Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:31 AM - Re: 1st Flight N716K (Charles Rowbotham)
2. 03:32 AM - Re: Super 7 (Dana Overall)
3. 03:59 AM - Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG (LUCKYMACY@comcast.net (lucky))
4. 05:01 AM - Re: Fuel tank bulletin (Ed Anderson)
5. 05:44 AM - Re: I-39 Fly In (LarryRobertHelming)
6. 05:48 AM - Re: Fuel cap water protection? (LarryRobertHelming)
7. 05:48 AM - Re: Fuel cap water protection? (Alex Peterson)
8. 06:02 AM - S. B. Fuel tanks (BERTRV6@highstream.net)
9. 06:20 AM - Re: I-39 Fly In (Ron Lee)
10. 06:30 AM - Re: Super 7 (Rhonda Bewley)
11. 06:33 AM - Re: Super 7 (charles heathco)
12. 10:09 AM - Re: Super 7 (Rolf Unternaehrer)
13. 10:28 AM - Re: Super 7 (LarryRobertHelming)
14. 10:29 AM - fittings (was Re: Fuel tank bulletin) (linn Walters)
15. 10:29 AM - Re: S. B. Fuel tanks (JOHN STARN)
16. 10:29 AM - Re: Re: Fuel tank SB (it's easy) (LarryRobertHelming)
17. 10:29 AM - Re: Super 7 (LarryRobertHelming)
18. 10:29 AM - High HP O-360 engine (Ron Lee)
19. 10:29 AM - Re: Flop Tube rubbing was Re: Fuel tank SB (it's easy) (Charlie Kuss)
20. 10:58 AM - Re: Fuel tank bulletin (Kevin Horton)
21. 11:44 AM - Re: Re: Fuel tank SB (it's easy) (Terry Watson)
22. 11:44 AM - Fuel tank bulletin (Don/Marcia Piermattei)
23. 11:52 AM - annodized instrument panel? ()
24. 12:46 PM - Re: Super 7 (RGray67968@aol.com)
25. 12:54 PM - Re: annodized instrument panel? (scott bilinski)
26. 01:40 PM - Re: Removing Proseal/Tank MSB (LarryRobertHelming)
27. 01:51 PM - Sherwin williams GBP-988 vs. Dupont A-4115S (David Karlsberg)
28. 01:51 PM - Fuel tank service bulletin (Peter Blake)
29. 03:06 PM - Re: annodized instrument panel? (Ron Lee)
30. 03:06 PM - My response to fuel tank bulletin (Ron Lee)
31. 03:17 PM - Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft (Dan Checkoway)
32. 03:38 PM - Re: Fuel cap water protection? (Kevin Horton)
33. 03:49 PM - Re: Super 7 (Konrad L. Werner)
34. 03:57 PM - Fuel Tank SB - Ordered the Goo & Parts (Kyle Boatright)
35. 04:14 PM - Primary Wars IV, was: Sherwin williams GBP-988 vs. Dupont A-4115S (Chuck)
36. 04:14 PM - Re: Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft (John Jessen)
37. 04:23 PM - Re: Sherwin williams GBP-988 vs. Dupont A-4115S (Bill Schlatterer)
38. 04:32 PM - Re: Removing Proseal/Tank MSB (Mike Robertson)
39. 04:37 PM - Re: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG (Mike Robertson)
40. 04:37 PM - Re: Fuel Tank SB - Ordered the Goo & Parts (bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net (Bob Collins))
41. 04:50 PM - Re: Super 7 (Dana Overall)
42. 04:52 PM - Fuel Tank SB (Richard Seiders)
43. 04:52 PM - Re: Fuel Tank SB - Ordered the Goo & Parts (Rick Galati)
44. 04:56 PM - Re: Super 7 (D.Bristol)
45. 05:04 PM - Re: Super 7 (Konrad L. Werner)
46. 05:10 PM - Re: Removing Proseal/Tank MSB (Steve Struyk)
47. 05:12 PM - Re:Fuel tank service bulletin (Duane Bentley)
48. 05:26 PM - Re: Super 7 (Dana Overall)
49. 05:34 PM - Re: Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft (Larry Bowen)
50. 05:42 PM - Re: Fuel tank service bulletin (Steve Eberhart)
51. 05:54 PM - Re: Fuel Tank SB (Kevin Horton)
52. 06:01 PM - Re: Fuel tank service bulletin (Jerry Springer)
53. 06:05 PM - Re: Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft (Dan Checkoway)
54. 06:28 PM - Re: Re:Fuel tank service bulletin (Jerry Springer)
55. 06:47 PM - Re: Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft (Bobby Hester)
56. 06:47 PM - Re: Fuel Tank SB (David Burton)
57. 06:52 PM - Re: Fuel cap water protection? (Alex Peterson)
58. 06:59 PM - Re: Fuel Tank SB (JOHN STARN)
59. 07:54 PM - Re: High HP O-360 engine (dick martin)
60. 08:23 PM - 120-volt welder for home/hangar use... (jacklockamy)
61. 09:02 PM - Re: Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft (David Leonard)
62. 09:21 PM - Re: annodized instrument panel? (Vanremog@aol.com)
63. 10:14 PM - Sorry... NOT Service bulletin Related! (Bill VonDane)
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: | 1st Flight N716K |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham@hotmail.com>
Kelly,
CONGRATULATIONS and WELL DONE !!!
Chuck & Dave Rowbotham
RV-8A
>From: "Kelly Patterson" <kbob@cox.net>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: 1st Flight N716K
>Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:44:04 -0700
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Kelly Patterson" <kbob@cox.net>
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>Couldn't wait to let the list know that another RV-6A is airborne. Took
>flight from Chandler, AZ this morning for 45 minutes of orbiting the field.
>All temps & pressures nominal. No issues to speak of after the flight.
>Straight & true with maybe a 1/4 bubble off on the rudder.
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>Okay, I plead ignorance here. When I see the words
>"kit engine", I think a kit of parts and I build my
>own engine. Is this correct?
Your are entirely correct. For around 13.5 you can get a real nice ECI that
you "put together".
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
do not archive
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 |
|
Cc: support@vansaircraft.com, info@vansaircraft.com
| Subject: | Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG |
--> RV-List message posted by: LUCKYMACY@comcast.net (lucky)
Can someone relatively local like Randy get over to Van's during business hours
and have a face to face discussion with Richard himself and see why they didn't
soften up the language initially? We might find something else like it wasn't
just 2 or 3 RVs that had incidences or something more factual along those
lines.
Ask for all of us on the 'net if he would reconsider softening the language like
saying proseal would have been an acceptable method - just for all those thousands
of flyers with insurance companies to worry about immediately?
Thanks,
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "bdjones1965" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "bdjones1965"
>
> Not sure about everyone else out there, but I kind of doubt my flop tube is
> "flopping" around very much at all. It may shift around side to side a little
> and maybe once every year or two I'll really botch something and get negative.
> Other than that, I'd be more worried about the weight wearing a hole in the
> bottom of the tank where it's sitting in 99+% of the time.
>
> I find two things really curious. One is why Van has apparently crossed into
> the grayness of liability and appears to have assumed some partial role as
> manufacturer by sending out these Service Bulletins. This "SB" looks and smells
> just like one you might get from a *manufacturer*. And his wording was just too
> much like that of a manufacturer as well.
>
> Second, speaking of risk, I have several other hose fittings in my plane that
> *will* cause engine stoppage - maybe I need to safety those as well. A flop
> tube connection failure *may* cause stoppage, and should be recoverable by
> switching tanks.
>
> This flop-tube item is pretty far down on the priority list for me. Not to
> mention that I specifically remember tightening that nut very well.
>
> But now Van's has me concerned about the applicability of my insurance if I
> don't comply with this overreactive "SB", while not being worried about the
> airworthiness of my plane. Gee, I would expect this kind of treatment from
> Cessna, Piper or Lycoming.
>
> Bryan RV-8
> Houston, Texas
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=15240#15240
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Can someone relatively local like Randy get over to Van's during business hours
and have a face to face discussion withRichard himself and see why they didn't
soften up the language initially? We might find something elselike it wasn't
just 2 or 3 RVs that had incidences or somethingmore factual along those lines.
Ask for all of us on the 'net if he would reconsider softening the language like
saying proseal would have been an acceptable method - just for all those thousands
of flyers with insurance companies to worry about immediately?
Thanks,
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "bdjones1965" rv_8pilot@hotmail.com
-- RV-List message posted by: "bdjones1965" <RV_8PILOT@HOTMAIL.COM>
Not sure about everyone else out there, but I kind of doubt my flop tube is
"flopping" around very much at all. It may shift around side to side a little
and maybe once every year or two I'll really botch something and get negative.
Other than that, I'd be more worried about the weight wearing a hole in the
bottom of the tank where it's sitting in 99+% of the time.
I find two things really curious. One is why Van has apparently crossed into
the grayness of liability and appears to have assumed some partial role as
manufacturer by sending out these Service Bulletins. This "SB" looks and smells
just like one you
might get from a *manufacturer*. And his wording was just too
much like that of a manufacturer as well.
