Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:23 AM - Re: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch (Sportypilot)
2. 04:26 AM - Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch (Rick Galati)
3. 04:45 AM - Re: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch (LarryRobertHelming)
4. 04:45 AM - Re: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch (Bob J.)
5. 05:18 AM - Cowl Louvers (was vernatherm success) (Ron Lee)
6. 06:26 AM - Re: fuselage stand (Charlie England)
7. 06:48 AM - Re: XM and the 386 (Charlie England)
8. 08:02 AM - XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities (charles heathco)
9. 08:42 AM - Re: XM and the 386 (Chuck Jensen)
10. 08:50 AM - Re: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities (Larry Pardue)
11. 08:55 AM - Alternative Nav. Lights (BRUCE GRAY)
12. 08:56 AM - Re: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities (Bob C.)
13. 08:59 AM - Re: XM and the 386 (Howard Walrath)
14. 09:09 AM - Re: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities (Chuck Jensen)
15. 09:37 AM - Re: Alternative Nav. Lights (Ron Lee)
16. 09:47 AM - Re: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities (John Fasching)
17. 10:15 AM - Re: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities (David Schaefer)
18. 10:15 AM - Re: XM and the 386 (Fly n Low)
19. 10:18 AM - PDA Weather was XM and the 386 (Ed Anderson)
20. 10:30 AM - Re: XM and the 386 (Charlie England)
21. 11:07 AM - Re: PDA Weather was XM and the 386 (Mickey Coggins)
22. 11:21 AM - Re: PDA Weather was XM and the 386 (Paul Trotter)
23. 01:26 PM - N2D First Flight (Mark E Navratil)
24. 01:35 PM - Re: Alternative Nav. Lights (Vern W.)
25. 01:37 PM - Airborne Cell Usage (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
26. 02:23 PM - Re: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
27. 02:23 PM - Re: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
28. 02:40 PM - Re: Alternative Nav. Lights (BRUCE GRAY)
29. 02:43 PM - Re: Alternative Nav. Lights (BRUCE GRAY)
30. 03:02 PM - Re: PDA Weather was XM and the 386 (Don Mack)
31. 03:02 PM - Re: XM and the 386 (Michael D. Cencula)
32. 04:23 PM - Re: N2D First Flight (Dan)
33. 06:13 PM - Re: PDA Weather was XM and the 386 (linn Walters)
34. 06:29 PM - Re: XM and the 386 (Vanremog@aol.com)
35. 07:01 PM - Re: XM and the 386 (Charlie England)
36. 08:10 PM - Re: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch (LarryRobertHelming)
37. 09:01 PM - Re: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch (Sportypilot)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Sportypilot" <sportypilot@stx.rr.com>
I found them for 20.00 each is that about right ? , I was planning on adding
to the tube and have the gasolator drain stick out just a little without
a door for it.. whats others doing on that ?
Danny..
----- Original Message -----
From: <Vanremog@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch
> --> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 2/18/2006 10:52:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> sportypilot@stx.rr.com writes:
>
> how many of these are needed for the oil door ?
>
>
> ================================
>
> One would be sufficient, but in the spirit of redundancy, I have two of
> these latches on the oil access door. I use only one latch on the
> gascolator
> drain access door on the lower cowling.
>
> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
>
>
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: | Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rick Galati" <rick6a@yahoo.com>
sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com wrote:
> how many of these are needed for the oil door ?Danny..---
I never did care for the dominant look produced by Hartwell latches contained in
such a small area like the cowl oil door and I surely was not going to install
those kit supplied wingy things on it either! Looking for ideas, I would
cruise the RV line at Oshkosh endlessly and never did see an RV with the KM610-64's
installed. It was only when I spotted a student checking the oil on a rental
172 that I finally had my inspiration. I'd like to think I was the first
person to install these nifty latches on the RV oil door but apparently not.
Oh well.
I installed these KM610-64's a few years back, ordered and purchased from my (then)
FBO out of a C-172 parts catalog for a mind bending $30.00 each. A few weeks
later, I came across the same new latchs from a vendor in the Flymart at
Airventure for $7.50 each. I think it was B&B Aviation Parts. Anyway, when I
loudly complained to my FBO about the ripoff, he cut the price in half...to $15
each. As the photo's illustrate, I installed two of the camlocks on the oil
door. I also bonded the cutout cowl waste material onto the back of the oil door
the stiffen it considerably. They work great.
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/2166/oildoor01403wn.jpg
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/9172/oildoor04409tb.jpg
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/6949/oildoor05400wd.jpg
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=13284#13284
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: | Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Does anyone have a picture of a KM610-64?
do not archive
Indiana Larry, RV7 SunSeeker 80+ hours flying
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: <Vanremog@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:45 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch
> --> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
>
> Quite some time back someone on the RV-List asked about these push button
> latches. I recently did some research and realized that I had listed an
> incorrect P/N in my reply and that error is forever ensconced in the
> archives. My
> bad.
>
> These latches are much nicer than the commonly available Hartwell latches
> IMO, as they won't pop you on the thumb some cold morning when checking
> the oil.
>
> For those of you looking to use this really cool latch, they are
> apparently
> still available from a number of Cessna parts outlets and may be found on
> the
> web by simply Googling P/N KM610-64.
>
>
> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
>
>
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: | Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob J." <rocketbob@gmail.com>
The only trouble with these latches is the contact area to the cowling is
very small and the latch will wear at the point of contact, so will the
aluminum piece they ride up against.. I've replaced these a couple of times
on our club C-172's, and have tig welded them back into shape also.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying, F1 under const.
On 2/19/06, Sportypilot <sportypilot@stx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Sportypilot" <sportypilot@stx.rr.com>
>
> I found them for 20.00 each is that about right ? , I was planning on
> adding
> to the tube and have the gasolator drain stick out just a little without
> a door for it.. whats others doing on that ?
