suppliers looking
>> for RFQs, not the usual Newark, etc.
>>
>> Now the RANT/RAGE.
>>
>> Jeppesen probably has know for a month (since the last update
>> 11/22/05) that the 2 meg cards were not going to work. They have my
>> $350 for the subscription service, my name, and contact information.
>> NOT a word from them.
>>
>> When I called them, their automatic answering service stated that
>> they were experiencing a high volume of call-ins and the problem is
>> the 2 meg card is too small. Call their "returns department".
>>
>> If I truly needed the update to be legal for IFR, I would be VERRRRY
>> MAD.
>>
>> Richard Reynolds
>> RV-6A N841RV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
I am interested in getting a card too - a spare to carry around - but I
don't want to pay their exhorbitant price for it.....
Any leads here would be appreciated.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Reynolds" <rvreynolds@macs.net>
Subject: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service
> --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds@macs.net>
>
> When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend with
> the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message:
>
> "Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, 2104320
> required. Cannot program desired service"
>
> A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg card
> versus my original 2 meg card.
>
> Before I spend any money with Jeppesen/Garmin, where can I buy a AMD
> AMC004CFLKA 4 meg card? A google search resulted in suppliers looking
> for RFQs, not the usual Newark, etc.
>
> Now the RANT/RAGE.
>
> Jeppesen probably has know for a month (since the last update
> 11/22/05) that the 2 meg cards were not going to work. They have my
> $350 for the subscription service, my name, and contact information.
> NOT a word from them.
>
> When I called them, their automatic answering service stated that
> they were experiencing a high volume of call-ins and the problem is
> the 2 meg card is too small. Call their "returns department".
>
> If I truly needed the update to be legal for IFR, I would be VERRRRY
> MAD.
>
> Richard Reynolds
> RV-6A N841RV
>
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New ePanel Builder / flash developers... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill VonDane" <bill@vondane.com>
Hey all... I have been working hard for the past 6 months on the new ePanel Builder
and would like to have it ready for launch sometime in January.....but I
could use some help... I am looking for someone who can help with the creation
of flash files... If you have any experience with this and can help me out
please drop me a line off list...
I will also be in need of a few beta testers so if you have done this sort of things
before, please let me know...
I am only subscribed to the digest version of this list so please contact me off
list...
Thanks!
Bill
bill@vondane.com
www.creativair.com
www.epanelbuilder.com
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vne and Control Flutter |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 12/26/2005 11:52:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wdleonard@gmail.com writes:
I suggest that anyone who feels the need to rage around at 250mph TAS should
either fly a different airframe better suited to the mission, or do the
flutter testing at a TAS 10% higher than where he plans to set as a TAS
limit. (and let me know what you find - because I am too chicken to do it
================================================
During a Van's dinner conversation with Martin Hollman at OSH some years
back, he claimed that he had offered to do a flutter analysis of the RV series
aircraft some years before and that Van's had turned him down. I don't know
whether this actually occurred and, if true, what their reasoning might have
been. I am also aware that Martin has a reputation for having a significant
BS quotient, but it seems to me that he might know a little something about
this subject. I sometimes wish that at least some degree of computer analysis
and ground excitation testing had been done and published. I take comfort in
the fact that my plane will rarely get in the region that this will be a
problem and will leave Dave Anders and the other racers to test the upper
boundary.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 771hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spraylat removal |
--> RV-List message posted by: RGray67968@aol.com
Thanks for the replies on the 'Spraylat' removal from an RV4 canopy. This
stuff has evidently been on there for quite a few years.....at a glance it
appeared to on there for good!!
I was very tempted to try the high pressure wash....buts it's cold up here
in Ohio and I didn't want to drag the canopy outside.
I didn't spray this stuff on so I didn't have anymore to try the 'spray a
thicker coat' method.
I started off with 'Goo Gone' and it would remove a little of the 'Spraylat'
but at the rate I was going I figured it would take about a week of 8 hours
days....no joke either.