Second, speaking of risk, I have several other hose fittings in my plane that
*will* cause engine stoppage - maybe I need to safety those as well. A flop
tube connection failure *may* cause stoppage, and should be recoverable by
switching tanks.
This flop-tube item is pretty far down on the priority list for me. Not to
mention that I specifically remember tightening that nut very well.
But now Van's has me concerned about the applicability of my insurance if I
don't comply with this overreactive "SB", while not being worried about the
airworthiness of my plane. Gee, I would expect this kind of treatment from
Cessna, Piper or Lycoming.
Bryan RV-8
Houston, Texas
Read this topic on
line here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=15240#15240
&g
t;
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: Fuel tank bulletin |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Yes, when I informed them of my finding the Flop Tube having fallen off -
they really did not seem interested. I presume this comes from the fact
that there are hundreds/thousands of Rv's who have never had the problem (at
least - not yet). Did you have extended fuel capacity in your Rv-6? I
drained the tank immediately after the incident (within 30 minutes) and the
fuel remaining was 3.5 gallons in my case (Rv-6A).
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Don/Marcia Piermattei"
> <dlpier@lamar.colostate.edu>
>
> There have been at least 2 accidents due to the loose flare nut fitting.
> I
> totaled my RV-6 31/2 years ago due to this problem. There was 6.5 gallons
> left in the tank, not 3.5. I informed Vans about it and never received a
> reply. There was a short note in the RVator 2-3 years ago addressing this
> problem. It was done by a contributor, not Van's staff. I prosealed the
> nuts
> on my current RV-9.
> Don Piermattei
> RV-9 90411
>
> Donald L. Piermattei DVM, PhD
> 5000 E County Rd 92
> Carr, CO 80612
> 970/568-9047
> Fax 970/568-7279
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Elaine and Dana put in lots of effort to make a nice fly in. I personally
had all the donuts and hot chicken wings I wanted. First time that ever
happened. I expect Elaine and Dana will gain about 10 lbs each as then try
to make good use of the left overs. (plan for 100 and about only 50 had
time to get the fuel tanks pickups fixed.) do not archive
Now we know that Dana does not have a sure thing with the weather. Next
year I will at least take a look at some forecasting or call ATC for a
weather briefing. (just kidding I did that and came over anyway). It
stretched my envelope a bit. When I got back home to Evansville, I had to
divert to another airport to get it landed. But it worked out. Sunday I
flew :SunSeeker" back to its hangar.
Thanks for the great work Dana and Elaine. Next year for sure?
Indiana Larry, RV7 "SunSeeker" 90+ hours flying
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Ward" <kennethward@peoplepc.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: RV-List: I-39 Fly In
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kenneth Ward <kennethward@peoplepc.com>
>
> Thank you Dana and Elaine Overall for hosting another fantastic fly in
> again this year. You should be bold and give it a name like "Richmond, the
> Best Darn Little Fly In-Period."
>
> I brought the boy with me this time, he had great time, convinced his
> sister and grandfather they have to come next year.
>
> Team RV and the Buckeye squadron did a great formation display, there was
> some really rough the air just over the field and they still made it look
> great.
>
> Thanks again to all the nice folks who were there.
> Ken Ward
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> PeoplePC Online
> A better way to Internet
> http://www.peoplepc.com
>
>
>
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: Fuel cap water protection? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
I too use fuelube on the big O-ring in the fuel caps. I recently had my
plane parked outside for 7 weeks while our runways were widened. I did not
find any water in my tanks during the time and it rained quite hard a few
times during the time.
You could always use a couple pieces of electricians tape and do a good job
of sealing over the caps.
Indiana Larry, RV7 "SunSeeker" 90+ hours flying
----- Original Message -----
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> Can't speak for anybody else, but I use a fair amount of fuelube (EZ-turn)
> on my fuel caps. My plane has sat out in the rain for extended periods
> while travelling (5 days in a row of T-storms) and I haven't seen any
> water
> in the tanks. I think fuelube on the shaft and O rings does a decent job
> sealing out the water. Just my personal opinion/experience.
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D (827 hours)
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "c.ennis" <c.ennis@insightbb.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:49 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Fuel cap water protection?
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "c.ennis" <c.ennis@insightbb.com>
>>
>> My 6A spends an appreciable amount of time outside in the weather. I have
>> some fuel cap covers from Sporty's, but they are not doing the job. Some
>> time back I remember seeing an ad for a cover which I am convinced will
>> do
>> a
>> better job. As I remember it was about 12" in diameter and was
>> constructed
>> of a soft plyable rubber or plastic and had lead shot or some other heavy
>> material blended in with the rubber. It was heavy and soft and when
>> placed
>> over the fuel cap if assumed the shape of the wing surface and
>> effectively
>> sealed out water intrusion into the tank through the cap. Its weight and
>> plyability assured that it was in contact with the wing surface and would
>> not blow off.
>> If anyone could supply the name of the seller of this or a similar item,
>> I
>> would be grateful.
>> Charlie Ennis
>> N60CE 50hrs and counting.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Fuel cap water protection? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> Can't speak for anybody else, but I use a fair amount of
> fuelube (EZ-turn) on my fuel caps. My plane has sat out in
> the rain for extended periods while travelling (5 days in a
> row of T-storms) and I haven't seen any water in the tanks.
> I think fuelube on the shaft and O rings does a decent job
> sealing out the water. Just my personal opinion/experience.
>
> )_( Dan
Ah, Dan the warm California Man,
I tried EZ Turn a while back - don't use it if the temperature is going to
be below about freezing. It becomes really stiff when cold. There was a
time when the OAT was around 10F where I could NOT get the caps off.
Fortunately, I was at the home base and simply taxied back to the hangar. I
spent a lot of time getting the crud out of the caps. I now spray some
Tri-Flow under the O-rings from time to time, which reduces the friction
enough that I can adjust the caps to adequately seal. It was amazing how
much more I could compress the big o-ring after putting Tri-Flow in there.
I have also used a spray white grease, same effect.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 719 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: | S. B. Fuel tanks |
--> RV-List message posted by: BERTRV6@highstream.net
HI
Decided to do it:
Since I had taken the tank out before, took me Allmost all day Saturday
and Half day Sunday. Sunday I had a friend to help..
But I did take my time, no rush, with breaks for coffee, and luch..
is not so bad; so much better with help.
Bert
rv6a
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: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>Now we know that Dana does not have a sure thing with the weather. Next
>year I will at least take a look at some forecasting or call ATC for a
>weather briefing. (just kidding I did that and came over anyway). It
>stretched my envelope a bit. When I got back home to Evansville, I had to
>divert to another airport to get it landed. But it worked out. Sunday I
>flew :SunSeeker" back to its hangar.
Here is good pilot judgement. Compare that with the three DC area
accidents that killed seven people over the weekend.
http://tinyurl.com/k7gc9
Ron Lee
Do 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
Dave:
It can be either. The Lycoming "kits" are assembled by professional
engine shops (only 5 shops to ensure highest quality standards.) The
Lycoming kits are all certified parts, but are considered experimental
because they are not assembled at the factory. Superior/ECI offers kits
that can be assembled by the builder or by the engine shop of choice.
Rhonda
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.
Tulsa, OK 74115
(918) 835-1089 phone
(918) 835-1754 fax
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Nellis <truflite@yahoo.com>
Okay, I plead ignorance here. When I see the words
"kit engine", I think a kit of parts and I build my
own engine. Is this correct? Or is a kit engine an
engine built by pros to my specs?
Dave
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "charles heathco" <cheathco@junct.com>
Dana, I know of a super 7 based at 5C1. Beorne Tx, would be practically the same,
Email me off list for details if you like, Charlie H
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rolf Unternaehrer" <rolf@microsource-inc.com>
Dana,
Check out "Barnes Stormer" N183SB; Very similar to the Super 6.
The builder flew with Boyd in the Super 6, and LIKED IT!
Rolf
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
oh yes, "real nice" does that include any accessories?
Indiana Larry, RV7 "SunSeeker" 90+ hours flying
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
>
> Your are entirely correct. For around 13.5 you can get a real nice ECI
> that
> you "put together".
>
>
> Dana Overall
> Richmond, KY i39
> RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tank bulletin) |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
G McNutt wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: G McNutt <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
>
>Hi Donald
>
>Thanks for sharing that information.
>Reading about pipe flares today and found that over tightening can cause
>damage to the tube possibly causing failure
>
Very true. AN tubing fittings should be really 'snug' without acting
like a gorilla. Somewhere (I don't remember where!) I saw some
recommendations on torque ...... and they were surprisingly small.
>, also cracks and deformities in a flare are not acceptable.
>
An understatement, to be sure. Getting a good flare takes the same
practice that good riveting does, and shares some of the same
operations. I use a file to 'square off the end' of the tubing, making
it flat, and removing most of the 'pinch' caused by the tubing cutter.
I use the 'reamer' to further clean up the inside of the tube end.
Making sure the cone of the flaring tool is centered in the tube, I
turn the handle a little and back it off, much like using a hole tap.
Sometimes I use a silicone lubricant, sometimes not. I know it can't
hurt!!!
