Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:50 AM - Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers (chaztuna@adelphia.net)
2. 08:00 AM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Kevin Horton)
3. 08:39 AM - Minimum altitude to return to airport (Glen Matejcek)
4. 08:46 AM - Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers (Mickey Coggins)
5. 08:58 AM - Re: Fuel Lube (Ken Howell)
6. 09:07 AM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Darrell Reiley)
7. 09:30 AM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Tedd McHenry)
8. 10:10 AM - leaking fuel pump overflow (DAVE MADER)
9. 10:47 AM - Re: leaking fuel pump overflow (Kyle Boatright)
10. 10:51 AM - Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers (chaztuna@adelphia.net)
11. 11:25 AM - E-mag/P-Mag (D Paul Deits)
12. 11:25 AM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
13. 11:55 AM - Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers (Paul Trotter)
14. 12:27 PM - Battery cranking power (DAVID REEL)
15. 12:27 PM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Richard Dudley)
16. 01:14 PM - Re: leaking fuel pump overflow (Denis Walsh)
17. 01:22 PM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport ()
18. 02:30 PM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Jim Oke)
19. 04:15 PM - Re: Battery cranking power (Jeff Point)
20. 05:11 PM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Jerry Springer)
21. 05:49 PM - Re: E-mag/P-Mag (Vanremog@aol.com)
22. 06:17 PM - Re: E-mag/P-Mag (JAMES BOWEN)
23. 06:30 PM - Re: E-mag/P-Mag (James Freeman)
24. 06:37 PM - Re: New Guy questions (dick martin)
25. 06:39 PM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
26. 07:07 PM - Re: E-mag/P-Mag (dick martin)
27. 07:07 PM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Walter Tondu)
28. 07:07 PM - Re: New Guy questions (dick martin)
29. 07:07 PM - Re: E-mag/P-Mag (dick martin)
30. 07:27 PM - Re: Battery cranking power (Ed Holyoke)
31. 07:27 PM - Re: E-mag/P-Mag (DonVS)
32. 07:43 PM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (scott bilinski)
33. 08:17 PM - Re: E-mag/P-Mag (Vanremog@aol.com)
34. 09:03 PM - Re: leaking fuel pump overflow (Jim Jewell)
35. 09:26 PM - Re: leaking fuel pump overflow (Ed Holyoke)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers |
Cc: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
--> RV-List message posted by: chaztuna@adelphia.net
Paul & Listers,
I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that most folks seem to think that the
problem is with the cork gaskets. It is not! The cork gaskets will seal. The
PROBLEM is with Vans use of standard nutplates, in a location where NAS 1473 fuel
tank nutplates are called for. The leak occurs because the fuel is able to
work it's way between the threads of the nutplates and the threads of the cover
screws. The fuel then leaks out from under the heads of the screws. This is
not a fault with the gaskets. Personally, I've found that you can re-use the
cork gaskets several times, providing they are not torn or damaged.
Cork gaskets have been used to seal the fuel tank sending units on automobiles
for decades. I've removed the fuel tanks on 20 year old cars where the original
cork gasket was still doing it's job.
As Paul & others have pointed out, an alternative (and cheaper) solution is to
use #8 self sealing screws (with Viton O-rings) in lieu of the NAS 1473 nutplates
(which all certified aircraft use). Make life easy on yourself. Forget the
ProSeal and use the cork gaskets with the self sealing access cover screws.
Charlie Kuss
---- Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
>
> Dean,
>
> The problem with the cork gasket comes in a couple of places. Many times
> leaks can occur through the threads in the screws and out under the heads.
> Also, many people over tighten the screws which deforms the panel enough to
> cause a leak between the screws. Screws should be tightened down evenly
> with enough torque to hold the plate firmly against the cork gasket without
> deforming it.
>
> On my tank, I used self-sealing nutplates which prevent any fuel from
> entering the screw threads. I also went overboard and used screws with
> o-rings under the head. I used this with the cork gasket. I have not
> filled my tanks yet, but they hold air pressure just fine. If I were to do
> it again, I probably would have used an access panel sealant and skipped the
> gasket. If you go with o-ring screws, make sure they have viton o-rings as
> the normal o-ring is not resistant to fuel and will deteriorate.
>
> The biggest complaint I have with the SB is that it will make it very
> difficult to replace the flop tube if necessary without going through the
> entire process again.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 12:55 AM
> Subject: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
> > <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
> >
> >
> > Ok guys call me ignorant but I have not yet installed my finished tanks
> > (for
> > the last time) and filled them with fuel. My access covers came from
> > Van's
> > with CORK gaskets! Someone on this list mentioned using fuel tank
> > nutplates
> > with built in O-rings when building their tanks to eliminate the need for
> > pro-seal on the screw heads. I can't do that because I didn't know about
> > them when building my tanks BUT, I can use special access cover screws
> > with
> > O-rings built into the heads to achieve the same goal.
> >
> > Why not use the cork (or some synthetic rubber that's gasoline resistant)
> > along with some appropriate gasket sealer AND the access plate screws with
> > the O-rings in order to.....ELIMINATE THE HEADACHES MOST OF YOU ARE GOING
> > THROUGH WITH PRO-SEALED ACCESS COVERS????
> >
> > By using the pro-seal you have created an obvious DETRIMENT to easy access
> > and I'm sure that's part of the reason some of you are groaning so loudly.