>
>
> Danny..
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Vanremog@aol.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 1:14 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 2/18/2006 10:52:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> > sportypilot@stx.rr.com writes:
> >
> > how many of these are needed for the oil door ?
> >
> >
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
> > One would be sufficient, but in the spirit of redundancy, I have two of
> > these latches on the oil access door. I use only one latch on the
> > gascolator
> > drain access door on the lower cowling.
> >
> > GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Cowl Louvers (was vernatherm success) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>I too have been fighting high oil temps with an IO-360 in an RV-8A. Can you
>put me in contact with your source for louvers?
>
>Vince Welch
I had them made locally using Home Depot aluminum by a guy who
does it for race cars. Another source is at this link:
http://www.attawayair.com/rv6a.htm
Ron Lee
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: fuselage stand |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
JIM ETCHEVERRY wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "JIM ETCHEVERRY" <ETCHY1@comcast.net>
>
>Does anyone have a 7a fuselage stand they want to get ride of? Jim
>
Are you asking about a dolly to plug into the gear sockets, or a
construction jig?
If you're looking for a 'jig', Van recommends 2 sawhorses to build the
fuse on. Likely to be cheaper to go to a local building supply than pay
shipping on them.
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: XM and the 386 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Alex Peterson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
>
>
>>I keep reading reports that XM radio is in serious financial
>>trouble and is generally falling short of its goals. Is XM
>>satellite weather subject to the same financial pressures as
>>XM satellite radio? Cutting to the chase: Within the
>>framework of our capitalistic system, it is reasonable to
>>suppose that XM technology is here to stay BUT at some point
>>a structural reorganization will likely occur within the XM
>>industry. If so, is there any likelyhood that monthly
>>subscription services for XM weather services relevant to the
>>386 (and its eventual successor) will trend downward like so
>>many other hi-tech consumer products?
>>
>>Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
>>
>>
>
>I would guess that both Sirius and XM will have to go through bankruptcy
>before becoming profitable. I would not expect the monthly subscription
>price to go down, more likely they will inch up (classic captive market).
>Most high tech products whose prices have come down occur due to many
>factors, including cheap labor, low entry barriers for competitors, and high
>volume manufacturing, none of which apply to the satellite data business.
>
>Just a guess.
>
>Alex Peterson
>RV6-A N66AP 714 hours
>Maple Grove, MN
>do not archive
>
The most likely solution (since the FAA won't 'do the right thing' &
simply lease a transponder channel to supply us an avgas-tax supported
feed) is coming in the next few years with broadband wireless, like 3G &
WiMax. As those technologies spread, we will be able to use the same
service for home broadband internet & to get info via a cellphone-like
interface to a data screen (PDA or PDA/phone combo, computer, etc) in
the plane. A friend is already getting in-flight weather with his
PDA/phone. If you're flying anywhere near an interstate highway (most of
the time you are), you can do this stuff now.
Charlie
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: | XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities |
--> RV-List message posted by: "charles heathco" <cheathco@junct.com>
My 2 cents worth, paying H Stern several million a year was a move I think could
bankrupt them, who will just LISTEN to that panderer, Im sure most watch him
on the tube strictly for the visual content. Charlie Heathco 6A. Do not archive
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
I would guess that both Sirius and XM will have to go through bankruptcy
before becoming profitable. I would not expect the monthly subscription
price to go down, more likely they will inch up (classic captive
market).
Most high tech products whose prices have come down occur due to many
factors, including cheap labor, low entry barriers for competitors, and
high
volume manufacturing, none of which apply to the satellite data
business.
Just a guess.
Alex Peterson
Alex,
You are spot on. Sirius and XM are plummeling each other on the way to
bankruptcy, or at least a major financial reorginization, but they are
doing so by spending $142 on marketing for each new subscriber (last
year it was $102/subscriber), not on price. It's a race to critical
mass...can they get there before they run out of money, or running out
of people willing to buy their debt. Can you say 'satellite phone
systems'.
But what they are not doing to get new subscribers is cutting price.
Marketing is a one time expense, low subscription rates are forever.
They won't poison their own well, so the numbers you see are as low as
they go....unfortunately.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "charles heathco" <cheathco@junct.com>
>
> My 2 cents worth, paying H Stern several million a year was a move I think
> could bankrupt them, who will just LISTEN to that panderer, Im sure most
> watch him on the tube strictly for the visual content. Charlie Heathco 6A.
>Do not archive
But that was Sirius. They don't have aviation weather. If they go away,
that just means more XM customers.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
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: | Alternative Nav. Lights |
--> RV-List message posted by: "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us@hotmail.com>
I viewed some LED nav. lights with strobe system a new company has been
working on and for the life of me can't find it anywhere. Some one point me
in the right direction.
TIA,
Bruce G.
RV8 Fuse
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: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
It was Sirius the hired Stern not XM . . .
On 2/19/06, charles heathco <cheathco@junct.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "charles heathco" <cheathco@junct.com>
>
> My 2 cents worth, paying H Stern several million a year was a move I think could
bankrupt them, who will just LISTEN to that panderer, Im sure most watch him
on the tube strictly for the visual content. Charlie Heathco 6A. Do not archive
>
>
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: XM and the 386 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Howard Walrath" <der_Jagdflieger@prodigy.net>
Charlie, I presume you are aware that your "friend"
is violating both FCC and FAA regulations as well
as the restrictions of his service provider when he
operates his cellular phone in an aircraft that is
not on the ground.