After the flaring tool bottoms out ..... think snug again ..... take the
flaring tool off and inspect the inside of the flare fore cracks, the
flare being off-center, and any scoring that may be there. If the flare
isn't perfect .... make another piece.
Also, inspect the backside of the flare too, and the grooves left on the
tube by the flaring tube. The nipple should slide up to the flare
without any dragging. Dress the ridges a little if you need to.
Here's what I find (IMHO) screws up a flare: Cracks are caused by
flaring too fast; give the aluminum time to flow a little ...... and
leaving too much tubing stickiing out of the tubing holder ..... along
with not properly dressing up the end of the tube.
Having the flare cone off center will pretty much guarantee a leak ....
which folks solve by using a pipe extension on their wrench an over
tighten the nut. I've never really seen folks do that ..... but it's a
good (bad) picture!
As for the problem with flop tubes in the tank. IMHO (and you need to
remember that!) I can't for the life of me understand how a properly
flared tube and properly tightened nut work their way loose. I'm sorry,
but from my armchair-quarterback position, I think the nuts weren't
properly tightened. I'm not familiar with the flop tube arrangement, so
there may be something that I'm missing here. Do a simple test. Put
flares on a piece of tubing ..... say 4" long, and tighten a flare
fitting in each end. Hold one end in a vise and put a wrench on the
fitting on the other end (not the nut!) Now turn the fitting (twisting
the tubing) How much torque did you have to apply to make either
fitting slip???? Whatta you mean the tubing failed??? OK. Now put a
wrench on the neu (either one will do, but use the nut on the vise end).
and tell me how much torque it takes to loosen the nut just a little.
Alot? Hmmm. Now, ask yourself just where did all the rotational force
come from to loosen a properly tightened nut??? Vibration???? Ya gotta
be kidding. Vibration that would loosen your flare fittings would be
unmanageable, and your gyro based instruments would fail rapidly as an
indicator.
Now, before you flame me, just remember that I'm making observations
here. I'm not highly trained in tubing/flaring/tightening ...... just
the 25 years of building/owning/maintaining an experimental airplane.
It's so easy to forget to tighten a screw, nut, or any other type of
fastener, while you're building or repairing or ...... Just think of
all the fittings in airplanes all over the globe .... and ask yourself
what would happen if there was even a small percentage of fittings that
loosen under use. They'd have places already drilled for safety wire,
cotter pins, or some other safety method.
OK, now someone else can use the soapbox. All I ask is for y'all to be
methodical and safe out there!!!
Linn ..... I can stand the heat
>Two questions for you - did the investigation find that the AN 818 nut
>came completely off the bulkhead fitting allowing the pickup tube to
>drop off, or had the nut just loosened allowing the fuel pump to suck air?
>Was there any previous symptom of a fuel flow problem?
>
>Thanks,
>
>George in Langley BC
>
>
>
>
>
>>There have been at least 2 accidents due to the loose flare nut fitting. I
>>totaled my RV-6 31/2 years ago due to this problem. There was 6.5 gallons
>>left in the tank, not 3.5. I informed Vans about it and never received a
>>reply. There was a short note in the RVator 2-3 years ago addressing this
>>problem. It was done by a contributor, not Van's staff. I prosealed the nuts
>>on my current RV-9.
>>Don Piermattei
>>RV-9 90411
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: S. B. Fuel tanks |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
WHAT.....this is supposed to be such a simple job.....be done in 1/2 an hour
per tank. ? ? lets see.....18 screws out, drill nut & wire tube, clean off
proseal...clean off pro seal...clean off proseal (two cover plates & the
tank face) re-proseal, new gaskets and reinstall 18 screws. Clean off "new"
proseal, & reconnect everything. OH did I leave off the part about draining
the tanks, fuel line disconnect etc etc. Two guys, total of a day per tank
IF every one of the 32 screws tasks cooperates, yea that sounds better. We
are only doing 18 Phillips head screws tasks...the 18 re-attachment devises
going back in will be new hex, tork, star etc. No more Phillips in tight
inaccessible areas. N561FS KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <BERTRV6@highstream.net>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:59 AM
Subject: RV-List: S. B. Fuel tanks
> --> RV-List message posted by: BERTRV6@highstream.net
>
>
> HI
>
> Decided to do it:
>
> Since I had taken the tank out before, took me Allmost all day Saturday
> and Half day Sunday. Sunday I had a friend to help..
>
> But I did take my time, no rush, with breaks for coffee, and luch..
> is not so bad; so much better with help.
>
> Bert
>
> rv6a
>
> Do not archive
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: Fuel tank SB (it's easy) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
I bought mine from Vans. When mixed properly, and shown respect for its age
and the temperature environment it was stored in I had excellent results.
If kept in an ice box at about 35F it is still usage after a couple years.
You must of gotten a bad batch. I would return it to Vans so they can
decide if you should get a free one. Vans is very easy to work with and
fair. They don't always do what the customer wants, but I can appreciate
that too because they are trying to keep their costs and our prices down.
RTV will literally melt/dissolve/become mushy in fuel.
Indiana Larry, RV7 "SunSeeker" 90+ hours flying
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>> So tell me what you all think... Do any of you think it could ever come
>> loose or fall off?
>>
>> http://www.rv8a.com/tanks/ps4.jpg
>
> To me it looks like you're in good shape, Bill.
>
> One side question - the "proseal" on my QB tanks is very
> very tough. The "proseal" I got from Van's is about as
> strong as RTV. Does anyone know where to get the strong
> stuff?
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>>Okay, I plead ignorance here. When I see the words
>>"kit engine", I think a kit of parts and I build my
>>own engine. Is this correct?
>
> Your are entirely correct. For around 13.5 you can get a real nice ECI
> that
> you "put together".
>
>
> Dana Overall
Do they include a step by step construction manual?
Indiana Larry, RV7 "SunSeeker" 90+ hours flying
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | High HP O-360 engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Reading about the Super 7 I have some questions to ask about
getting a higher than 180 HP engine out of an O-360. (not IO
or angle valve)
You can put higher compression pistons in for some increase
above that provide by 8.5:1. Obviously there are pros and cons.
Other than not being able to use autogas how would one determine
how high to go (9.2, 9.5, 10:1)?
Supposedly there is a high torque Camshaft. More torque must be good.
Porting and polishing of something is mentioned.
Angle cut of the valves may offer something.
Where is the highest/most cost-effective pay-off in getting more horsepower
from an O-360?
Ron Lee
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flop Tube rubbing was Re: Fuel tank SB (it's easy) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Bryan,
I was concerned about the flop tube wearing or scratching the fuel
tank skin myself. The weight on the end of the tube comes with a soft
Viton O-ring installed. It's purpose is to act as a skid. It keeps
the brass weight off of the skin. It's quite soft and not well
retained on the weight. I worried that it would either "roll off" the
weight or simply wear down after a few years.
I replaced the O-ring with an appropriately sized washer, made of
Delrin. I had to really stuggle to get the washer installed. There is
NO way that thing will "roll off" or wear down in a short period of
time. I can supply 2 slightly blurry photos off list, to anyone who
wants to see them.
Charlie Kuss
>--> RV-List message posted by: "bdjones1965" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>
>Not sure about everyone else out there, but I kind of doubt my flop
>tube is "flopping" around very much at all. It may shift around
>side to side a little and maybe once every year or two I'll really
>botch something and get negative. Other than that, I'd be more
>worried about the weight wearing a hole in the bottom of the tank
>where it's sitting in 99+% of the time.
>snipped
>Bryan RV-8
>Houston, Texas
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: Fuel tank bulletin |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
The flare nut for the regular fuel pickup is higher than the one for
the inverted fuel pickup. So it is reasonable to assume that fuel
remaining after the failure would be greater.
Kevin Horton
On 27 Feb 2006, at 07:41, Ed Anderson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
>
> Yes, when I informed them of my finding the Flop Tube having
> fallen off -
> they really did not seem interested. I presume this comes from the
> fact
> that there are hundreds/thousands of Rv's who have never had the
> problem (at
> least - not yet). Did you have extended fuel capacity in your
> Rv-6? I
> drained the tank immediately after the incident (within 30 minutes)
> and the
> fuel remaining was 3.5 gallons in my case (Rv-6A).
>
> Ed
>
> Ed Anderson
> Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
> Matthews, NC
> eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Don/Marcia Piermattei"
>> <dlpier@lamar.colostate.edu>
>>
>> There have been at least 2 accidents due to the loose flare nut
>> fitting.
>> I
>> totaled my RV-6 31/2 years ago due to this problem. There was 6.5
>> gallons
>> left in the tank, not 3.5. I informed Vans about it and never
>> received a
>> reply. There was a short note in the RVator 2-3 years ago
>> addressing this
>> problem. It was done by a contributor, not Van's staff. I
>> prosealed the
>> nuts
>> on my current RV-9.
>> Don Piermattei
>> RV-9 90411
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: Fuel tank SB (it's easy) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Van's is selling a new kind of tank sealant with a 4 month shelf life. I
have had a can of the old stuff in my refrigerator for at least two years,
maybe twice that, and every time I use some it seems to work fine.