> > I know, I know, it'll never leak with the pro-seal but this the SECOND
> > bulletin in 5 years concerning something INSIDE the tanks (the first being
> > the anti-rotation bracket). Obviously one cannot count on NEVER having to
> > take the access cover off so let's find a less painful method than the
> > pro-seal!!! There has to be a better way!! As I said, I'm ignorant about
> > how good this will work because I have not experienced it. Those of you
> > who
> > have used the cork (or synthetic rubber) with gasket seal know the
> > answer...educate me. Thanks.
> >
> > Dean Psiropoulos
> > RV-6A N197DM
> > Autocad and Tefzel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on
> the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?
> OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he
> showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically
> begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after
> a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60
> degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the
> airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the
> time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made
> the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a
> short runway and needed to land on the numbers.
>
> He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane
> was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.
>
> So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan.
> http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm
> He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I
> can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he
> gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.
There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when
you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the
engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the
adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit
harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because
you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down
straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places.
Granted, there are some runways where the story is different.
Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you
get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work
you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably
will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have
a very good chance of survival.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi All-
IIRC, some years back some research was done on this very topic. One of
the results was that it took an average of about 5 seconds for the 'what
the heck' factor to pass and for people to start to take positive
corrective action. Another result was the mathematical determination that
45 degrees of bank was the most efficient for degrees of heading change per
altitude lost.
In the glider world, this scenario is not only considered, it's a standard
test item on the practical tests. The key elements were to assume a rope
break on every take off, to have specific plan for each take off, and to
have predetermined altitude hacks for different procedures.
For example, the standard plan for a 180 involved always turning into the
crosswind. That way, at the completion of the turn you were more closely
aligned with the rwy CL than if you had made the turn downwind. Also, a
rope break below 100 would necessitate landing essentially straight ahead.
>From 100 to 200 ft AGL would allow for up to 90 deg of turn to miss
obstacles. 200 to 400 ft AGL would allow for a 180 and downwind landing on
the departure rwy. 400 AGL or greater would allow for an abbreviated
landing pattern to an upwind landing on the departure rwy. (Any student
failing to call out the altitude hacks on initial climb were treated to a
premature termination of the tow and a 180 back to the field...) A 180
would be flown at 45 degrees of bank and at best glide speed plus 20% to
compensate for the bank angle.
Being the, ahhh, curious lot that we were, some folks endeavored to
determine what altitude would be needed to perform the 180 turn back to the
field in a draggy, long-winged Citabria towplane. IIRC, that number was
400' AGL.
Having thought about (and practiced) this scenario in advance will surely
increase the likelihood of survival for any poor soul that encounters it.
WRT controlled airports other traffic, we need to remember that even though
controllers issue clearances and we tend to take them as orders, they are
actually there to help us and to ensure public safety. Their directives DO
NOT supercede our emergency authority and responsibilities as PIC. If you
have an emergency, you have the right of way. Period. The fact that you
haven't had the opportunity to key the mike and share the news with the
outside world DOES NOT mean you can't do whatever you need to in order to
meet the requirements of the emergency. If a 180 back to the take off
runway, a parallel taxiway, the infield, or whatever is better than
crashing in a parking lot or neighborhood, so be it. You have a
responsibility to yourself, your pax, AND to the hapless folks walking down
the sidewalk....
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: Sealing Tank Access Covers |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> ... Make life easy on yourself. Forget the ProSeal and use
> the cork gaskets with the self sealing access cover screws.
Do you know if these are available in either torx or allen head?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: "Ken Howell" <cfi1513840@comcast.net>
Paul,
Thanks for confirming that for me.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Trotter
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Lube
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
Ken,
Do not put anything on face of the tubing, it should be clean and smooth.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Howell" <cfi1513840@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Fuel Lube
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Howell" <cfi1513840@comcast.net>
>
> Should EZ Turn be used on the face of the tubing flare where it contacts
> the
> fitting? I have previously been told it should only be used on threads.
>
> Ken Howell
> Glenwood Maryland
> RV7 Wings
>
>
>
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: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
Never ever turn back on takeoff in a short wing RV. Pick your spot and put it down
in the safest place you can find. A 180 turn in itself will cost you a lot
with an engine out. I would focus on the forward approach.
Darrell
Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on
> the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?
> OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he
> showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically
> begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after
> a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60
> degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the
> airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the
> time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made
> the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a
> short runway and needed to land on the numbers.
>
> He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane
> was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.
>
> So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan.
> http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm
> He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I
> can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he
> gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.
There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when
you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the
engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the
adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit
harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because
you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down
straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places.
Granted, there are some runways where the story is different.
Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you
get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work
you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably
will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have
a very good chance of survival.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
---------------------------------
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker.
Yes, and let's not forget traffic. A pilot I knew turned back to the depature
runway after an engine failure only to discover that there was a nine-plane
Snowbirds formation on the take-off roll. It did work out okay for everyone,
in the end, once the jets had scattered to the grass on both sides of the
runway.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
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: | leaking fuel pump overflow |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVE MADER" <davemader@bresnan.net>
Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360
Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying
sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow
tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no other
liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5 lbs.
Should I be concerned?
Dave Mader
50 hrs, RV-6
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: leaking fuel pump overflow |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net>
Are you running aviation fuel? If so, I'd be surprised if the stain was
brown. I'd expect a fuel stain to be blue. All the ones on my airplane are .
;-)
Is it possible your crankcase vent tube or a minor oil leak is creating the
brown stain?