----- Original Message -----
From: Charlie England
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: XM and the 386
The most likely solution (since the FAA won't 'do the right thing' &
simply lease a transponder channel to supply us an avgas-tax supported
feed) is coming in the next few years with broadband wireless, like 3G &
WiMax. As those technologies spread, we will be able to use the same
service for home broadband internet & to get info via a cellphone-like
interface to a data screen (PDA or PDA/phone combo, computer, etc) in
the plane.
A friend is already getting in-flight weather with his PDA/phone. If you're
flying anywhere near an interstate highway (most of the time you are), you
can do this stuff now.
Charlie
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: | XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Sirius...no weather...not necessarily and not forever. Word is WSI is
looking to hookup with Sirius to provide their weather downloads.
Though WSI subscriptions are no better than XM.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Pardue
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "charles heathco" <cheathco@junct.com>
>
> My 2 cents worth, paying H Stern several million a year was a move I
think
> could bankrupt them, who will just LISTEN to that panderer, Im sure
most
> watch him on the tube strictly for the visual content. Charlie Heathco
6A.
>Do not archive
But that was Sirius. They don't have aviation weather. If they go
away,
that just means more XM customers.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
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: Alternative Nav. Lights |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
At 09:54 AM 2/19/2006, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us@hotmail.com>
>
>I viewed some LED nav. lights with strobe system a new company has been
>working on and for the life of me can't find it anywhere. Some one point me
>in the right direction.
Is this it?
http://www.creativair.com/cva/
Ron Lee
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: | Re: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Fasching" <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
And it was for $500,000,000 (5 hundred million) for five years.
Crap costs a lot guess
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
>
> It was Sirius the hired Stern not XM . . .
>
>
> On 2/19/06, charles heathco <cheathco@junct.com> wrote:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "charles heathco" <cheathco@junct.com>
>>
>> My 2 cents worth, paying H Stern several million a year was a move I
>> think could bankrupt them, who will just LISTEN to that panderer, Im sure
>> most watch him on the tube strictly for the visual content. Charlie
>> Heathco 6A. Do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" <dwschaefer@gmail.com>
I've been an XM customer since 2002-03 when there were only a few hundred
thousand subscribers. I chose them over Sirius because I liked their
funding base (GM and Honda) and thought they would be the one to survive.
In 08/2003 they had 700,000 subscribers, 2004 - 2.5 million subscribers and
Acura and Audi invested making their radios standard in their high-end cars,
by December of 2004 they had 3.1 million subscribers along with Bob Edwards
from NPR, Toyota, Nissan, SAAB, VW etc. by 10/2005 5 million subscribers and
by January of 2006 6 million customers. With that kind of growth I don't'
see them folding any time soon.
I've got 4 XM radios and XM feeding my EX500 in my RV6. It's an addiction
and like cable TV (who would ever pay for TV) once you've used it you can
get away from it!
As for Stern ($670MM total contract) .. that's been corrected he is on
Sirius. However the assumption that no one will buy the radios because he's
there has not proved to be true. The projections are the Sirius has added
2.7million subscribers since the Stern announcement in 2004. How many just
for stern who knows. They currently project that they that they have 3
million subscribers so the 'gap' between XM and Sirius is about the same as
when he announced. We'll just have to see how it pans out. Wheather you
like his style etc, his fans are rabidly loyal.
I use XM weather all the time... it is incredible and worth every cent
especially for a VFR pilot on long cross countries. It's far superior to
the narrow-cast weather we originally got from Avidyne and in the long run
less expensive. Once you use it you'll never be without it and it's
available NOW unlike ADS-b in the mid-west.
Regards,
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On 2/19/06, John Fasching <n1cxo320@salidaco.com> wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John Fasching" <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
>
> And it was for $500,000,000 (5 hundred million) for five years.
>
> Crap costs a lot guess
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:56 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: XM radio cost? bankruptcy posibilities
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
> >
> > It was Sirius the hired Stern not XM . . .
> >
> >
> > On 2/19/06, charles heathco <cheathco@junct.com> wrote:
> >> --> RV-List message posted by: "charles heathco" <cheathco@junct.com>
> >>
> >> My 2 cents worth, paying H Stern several million a year was a move I
> >> think could bankrupt them, who will just LISTEN to that panderer, Im
> sure
> >> most watch him on the tube strictly for the visual content. Charlie
> >> Heathco 6A. Do not archive
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
David Schaefer
RV-6A N142DS "Geek One"
www.n142ds.com
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Fly n Low" <flynlow@usaviator.net>
Charlie;
I have internet in my Semi-Truck through Sprint. Works most places when on
the interstate. I assume that it would also work in the airplane. Not
finished yet so have not tried it, but reception should be good. Not legal
at this time, but I suspect it will be one day.
Bud Silvers
RV8 Finishing
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: XM and the 386
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Alex Peterson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
>>I keep reading reports that XM radio is in serious financial
>>trouble and is generally falling short of its goals. Is XM
>>satellite weather subject to the same financial pressures as
>>XM satellite radio? Cutting to the chase: Within the
>>framework of our capitalistic system, it is reasonable to
>>suppose that XM technology is here to stay BUT at some point
>>a structural reorganization will likely occur within the XM
>>industry. If so, is there any likelyhood that monthly
>>subscription services for XM weather services relevant to the
>>386 (and its eventual successor) will trend downward like so
>>many other hi-tech consumer products?
>>
>>Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
>>
>>
>
>I would guess that both Sirius and XM will have to go through bankruptcy
>before becoming profitable. I would not expect the monthly subscription
>price to go down, more likely they will inch up (classic captive market).
>Most high tech products whose prices have come down occur due to many
>factors, including cheap labor, low entry barriers for competitors, and
high
>volume manufacturing, none of which apply to the satellite data business.
>
>Just a guess.
