Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:51 AM - Re: Insurance Premium Up (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
2. 03:05 AM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport ()
3. 03:31 AM - Re: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
4. 03:33 AM - Re: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam (Dana Overall)
5. 04:23 AM - Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) ()
6. 04:23 AM - Re: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (JVanLaak@aol.com)
7. 04:48 AM - RV-7/9 Seat Foam Offer (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
8. 05:02 AM - Re: Battery cranking power (Jeff Point)
9. 06:26 AM - To Turn or Not to Turn... (Alexander, Don)
10. 06:40 AM - Re: ICOM A200 com radio, Flightcom 403 panel mount intercom for sale (Richard Seiders)
11. 06:54 AM - Re: Insurance Premium Up (John Helms)
12. 07:22 AM - Re: Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) (Frank Stringham)
13. 07:38 AM - Re: Battery cranking power (Skylor Piper)
14. 07:42 AM - Reading List Messages - NOT (Mike Holland)
15. 07:49 AM - Re: To Turn or Not to Turn... (Chuck)
16. 07:59 AM - Re: Insurance Premium Up (Lockamy, Jack L)
17. 08:25 AM - Re: To Turn or Not to Turn... (Dan Morrow)
18. 08:29 AM - Re: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Rob Prior (rv7))
19. 08:56 AM - Re: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Joseph Larson)
20. 10:02 AM - Re: Reading List Messages - NOT (Matt Dralle)
21. 11:32 AM - Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision (Bill Dube)
22. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (ogoodwin@comcast.net)
23. 11:41 AM - E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) (James H Nelson)
24. 01:11 PM - Re: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision (Kevin Horton)
25. 01:40 PM - Re: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision (Dan Checkoway)
26. 01:43 PM - Re: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision (Sam Buchanan)
27. 02:14 PM - Re: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (halbenjamin@aol.com)
28. 02:14 PM - Re: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision (Kevin Horton)
29. 03:51 PM - Battery choices (was: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision) (Bill Dube)
30. 04:16 PM - Re: Battery choices (was: Battery cranking power, Plus starter compa... (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
31. 04:19 PM - Re: Trimming Engine Baffles to fit top cowling (Jerry Grimmonpre)
32. 06:00 PM - Fw: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam (Mark Rose)
33. 06:10 PM - OT: Battery choices (Bill Dube)
34. 07:16 PM - Re: annodized instrument panel? (sarg314)
35. 07:16 PM - Re: Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) (Sherman Butler)
36. 07:16 PM - Fuel Tank SB Question (Kyle Boatright)
37. 07:16 PM - Re: RV-7/9 Seat Foam Offer (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
38. 07:48 PM - Re: annodized instrument panel? (scott bilinski)
39. 07:48 PM - Re: Fuel Tank SB Question (Jeff Orear)
40. 08:17 PM - Cleaning Pro-Seal from sealing surfaces (Mannan J. Thomason)
41. 09:23 PM - Clecos and Pneumatic Cleco Installation Tool for Sale (William Scaringe)
42. 09:56 PM - Re: RV-7/9 Seat Foam Offer (Konrad L. Werner)
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: Insurance Premium Up |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Who is your broker and who is your underwriter?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Sherri & Paul Richardson" <prichar@mail.win.org>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Sherri & Paul Richardson"
>
> Hello,
> I just received my insurance quote for our RV-6A, and it is up $100. Is that
> fairly common?
> Thanks,
> Paul Richardson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Who is your broker and who is your underwriter?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Sherri Paul Richardson" prichar@mail.win.org
-- RV-List message posted by: "Sherri Paul Richardson" <PRICHAR@MAIL.WIN.ORG>
Hello,
I just received my insurance quote for our RV-6A, and it is up $100. Is that
fairly common?
Thanks,
Paul Richardson
===========================
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: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>From: "REHughes" <hawk@digisys.net>
>Subject: RV-List: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
>
>REHughes" <hawk@digisys.net> also wrote:
>
>Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way
I had to reply.
Hawkeye: You could not be anymore wrong, and I will tell you
why. If you want to be correct you should say AOA is most
relevant to stall, ie critical angle of attack.
I was referring to a sustained 60 degree banked TURN. My point
is for anyone thinking of a low altitude, high bank angle turn, what
is your stall speed, ie, what speed are you going to maintain. If
you can't think of right now at your easy chair you will not know
it when the engine quits. That was the point of the question? I
guess I could have said what is your load factor? or AOA?
However to address you assertion that bank angle and stall speed
are not related, since they are, I will explain.