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "DAVE MADER" <davemader@bresnan.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:05 PM
Subject: RV-List: leaking fuel pump overflow
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVE MADER" <davemader@bresnan.net>
>
>
> Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360
> Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying
> sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow
> tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no other
> liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5 lbs.
> Should I be concerned?
>
> Dave Mader
> 50 hrs, RV-6
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers |
Cc: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
--> RV-List message posted by: chaztuna@adelphia.net
Mickey,
I don't know. One of my RV gurus pointed out that certified aircraft all use the
NAS1473 sealed nutplates (available from Wicks) in the fuel tanks. Therefore
I purchased and installed these. I realize that doesn't help those of you that
have completed tanks. :-(
Recently, local RV-9A builder Peter Laurence found a source for SS self sealing
screws which come WITH the needed Viton O-rings (McMaster-Carr sells theirs
with Silicone O-rings. You have to buy the Viton units as an additional purchase).
He bailed on the RV List last year. Below is the content of a post he recently
sent me. Perhaps you can contact the vendor and ask if they are available
with Torx heads?
Charlie Kuss
POST RECEIVED FROM PETER L
Charlie,
Here is the info for Robin.
Part # 8-32 UNC-2A
$.65 in SS. Minimum of 50
Peerless Electronics Inc.
9600 West Sample Road
Ste 506
Coral Springs, Fl 33065
(800)327-4993
Ask for Mike.
---- Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> > ... Make life easy on yourself. Forget the ProSeal and use
> > the cork gaskets with the self sealing access cover screws.
>
> Do you know if these are available in either torx or allen head?
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits@comcast.net>
Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either aviation
or automotive style plugs.
Price aside, what is recommended and why?
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice
in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the
list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane
combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER
yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude
loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.
Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place
to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight
envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>
> On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> > OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on
> > the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?
> > OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he
> > showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically
> > begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after
> > a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60
> > degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the
> > airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the
> > time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made
> > the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a
> > short runway and needed to land on the numbers.
> >
> > He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane
> > was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.
> >
> > So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan.
> > http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm
> > He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I
> > can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he
> > gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.
>
> There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when
> you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the
> engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the
> adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit
> harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because
> you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down
> straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places.
> Granted, there are some runways where the story is different.
>
> Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you
> get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work
> you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably
> will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have
> a very good chance of survival.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice
in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the list
with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane
combo every timebut it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER
yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss
amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.
Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place
to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight
envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Kevin Horton khorton01@rogers.com
-- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <KHORTON01@ROGERS.COM>
On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on
the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?
OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he
showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically
begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after
a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60
degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the
airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the
time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made
the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a
short runway and needed to land on the numbers.
He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane
was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.
So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan.
http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm
He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I
can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he
gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.
There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when
you were already mentally prepared for it, and
doing one when the
engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the
adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit
harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because
you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down
straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places.
Granted, there are some runways where the story is different.
Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you
get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work
you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably
will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have
a very good chance of survival.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
At Charlie's suggestion, I used the NAS1473 sealed nutplates and used o-ring
screws as well just for kicks. I got the screws from McMaster but had a
very hard time getting the right viton o-rings. The o-rings on screws were
a non-standard size and I could not match them perfectly. I ended up using
a metric sized o-rings as the closest fit. When I do the SB, I will
probably replace the o-ring screws with torx head screws since I don't
really need the o-rings. If I had not used the self-sealing nutplates, I
would skip the cork gasket and use access panel sealant on the plate.
Access panel sealant is designed for this purpose. It seals like fuel tank
sealant, but is not as adhesive and can be remove easier.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Cc: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers
> --> RV-List message posted by: chaztuna@adelphia.net
>
> Mickey,
> I don't know. One of my RV gurus pointed out that certified aircraft all
> use the NAS1473 sealed nutplates (available from Wicks) in the fuel tanks.
> Therefore I purchased and installed these. I realize that doesn't help
> those of you that have completed tanks. :-(
> Recently, local RV-9A builder Peter Laurence found a source for SS self
> sealing screws which come WITH the needed Viton O-rings (McMaster-Carr
> sells theirs with Silicone O-rings. You have to buy the Viton units as an
> additional purchase). He bailed on the RV List last year. Below is the
> content of a post he recently sent me. Perhaps you can contact the vendor
> and ask if they are available with Torx heads?
>
> Charlie Kuss
>
> POST RECEIVED FROM PETER L
>
> Charlie,
>
>
> Here is the info for Robin.
>
>
> Part # 8-32 UNC-2A
>
>
> $.65 in SS. Minimum of 50
> Peerless Electronics Inc.
> 9600 West Sample Road
> Ste 506
> Coral Springs, Fl 33065
> (800)327-4993
> Ask for Mike.
>
>
> ---- Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> wrote:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>>
>> > ... Make life easy on yourself. Forget the ProSeal and use
>> > the cork gaskets with the self sealing access cover screws.
>>
>> Do you know if these are available in either torx or allen head?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mickey
>>
>> --
>> Mickey Coggins
>> http://www.rv8.ch/
>> #82007 finishing
>>
>>
>> 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: | Battery cranking power |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
Here's a data point on cranking power available from the Panasonic LC-RD1217P battery.