Terry
This is from their current web catalog:
Fuel Tank Sealant
Required Sealant for Building Your Tanks
Description
MC-236-B2 (Quart Kit)
The recommended sealer for RV fuel tanks, replaces older ProSeal. Limited
shelf life (approximately 4 months from purchase). Order the Quart Kit when
ready to seal tanks. With careful application, one can should do one
airplane, even the larger RV-7 and RV-8 tanks, but many builders use more.
Includes accelerator.Sealing compound and accelerator are mixed by WEIGHT at
a ratio of 10:1. Save yourself a call. We know that the quart can does not
contain a full quart of sealant. This is normal. :-)
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: | Fuel tank bulletin |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Don/Marcia Piermattei" <dlpier@lamar.colostate.edu>
--> RV-List message posted by: G McNutt <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
Hi Donald
Thanks for sharing that information.
Reading about pipe flares today and found that over tightening can cause
damage to the tube possibly causing failure, also cracks and deformities in a
flare are not acceptable.
Two questions for you - did the investigation find that the AN 818 nut came
completely off the bulkhead fitting allowing the pickup tube to drop off, or
had the nut just loosened allowing the fuel pump to suck air?
Was there any previous symptom of a fuel flow problem?
The pick up tube was completely loose. There were no previous indications as I
apparently had never let that tank get that low in 175 hours of operation.
Donald L. Piermattei DVM, PhD
5000 E County Rd 92
Carr, CO 80612
970/568-9047
Fax 970/568-7279
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: | annodized instrument panel? |
--> RV-List message posted by: <erichweaver@cox.net>
Greeting
I was considering anodizing my instrument panel to a color of my choice rather
than painting or powder coating. Any drawbacks to this, asthetic or otherwise?
regards
Erich Weaver
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: RGray67968@aol.com
Dana,
Bob 'Rocketboy' Gross now owns the plane. He has it up for sale on his
'Rocketboy' website at:
_http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/_ (http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/)
There is no substitute for cubic inches....<smile>.
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm - RV6 Sold, RV8 completed, RV4 ready
for paint, RV10 and F1 Rocket under construction
_http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/_
(http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/)
for the archives
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: annodized instrument panel? |
--> RV-List message posted by: scott bilinski <rv8a2001@yahoo.com>
It will fade in the sun.
erichweaver@cox.net wrote: --> RV-List message posted by:
Greeting
I was considering anodizing my instrument panel to a color of my choice rather
than painting or powder coating. Any drawbacks to this, asthetic or otherwise?
regards
Erich Weaver
---------------------------------
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
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: Removing Proseal/Tank MSB |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
I've done it too. Slip putty knife in carefully and try not to
scrape/scratch up the metal too badly. Clean it thoroughly before
re-prosealing. I left the cork off. There was an article on leaving it off
in the rv-ator at one time. That is what I did and no leaks.
Indiana Larry, RV7 "SunSeeker" 90+ hours flying
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy@romeolima.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Removing Proseal/Tank MSB
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@romeolima.com>
>
> A sharp putty knife... been there, done that.
>
> Randy Lervold
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Jerry2DT@aol.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:23 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Removing Proseal/Tank MSB
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>>
>> Listers,
>>
>> What's the best method of removing tank end plates that are prosealed
>> on?
>>
>> Jerry Cochran
>> Wilsonville, OR
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Sherwin williams GBP-988 vs. Dupont A-4115S |
--> RV-List message posted by: David Karlsberg <claypride@hotmail.com>
Okay so my friendly neighborhood autopaint store switched from sherwin
williams to dupont paints. I am building a 7 and am almost through the
tail. I used gbp-988 to prime most of it. Is Dupont A-4115S the same stuff
(the guy at the store told me it pretty much is). I know it is a little
darker, but I am not too concerned about the color. Are there any other
tangible differences?
Thanks,
David Karlsberg
7-tail
Beverly Hills
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: | Fuel tank service bulletin |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Peter Blake" <pblake@epix.net>
Here's the letter and e-mail I sent to Van.
February 27, 2006
Dear Van,
I was very surprised and disappointed on seeing your Mandatory Service
Bulletin requiring fuel tank changes. In my case, I have capacitive probes
for fuel quantity measurement, and no inspection plate to remove. Even if I
did have plates, theres less than a 2 gap between the wing skins and
fuselage of my RV6. I wont whine about tearing up very expensive paint, or
removing the wings to get at the tank, or even that this may cause an
insurance problem if I fail to do it. Instead, I question your logic and
your process of issuing this bulletin.
Im wondering why you didnt at least have a comment period so you could
gather input from the fleet, before issuing this bulletin. The FAA finds
public comment useful; Im surprised you dont as well.
I have heard of two incidents involving alleged (your term) fuel pick-up
tube problems. In one, there was plenty of warning that something was
amiss, yet the plane was flown anyway (rather than ground tested), without
determining and rectifying root cause. Even then, it seems that simply
switching tanks would have prevented the accident. In the second instance,
switching tanks would have prevented the accident as well. How many times
have we heard of fuel starvation accidents where the pilot failed to switch
tanks, even though plenty of fuel was available in the other? It seems to
me that pilot error was a major contributing factor in these accidents.
Perhaps an article on the importance of proper emergency procedures for
engine-out emergencies would have been appropriate, since that would address
prevention of such fuel starvation accidents.
Given a fleet of approximately 4500 aircraft, 2 incidents (both of which
could have been prevented by appropriate pilot action) represents an
accident rate of 0.044 %. This level of risk doesnt seem sufficient to
warrant the draconian nature of your service bulletin especially
unilaterally, without comment.
Further, it seems to me that a vanishingly small probability exists that one
tank would be dry while the fuel pick-up tube malfunctioned in the other, or
that both tubes malfunctioned at the same time. These seem to me to be the
only conditions under which an engine stoppage due to fuel pick-up tube
malfunction could not be rectified by appropriate pilot action e.g.,
switching tanks.
Many will say that you did this to protect yourself from liability a
completely understandable motive. It seems to me however, that mandating
the opening of 9000 fuel tanks by amateurs, drilling of holes in sensitive
areas, resealing etc. (and in the case of those of us with capacitance
senders and no removable end plate, creating and sealing a large hole), not
to mention the obvious danger of fire when working around aviation gasoline
and fumes, is a case of the cure being worse than the disease. It seems to
me that you expose your company to much more liability in the case of
accidents that will be construed as directly or indirectly caused by or
related to these repairs.
It seems to me that a more rational approach would be to mandate a bore
scope inspection of the fuel pick-up tubes, which could be accomplished with
minimum fuss through the fuel drain plug hole. This would identify any
problems, go a long way toward protecting you from fuel pick-up tube
liability, and avoid entirely the liability of causing 9000 fuel tanks to be
drained (and not flushed with water), opened, modified and reclosed.
I encourage you to consider all the ramifications of your actions, first and
foremost with regard to safety. Secondly, with regard to the thousands of
hours (and dollars) required for fleet compliance, and thirdly, with regard
to your reputation for pragmatism, concern for costs, and generally doing
the right thing.
Please rescind this bulletin, and issue another, more appropriate to the
actual risk-benefit relationships in this issue.
Sincerely,
Peter Blake
RV6
e-Mail: pblake@epix.net
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Peter H. Blake, Ph.D.
PrcisTrial LLC
60 Beverly Drive
Kintnersville, PA 18930
Office +01.610.847.8478
Cell +01.215.519.4603
Fax +01.610.847.8160
e-Mail PHB@PrcisTrial.com
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: annodized instrument panel? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>I was considering anodizing my instrument panel to a color of my choice
>rather than painting or powder coating. Any drawbacks to this, asthetic
>or otherwise?
Depends on the color. Purple sucks. Lavendar sucks Pink is wimpy.
Orange is gaudy. Red is iffy.
This vanilla ice cream eater would be turned off to anything flashy but
it is YOUR airplane.
Ron Lee
Do not archive
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | My response to fuel tank bulletin |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>Was there any previous symptom of a fuel flow problem?
>
>The pick up tube was completely loose. There were no previous indications
>as I
>apparently had never let that tank get that low in 175 hours of operation.
Based upon the above here is my way of checking it:
Maintain at least 12 gallons in the opposite tank and fly the suspect tank
down to 3 gallons or less while within reasonable range of a suitable landing
area.
If there are no signs of fuel flow interruption then that tank fitting is
currently
good. Repeat every 100 hours.
Ron Lee
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 |
|
Cc: "Stewart, Michael \(ISS Atlanta\)" <mstewart@iss.net>
| Subject: | Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Lycoming has asked me (and hundreds/thousands of others?) to retire my
crankshaft at my convenience, or February 21, 2009, whichever comes first.
Check the Mandatory Service Bulletin from Lycoming to see if it applies to
you, but it looks like just counterweighted 360s and 390s that will be
affected RV-wise, and maybe a handful of 540s on Rockets and Supers. My
crankshaft serial # is right there in the list. Here's the SB:
http://tinyurl.com/lh54h
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (828 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
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: Fuel cap water protection? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 27 Feb 2006, at 08:36, Alex Peterson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
> I tried EZ Turn a while back - don't use it if the temperature is
> going to
> be below about freezing. It becomes really stiff when cold. There
> was a
> time when the OAT was around 10F where I could NOT get the caps off.