Since the Goo Gone was trying to break down the Spraylat I decided to follow
the posted advice of using 3M brand adhesive remover. It cost me $9.96 for a
quart. I found that by keeping the surface nice and wet I was able to 'roll
back' the Spraylat with my thumbs. It slowly came off....kind of like peeling
sunburn from your shoulders. In about 3 hours I removed ALL the Spraylat and
used only about 1/4 of the can of 3M adhesive remover. The plexi looks like
a million bucks.....so the stuff does work.
For the archives!!
Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm - RV6 Sold, RV8 project completed, RV10 and
F1 Rocket under construction, & RV4 project on the front burner!!
Usually the problem occurs because the original coat was too thin. Recoat
the spraylat with another 2 thick coats, wait 24 hours for final cure and
remove. The new coat should remove the old one.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RGray67968@aol.com
Subject: RV-List: Spraylat removal
--> RV-List message posted by: RGray67968@aol.com
I just picked up an RV4 project to (hopefully) finish and fly in a very
short time.
The canopy was sprayed with 'Spraylat' (I think) and this stuff seems to be
tough as nails. Anybody have experience getting this stuff off??
An archive search provided one method that I pasted below.
Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm - RV6 Sold, RV8 project completed, RV10
and
F1 Rocket under construction, & RV4 project on the front burner!!
Hi listers,
I posted a question a while ago about removing dried out spraylat from an
old rv-4 canopy. I didn't get any responses so I assume it is not a common
problem. This post is to let any future builders with this problem know how
I finally solved it.
The canopy with the problem was 11 years old and the coating had dried so
bad it was no different than thin dried latex paint. Spraylat and Vans
both
had no other suggestions than trying to wet the coating with hot soapy
water
to soften it. This helped but the coating still required scraping which
would scratch the canopy surface. Some listers on a Long-eze list
mentioned
using high pressure air and a small nozzle to blow the coating loose. This
was also unsuccessful but gave me an idea! I soaked the canopy in water
for
3 days then rented a 3500psi pressure washer and my problem was solved.
The
pressure washer removed the coating quickly and easily and was welcomed end
to a problem that had started to delay the progress on my kit.
Pat Perry
Dallas, PA
RV-4 fuse almost done
Engine being rebuilt
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | VNY BUR Experimental Restrictions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Marks" <robin@mrmoisture.com>
Can anyone update me (and the list) on the situation in Van Nuys
restricting experimental aircraft?
Robin Marks
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | VNY BUR Experimental Restrictions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Robin,
See:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/537-full.html#191233
Homebuilts are flying in and out of those airports every day.
Operationally speaking, there is no problem at this time. The nature of
the FSDO's authority to restrict operations over and above the FARs and
national FAA policy remains to be hashed out. The EAA meets with the FAA
to discuss policy for the year to come in January. We'll see what
happens next.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Subject: RV-List: VNY BUR Experimental Restrictions
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Marks" <robin@mrmoisture.com>
Can anyone update me (and the list) on the situation in Van Nuys
restricting experimental aircraft?
Robin Marks
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Spraylat removal |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dick DeCramer" <diesel@rconnect.com>
I also found the cause was too thin of a layer but Spraylat was about
$12/quart + shipping as well as a delay waiting for it so I used 3M
Adhesive remover from NAPA for $8, used only about half the quart, and it
just wiped off with a soft rag. Neither product harmed the plexiglas, I
was done in one evening and I had coated both inside and out of both the
canopy and the windscreen. It was worthwhile, however, as I had no
scratches or marks in the plexiglas at all after some two years and
literally hundreds of "opportunities" to mare the finish.
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Spraylat removal
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve@adelphia.net>
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
> Usually the problem occurs because the original coat was too thin. Recoat
> the spraylat with another 2 thick coats, wait 24 hours for final cure and
> remove. The new coat should remove the old one.
Dick DeCramer
N500DD RV6 Flying
Northfield, MN
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
It has been reported on other email lists as well, and that Jeppeson is
replacing the too small cards at no cost.
Richard Reynolds wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds@macs.net>
>
> When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend with
> the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message:
>
> "Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, 2104320
> required. Cannot program desired service"
>
> A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg card
> versus my original 2 meg card.
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! --
|