>
>Alex Peterson
>RV6-A N66AP 714 hours
>Maple Grove, MN
>do not archive
>
The most likely solution (since the FAA won't 'do the right thing' &
simply lease a transponder channel to supply us an avgas-tax supported
feed) is coming in the next few years with broadband wireless, like 3G &
WiMax. As those technologies spread, we will be able to use the same
service for home broadband internet & to get info via a cellphone-like
interface to a data screen (PDA or PDA/phone combo, computer, etc) in
the plane. A friend is already getting in-flight weather with his
PDA/phone. If you're flying anywhere near an interstate highway (most of
the time you are), you can do this stuff now.
Charlie
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Hi Howard,
I may well be the friend, Charlie is referring to and I appreciate your
comment noting the legality (not!) of airborne cell phone usage.
I certainly understand the FCC,FAA and service provider's position about
"airborne" usage and why they take that position (I personally believe
technology could quickly fix that "problem" if they wished). I am certainly
not the type to flaunt rules, they are generally there for good reasons.
However, if it is a question of reducing the risk to my butt by checking a
rapidly evolving weather situation 40-50-100 miles ahead by using it
airborne, then I'd rather be around to get my butt reamed by those parties
than losing it due to getting involved with unexpected bad weather.
Last I checked, the pilot has the ultimate responsibility for a safe flight
and is REQUIRED by the FAA to use ALL available means/information at
his/her disposal to ensure such. I consider weather information - available
by any means - to be high on that list of important information. I would
not consider using my cell phone to talk to girl friends or a buddy just to
shoot the bull or pass the time while airborne.
Even if not used airborne, it is still a cost effective way to get the
weather. For instance, when I stopped at one location to refuel and wanted
to check on the progress on the storm front I was racing to Charlie's place,
I was told that they did not have a computer (but, the Mayor of the town
indicated he was going to get them one-someday.{:>)). Well, I simply
called up the URL with my phone (on the ground) and viewed the location
of the heaviest weather via the radar NEXRAD returns and the satellite
overhead photos and got the TAF for Jackson Ms. I was able then to make an
informed decision about continuing my flight.
I am certainly not advocating use of cell phones while airborne - but, if
you think weather may be a factor, then a quick landing and dial up and
volia - you have weather. Certainly not as convenient and nice as XCM, but
then it costs less than $70 a year vs $600.
FWIW
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Walrath" <der_Jagdflieger@prodigy.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: XM and the 386
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Howard Walrath"
> <der_Jagdflieger@prodigy.net>
>
> Charlie, I presume you are aware that your "friend"
> is violating both FCC and FAA regulations as well
> as the restrictions of his service provider when he
> operates his cellular phone in an aircraft that is
> not on the ground.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Charlie England
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:46 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: XM and the 386
>
>
> The most likely solution (since the FAA won't 'do the right thing' &
> simply lease a transponder channel to supply us an avgas-tax supported
> feed) is coming in the next few years with broadband wireless, like 3G &
> WiMax. As those technologies spread, we will be able to use the same
> service for home broadband internet & to get info via a cellphone-like
> interface to a data screen (PDA or PDA/phone combo, computer, etc) in
> the plane.
>
> A friend is already getting in-flight weather with his PDA/phone. If
> you're
> flying anywhere near an interstate highway (most of the time you are), you
> can do this stuff now.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
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: XM and the 386 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
These aren't, technically, cell phones. You might be able to make a case
for violating some archaic FAA rule, but those much more authority to
speak than me say that the new technology is not restricted to ground
use under FCC rules.
My point is that new technology will soon render the XM issue mute.
Charlie
Howard Walrath wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Howard Walrath" <der_Jagdflieger@prodigy.net>
>
>Charlie, I presume you are aware that your "friend"
>is violating both FCC and FAA regulations as well
>as the restrictions of his service provider when he
>operates his cellular phone in an aircraft that is
>not on the ground.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Charlie England
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:46 AM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: XM and the 386
>
>
>The most likely solution (since the FAA won't 'do the right thing' &
>simply lease a transponder channel to supply us an avgas-tax supported
>feed) is coming in the next few years with broadband wireless, like 3G &
>WiMax. As those technologies spread, we will be able to use the same
>service for home broadband internet & to get info via a cellphone-like
>interface to a data screen (PDA or PDA/phone combo, computer, etc) in
>the plane.
>
>A friend is already getting in-flight weather with his PDA/phone. If you're
>flying anywhere near an interstate highway (most of the time you are), you
>can do this stuff now.
>
>Charlie
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XM and the 386 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> I certainly understand the FCC,FAA and service provider's position about
> "airborne" usage and why they take that position (I personally believe
> technology could quickly fix that "problem" if they wished).
Just curious - what is "problem", and why don't they like cell
phones used in the air? Do they make a distinction between
CDMA and GSM?
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XM and the 386 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
I don't believe that the FAA has any regulations about cell phone use in
planes. The statements by the airlines that state that cell phones could
cause navigation errors has never been proven as far as I know, and the FAA
leaves that issue up to the airline. The FCC, on the other hand, does have
rules against it. It is my understanding, and I may be wrong, is that their
primary issue is that an airborne cell phone can "see" too many towers at
once and cause problems with the systems. Cell phones register with the
cells they can connect to so that the system knows where each phone is, and
they generally only see a couple of cells at a time. In the air a phone
could connect to many cells.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 1:15 PM
Subject: PDA Weather was RV-List: XM and the 386
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> Hi Howard,
>
> I may well be the friend, Charlie is referring to and I appreciate your
> comment noting the legality (not!) of airborne cell phone usage.
>
> I certainly understand the FCC,FAA and service provider's position about
> "airborne" usage and why they take that position (I personally believe
> technology could quickly fix that "problem" if they wished). I am
> certainly
> not the type to flaunt rules, they are generally there for good reasons.