OAT 43 degrees, no pre heat. Oil 50 wt break-in oil. Installation: O360A1A,
Sky Tec model 149-12LS starter with battery mounted aft of rear baggage
compartment in an RV8A. Standard three contactor installation of battery, starter,
and contactor on starter. The fully charged battery has had little use
& measured 12.8V. What happened was the engine turned over two revolutions
and stopped. Subsequently I could just get one revolution at a time just as though
it was being hand proped. After 5 or 6 of these, a cylinder fired and I
did get the engine started
Initially I thought I needed to redo my installation or switch batteries. Later,
I realized that the heavy oil was probably the culprit & once I went to 20W50,
performance would likely be more satisfactory. Have others found temperature
limits where the cranking power of this battery is barely adequate?
Dave Reel - RV8A
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: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
Hi Lucky,
In my earlier training (many years ago), I too learned the "don't turn
back" mantra.
I did my transition training with the same instructor you mention. One
of the demonstrations he put me through was the same as you describe. It
also convinced me that turnback was feasible in an RV-6/A. The altitude
was well under 500 feet on takeoff. Actually, barely past the upwind
end of the 4000 ft runway. He pulled the throttle. My reaction was to
make a turn to the crossing runway which looked possible to me at the
time. But, he insisted "turn back turn back" repeatedly until I made a
180+ turn. I had ample remaining altitude to play with flaps and slips
to easily make the reciprocal of the takeoff runway.
I, too would not recommend that anyone try it without first determining,
at altitude, how much altitude is lost in that turnaround and convincing
themselves that it was feasible.
I, too would highly recommend that flight instructor for anyone who
wants transition training in a -6 or -6A. My first flight in my -6A a
couple of weeks later was almost a non-event and felt right all the way.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
lucky wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice
in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the
list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane
combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER
yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude
loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.
>
>Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place
to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the
flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.
>
>Lucky
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>>
>>On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>>>
>>>OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on
>>>the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?
>>>OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he
>>>showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically
>>>begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after
>>>a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60
>>>degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the
>>>airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the
>>>time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made
>>>the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a
>>>short runway and needed to land on the numbers.
>>>
>>>He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane
>>>was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.
>>>
>>>So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan.
>>>http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm
>>>He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I
>>>can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he
>>>gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.
>>>
>>>
>>There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when
>>you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the
>>engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the
>>adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit
>>harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because
>>you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down
>>straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places.
>>Granted, there are some runways where the story is different.
>>
>>Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you
>>get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work
>>you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably
>>will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have
>>a very good chance of survival.
>>
>>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>>Ottawa, Canada
>>http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice
in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the
list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane
combo every timebut it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER
yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss
amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.
>
>Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place
to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight
envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.
>
>Lucky
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: Kevin Horton khorton01@rogers.com
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <KHORTON01@ROGERS.COM>
>
> On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote:
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on
> the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?
> OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he
> showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically
> begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after
> a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60
> degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the
>
> airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the
> time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made
> the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a
> short runway and needed to land on the numbers.
>
> He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane
> was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.
>
> So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan.
> http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm
> He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I
> can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he
> gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.
>
> There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when
> you were already mentally prepared for it, and
> doing one when the
> engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the
> adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit
> harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because
> you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down
> straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places.
> Granted, there are some runways where the story is different.
>
> Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you
> get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work
> you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably
> will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have
> a very good chance of survival.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: leaking fuel pump overflow |
--> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@comcast.net>
Tell us what the overflow tube is.
If it is the vent tube from the engine driven fuel pump on a low
pressure system it should not have anything coming out of it. If
something is coming out of it you should be concerned.
My fuel stains turn brown after a period of time. Not sure why but
presume it is lead from all that stuff in 100LL.
Denis Walsh
On Mar 5, 2006, at 11:05 AM, DAVE MADER wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVE MADER" <davemader@bresnan.net>
>
>
> Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360
> Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying
> sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow
> tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no other
> liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5
> lbs.
> Should I be concerned?
>
> Dave Mader
> 50 hrs, RV-6
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
I had a saying when I taught CFI candidate's:
-Don't simulate an emergency with a REAL emergency.
-OR-
-Don't make a practice emergency into a real one!
I agree with the following comments:
>posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
>Sounds great on paper and is great that you can do it while expecting
>it to happen. The down side to that theory is that at many controlled
>airports you cannot just start turning xwind 400 ft because of conflict
>with other controlled traffic.
>"posted by: "John Furey" <john@fureychrysler.com>
>Please be very careful. As an instructor for a specific make of
>aircraft we taught the "turn back" maneuver for many years. "
If you are going to practice have some altitude safety margin,
say 1000/1500 agl to the practice. 400 agl is LOW for return to
airport, and everything has to be right. Remember the instructor
knows its coming and knows he has power; this help in both
reaction time and psychologically (less stress). The swimming
in glue syndrome occurs for the first few seconds after the engine
quits for almost every pilot caught by surprise.
Now for the practical:
Real world reaction time?
What about winds?
Density altitude?
Gross weight?
Obstacles?
Terrain?
What about the runway length?
If you takeoff climb quickly on a short runway, return to same, landing
opposite, may put you past the end of the runway? If the runway is
long enough, head winds, straight ahead may better? MY POINT?
ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL
EVERY DAY, AIRPORT, CONDITION IS DIFFERNT.
Having a operating rules of thumb or committed memory item for an
emergency is important. EVERY TAKE OFF brief yourself out
loud or to yourself; IN CASE OF AN ENGINE FAILURE BELOW X
I will do THIS, above X, I'll attempt to return to this runway (or a
parallel or crossing runway). Every flight airline pilots discuss the
engine failure scenario in detail before EVERY takeoff. It varies every
time, but there is no question of what to do. Your mind set prepares
you to expect something, since it crossed your mind just before T/O.