> Fortunately, I was at the home base and simply taxied back to the
> hangar. I
> spent a lot of time getting the crud out of the caps. I now spray
> some
> Tri-Flow under the O-rings from time to time, which reduces the
> friction
> enough that I can adjust the caps to adequately seal. It was
> amazing how
> much more I could compress the big o-ring after putting Tri-Flow in
> there.
> I have also used a spray white grease, same effect.
Clarification please - did the spray white grease have the same
effect as the Tri-Flow, or the EZ Turn?
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
Dana,
This price does not include the accessories (Ignitions, Fuel System parts, etc.)
just yet. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Konrad
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Dana Overall
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:32 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Super 7
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>Okay, I plead ignorance here. When I see the words
>"kit engine", I think a kit of parts and I build my
>own engine. Is this correct?
Your are entirely correct. For around 13.5 you can get a real nice ECI that
you "put together".
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
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: | Fuel Tank SB - Ordered the Goo & Parts |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net>
I went ahead and ordered some pro-seal and a couple of new fuel pick-up's from
Van's yesterday. The order shipped today.
I'm not looking forward to doing this job (I prosealed the you-know-what out of
the access cover, screws, and everything else in there. Also, I'm running kind
of low on free time these days.), but a couple of things made me bite the bullet:
1) My pick-up tubes are the old-school variety (a piece of aluminum tube with a
series of bandsaw cuts), and I never liked 'em.
2) I'll enjoy flying my airplane more if I know I've done everything in my power
to make sure my airplane is as safe as I can make it.
My opinion is that the SB is a bit strong, but Van does have the obligation of
notifying builders of problems or potential problems in their design, and probably
has some liability in this area. Could they have done it in a better way?
Maybe. Then again, maybe not. There really isn't a good way to verify how tight
that nut is without pulling the access plate, and if you go that far, you
might as well carry out the SB.
My other opinion is that this is going to be a 2 day job with plenty of scraped
knuckles and the real possibility of stripping out a few phillips screws.
Presumably the airplane will be down a week or more, given that there are two tanks
to fix and that the proseal has to cure before you can check for leaks.
One positive - I have an excuse to go flying a bunch this week. I've gotta burn
off the full tank(s) of fuel I just bought. No place to store 35-40 gallons
of fuel in the hangar...
KB
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: | Primary Wars IV, was: Sherwin williams GBP-988 vs. Dupont A-4115S |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chuck <chuck515tigger@yahoo.com>
Oh Lord, here comes "The Primer Wars"
AAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Okay, lets see if I can block every primer related email for the next 3 weeks.
David Karlsberg <claypride@hotmail.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: David Karlsberg
Okay so my friendly neighborhood autopaint store switched from sherwin
williams to dupont paints. I am building a 7 and am almost through the
tail. I used gbp-988 to prime most of it. Is Dupont A-4115S the same stuff
(the guy at the store told me it pretty much is). I know it is a little
darker, but I am not too concerned about the color. Are there any other
tangible differences?
Thanks,
David Karlsberg
7-tail
Beverly Hills
---------------------------------
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: | Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Ouch. Sure wish there was an alternative to the Lycoming's of the world.
Such quality control issues for the prices we pay are just inexcusable.
John Jessen
~328 (Tailcone)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 6:16 PM
Cc: Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)
Subject: RV-List: Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Lycoming has asked me (and hundreds/thousands of others?) to retire my
crankshaft at my convenience, or February 21, 2009, whichever comes first.
Check the Mandatory Service Bulletin from Lycoming to see if it applies to
you, but it looks like just counterweighted 360s and 390s that will be
affected RV-wise, and maybe a handful of 540s on Rockets and Supers. My
crankshaft serial # is right there in the list. Here's the SB:
http://tinyurl.com/lh54h
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (828 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
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: | Sherwin williams GBP-988 vs. Dupont A-4115S |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Karl, it isn't the same stuff exactly but NAPA 7220 is the same stuff
packaged by SWP. On the other hand, the 4115 is a newer high quality
self-etching primer and the spec sheet for the 4115s shows that it actually
has some corrosion protection characteristics as opposed to little for the
988. I have found it to be slightly more toxic but more durable than the
988. Generally, I have switched entirely and like it better. We sell SWP,
Dupont, & PPG and I think now the 4115s is the best of the bunch. Have used
it under Imron and rattle can sprays with good results.
Bill S
7a wiring
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Karlsberg
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:50 PM
Subject: RV-List: Sherwin williams GBP-988 vs. Dupont A-4115S
--> RV-List message posted by: David Karlsberg <claypride@hotmail.com>
Okay so my friendly neighborhood autopaint store switched from sherwin
williams to dupont paints. I am building a 7 and am almost through the
tail. I used gbp-988 to prime most of it. Is Dupont A-4115S the same stuff
(the guy at the store told me it pretty much is). I know it is a little
darker, but I am not too concerned about the color. Are there any other
tangible differences?
Thanks,
David Karlsberg
7-tail
Beverly Hills
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Removing Proseal/Tank MSB |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
A razor blade and a flexible putty knife are probably the best way to
remove/open proseal.
Mike Robertson
Do Not Archive
>From: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Removing Proseal/Tank MSB
>Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:23:05 EST
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>
>Listers,
>
>What's the best method of removing tank end plates that are prosealed on?
>
>Jerry Cochran
>Wilsonville, OR
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
They can't "soften" the language due to liability issues. For those
aircraft without some type of locking device there could be a very real
safety issue. If Van's knew about this and did not pass it on they would be
leaving themselves open to very large lawsuits, especially on the quickbuilt
tanks where the tube is already partially installed. By partially I mean not
tightened on, just installed hand tight.
Mike Robertson
Do Not Archive
>From: LUCKYMACY@comcast.net (lucky)
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>CC: support@vansaircraft.com, info@vansaircraft.com
>Subject: RV-List: Fuel Tank SB. Someone please talk to Richard VG
>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:57:08 +0000
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: LUCKYMACY@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>Can someone relatively local like Randy get over to Van's during business
>hours and have a face to face discussion with Richard himself and see why
>they didn't soften up the language initially? We might find something else
>like it wasn't just 2 or 3 RVs that had incidences or something more
>factual along those lines.
>
>Ask for all of us on the 'net if he would reconsider softening the language
>like saying proseal would have been an acceptable method - just for all
>those thousands of flyers with insurance companies to worry about
>immediately?
>
>Thanks,
>Lucky
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: "bdjones1965" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "bdjones1965"
> >
> > Not sure about everyone else out there, but I kind of doubt my flop tube
>is
> > "flopping" around very much at all. It may shift around side to side a
>little
> > and maybe once every year or two I'll really botch something and get
>negative.
> > Other than that, I'd be more worried about the weight wearing a hole in
>the
> > bottom of the tank where it's sitting in 99+% of the time.
> >
> > I find two things really curious. One is why Van has apparently crossed
>into
> > the grayness of liability and appears to have assumed some partial role
>as
> > manufacturer by sending out these Service Bulletins. This "SB" looks and
>smells
> > just like one you might get from a *manufacturer*. And his wording was
>just too
> > much like that of a manufacturer as well.
> >
> > Second, speaking of risk, I have several other hose fittings in my plane
>that
> > *will* cause engine stoppage - maybe I need to safety those as well. A
>flop
> > tube connection failure *may* cause stoppage, and should be recoverable
>by
> > switching tanks.
> >
> > This flop-tube item is pretty far down on the priority list for me. Not
>to
> > mention that I specifically remember tightening that nut very well.
> >
> > But now Van's has me concerned about the applicability of my insurance
>if I
> > don't comply with this overreactive "SB", while not being worried about
>the
> > airworthiness of my plane. Gee, I would expect this kind of treatment
>from
> > Cessna, Piper or Lycoming.
> >
> > Bryan RV-8
> > Houston, Texas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=15240#15240
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>Can someone relatively local like Randy get over to Van's during business
>hours and have a face to face discussion withRichard himself and see why
>they didn't soften up the language initially? We might find something
>elselike it wasn't just 2 or 3 RVs that had incidences or somethingmore
>factual along those lines.
>
>Ask for all of us on the 'net if he would reconsider softening the language
>like saying proseal would have been an acceptable method - just for all
>those thousands of flyers with insurance companies to worry about
>immediately?
>
>Thanks,
>Lucky
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: "bdjones1965" rv_8pilot@hotmail.com
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: "bdjones1965" <RV_8PILOT@HOTMAIL.COM>
>
> Not sure about everyone else out there, but I kind of doubt my flop tube
>is
> "flopping" around very much at all. It may shift around side to side a
>little
> and maybe once every year or two I'll really botch something and get
>negative.
> Other than that, I'd be more worried about the weight wearing a hole in
>the
> bottom of the tank where it's sitting in 99+% of the time.
>
> I find two things really curious. One is why Van has apparently crossed
>into
> the grayness of liability and appears to have assumed some partial role
>as
> manufacturer by sending out these Service Bulletins. This "SB" looks and
>smells
> just like one you
> might get from a *manufacturer*. And his wording was just too
> much like that of a manufacturer as well.