>
> However, if it is a question of reducing the risk to my butt by checking a
> rapidly evolving weather situation 40-50-100 miles ahead by using it
> airborne, then I'd rather be around to get my butt reamed by those parties
> than losing it due to getting involved with unexpected bad weather.
>
> Last I checked, the pilot has the ultimate responsibility for a safe
> flight
> and is REQUIRED by the FAA to use ALL available means/information at
> his/her disposal to ensure such. I consider weather information -
> available
> by any means - to be high on that list of important information. I
> would
> not consider using my cell phone to talk to girl friends or a buddy just
> to
> shoot the bull or pass the time while airborne.
>
> Even if not used airborne, it is still a cost effective way to get the
> weather. For instance, when I stopped at one location to refuel and
> wanted
> to check on the progress on the storm front I was racing to Charlie's
> place,
> I was told that they did not have a computer (but, the Mayor of the town
> indicated he was going to get them one-someday.{:>)). Well, I simply
> called up the URL with my phone (on the ground) and viewed the location
> of the heaviest weather via the radar NEXRAD returns and the satellite
> overhead photos and got the TAF for Jackson Ms. I was able then to make
> an
> informed decision about continuing my flight.
>
> I am certainly not advocating use of cell phones while airborne - but, if
> you think weather may be a factor, then a quick landing and dial up and
> volia - you have weather. Certainly not as convenient and nice as XCM, but
> then it costs less than $70 a year vs $600.
>
> FWIW
>
> Ed
>
> Ed Anderson
> Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
> Matthews, NC
> eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
> Do Not Archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Howard Walrath" <der_Jagdflieger@prodigy.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:57 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: XM and the 386
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Howard Walrath"
>> <der_Jagdflieger@prodigy.net>
>>
>> Charlie, I presume you are aware that your "friend"
>> is violating both FCC and FAA regulations as well
>> as the restrictions of his service provider when he
>> operates his cellular phone in an aircraft that is
>> not on the ground.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Charlie England
>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:46 AM
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: XM and the 386
>>
>>
>>
>> The most likely solution (since the FAA won't 'do the right thing' &
>> simply lease a transponder channel to supply us an avgas-tax supported
>> feed) is coming in the next few years with broadband wireless, like 3G &
>> WiMax. As those technologies spread, we will be able to use the same
>> service for home broadband internet & to get info via a cellphone-like
>> interface to a data screen (PDA or PDA/phone combo, computer, etc) in
>> the plane.
>>
>> A friend is already getting in-flight weather with his PDA/phone. If
>> you're
>> flying anywhere near an interstate highway (most of the time you are),
>> you
>> can do this stuff now.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | N2D First Flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark E Navratil <czechsix@juno.com>
Guys, most if not all of you have already seen my first flight report on
Doug Reeves' or Van's websites, just in case anybody hasn't I thought I'd
copy it to the various Lists I've followed over the past 6 years. Wish I
could remember the names of everybody who has answered questions I have
had, or posted information I have found invaluable during the contruction
of N2D. I often find myself wondering how people built airplanes before
the internet! Thanks for all your help and hope to see many of you in
the air and at fly-ins around the country in the months/years ahead.
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D finally flying...
----
Well folks, N2D is now officially an AIR-plane. The FAA signed me off
Friday Feb 10th and on Wed morning (Feb 15) I woke up to calm winds and I
said to myself, it's time to go flying. I get out to the airport, push
it out of the hangar, do a careful preflight, and can't think of any
excuse not to go. Don my nomex flight suit and helmet and strap myself
in. "Clear Prop!" Engine lights off and the plane comes alive with a
brief shudder and rumble as the vibration ripples through the aluminum
airframe. Taxi out to the end of the East Tees and dial up ground
control: "Cedar Rapids Ground, RV November Two Delta, Experimental...."
Feels good to say that. Tell them I'm ready to do first flight and want
to depart Three-One and circle the airport to 4000'. No problemo. After
the run-up I call Tower and they give me "Position and Hold Three-One,
regional jet landing Niner."
I move out onto the runway, line up with the centerline and wait. I
haven't really been apprehensive about flying this bird but as I sit
there for a few moments, it sorta hits me that I am about to take off in
an airplane that has never flown before....that arrived as boxes of parts
and I assembled in my garage. I think to myself, ya know, this is a
little bit crazy... My thoughts are interrupted by the Tower calling out
"RV Two
Delta, cleared for takeoff." I take a deep breath and push the throttle
forward very slowly. I don't bother looking much at the airspeed, since
I
don't know if it will be accurate. I just wait until it has that 'ready
to fly' feeling and pull back gently on the stick. And up we go. I
realize I
still don't have full power in so I open it up all the way and feel the
constant-speed prop bite in and lunge skyward. Now I am just hanging on
for dear life and hoping nothing bad happens until I can get a little
altitude and catch my breath.
Well, nothing bad happens and eventually my brain catches up with the
airplane. Before I know it I am pushing the nose over at 4K.' My CHT's
are getting a bit high from the climb but nothing out of limits. I
wiggle the stick side-to-side a bit. The wings rock back and forth
briskly in perfect synch with the stick. Gotta love that fighter-like
control response. Flies like an RV....
I circle lazily above the airport for a while, adjusting my oil temp
control and keeping a close eye on all the engine vital signs.
Everything looking good. I peer down on the poor schmucks in the
regional jets landing below me and try not to feel smug. Ok, back to the
task at hand....need to do a few stalls just to see if my airspeed is
working right at low speeds. I head northwest out over the open
farmland. After some more maneuvers I pull the power back slowly to
idle....nose coming up....watching the ASI. Slight buffet and clean
break at 50 kts with flaps
up. Try another one with full flaps...breaks right at 45 kts.