If you look at FAR part 61.87 it stated what pre-solo requirements
are for a STUDENT pilot. Among the requirement's are:
-Approaches to a landing area with simulated engine malfunctions
-Simulated emergency procedures, including simulated power-off
landings and simulated power failure during departures.
Don't make a practice emergency into a real one!
I suggest routine practice POWER OFF approaches abeam
the numbers. This will help your power off glide skill and is not
as spectacular or with as much risk. Remember if you have a
Carb. beware of Carb ice and take proper precautions if the
conditions are conducive. Clear the engine to make sure power
is available for a go-around if needed; keep the engine warm.
Power off appraches is good practice. Chance is an engine failure
is not going to happen right at 400 or 1000 agl on takeoff. Chances
are after engine failure you are going to make a power off approach
for outside the pattern to an off field location. Granted the 400agl
senerio is critcal and has value to consider, don't get to foucused on
one thing, be ready for it anytime.
Cheers George CFI (inst/me) ATP
---------------------------------
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Data points are good but let's make sure that they are data points that
are applicable in a real (not simulated) situation..
There can be a significant difference in the gliding/descent performance
of a light aircraft with the power set at idle but still generating
power and the same aircraft with a genuine "no power being produced"
engine failure but prop windmilling due fuel exhaustion or whatever. (As
a further complication, there have also been lots of debates in the past
about prop stopped vs. prop windmilling gliding performance.)
Years ago I used to instruct primary flying students on Beech
Musketeers. The usual practice engine failure involved adding 2/3 of the
available flap to add drag to provide gliding performance more
representative of the actual emergency situation. This was based on a
bunch of actual flight tests flown with a dead engine to touchdown. I
use 1/2 flap in my RV-6A when practicing engine failures to attempt the
same sort of thing, but I have not done the serious flight testing to
satisfy myself that this is a valid simulation.
Any one have some data points about real (not simulated) 180 deg turn
to touchdown gliding performance?
Jim Oke
RV-6A
Wpg., MB
lucky wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice
in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the
list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane
combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER
yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude
loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.
>
>Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place
to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the
flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.
>
>Lucky
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>>
>>On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>>>
>>>OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on
>>>the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?
>>>OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he
>>>showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically
>>>begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after
>>>a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60
>>>degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the
>>>airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the
>>>time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made
>>>the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a
>>>short runway and needed to land on the numbers.
>>>
>>>He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane
>>>was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.
>>>
>>>So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan.
>>>http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm
>>>He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I
>>>can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he
>>>gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.
>>>
>>>
>>There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when
>>you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the
>>engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the
>>adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit
>>harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because
>>you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down
>>straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places.
>>Granted, there are some runways where the story is different.
>>
>>Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you
>>get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work
>>you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably
>>will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have
>>a very good chance of survival.
>>
>>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>>Ottawa, Canada
>>http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice
in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the
list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane
combo every timebut it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER
yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss
amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.
>
>Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place
to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight
envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.
>
>Lucky
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: Kevin Horton khorton01@rogers.com
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <KHORTON01@ROGERS.COM>
>
> On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote:
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on
> the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?
> OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he
> showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically
> begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after
> a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60
> degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the
>
> airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the
> time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made
> the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a
> short runway and needed to land on the numbers.
>
> He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane
> was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.
>
> So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan.
> http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm
> He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I
> can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he
> gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.
>
> There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when
> you were already mentally prepared for it, and
> doing one when the
> engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the
> adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit
> harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because
> you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down
> straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places.
> Granted, there are some runways where the story is different.
>
> Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you
> get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work
> you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably
> will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have
> a very good chance of survival.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Battery cranking power |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
One important data point you're missing- what kind of prop do you have?
The combination of a small battery (like the Panasonic) and a permanent
magnet motor-type starter (like the Skytec) along with a light prop will
cause problems. It sure did for me. The problem is that permanent
magnet starters have a very high current draw (compared to more
expensive, wound field starters) and that a small battery like the
Panasonic may not be able to keep up. Combine that with the low inertia
of a lightweight prop, and you've got problems. Not to mention, this
scenario has been demonstrated to lead to kickbacks, which will damage
the starter.
I went through similar problems with my setup. Same battery and starter
as you, wood prop, O-360 A1A on my RV-6. Starting performance was
always pretty anemic. At about 80 hours it gave up all together, and
inspection revealed that the starter housing was cracked (kickback.) I
solved the problem by upgrading to a permanent magnet starter, which is
expensive and slightly heavier, but draws much less peak current. Now I
can almost get the tail up on starter power alone.
The heavy straight weight oil and cold temps certainly aren't helping,
but the real problem is the starter/battery combination.
There's plenty of discussion about this issue in the archives.
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee
>
>
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: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
lucky wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice
in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the
list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane
combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER
yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude
loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.
