---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 12/26/05: 40 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:50:45 AM PST US From: "Glen Matejcek" Subject: RV-List: Cardiovascular problem --> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:00:14 AM PST US From: "Glen Matejcek" Subject: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:32:36 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: FW: H-6 Performance Numbers From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" --> RV-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" 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 ] 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:09:37 AM PST US From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" Subject: RE: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" On 14:54:45 2005-12-24 "Alex Peterson" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:19:57 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV-List: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 --> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson 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" > > > 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: To: > Subject: RV-List: Re: Insurance and Brake > Fluid > > > >> --> RV-List message posted by: >> >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:38:36 AM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" 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)" On 14:54:45 2005-12-24 "Alex Peterson" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:40:58 AM PST US From: "Olen Goodwin" Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" 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" Subject: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. > --> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:42:57 AM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: RV-List: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 --> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" 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 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" > > > 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: To: > Subject: RV-List: Re: Insurance and Brake > Fluid > > > >> --> RV-List message posted by: >> >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:49:43 AM PST US 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:56:10 AM PST US From: Richard Reynolds Subject: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:58:51 AM PST US From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" On 7:40:48 2005-12-26 "Olen Goodwin" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:04:51 AM PST US 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:16:11 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" 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" Subject: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service > --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:22:20 AM PST US From: "Olen Goodwin" Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" Thanks do not archive. org ----- Original Message ----- From: 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:23:04 AM PST US From: John Huft Subject: Re: RV-List: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 --> RV-List message posted by: John Huft 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" > >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 > >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" >> >> >>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: To: >> Subject: RV-List: Re: Insurance and Brake >>Fluid >> >> >> >> >> >>>--> RV-List message posted by: >>> >>>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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:29:39 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service From: "Greg Young" --> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:31:48 AM PST US From: "Ken Simmons" Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" 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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:41:22 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606 --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:17 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service From: "Chuck Jensen" --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:57:13 AM PST US From: "Ken Simmons" Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" Sorry about that. I replied to the wrong email. Ken DO NOT ARCHIVE ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Ken Simmons" >--> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" > >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" >> >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:33:56 AM PST US From: "Vincent Welch" Subject: RV-List: Flight Envelope --> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:45:11 AM PST US From: Ron Lee Subject: RV-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:32:12 AM PST US From: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" Subject: RE: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:31 AM PST US From: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) vansairforce@yahoogroups.com (RV yahoo) Subject: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:47:58 AM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:50:47 AM PST US From: David Leonard Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: David Leonard 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 wrote: > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:21:33 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:22:00 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A --> RV-List message posted by: > > From: Sam Buchanan > 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 > > LarryRobertHelming wrote: > > --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:25:43 PM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:30:55 PM PST US From: PGLong@aol.com Subject: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:51:40 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:57:44 PM PST US From: Richard Reynolds Subject: Re: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds 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" > > 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" > To: "Email RV" > Subject: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service > > >> --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:13:46 PM PST US From: "Ralph E. Capen" Subject: Re: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service --> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" 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" Subject: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service > --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:38:33 PM PST US From: "Bill VonDane" Subject: RV-List: New ePanel Builder / flash developers... --> RV-List message posted by: "Bill VonDane" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:23:26 PM PST US From: Vanremog@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:26:27 PM PST US From: RGray67968@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:30:50 PM PST US Subject: RV-List: VNY BUR Experimental Restrictions From: "Robin Marks" --> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Marks" Can anyone update me (and the list) on the situation in Van Nuys restricting experimental aircraft? Robin Marks ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 07:28:14 PM PST US From: "Ed Holyoke" Subject: RE: RV-List: VNY BUR Experimental Restrictions --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" 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" Can anyone update me (and the list) on the situation in Van Nuys restricting experimental aircraft? Robin Marks ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 07:56:06 PM PST US From: "Dick DeCramer" Subject: RE: RV-List: Spraylat removal --> RV-List message posted by: "Dick DeCramer" 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" > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:38 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service --> RV-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen 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 > > 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.