Beautiful. Power back in to 24-squared....gotta run it hard for proper
break-in. I
glance at the flight timer and am surprised to see that an hour has gone
by already.
Time to head back to the aerodrome. I check my six for enemy fighters
and, seeing none, key the mic and tell Cedar Rapids I am ready to return.
They come back with "Wind 040 at 9, left base for runway niner, cleared
to land." I run through my landing checklist. Grip the stick a bit
tighter. Realize that I'm getting close to the field and am still way too
high. Pull the power back to idle and feel the deceleration as the
constant-speed prop and short stubby wings do their thing....get 'er
slowed down enough to throw out the flaps, turn final, add a touch of
power back in to maintain 70 kts and arrest the high sink rate. A bit of
turbulence tossing me around. Nearing the ground now...power all the way
off....flare....and
touchdown. Whew! Not a greaser but not bad either. Big relief as I
roll down the runway, all in one piece...
Taxi up to my hangar, shut her down and just sit there for a while
letting it all soak in. Quiet satisfaction. Engine making that tick,
tick, tick
sound as it cools. Lovely airplane aroma of heat, oil and avgas.
Nobody's around for picture taking, back-slapping or champagne but that
is fine.
Some guy changing a light bulb outside the hangar comes by and says "nice
airplane!". I don't tell him I have just completed its first
flight....just smile and say "thanks."
Speaking of thanks, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the following:
God, for blessing me with the freedom and resources to make this
dream come true.
My patient and supportive wife Kathleen--and my kids--who have
sacrificed a lot to allow me to do this project.
Alan Kritzman for all his help, encouragement (prodding?) and
camaraderie.
Jerry Esquenazi (T-6A IP at Moody AFB) and Karl Heidrich
(Wright-Patt AFB) for going out of their way to help me duplicate the
beautiful paint scheme on the T-6A.
Everett Coleman for kindly donating his way-cool short N-number to
me.
Everybody at Vans Aircraft for the great design and support.
Countless others--too many to name--from EAA Chapter 33 and the
sport aviation community who have shared their time, hardware, advice and
lessons-learned, resulting in a much better airplane than I could have
built without them!
Hope I can get lots of good flying wx in the weeks/months ahead....I have
38.7 hours to go before I can get out of my test area...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A (s/n 80583) N2D, 1.3 hours flying!!
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Nav. Lights |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vern W." <highflight1@gmail.com>
This might also be what you're looking for:
http://www.thorllc.net/LEDSTROBE.htm
I already have the Creative Air Nav LED's, but I need a tail nav/strobe
light to finish the system. Unfortunately, Thor won't sell just the tail
nav/strobe light by itself and will only sell as a complete light set.
Vern W.
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: | Airborne Cell Usage |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
There are a few common misunderstandings here. First, there are no FAA regs specifically
against cell phone usage. Cell technology is very line of sight and
there can be issues with a cell trying to lock onto more than a couple of towers.
Primarily the issue is that it will be constantly switching towers as
it tries to grab the best signal.
There is a lot of talk about using cell phones in commercial aircraft (man I
hope not!). This will take a couple of things to work. For one almost all cell
towers have down tilt on their antennas and radiate accordingly so very little
of the signal goes horizontal let alone up. Most of you that have actually
used your cell in the air probably find that it only works below 2000 feet AGL
or so, unless you happen to be in an area with very high towers or get some
reflected signal. This is due to that down tilt of the antenna. The cell signals
are targeted at people on the ground so they optimize the vast majority
of the signal towards the ground.
The only real reason they haven't allowed cell phones in aircraft are because
they have to build new towers that can broadcast up in a cone or use a satellite.
It is also expected that the aircraft will more than likely have an onboard
repeater, especially if it's satellite based as it more than likely will then
take advantage of higher bandwidth frequencies. Keep in mind that current
cell technology is low power (FCC restricted) and is only good for 3-5 miles.
That is only 15,000-25,000 feet AGL at the very best.
It's not the FAA, or even the FCC, that are currently stopping you from using
your phone in the air (even though there are FCC regs against it they were written
to cover old analog cell technology and competition) it is strictly the
lack of the proper technology and the general feeling among travelers that they
don't one to be wedged next to someone that chats the whole flight on their
cell phone. The cell companies have been busy lobbying the airlines to do this
and they will eventually win. Unfortunately we will not see cell technology
aimed at aviation without the airlines because there just isn't a large enough
market in GA and the airlines still don't want to spend the money on even internet
access in the air.
WiMAX may be a good solution, depending how it is deployed, but it is still a
little ways off. Combining a non-line of sight WiMAX type solution with VoIP
is probably going to the best and cheapest solution.
My $0.02
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey Coggins
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: PDA Weather was RV-List: XM and the 386
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> I certainly understand the FCC,FAA and service provider's position
> about "airborne" usage and why they take that position (I personally
> believe technology could quickly fix that "problem" if they wished).
Just curious - what is "problem", and why don't they like cell phones used in the
air? Do they make a distinction between CDMA and GSM?
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 02/19/2006 2:29:33 AM Central Standard Time,
sportypilot@stx.rr.com writes:
and have the gasolator drain stick out just a little without
a door for it.. whats others doing on that ?
>>>>>
No gascolator...
Mark - do not archive
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: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
Just to confuse the issue, you might want to examine this alternative:
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=5077
Has worked well for 2 yrs/280 hrs, & entertains the hell out of folks at
fly-ins!
Mark - 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: Alternative Nav. Lights |
--> RV-List message posted by: "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us@hotmail.com>
CreativeAir has been out for awhile. This company just hit the market
with-in the year. They have a triangular Tail/Stobe and showed a couple
photo's of the nav instulation.
Thanks for your help.
Bruce G.