>
Lucky I was not rehashing previous soapbox stuff, I to am a flight
instructor and have a few hours in an RV. The point being made here is you
were doing a controlled test. In real life I would not turn back from
400 ft. What if your engine quit at 350 ft would you make it? When the
engine
quits and you get over the Oh s**t factor and then decide if you are
high enough or not you probably will not have time or altitude to make the
turn safely. In real life turn backs have killed many pilots that could
have made a safe off field landing. My theory has always been once the
engine quits
I will do whatever it takes to save my butt and my passengers if I have
one aboard. The airplane at the moment of engine failure becomes a pile
of junk for all I care
as long as we survive. To many people try to save the aircraft. An
example is a Mooney pilot had an engine problem few weeks ago close to
Van's home airport
he had miles of open fields to land on but tried to make Sunset airport
and ended up in a orchard dead instead of just picking a suitable off
field landing spot.
do not archive
Jerry
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 3/5/2006 11:29:35 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pdeits@comcast.net writes:
Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either
aviation or automotive style plugs.
Price aside, what is recommended and why?
=================================================
I wish you better luck than I had with this system. Are you planning to
keep one mag?
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "JAMES BOWEN" <jabowenjr@hotmail.com>
Can you tell us a little more about the Emag/Pmag bad luck you had. I am
also considering this option. Thanks for the info.
Jim Bowen
RV-8
>From: Vanremog@aol.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag
>Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 20:46:06 EST
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 3/5/2006 11:29:35 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>pdeits@comcast.net writes:
>
>Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either
>aviation or automotive style plugs.
>
>Price aside, what is recommended and why?
>
>
>=================================================
>
>I wish you better luck than I had with this system. Are you planning to
>keep one mag?
>
>GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
On Mar 5, 2006, at 1:21 PM, D Paul Deits wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits@comcast.net>
>
> Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of
> either aviation or automotive style plugs.
>
> Price aside, what is recommended and why?
>
I'm not sure anybody really knows the answer to this, although there
appears to be anecdotal evidence on both sides.
I'm currently running one E-mag with auto plugs, and a Bendix Mag
with aircraft plugs. I originally had aircraft plugs on the E-mag,
but changed them out after talking to all the pretty much everybody I
could at Oshkosh. I switched because I didn't see a good way to open
the gap on aircraft plugs to the recommended larger gap with the
electronic ignition.
The engine may have gotten a little smoother with the auto plugs,
but that may be my active imagination. There was no measurable
change in performance with the switch between plugs.
The engine is noticeably smoother and has noticeably more power on
the E-mag alone than the mag alone when you cycle the switches in
flight at cruise settings.
I'm planning to replace the left Bendix mag with a P-mag at the
annual. I will probably leave the aircraft plugs in place for at
least a while, so I have a direct comparison. Long term, unless I
notice a performance difference or have service issues, I'm planning
to go with the auto plugs.
James Freeman
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Guy questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: <jbario@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:04 AM
Subject: RV-List: New Guy questions
> --> RV-List message posted by: <jbario@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Howdy to all. I have been reading the postings to this list for a few
> weeks and have learned a lot. My partner and I have been working on the
> tail feathers for a RV-8A since 2/1 and expect to finish in a week or so.
> We will then start on the QB wings which leads me to a few questions
>
> 1. I noticed in Vans Catalog an Airtech Wingtip Lens Kit. We looked at
> the Vans QB wing tip and lenses briefly this evening and (naively perhaps)
> it didn't appear to require an mod kit such as the Airtech. Any feedback?
>
> 2. Some people apparently using the Nav AV antenna in the wingtips. Are
> these antennas also useful for Localizer and Glide Slope signals? We
> assume one needs to install one of these antennas in each wingtip (total
> of 2). Any reports on their effectiveness vice externally mounted
> NAV/LOC/GS antennas? What is the best type of coax to use these days for
> a rookie airplane builder?
>
> Jim Barrilleaux
> Grass Valley, CA
> RV-8A tail feathers
> jbario@sbcglobal.net
>
>
>
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: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
It's a rehash. We all know it's risky and we all know in most cases you'd be better
off landing in that near mythically perfect field that's almost always
mythically conveniently located right off the end of almost all airports in the
world.
Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD
and nobody ever has to take off right over the dense city http://www.airnav.com/airport/KVNY
yep, there's just no reason to ever want to kill yourself turning back when you
can sometimes just as easily kill yourself going straight ahead....
No kidding it's risky but it IS and option. Pre plan your engine out scenario
before every take off. When I do my run up I have my left kneepadturned to my
engine out checklist and reference it before each days first takeoff and mentally
prepare for it. Short of the airplane coming apart in the air or fire in
the air, it's on my short list of things that really suck in an airplane. I
check the areas around the airport when I'm going into for the first time to make
a mental note for when I have to take off. With my defensive mindset before
each take off, I won't be the deer in the headlights pilot. I don't crank
up the ipod as I roll out on the active and get lost in the moment. I too have
seen a few fatal airplane accidents and some that somehow the people survived
and I don't forget them...
I think if you don't even half a plan by know the possibilities of your airplane,
you are not being as "professional" about flying as you should be. But that's
just my opinion.
Regardless, Jan pulled power back at 400' AGL, rolled in 60 degrees of bank, kept
one eye on the airspeed while making a firm pull, rolled with 300 feet to spare
and over 80 mph of airspeed, and gladed at his best glide speed of 97 mph
back to the airport no problem.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
>
> lucky wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> >The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this
> practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update
> the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each
> pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and
> BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude
> loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.