Below link is everything you want to know about Bank angle and Gs
and applies to RV's or the Space Shuttle, I worked as an engineer
before flying for the airlines, so let the equations below speak:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0146.shtml
(notice, stall speed and bank angle can be expressed. Also notice
the generic concept, min flying speed goes UP with bank. That's the
point. Notice over 60 bank stall speed goes up quickly.
Yes we all know that AOA is critical, but there is a bank angle
(airspeed) relationship. Obviously AOA is related to load factor,
however you don't fly staring at a G-meter (except may be during
aerobatics).
We fly indicated airspeed (IAS). Obviously an AOA instrument is
most relevant to stall (at any load factor) since you can be wings
level and pull all the Gs you want or attitude.
Unless you have an AOA, you fly a higher indicated airspeed for
a given bank angle to get an **approx** stall margin, typically
1.3 x stall.
You say bank angle is not related to load factor? I think you are
arguing a moot point relative to making a turn back to the
airport.
The rest of your point (below) about efficient turns and having Gz
available and **giving away stall speed**, makes no sense. I guess
you mean giving away stall margin?
Also when *pulling Gs" you will increase drag and loose airspeed
and/or increase rate of descent unless thrust is increased. Is this
what U want close to ground? (increased descent rate, low IAS)
Regardless it kind of muddies the waters from the main Q:
What are you going to do when the engine quits at the worst time?
Fly the plane, fly the plane and maintain control to the ground,
whether on the airport or off field.
Again stall margin and bank angle in a sustained turn ARE relative.
Discussion of "efficient" turns are not relevant. What is critical is
being in a steep bank, high descent rate near the ground.
Cheers George
>"REHughes" <hawk@digisys.net> also wrote:
>
>Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way, the
>answer is, "just about anything you want it to be." You establish
>your stall speed by setting your load factor.
>
>Performing the turnback maneuver using 60 degrees of bank and
>+1.5 Gz will result in a good rate of turn with a generally acceptable
>loss of altitude. Even using +1.25 Gz will yield a pretty good result,
>although significantly more altitude is lost in the turn, as compared
>to loading the aircraft up closer to max available Gz at the chosen
>glide speed (If we use 100 KIAS as our best glide speed, over
>+3.5 Gz is available). At the lower Gz levels, IAS will also tend to
>increase at a higher rate during the turn, the magnitude of the
>increase largely depending on the pitch angle at the entry to the
>turn.
>
>Achieving good turn performance without giving away all the stall
>margin is certainly possible.
>
>Hawkeye Hughes
---------------------------------
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Again, the pre flight briefed and demo'd numbers:
120 mph climbout with fixed pitch prop, flaps up and at
400 feet AGL pulled power back to idle
rolled into 60 degree bank and not one degree more and
pulled elevator firmly but did not let the airspeed get down to his PRE ESTABLISHED
ABSOLUTE MIN AND BRIEFED BEFORE FLIGHT 80 mph.
The RV had no trouble doing this.
We leveled off with ~100 foot altitude loss and probably more than 90 mph airspeed
but the nose was kept low after level off to pick up best glide speed which
allowed a lot off energy to pull to flare with. The runway displacement was
maybe a couple of hundred of feet. We turned into the wind to to keep it that
way. No obsticles to contend with on the way down on either side.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by:
>
> >From: "REHughes"
> >Subject: RV-List: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
> >
> >REHughes" also wrote:
> >
> >Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way
>
>
> I had to reply.
>
> Hawkeye: You could not be anymore wrong, and I will tell you
> why. If you want to be correct you should say AOA is most
> relevant to stall, ie critical angle of attack.
>
>
> I was referring to a sustained 60 degree banked TURN. My point
> is for anyone thinking of a low altitude, high bank angle turn, what
> is your stall speed, ie, what speed are you going to maintain. If
> you can't think of right now at your easy chair you will not know
> it when the engine quits. That was the point of the question? I
> guess I could have said what is your load factor? or AOA?
>
>
> However to address you assertion that bank angle and stall speed
> are not related, since they are, I will explain.
>
>
> Below link is everything you want to know about Bank angle and Gs
> and applies to RV's or the Space Shuttle, I worked as an engineer
> before flying for the airlines, so let the equations below speak:
>
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0146.shtml
>
>
> (notice, stall speed and bank angle can be expressed. Also notice
> the generic concept, min flying speed goes UP with bank. That's the
> point. Notice over 60 bank stall speed goes up quickly.
>
>
> Yes we all know that AOA is critical, but there is a bank angle
> (airspeed) relationship. Obviously AOA is related to load factor,
> however you don't fly staring at a G-meter (except may be during
> aerobatics).