>From: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Nav. Lights
>Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:36:01 -0700
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>At 09:54 AM 2/19/2006, you wrote:
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us@hotmail.com>
> >
> >I viewed some LED nav. lights with strobe system a new company has been
> >working on and for the life of me can't find it anywhere. Some one point
>me
> >in the right direction.
>
>Is this it?
>
>http://www.creativair.com/cva/
>
>Ron Lee
>
>
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: Alternative Nav. Lights |
--> RV-List message posted by: "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us@hotmail.com>
That the ticket! These are the guys I saw a while back.
I'm liking these LED low maintenance approach with minimal voltage draw on
the elec. system.
Thanks for your help guys,
Bruce Gray
RV8 Fuse
>From: "Vern W." <highflight1@gmail.com>
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Nav. Lights
>Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:33:33 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Vern W." <highflight1@gmail.com>
>
>This might also be what you're looking for:
>http://www.thorllc.net/LEDSTROBE.htm
>
>I already have the Creative Air Nav LED's, but I need a tail nav/strobe
>light to finish the system. Unfortunately, Thor won't sell just the tail
>nav/strobe light by itself and will only sell as a complete light set.
>
>Vern W.
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Don Mack" <don@dmack.net>
Both the FAA and FCC ban cell phones in planes. They are working to change
it.
http://www.house.gov/transportation/press/press2005/release88.html
The quick extract:
Since 1991, FCC regulations have prohibited the use of certain cellular
phones and wireless communications devices on aircraft out of concern that
such devices interfere with ground-based cellular phone networks.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations currently prohibit the use
of cellular phones, wireless communications devices and other portable
electronic devices (PEDs) with radio transmitters (e.g., BlackBerry
handhelds) while onboard U.S.-registered civil aircraft because of concerns
related to interference with aircraft communications and navigation
equipment, or "avionics."
In December 2004, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) that would effectively allow the use of cellular phones and wireless
communications devices on aircraft equipped with new types of technology,
including "pico cell" networks and wireless Internet or "WiFi" networks,
that would allow passengers to use cell phones and other wireless devices
without generating interference with ground-based cellular networks or
aircraft communications and navigation equipment. The FCC hopes to issue a
final ruling in 2006, stating that its ultimate objective is to allow
consumers to use their own wireless devices during flight.
Even if the FCC finalizes its proposed rule lifting its ban on
aircraft cell phone use, the FAA has no intention to lift its long-standing
ban on the use of cellular phone and wireless communications devices.
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: XM and the 386 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Michael D. Cencula" <matronics@cencula.com>
AFAICT, it's only the 900MHz phones that are against FAA regulations. Most
current phones don't use the 900MHz bands.
On Sunday February 19 2006 11:57, Howard Walrath wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Howard Walrath"
> <der_Jagdflieger@prodigy.net>
>
> Charlie, I presume you are aware that your "friend"
> is violating both FCC and FAA regulations as well
> as the restrictions of his service provider when he
> operates his cellular phone in an aircraft that is
> not on the ground.
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: N2D First Flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dan <dan@rdan.com>
Congradulations !!!
Dan
-8 Rudder
Mark E Navratil <czechsix@juno.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark E Navratil
Guys, most if not all of you have already seen my first flight report on
Doug Reeves' or Van's websites, just in case anybody hasn't I thought I'd
copy it to the various Lists I've followed over the past 6 years. Wish I
could remember the names of everybody who has answered questions I have
had, or posted information I have found invaluable during the contruction
of N2D. I often find myself wondering how people built airplanes before
the internet! Thanks for all your help and hope to see many of you in
the air and at fly-ins around the country in the months/years ahead.
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D finally flying...
----
Well folks, N2D is now officially an AIR-plane. The FAA signed me off
Friday Feb 10th and on Wed morning (Feb 15) I woke up to calm winds and I
said to myself, it's time to go flying. I get out to the airport, push
it out of the hangar, do a careful preflight, and can't think of any
excuse not to go. Don my nomex flight suit and helmet and strap myself
in. "Clear Prop!" Engine lights off and the plane comes alive with a
brief shudder and rumble as the vibration ripples through the aluminum
airframe. Taxi out to the end of the East Tees and dial up ground
control: "Cedar Rapids Ground, RV November Two Delta, Experimental...."
Feels good to say that. Tell them I'm ready to do first flight and want
to depart Three-One and circle the airport to 4000'. No problemo. After
the run-up I call Tower and they give me "Position and Hold Three-One,
regional jet landing Niner."
I move out onto the runway, line up with the centerline and wait. I
haven't really been apprehensive about flying this bird but as I sit
there for a few moments, it sorta hits me that I am about to take off in
an airplane that has never flown before....that arrived as boxes of parts
and I assembled in my garage. I think to myself, ya know, this is a
little bit crazy... My thoughts are interrupted by the Tower calling out
"RV Two
Delta, cleared for takeoff." I take a deep breath and push the throttle
forward very slowly. I don't bother looking much at the airspeed, since
I
don't know if it will be accurate. I just wait until it has that 'ready
to fly' feeling and pull back gently on the stick. And up we go. I
realize I
still don't have full power in so I open it up all the way and feel the
constant-speed prop bite in and lunge skyward. Now I am just hanging on
for dear life and hoping nothing bad happens until I can get a little
altitude and catch my breath.
Well, nothing bad happens and eventually my brain catches up with the
airplane. Before I know it I am pushing the nose over at 4K.' My CHT's
are getting a bit high from the climb but nothing out of limits. I
wiggle the stick side-to-side a bit. The wings rock back and forth
briskly in perfect synch with the stick. Gotta love that fighter-like
control response. Flies like an RV....
I circle lazily above the airport for a while, adjusting my oil temp
control and keeping a close eye on all the engine vital signs.