>
> Second, speaking of risk, I have several other hose fittings in my plane
>that
> *will* cause engine stoppage - maybe I need to safety those as well. A
>flop
> tube connection failure *may* cause stoppage, and should be recoverable
>by
> switching tanks.
>
> This flop-tube item is pretty far down on the priority list for me. Not
>to
> mention that I specifically remember tightening that nut very well.
>
> But now Van's has me concerned about the applicability of my insurance if
>I
> don't comply with this overreactive "SB", while not being worried about
>the
> airworthiness of my plane. Gee, I would expect this kind of treatment
>from
> Cessna, Piper or Lycoming.
>
> Bryan RV-8
> Houston, Texas
>
>
> Read this topic on
> line here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=15240#15240
>
>
>&g
> t;
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tank SB - Ordered the Goo & Parts |
--> RV-List message posted by: bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net (Bob Collins)
> I'm not looking forward to doing this job (I prosealed the you-know-what out
of
> the access cover, screws, and everything else in there.
I did the same thing. Heck, you can't even tell there IS an access plate on my
tank I've got so much Proseal there. (sigh). I went back into my building log
(another good reason to have one, by the way) to look at the assembly picture.
I couldn't tell from it, however, whether I actually did ProSeal the nut and
fitting although I think I did. But I don't know for sure. Can't decide whether
to open it up or not. But I think I'll wait until a hot summer day to try.
I remember pulling that mess off there after ONLY a week of curing to fix a baffle
leak and it was not fun. I don't know how I'm going to get all that stuff
off there after 1 1/2 - 2 years.
Bob
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV7A/
do not archive
Message 41
| 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: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>From: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
>
>This price does not include the accessories (Ignitions, Fuel System parts,
>etc.) just yet. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
You are correct, you still get one heck of an engine for the $$$
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
Finish kit
13B Rotary. Hangar flying my Dynon.
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero1.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero3.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/blackrudder.jpg
do not archive
Message 42
| 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: Richard Seiders <seiders@bellsouth.net>
I understand the pain in cleaning off and using Pro seal, the confined
space on a 6A to do the work etc. What I don't hear any concerns about is
the potentially explosive dilemma (pun intended) of working with various
tools on a recently drained fuel tank undoubtedly awash with 100LL fumes.
How does one insure that fumes are gone w/o flushing tank with something?
For those that have already dealt with the SB how did you handle this issue?
Thanks
Dick RV6A
Message 43
| 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: Fuel Tank SB - Ordered the Goo & Parts |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rick Galati" <rick6a@yahoo.com>
kboatright1(at)comcast.ne wrote:
> I went ahead and ordered some pro-seal and a couple of new fuel pick-up's from
Van's yesterday. The order shipped today.
> I'm not looking forward to doing this job (I prosealed the you-know-what out
of the access cover, screws, and everything else in there............
> KB
I too ordered a couple of fresh gaskets over the weekend but am a bit bemused by
the number of people who prosealed the fuel tank access covers on in the first
place. I just did it the way an Orndorff video demonstrated....with medium
weight Titeseal. No problems at all and will certainly make this unexpected
SB compliance much easier to deal with though I cannot comment on the cleanup
of the remaining Titeseal goo slathered all over the place until I get in there
and work at it! But at least I know the covers will come off without major
difficulty. I plan on documenting the whole process using a series of digital
photos entered into the log book as a supplement to the written word much as I
did when I removed, refurbished and reinstalled the left fuel tank into my aging
spam-can. Well, if my plane is going to be down anyway....I'll probably start
the clock ticking a bit early and bump its annual condition inspection up
by 4 weeks and get that accomplished at the same time.
I try to look at all this as FUN......yea right.
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" 110 hours
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=18222#18222
Message 44
| 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: "D.Bristol" <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>
It also doesn't include lobor.
"A crankshaft kit will be provided at a price of $2000 (US). The kit
includes the appropriate crankshaft and
the following additional parts:
Main bearings, Piston ring sets, Connecting rod bearings,Piston pin
plugs, Connecting rod bolts and nuts, Counterweight washers, Crankshaft
gear bolt, Counterweight snap rings, Seal and gasket set"
Dave
Konrad L. Werner wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
>
>Dana,
>
>This price does not include the accessories (Ignitions, Fuel System parts, etc.)
just yet. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
>Konrad
>Do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dana Overall
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:32 AM
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Super 7
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>
> >Okay, I plead ignorance here. When I see the words
> >"kit engine", I think a kit of parts and I build my
> >own engine. Is this correct?
>
> Your are entirely correct. For around 13.5 you can get a real nice ECI that
> you "put together".
>
>
> Dana Overall
> Richmond, KY i39
> RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 45
| 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: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
Dana,
What would the total for a simple (new Mags / new Carb) engine then be?
And how much would a more complex setup (Single or even Dual EI & AFP Injection)
cost?
Any input anyone on latest prices for accessories?
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Dana Overall
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Super 7
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>From: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
>
>This price does not include the accessories (Ignitions, Fuel System parts,
>etc.) just yet. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
You are correct, you still get one heck of an engine for the $$$
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
Finish kit
13B Rotary. Hangar flying my Dynon.
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero1.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero3.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/blackrudder.jpg
do not archive
--
Message 46
| 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: Removing Proseal/Tank MSB |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve Struyk" <rv8striker@hotmail.com>
I've had good success removing the old Proseal with a simple three step
process. 1. carefully scrape the area with a razor. 2. Use a Dremel Tool
with a small wire brush. This will remove 95% of the stuff. 3. A rag and
some MEK will clean up what's left.
Works for me. Just my two cents worth.
Steve Struyk
St. Charles, MO
RV-8 35 Hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 6:31 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Removing Proseal/Tank MSB
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> A razor blade and a flexible putty knife are probably the best way to
> remove/open proseal.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>>From: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RV-List: Removing Proseal/Tank MSB
>>Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:23:05 EST
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>>
>>Listers,
>>
>>What's the best method of removing tank end plates that are prosealed on?
>>
>>Jerry Cochran
>>Wilsonville, OR
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 47
| 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:Fuel tank service bulletin |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Duane Bentley" <dbentley@fuse.net>
Peter Blake - well worded letter!
There is a process whereby issues like this are addressed with respect
to propulsion systems for transport category aircraft, and accepted by
the FAA. A Weibull Failure Rate can be easily generated with just the
data of the individual events and the flight hours at the time of
failure. That Weibull is then used to generate a risk assessment of the
potential of a Category 3, 4, or 5 event, against the CAAM (Continued
Airworthiness Assessment Methodology) Guidelines. It's a fairly simple
statistical assessment used to determine when an unsafe condition
exists, and if there is a reasonable, excessive, or high (ground the
fleet) risk. As you have suggested, and is frequently used in the
transport world, if action is required, a recurring inspection is often
sufficient to significantly reduce the risk to acceptable levels until
the final corrective action is accomplished.
I'm extremely disappointed that Van apparently did not consider any of
this first, or at least failed to inform the 4000 of us flying that he
had made this assessment and this kind of extreme action was
statistically merited.
Duane Bentley
RV6
Home: 513-777-5491
GE Aircraft Engines
Office: 513-552-6051
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 48
| 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: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>From: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
>What would the total for a simple (new Mags / new Carb) engine then be?
Try this:
http://www.attawayair.com/new_eci_exp_engine.htm
Heck, someone posted something about "labor" putting an engine kit together.
If I had to count labor into the "cost" of Black
Magic.................phoning Bill Gates, how bout a little pocket gingle:-)
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
Finish kit
do not archive
Message 49
| 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: | Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Good thing you'll probably reach TBO way before 2009!
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Do not archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 6:16 PM
> To: SoCAL-RVlist@yahoogroups.com; rv-list@matronics.com
> Cc: Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)
> Subject: RV-List: Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> Lycoming has asked me (and hundreds/thousands of others?) to
> retire my crankshaft at my convenience, or February 21, 2009,
> whichever comes first.
>
> Check the Mandatory Service Bulletin from Lycoming to see if
> it applies to you, but it looks like just counterweighted
> 360s and 390s that will be affected RV-wise, and maybe a
> handful of 540s on Rockets and Supers. My crankshaft serial
> # is right there in the list. Here's the SB:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lh54h
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D (828 hours)
> http://www.rvproject.com
Message 50
| 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: Fuel tank service bulletin |
--> RV-List message posted by: Steve Eberhart <steve@newtech.com>
Hi Peter,
I took out the comment about archiving so this will go into the
archive. I understand you being upset about tearing up your new paint
job because you don't have access plates. I don't know what model of RV
you have but on my RV-7 wings, purchased in Sept. 2001, Van's shipped
solid round access covers with my capacitance sending units. The reason
was so you could get into the tanks if you needed to. Looks like it
will be easier to comply with the SB for the current fleet of 7's and 9's.
For anyone now building, it looks like building the tanks with the
access covers would be a good idea.
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A, ready to join the tail cone and center section.
Peter Blake wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Peter Blake" <pblake@epix.net>
>
>Here's the letter and e-mail I sent to Van.