>
> We fly indicated airspeed (IAS). Obviously an AOA instrument is
> most relevant to stall (at any load factor) since you can be wings
> level and pull all the Gs you want or attitude.
>
>
> Unless you have an AOA, you fly a higher indicated airspeed for
> a given bank angle to get an **approx** stall margin, typically
> 1.3 x stall.
>
>
> You say bank angle is not related to load factor? I think you are
> arguing a moot point relative to making a turn back to the
> airport.
>
>
> The rest of your point (below) about efficient turns and having Gz
> available and **giving away stall speed**, makes no sense. I guess
> you mean giving away stall margin?
>
> Also when *pulling Gs" you will increase drag and loose airspeed
> and/or increase rate of descent unless thrust is increased. Is this
> what U want close to ground? (increased descent rate, low IAS)
>
> Regardless it kind of muddies the waters from the main Q:
>
> What are you going to do when the engine quits at the worst time?
>
> Fly the plane, fly the plane and maintain control to the ground,
> whether on the airport or off field.
>
> Again stall margin and bank angle in a sustained turn ARE relative.
>
> Discussion of "efficient" turns are not relevant. What is critical is
> being in a steep bank, high descent rate near the ground.
>
> Cheers George
>
>
> >"REHughes" also wrote:
> >
> >Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way, the
> >answer is, "just about anything you want it to be." You establish
> >your stall speed by setting your load factor.
> >
> >Performing the turnback maneuver using 60 degrees of bank and
> >+1.5 Gz will result in a good rate of turn with a generally acceptable
> >loss of altitude. Even using +1.25 Gz will yield a pretty good result,
> >although significantly more altitude is lost in the turn, as compared
> >to loading the aircraft up closer to max available Gz at the chosen
> >glide speed (If we use 100 KIAS as our best glide speed, over
> >+3.5 Gz is available). At the lower Gz levels, IAS will also tend to
> >increase at a higher rate during the turn, the magnitude of the
> >increase largely depending on the pitch angle at the entry to the
> >turn.
> >
> >Achieving good turn performance without giving away all the stall
> >margin is certainly possible.
> >
> >Hawkeye Hughes
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Again, the pre flight briefed anddemo'd numbers:
120 mph climbout with fixed pitch prop, flaps up and at
400 feet AGL pulled power back to idle
rolled into 60 degree bank and not one degree more and
pulled elevator firmly but did not let the airspeed get down to his PRE ESTABLISHED
ABSOLUTE MIN AND BRIEFED BEFORE FLIGHT 80 mph.
The RV had no trouble doing this.
We leveled off with ~100 foot altitude loss and probably more than 90 mph airspeed
but the nose was kept low after level off to pick up best glide speed which
allowed a lot off energy topull to flare with.The runway displacement was maybe
a couple of hundred of feet. We turned into the wind to to keep it that way.
No obsticles to contend with on the way down on either side.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
-- RV-List message posted by: <GMCJETPILOT@YAHOO.COM>
From: "REHughes" <HAWK@DIGISYS.NET>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
REHughes" <HAWK@DIGISYS.NET>also wrote:
Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way
I had to reply.
Hawkeye: You could not be anymore wrong, and I will tell you
why. If you want to be correct you should say AOA is most
relevant to stall, ie critical angle of attack.
I was referring to a sustained 60 degree banked TURN. My point
is for anyone thinking of a low altitude, high bank angle turn, what
is your stall speed, ie, what speed
are you going to maintain. If
you can't think of right now at your easy chair you will not know
it when the engine quits. That was the point of the question? I
guess I could have said what is your load factor? or AOA?
However to address you assertion that bank angle and stall speed
are not related, since they are, I will explain.
Below link is everything you want to know about Bank angle and Gs
and applies to RV's or the Space Shuttle, I worked as an engineer
before flying for the airlines, so let the equations below speak:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0146.shtml
(notice, stall speed and bank angle can be expressed. Also notice
the generic concept, min flying speed goes UP with bank. That's the
point. Notice over 60 bank stall speed goes up quickly.
Yes we all
know that AOA is critical, but there is a bank angle
(airspeed) relationship. Obviously AOA is related to load factor,
however you don't fly staring at a G-meter (except may be during
aerobatics).
We fly indicated airspeed (IAS). Obviously an AOA instrument is
most relevant to stall (at any load factor) since you can be wings
level and pull all the Gs you want or attitude.
Unless you have an AOA, you fly a higher indicated airspeed for
a given bank angle to get an **approx** stall margin, typically
1.3 x stall.