> >
> Lucky I was not rehashing previous soapbox stuff, I to am a flight
> instructor and have a few hours in an RV. The point being made here is you
> were doing a controlled test. In real life I would not turn back from
> 400 ft. What if your engine quit at 350 ft would you make it? When the
> engine
> quits and you get over the Oh s**t factor and then decide if you are
> high enough or not you probably will not have time or altitude to make the
> turn safely. In real life turn backs have killed many pilots that could
> have made a safe off field landing. My theory has always been once the
> engine quits
> I will do whatever it takes to save my butt and my passengers if I have
> one aboard. The airplane at the moment of engine failure becomes a pile
> of junk for all I care
> as long as we survive. To many people try to save the aircraft. An
> example is a Mooney pilot had an engine problem few weeks ago close to
> Van's home airport
> he had miles of open fields to land on but tried to make Sunset airport
> and ended up in a orchard dead instead of just picking a suitable off
> field landing spot.
>
> do not archive
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
It's a rehash. We all know it's risky and we all know in most cases you'd be better
off landing in that near mythically perfect field that's almost always mythically
conveniently located right off the end of almost all airports in the
world.
Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD
and nobody ever has to take off right over the dense city http://www.airnav.com/airport/KVNY
yep, there's just no reason to ever want to kill yourself turning back when you
can sometimesjust as easily kill yourselfgoing straight ahead....
No kidding it's risky but it IS and option. Pre plan your engine out scenario before
every take off. When I do my run up I have my left kneepadturned to my engine
out checklist and reference it before each days first takeoff and mentally
prepare for it. Short of the airplane coming apart in the air or fire in the
air, it's on my short list of things that really suck in an airplane. I check
the areas around the airport when I'm going into for the first time to make
a mental note for whenI have to take off. With my defensive mindset before each
take off, I won't be the deer in the headlights pilot. I don't crank up the
ipod as I roll out on the active and get lost in the moment. I too have seen a
few fatal airplane accidents and some that somehow the people survived and I
don't forget them...
I think if you don't even half a plan by know the possibilities of your airplane,
you are not being as "professional" about flying as you should be. But that's
just my opinion.
Regardless, Jan pulled power back at 400' AGL, rolled in 60 degrees of bank, kept
one eye on the airspeed while making a firm pull, rolled with 300 feet to spare
and over 80 mph of airspeed, and gladed at his best glide speed of 97 mph
back to the airport no problem.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Jerry Springer jsflyrv@comcast.net
-- RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <JSFLYRV@COMCAST.NET>
lucky wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this
practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update
the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each
pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and
BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude
loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.
Lucky I was not rehashing previous soapbox stuff, I to am a flight
i
nstructor and have a few hours in an RV. The point being made here is you
were doing a controlled test. In real life I would not turn back from
400 ft. What if your engine quit at 350 ft would you make it? When the
engine
quits and you get over the Oh s**t factor and then decide if you are
high enough or not you probably will not have time or altitude to make the
turn safely. In real life turn backs have killed many pilots that could
have made a safe off field landing. My theory has always been once the
engine quits
I will do whatever it takes to save my butt and my passengers if I have
one aboard. The airplane at the moment of engine failure becomes a pile
of junk for all I care
as long as we survive. To many people try to save the aircraft. An
example is a Mooney pilot had an engine problem few weeks ago close to
Van's home airport
he had m
iles of open fields to land on but tried to make Sunset airport
and ended up in a orchard dead instead of just picking a suitable off
field landing spot.
do not archive
Jerry
======================================
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
Lightspeed is better. Most of the racers use Lightspeed
Call Klaus Savior at Lightspeed Ign for details.
Dick Martin
N233M RV8
the Fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:21 PM
Subject: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag
> --> RV-List message posted by: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits@comcast.net>
>
> Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either
> aviation or automotive style plugs.
>
> Price aside, what is recommended and why?
>
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 03/06 2:38, lucky wrote:
> Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD
This was always scary in a C150 :) And the long XC was frightening.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0602/00754AD.PDF
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Flying!
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Guy questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
Jim.,
I have over 1200 hours on my rv8 in 6 years now. I have the nav and
glideslope antennas in the wingtips. Also the transponder antenna in the
;wing tip . They work well both the VOR and the glidslope aswell as the
xpndr. However the transceiver portion didnot work well. I finally gave up
and installed a DM outside antenna on the belly of my RV8 and it works
perfect.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: <jbario@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:04 AM
Subject: RV-List: New Guy questions
> --> RV-List message posted by: <jbario@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Howdy to all. I have been reading the postings to this list for a few
> weeks and have learned a lot. My partner and I have been working on the
> tail feathers for a RV-8A since 2/1 and expect to finish in a week or so.
> We will then start on the QB wings which leads me to a few questions
>
> 1. I noticed in Vans Catalog an Airtech Wingtip Lens Kit. We looked at
> the Vans QB wing tip and lenses briefly this evening and (naively perhaps)
> it didn't appear to require an mod kit such as the Airtech. Any feedback?
>
> 2. Some people apparently using the Nav AV antenna in the wingtips. Are
> these antennas also useful for Localizer and Glide Slope signals? We
> assume one needs to install one of these antennas in each wingtip (total
> of 2). Any reports on their effectiveness vice externally mounted
> NAV/LOC/GS antennas? What is the best type of coax to use these days for
> a rookie airplane builder?