>
>February 27, 2006
>
>Dear Van,
>
>I was very surprised and disappointed on seeing your Mandatory Service
>Bulletin requiring fuel tank changes. In my case, I have capacitive probes
>for fuel quantity measurement, and no inspection plate to remove. Even if I
>did have plates, theres less than a 2 gap between the wing skins and
>fuselage of my RV6. I wont whine about tearing up very expensive paint, or
>removing the wings to get at the tank, or even that this may cause an
>insurance problem if I fail to do it. Instead, I question your logic and
>your process of issuing this bulletin.
>
>Im wondering why you didnt at least have a comment period so you could
>gather input from the fleet, before issuing this bulletin. The FAA finds
>public comment useful; Im surprised you dont as well.
>
>I have heard of two incidents involving alleged (your term) fuel pick-up
>tube problems. In one, there was plenty of warning that something was
>amiss, yet the plane was flown anyway (rather than ground tested), without
>determining and rectifying root cause. Even then, it seems that simply
>switching tanks would have prevented the accident. In the second instance,
>switching tanks would have prevented the accident as well. How many times
>have we heard of fuel starvation accidents where the pilot failed to switch
>tanks, even though plenty of fuel was available in the other? It seems to
>me that pilot error was a major contributing factor in these accidents.
>Perhaps an article on the importance of proper emergency procedures for
>engine-out emergencies would have been appropriate, since that would address
>prevention of such fuel starvation accidents.
>
>Given a fleet of approximately 4500 aircraft, 2 incidents (both of which
>could have been prevented by appropriate pilot action) represents an
>accident rate of 0.044 %. This level of risk doesnt seem sufficient to
>warrant the draconian nature of your service bulletin especially
>unilaterally, without comment.
>
>Further, it seems to me that a vanishingly small probability exists that one
>tank would be dry while the fuel pick-up tube malfunctioned in the other, or
>that both tubes malfunctioned at the same time. These seem to me to be the
>only conditions under which an engine stoppage due to fuel pick-up tube
>malfunction could not be rectified by appropriate pilot action e.g.,
>switching tanks.
>
>Many will say that you did this to protect yourself from liability a
>completely understandable motive. It seems to me however, that mandating
>the opening of 9000 fuel tanks by amateurs, drilling of holes in sensitive
>areas, resealing etc. (and in the case of those of us with capacitance
>senders and no removable end plate, creating and sealing a large hole), not
>to mention the obvious danger of fire when working around aviation gasoline
>and fumes, is a case of the cure being worse than the disease. It seems to
>me that you expose your company to much more liability in the case of
>accidents that will be construed as directly or indirectly caused by or
>related to these repairs.
>
>It seems to me that a more rational approach would be to mandate a bore
>scope inspection of the fuel pick-up tubes, which could be accomplished with
>minimum fuss through the fuel drain plug hole. This would identify any
>problems, go a long way toward protecting you from fuel pick-up tube
>liability, and avoid entirely the liability of causing 9000 fuel tanks to be
>drained (and not flushed with water), opened, modified and reclosed.
>
>I encourage you to consider all the ramifications of your actions, first and
>foremost with regard to safety. Secondly, with regard to the thousands of
>hours (and dollars) required for fleet compliance, and thirdly, with regard
>to your reputation for pragmatism, concern for costs, and generally doing
>the right thing.
>
>Please rescind this bulletin, and issue another, more appropriate to the
>actual risk-benefit relationships in this issue.
>
>Sincerely,
>Peter Blake
>RV6
>e-Mail: pblake@epix.net
>
>
>Peter H. Blake, Ph.D.
>PrcisTrial LLC
>60 Beverly Drive
>Kintnersville, PA 18930
>
>Office +01.610.847.8478
>Cell +01.215.519.4603
>Fax +01.610.847.8160
>e-Mail PHB@PrcisTrial.com
>
>
Message 51
| 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: Fuel Tank SB |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 27 Feb 2006, at 19:52, Richard Seiders wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Seiders <seiders@bellsouth.net>
>
> I understand the pain in cleaning off and using Pro seal, the confined
> space on a 6A to do the work etc. What I don't hear any concerns
> about is
> the potentially explosive dilemma (pun intended) of working with
> various
> tools on a recently drained fuel tank undoubtedly awash with 100LL
> fumes.
> How does one insure that fumes are gone w/o flushing tank with
> something?
> For those that have already dealt with the SB how did you handle
> this issue?
I don't see how any of the operations that need to be done on the
tank could possibly ignite any fumes, if you only use hand tools.
Scraping proseal with a putty knife certainly won't cause a spark,
nor would unscrewing the screws. I wouldn't use an electric drill to
unscrew the screws though.
Bring your plane up here, and I'll do the job for you. I'll need to
do 25 or 30 hours of flight testing to be sure the pickups are
working right when I'm done, but my rates are pretty low for RV
owners :)
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 52
| 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: Fuel tank service bulletin |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
Steve Eberhart wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Steve Eberhart <steve@newtech.com>
>
>Hi Peter,
>I took out the comment about archiving so this will go into the
>archive. I understand you being upset about tearing up your new paint
>job because you don't have access plates. I don't know what model of RV
>you have but on my RV-7 wings, purchased in Sept. 2001, Van's shipped
>solid round access covers with my capacitance sending units. The reason
>was so you could get into the tanks if you needed to. Looks like it
>will be easier to comply with the SB for the current fleet of 7's and 9's.
>
>For anyone now building, it looks like building the tanks with the
>access covers would be a good idea.
>
>Steve Eberhart
>RV-7A, ready to join the tail cone and center section.
>
>Peter Blake wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Peter Blake" <pblake@epix.net>
>>
>>Here's the letter and e-mail I sent to Van.
>>
>>February 27, 2006
>>
>>Dear Van,
>>
>>I was very surprised and disappointed on seeing your Mandatory Service
>>Bulletin requiring fuel tank changes. In my case, I have capacitive probes
>>for fuel quantity measurement, and no inspection plate to remove. Even if I
>>did have plates, theres less than a 2 gap between the wing skins and
>>fuselage of my RV6. I wont whine about tearing up very expensive paint, or
>>removing the wings to get at the tank, or even that this may cause an
>>insurance problem if I fail to do it. Instead, I question your logic and
>>your process of issuing this bulletin.
>>
>>Im wondering why you didnt at least have a comment period so you could
>>gather input from the fleet, before issuing this bulletin. The FAA finds
>>public comment useful; Im surprised you dont as well.
>>
>>I have heard of two incidents involving alleged (your term) fuel pick-up
>>tube problems. In one, there was plenty of warning that something was
>>amiss, yet the plane was flown anyway (rather than ground tested), without
>>determining and rectifying root cause. Even then, it seems that simply
>>switching tanks would have prevented the accident. In the second instance,
>>switching tanks would have prevented the accident as well. How many times
>>have we heard of fuel starvation accidents where the pilot failed to switch
>>tanks, even though plenty of fuel was available in the other? It seems to
>>me that pilot error was a major contributing factor in these accidents.
>>Perhaps an article on the importance of proper emergency procedures for
>>engine-out emergencies would have been appropriate, since that would address
>>prevention of such fuel starvation accidents.
>>
>>Given a fleet of approximately 4500 aircraft, 2 incidents (both of which
>>could have been prevented by appropriate pilot action) represents an
>>accident rate of 0.044 %. This level of risk doesnt seem sufficient to
>>warrant the draconian nature of your service bulletin especially
>>unilaterally, without comment.
>>
>>Further, it seems to me that a vanishingly small probability exists that one
>>tank would be dry while the fuel pick-up tube malfunctioned in the other, or
>>that both tubes malfunctioned at the same time. These seem to me to be the
>>only conditions under which an engine stoppage due to fuel pick-up tube
>>malfunction could not be rectified by appropriate pilot action e.g.,
>>switching tanks.
>>
>>Many will say that you did this to protect yourself from liability a
>>completely understandable motive. It seems to me however, that mandating
>>the opening of 9000 fuel tanks by amateurs, drilling of holes in sensitive
>>areas, resealing etc. (and in the case of those of us with capacitance
>>senders and no removable end plate, creating and sealing a large hole), not
>>to mention the obvious danger of fire when working around aviation gasoline
>>and fumes, is a case of the cure being worse than the disease. It seems to
>>me that you expose your company to much more liability in the case of
>>accidents that will be construed as directly or indirectly caused by or
>>related to these repairs.
>>
>>It seems to me that a more rational approach would be to mandate a bore
>>scope inspection of the fuel pick-up tubes, which could be accomplished with
>>minimum fuss through the fuel drain plug hole. This would identify any
>>problems, go a long way toward protecting you from fuel pick-up tube
>>liability, and avoid entirely the liability of causing 9000 fuel tanks to be
>>drained (and not flushed with water), opened, modified and reclosed.
>>
>>I encourage you to consider all the ramifications of your actions, first and
>>foremost with regard to safety. Secondly, with regard to the thousands of
>>hours (and dollars) required for fleet compliance, and thirdly, with regard
>>to your reputation for pragmatism, concern for costs, and generally doing
>>the right thing.