You say bank angle is not related to load factor? I think you are
arguing a moot point relative to making a turn back to the
airport.
The rest of your point (below) about efficient turns and having Gz
available and **giving away stall speed**, makes no sense. I guess
you m
ean giving away stall margin?
Also when *pulling Gs" you will increase drag and loose airspeed
and/or increase rate of descent unless thrust is increased. Is this
what U want close to ground? (increased descent rate, low IAS)
Regardless it kind of muddies the waters from the main Q:
What are you going to do when the engine quits at the worst time?
Fly the plane, fly the plane and maintain control to the ground,
whether on the airport or off field.
Again stall margin and bank angle in a sustained turn ARE relative.
Discussion of "efficient" turns are not relevant. What is critical is
being in a steep bank, high descent rate near the ground.
Cheers George
"REHughes" <HAWK@DIGISYS.NET>also wrote:
Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way, the
answer is, "just about anything you want it to be." You establish
your stall speed by setting your load factor.
Performing the turnback maneuver using 60 degrees of bank and
loss of altitude. Even using +1.25 Gz will yield a pretty good result,
although significantly more altitude is lost in the turn, as compared
to loading the aircraft up closer to max available Gz at the chosen
glide speed (If we use 100 KIAS as our best glide speed, over
increase at a higher rate during the turn, the magnitude of the
increase largely depending on the pitch angle at the entry to the
turn.
Achieving good turn performance without giving away all the stall
margin is certainly possible.
Hawkeye Hughes
---------------------------------
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
======================================
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: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>From: Kysh <vans-dragon@lapdragon.org>
>I don't have much to add except that the price of foam is increasing
>dramatically in other sectors as well. I'm not sure why. So it may be a
>'cost of ingredients' thing, in which case you're not likely to find a
>'better' source easily.
The cost of anything with petroleum byproducts has increased considerably
since Katrina and the other storms of last year. This includes form, wire
(because of insulation), PVC.......anything. Your call, buy it now because
you think once they raise prices they never go back down or wait an
see..........
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
O 360 A!A, C/S C2YK-1BF/F7666A4
http://rvflying.tripod.com/blackrudder.jpg
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag P L E A S E E X P L A I N
From: "Condon, Philip M." <pcondon@mitre.org>
>Whoa.....strong words! How cay one know this when the E/P MAG
>units are so new ? Please put some more words around the "Better"
>descriptor word you choose. Certainly, fully describing the attributes
>of each and why one unit is superior to another is appropriate
>here...right ??
Wow Philip, you are pretty demanding for some one who is asking for
free advice. Let me be abrupt with you. Do you know ANYTHING about
electronic ignition? Did you bother looking at the archives for info on
the P/E-mag? I am going out on a limb and guess no? If I said CDI or
Induction Ignition would that mean anything to you?
There was an EAA sport aviation article a few months back, suggest
you read it. I also would visit all the web sites of each manufacture.
Electroair: http://www.electroair.net/
Lightspeed: http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/
P/E-mag: http://emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
Aeorsparks: http://www.aerosparks.com/home.htm
Now let me give you the facts of EI life. All ignitions are similar
however with fear you will challenge me and call me a lier, I agree
with Dick Martin 100%. The Lightspeed Plasma III is likely the
highest performance and has the most performance features.
Folks, who KNOW way more than you about engine performance
pick the Lightspeed. And your comment to this as, SO?
Now there are subtle differences between EI brands. I would explain
why the Lightspeed is considered to be a higher performance EI,
but not sure you would understand. Leave it to say its a MS-CDI
(multi spark - capacitance discharge ignition).
Bottom line is they all will give hotter longer (fatter) spark than
a magneto, can advance timing based on manifold pressure and
RPM and should be more reliable with no points to wear.
The other ignitions, such as E/P-mag and Electroair are induction
ignitions. Look up the difference.
if you look at coils, electroair uses two LARGE coils compared
to the single coil in the E/P-mag. Because E/P-mag has a
*form factor* design that is all-in-one. Therefor it must make
some compromises in coil size. Common sense would say
that the E/P-mag spark will be less. Indeed E/P-mag does
not promote itself as a "performance ignition" but a low cost
easier to install ignition. In their FAQ there was a statement
to this affect and they do not publish performance specs. I
am not saying the E/P-mag is not good, just that is has
smaller coils than electroair for example. Make your own
conclusion, but lets be real. If you are an average every
day pilot 3% may be good enough and if you race you
need 4%. I don't know the differences but at lean mixtures
and high altitude the Lightspeed should burn the mixture
better, and it also has features no other ignition has, such
as cockpit controlled vairable timing and read out, as well
as RPM/MAP read outs.