>
> Jim Barrilleaux
> Grass Valley, CA
> RV-8A tail feathers
> jbario@sbcglobal.net
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
Paul,
The choice of aircraft or auto plugs is determined by the type of ign wire
you use. If you use the 8 1/2 mm MSD auto racing wire the auto plugs are im
my opinionsuperior. I have a lightspeed dual ign and am happy with it . It
is far superior to any other ign that I have experience with. The
lightspeed delliversa full40 thousand plus volt full capacitance discharge
system, whereas the others are usually 20 or 30 thousand volt inductive
inductive systems. The difference being a lower charge as well as the
ability to precisely time the spark as well the duration and intensity of
the spark as provided by the Lightspeed ign. The Lightspeed costs more but
in the long run, works better. Most of the racers use Lightspeed. Contact
Klaus Savior of Lightspeed for details.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:21 PM
Subject: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag
> --> RV-List message posted by: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits@comcast.net>
>
> Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either
> aviation or automotive style plugs.
>
> Price aside, what is recommended and why?
>
>
>
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: | Battery cranking power |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Another missing data point is size of the battery cables running from
aft of the baggage compartment. If they're undersized, they'll drag the
available voltage at the starter down.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DAVID REEL
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 12:26 PM
Subject: RV-List: Battery cranking power
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
Here's a data point on cranking power available from the Panasonic
LC-RD1217P battery. OAT 43 degrees, no pre heat. Oil 50 wt break-in
oil. Installation: O360A1A, Sky Tec model 149-12LS starter with battery
mounted aft of rear baggage compartment in an RV8A. Standard three
contactor installation of battery, starter, and contactor on starter.
The fully charged battery has had little use & measured 12.8V. What
happened was the engine turned over two revolutions and stopped.
Subsequently I could just get one revolution at a time just as though it
was being hand proped. After 5 or 6 of these, a cylinder fired and I
did get the engine started
Initially I thought I needed to redo my installation or switch
batteries. Later, I realized that the heavy oil was probably the
culprit & once I went to 20W50, performance would likely be more
satisfactory. Have others found temperature limits where the cranking
power of this battery is barely adequate?
Dave Reel - RV8A
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of dick martin
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag
--> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
Lightspeed is better. Nice opionion To bad you offor no facts to back up
this blatant statement
Most of the racers use Lightspeed And this is proof of what?
Call Klaus Savior at Lightspeed Ign for details. I like it, ask the
manufacturer if his product is better hmmm I wonder what Klaus will say. I
have known Klaus for a few years and I only believe 10 percent of what he
says.
Dick Martin
N233M RV8
the Fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:21 PM
Subject: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag
> --> RV-List message posted by: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits@comcast.net>
>
> Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either
> aviation or automotive style plugs.
>
> Price aside, what is recommended and why?
>
>
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: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: scott bilinski <rv8a2001@yahoo.com>
With all this talk going on, I looked at my altimeter today while departing the
airport and realized, wait, the safe number is XXX AGL! Now in a emergency situation
will you be able to remember the airport altitude and subtract it from
your altimeter?
Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Walter Tondu
On 03/06 2:38, lucky wrote:
> Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD
This was always scary in a C150 :) And the long XC was frightening.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0602/00754AD.PDF
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Flying!
Scott Bilinski
RV-8a
cell 858-395-5094
---------------------------------
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
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: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:18:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
jabowenjr@hotmail.com writes:
Can you tell us a little more about the Emag/Pmag bad luck you had. I am
also considering this option.
====================================
Once again I have offered to discuss only with those who contact or call me
directly.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: leaking fuel pump overflow |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hi Dave,
I have not seen a response to your email, so:
You might have a slight amount of crank case fluids due to a leak around the
area where the actuating arm reaches into the accessory case.
The pump is designed so that if one of the diaphragms fails the leaked fuel
will exit via the overflow fitting and out the tubing you describe instead
of running into the crankcase. I probably don't need to tell you that fuel
getting into the crankcase can be very dangerous. We are talking potentially
lethal.
It's a total guess on my part that crankcase fluids might be the culprit. I
am basing this guess on the "dark brown streak" that you describe.
A call to a trusted AME or engine shop might provide some good information.
Others on the list could have good advise.
Let us know how it goes,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "DAVE MADER" <davemader@bresnan.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: RV-List: leaking fuel pump overflow
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVE MADER" <davemader@bresnan.net>
>
>
> Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360
> Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying
> sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow
> tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no other
> liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5 lbs.
> Should I be concerned?
>
> Dave Mader
> 50 hrs, RV-6
>
>
>
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: | leaking fuel pump overflow |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Don't some bushplanes like beavers and such have a system to pump fuel
into the oil to thin it for cold starts? It then boils off as the engine
warms up and the oil becomes viscous again.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Jewell
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: leaking fuel pump overflow
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hi Dave,
I have not seen a response to your email, so:
You might have a slight amount of crank case fluids due to a leak around
the
area where the actuating arm reaches into the accessory case.
The pump is designed so that if one of the diaphragms fails the leaked
fuel
will exit via the overflow fitting and out the tubing you describe
instead
of running into the crankcase. I probably don't need to tell you that
fuel
getting into the crankcase can be very dangerous. We are talking
potentially
lethal.
It's a total guess on my part that crankcase fluids might be the
culprit. I
am basing this guess on the "dark brown streak" that you describe.
A call to a trusted AME or engine shop might provide some good
information.
Others on the list could have good advise.
Let us know how it goes,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "DAVE MADER" <davemader@bresnan.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: RV-List: leaking fuel pump overflow
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVE MADER" <davemader@bresnan.net>
>
>
> Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360
> Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying
> sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow
> tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no other
> liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5
lbs.
> Should I be concerned?
>
> Dave Mader
> 50 hrs, RV-6
>
>
>
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! --
|