>>
>>Please rescind this bulletin, and issue another, more appropriate to the
>>actual risk-benefit relationships in this issue.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Peter Blake
>>RV6
>>e-Mail: pblake@epix.net
>>
>>
>>Peter H. Blake, Ph.D.
>>PrcisTrial LLC
>>60 Beverly Drive
>>Kintnersville, PA 18930
>>
>>Office +01.610.847.8478
>>Cell +01.215.519.4603
>>Fax +01.610.847.8160
>>e-Mail PHB@PrcisTrial.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I don't understand why the hell you would want that in the archive...
REALLY DUMB AS WAS THE LETTER IMO
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 53
| 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: Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Good thing you'll probably reach TBO way before 2009!
Wasn't planning on it, but I guess I'll have to. ~340 tach hours per year
(~425 hobbs hours) would have strung out longer than Feb 21, 2009 (assuming
I made it to 2000 tach hours). We'll see.
I emailed AeroSport Power to see what their take on this SB was.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (828.5 hobbs, 669.75 tach)
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 54
| 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:Fuel tank service bulletin |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
Duane Bentley wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Duane Bentley" <dbentley@fuse.net>
>
>Peter Blake - well worded letter!
>
>
>I'm extremely disappointed that Van apparently did not consider any of
>this first, or at least failed to inform the 4000 of us flying that he
>had made this assessment and this kind of extreme action was
>statistically merited.
>
>
>
>
>
>Duane Bentley
>
>RV6
>
>Home: 513-777-5491
>
>
>
>
>
>GE Aircraft Engines
>
>Office: 513-552-6051
>
>
>
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
It is not yours or Peters millons of dollers in investments that are
at risk if someone sues.
I would like the people that have had problems fess up and say if they
had threatened to sues Van's
aircraft?
Do not archive
Message 55
| 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: Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
http://www.xp-360.com/ :-)
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse-XPO360 engine :-)
John Jessen wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
>Ouch. Sure wish there was an alternative to the Lycoming's of the world.
>Such quality control issues for the prices we pay are just inexcusable.
>
>John Jessen
> ~328 (Tailcone)
>
>
Message 56
| 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: Fuel Tank SB |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Burton" <dburton@nwlink.com>
>>I understand the pain in cleaning off and using Pro seal, the confined
>> space on a 6A to do the work etc. What I don't hear any concerns
>> about is
>> the potentially explosive dilemma (pun intended) of working with
>> various
>> tools on a recently drained fuel tank undoubtedly awash with 100LL
>> fumes.
>> How does one insure that fumes are gone w/o flushing tank with
>> something?
>> For those that have already dealt with the SB how did you handle
>> this issue?
There is no way I know to safely flush the fuel out of a tank. A small
residue can make for big excitement... Welding up steel tanks is a much
larger problem then the type of work we are talking about doing on the wing
tanks. When I weld on a fuel tank, I toss a chunk of dry ice inside. The
CO2 makes a safe atmosphere and the ice goes away completely.
Dave,
RV6, wings
Message 57
| 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: | Fuel cap water protection? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> Clarification please - did the spray white grease have the
> same effect as the Tri-Flow, or the EZ Turn?
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Kevin, I feel they had the same effect. I don't have a lot of experience
yet, as I just this winter(finally) figured out this solution to a plaguing
problem of cold weather ops with the fuel caps. The difference in the force
needed to lock down the cap is perhaps 20% of what it had been, all else
equal, after lubing them. I simply peel out the big o-ring, clean out
whatever might be in there, and spray a small film of whatever lube in
there, and replace the o-ring. Each time the cap is actuated when wetted
with fuel, I'm sure some of the lube dissolves, so time will tell how
frequently to re-apply. I also put some under the clamping mechanism and
around that o-ring also.
There is a fundamental angle of repose problem with the fuel cap design. In
other terms, the angle of the cones is low enough that the large o-ring
refuses to slide radially outward as the two cones are brought together,
unless on puts some sort of lube behind it. There will be a bit of lube
streaking down the top of the wing, as some of the lube will be "outside"
the fuel seal. I found that I needed to tighten the adjusting nut after
using lube.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 719 hours
Maple Grove, MN
Message 58
| 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: Fuel Tank SB |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Would ya also make this offer to Rocket HRII owners too ? ?
Do your rates include warm beers whilst we wait. 8*) (aka JACK)
KABONG
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Tank SB
> Bring your plane up here, and I'll do the job for you. I'll need to
> do 25 or 30 hours of flight testing to be sure the pickups are
> working right when I'm done, but my rates are pretty low for RV
> owners :)
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
Message 59
| 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: High HP O-360 engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
Ron and all listers,
Five years ago when I built my RV8, I wanted as much power as possible, and
I had met several other RVers with pumped up Lycoming engines, I decided to
pump up my choice which was a standard IO360AlB6. I found a suitable core
and sent it to Monty Barrette for overhaul. Monty advised me that I would
definitely have more power with a 10-1 compression engine, however he
advised me that I should not expect a normal TBO of 2000 hours. He advised
that a TBO of 1000 hours would be more likely, and possible less depending
on how I would run the engine. Since I wanted to go fast and I considered
myself to be maintenance oriented, I convinced myself that my engine would
last longer because I would be extra careful!!! (change oil regularly etc.)
To make a long story short, my engine lasted 946.2 hours. I had noticed a
light nocking noise in the last hours of operation, but dismissed that
because I had been told by know it alls that some mechanical noise was to be
expected. (This was my first Lycoming engine, I had over 3000 hours in
radial engines) . When I changed the oil and the filter, I found that the
oil screen was plugged tight with what looked like fish scales and the
filter was full of bearing material and steel slivers. This all occurred
just after flying home from Florida via Phoenix to Green Bay with 2 plus
hours over florida swamps in real IMC and another 4 hours over mountains. I
immediately pulled a cylinder and discovered that all of the bearings were
toast. Needless to say, I am now a more religious person. with a very
healthy regard for the advice that was given to me by Monty Barrette ie -
do not expect a high TBO with a pumped up engine - more power - Yes, long
TBO - NO..
I replaced this engine with a new IO390. I am very happy with this engine,
it has more noticable power than the IO360, averages l/2 gal per hr more
fuel consumption at normal cruise 23x2300 and yields an average 5mph
increase speed atabove power setting. The engine is approximately 10 lbs
heavier, however I am now using a AeroComposites 74" prop that is about
15lb lighter than my Hartzell, so no cg. problem was noticed .
I hope that this information will help you with your engine choice. Please
do not ask for email replys. It you want to discuss this call me @ 920 619
6968.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:53 AM
Subject: RV-List: High HP O-360 engine
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
> Reading about the Super 7 I have some questions to ask about
> getting a higher than 180 HP engine out of an O-360. (not IO
> or angle valve)
>
> You can put higher compression pistons in for some increase
> above that provide by 8.5:1. Obviously there are pros and cons.
> Other than not being able to use autogas how would one determine
> how high to go (9.2, 9.5, 10:1)?
>
> Supposedly there is a high torque Camshaft. More torque must be good.
>
> Porting and polishing of something is mentioned.
>
> Angle cut of the valves may offer something.
>
> Where is the highest/most cost-effective pay-off in getting more
> horsepower
> from an O-360?
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>
Message 60
| 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: | 120-volt welder for home/hangar use... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy@verizon.net>
Can anyone recommend at good 120-volt welder (flux cored arc welding (FCAW) - gasless)
for a hobbyist or for small projects at the hangar?
I took a college course in welding years ago and tried to make "puddles" with a
stick welder and needless to say... it was a challenge. I would like to buy
a small welder for the hangar to weld 1/8" steel tube or chromoly(sp?) easily
should I choose start another project (tube/fabric) in the future. I've been
told welding with 'wire feed' is much easier than stick.
Any recommendations for a good, reasonably priced 120-volt welder would be most
appreciated?
Thanks,
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
RV-7A 150 hrs
www.jacklockamy.com
jacklockamy@verizon.net
Message 61
| 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: Lycoming wants me to retire my crankshaft |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Leonard" <wdleonard@gmail.com>
> Ouch. Sure wish there was an alternative to the Lycoming's of the world.
> Such quality control issues for the prices we pay are just inexcusable.
>
> John Jessen
> ~328 (Tailcone)
>
> Careful what you say there John, or we will end up with another engine
debate...
now, if only I hadn't just landed on a freeway..... :-)
Dave Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html
Message 62
| 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: annodized instrument panel? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 2/27/2006 7:45:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
erichweaver@cox.net writes:
I was considering anodizing my instrument panel to a color of my choice
rather than painting or powder coating. Any drawbacks to this, aesthetic or
otherwise?
===============================================
I would encourage you to powder coat unless you are going with clear
anodize. I think that Class 2 (colored) anodizing would look cheap and fade
unpredictably after only a short time in the sun.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 776hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
Message 63
| 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: | Sorry... NOT Service bulletin Related! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill VonDane" <bill@vondane.com>
I just thought some of you might like to see these incredible T-6 water
skimming photos! I have no proof they are real, but they sure look real to
me...
http://www.vondane.com/stuff/index.htm
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! --
|