Everything looking good. I peer down on the poor schmucks in the
regional jets landing below me and try not to feel smug. Ok, back to the
task at hand....need to do a few stalls just to see if my airspeed is
working right at low speeds. I head northwest out over the open
farmland. After some more maneuvers I pull the power back slowly to
idle....nose coming up....watching the ASI. Slight buffet and clean
break at 50 kts with flaps
up. Try another one with full flaps...breaks right at 45 kts.
Beautiful. Power back in to 24-squared....gotta run it hard for proper
break-in. I
glance at the flight timer and am surprised to see that an hour has gone
by already.
Time to head back to the aerodrome. I check my six for enemy fighters
and, seeing none, key the mic and tell Cedar Rapids I am ready to return.
They come back with "Wind 040 at 9, left base for runway niner, cleared
to land." I run through my landing checklist. Grip the stick a bit
tighter. Realize that I'm getting close to the field and am still way too
high. Pull the power back to idle and feel the deceleration as the
constant-speed prop and short stubby wings do their thing....get 'er
slowed down enough to throw out the flaps, turn final, add a touch of
power back in to maintain 70 kts and arrest the high sink rate. A bit of
turbulence tossing me around. Nearing the ground now...power all the way
off....flare....and
touchdown. Whew! Not a greaser but not bad either. Big relief as I
roll down the runway, all in one piece...
Taxi up to my hangar, shut her down and just sit there for a while
letting it all soak in. Quiet satisfaction. Engine making that tick,
tick, tick
sound as it cools. Lovely airplane aroma of heat, oil and avgas.
Nobody's around for picture taking, back-slapping or champagne but that
is fine.
Some guy changing a light bulb outside the hangar comes by and says "nice
airplane!". I don't tell him I have just completed its first
flight....just smile and say "thanks."
Speaking of thanks, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the following:
God, for blessing me with the freedom and resources to make this
dream come true.
My patient and supportive wife Kathleen--and my kids--who have
sacrificed a lot to allow me to do this project.
Alan Kritzman for all his help, encouragement (prodding?) and
camaraderie.
Jerry Esquenazi (T-6A IP at Moody AFB) and Karl Heidrich
(Wright-Patt AFB) for going out of their way to help me duplicate the
beautiful paint scheme on the T-6A.
Everett Coleman for kindly donating his way-cool short N-number to
me.
Everybody at Vans Aircraft for the great design and support.
Countless others--too many to name--from EAA Chapter 33 and the
sport aviation community who have shared their time, hardware, advice and
lessons-learned, resulting in a much better airplane than I could have
built without them!
Hope I can get lots of good flying wx in the weeks/months ahead....I have
38.7 hours to go before I can get out of my test area...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A (s/n 80583) N2D, 1.3 hours flying!!
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: XM and the 386 |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>
>
>>I certainly understand the FCC,FAA and service provider's position about
>>"airborne" usage and why they take that position (I personally believe
>>technology could quickly fix that "problem" if they wished).
>>
>>
>
>Just curious - what is "problem", and why don't they like cell
>phones used in the air? Do they make a distinction between
>CDMA and GSM?
>
>
>
The cell system is based on the computer making a 'position' of your
cell phone by measuring the signal strength of the 'information' channel
that your cell phone uses to let the system know the phone is on and
connected. The computer uses that signal strength to hand you off from
one tower to the next. There are enough channels available to handle
MOST of the cell phones that are normally in that area. Cell phones are
line-of-sight to the towers. When airborne, many more cell towers can
receive your signal, and a couple of airborne cell phones could (and do)
cause dropped calls because the computer sees your one cell phone, with
good signal strength, on those towers, and you can block (unnecessarily)
the receivers needed by someone else that's transitioning to the cell
tower that you're using.
It's been a while since I was involved with the cell system, and I
rather imagine that the airborne cell calls from airliners are being
handled on an additional frequency that's not being currently used in
the 'traditional' cell system. Just a guess.
Linn
do not archive
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: | Re: XM and the 386 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 2/19/2006 10:31:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ceengland@bellsouth.net writes:
My point is that new technology will soon render the XM issue mute.
And also moot.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
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: XM and the 386 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Vanremog@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 2/19/2006 10:31:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>ceengland@bellsouth.net writes:
>
>My point is that new technology will soon render the XM issue mute.
>
>
>And also moot.
>
>GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
>
duhhh....
Thanks; I was obviously typing in my sleep.
Charlie
do not archive
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: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
I think having it stick out just a bit would make attaching the lower
cowling a hard thing to do. I suggest your drain tube be just short of
sticking out.
Indiana Larry, RV7 SunSeeker 80+ hours flying
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: <Fiveonepw@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch
> --> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 02/19/2006 2:29:33 AM Central Standard Time,
> sportypilot@stx.rr.com writes:
> and have the gasolator drain stick out just a little without
> a door for it.. whats others doing on that ?
>>>>>>
>
> No gascolator...
>
> Mark - do not archive
>
>
>
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: | Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Sportypilot" <sportypilot@stx.rr.com>
I have seen them on the glass planes , I don't want the firewall penatration
but I love the idea, plus I don't want to
install the cable pull inside.. ( man I should have listened and ran all the
wire prior to installing the forward top skin)
I am sick of running wire.. I ordered the 610-64's 20 each, oh well, anyway
I have a question, does the
dynon remote compass work ok in the wing tip? or is it best under the emp
fairing.. ?
Danny..
----- Original Message -----
From: <Fiveonepw@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: P/N KM610-64 Camloc Flush Button Latch
> --> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
> Just to confuse the issue, you might want to examine this alternative:
>
> http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=5077
>
> Has worked well for 2 yrs/280 hrs, & entertains the hell out of folks at
> fly-ins!
>
> Mark - do not archive
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|