The big claim to fame for the E/P-mag is more compact
installtion with out sattalite components and the self
powered feature, that allows dual EI with not need to
consider a small AUX battery.
Last fact, there has been no real heads-up comparison
between Brands. Leave it to say that they all will give much
better performance than a MAG. I guess you will now ask
show me or prove it. Again you need to research it, but you
can expect, smoother operation and gain efficiency and
performance. How much efficiency you receive is based on
how you fly. In cruise at altitude, EI is very efficient, primarily
not only from the much hotter longer spark but the advance
timing at low power settings. As I guess? you know Mags
have fixed timing.
As far as auto PLUGS or aviaition PLUGS. I prefer Aviation
plugs. They are more massive and rugged and known to
work well. Auto plugs have been shown to be fine for some
builders however there have been some anomalies. COST?
Penutes. In the big picture auto plugs will NOT be any factor
in you big picture. At first $3.00 sounds great VS. $16.00;
However aviaition plugs can last 1000 or 2000 hours. Most
auto plugs, needed or not are replaced as soon as every
oil change to a few 100 hours. Last is performance. An
EXPERT in aviation ignition who I talked to that knows more
about ignition than you ever will, found increased performance
using aviation plugs verses auto plugs. One pilot-builder also
found that his engine was stronger with aviation plugs when
he switched between Av and Auto and than back again.
Again no heads up comparison. Trust me.
I am NOT saying autoplugs are not good; however you may
have NO choice depending on what brand EI you buy.
(electroair and E/P-mag are the only ones offering a plug
option from the factory.)
As said Autolite UREM 37BY's are only $16.00ea & may last
2 to 5 times longer, so autoplugs are not a huge factor when
you think of fuel, oil and all the other cost. For some reason
autoplugs are replaced more by their pilot/owners; however
some have reported to run theirs up to 700 hours of more.
I don't know of what the high time auto plug is, but aviation
plugs can go to TBO. Aviation plugs are replaced more
for being dropped than wear. Also hold a Aviation plug.
TWO large electrodes on the side, vs. an autoplugs single
electrode which caps or covers the center, shadowing the
spark. Also the aviation plug has a metal outer case that
is more rugged and my provide better heat transfer and
cooling. All conjector but based on observation of the obvious.
Last is the autoplug adapters, another thing to buy. Just
my preference to go aviation plug if able. Take it or leave it.
LAST read and understand every word and graph of the
Cafe Foundation electronic ignition research articles.
http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition1.pdf
http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition2.pdf
http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition3.pdf
After you read the research, check the archives, read the EAA
article and manufacture web sites (better call or write each one
with spacific questions) get back to us, Phil. Dick by the way
has one of the fastest RV-8's around and has competed in
racing so I think you should consider his comments a little
more than So?
Cheers George
---------------------------------
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
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: JVanLaak@aol.com
My friend Hawkeye (former flight surgeon and naval aviator) was referring to
the point that you can be in 90 degrees of bank with one G on the airframe
and the stall speed is what it would be if level. Likewise, you could be in a
4 G pull wings level and the stall would be twice the 1 G value.
So in application, if you use a 90 degree bank but only 1 G the airplane
with large stall margin will turn rapidly but the nose will fall. If you have
the vertical room to permit that it might be a good trade.
Jim
RV-6 N79RL.
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: | RV-7/9 Seat Foam Offer |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Foam seeking listers,
Back in 2003 I purchased the seat foam kit for my RV-7A from Van's and never
used it. I went with Oregon Aero. I must have thought I was rich back then!
Anyway, if anyone wants the kit for what I paid plus shipping, I would be
tickled. I paid $190 from my invoice dated 4.21.03. This works on the RV-7
and RV-9 -- both seats. This is just foam, no covering, new in the box.
The box is 14.5" x 16" x 31" and weighs 13 lbs. Calculate UPS or Fed Ex
shipping from zip code 46901.
First email followed with a Postal Money Order within 10 days takes it.
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A Flying since July 2004 -- 144 hours
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: | Re: Battery cranking power |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
As an experiement, try swapping out your starter some time with a
different one, like an old Prestolite or the like. I think you'll find
that, while it's heavy and slower turning, that it turns the engine over
with your current battery with no problems.
Jeff Point
>
>
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: | To Turn or Not to Turn... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
My=20recent=20training=20experience=20with=20a=20new=20instructor=20brought=20a=20couple=20of
learnings=20with=20it.=20=20(Both=20good=20and=20bad...)
I=20had=20my=20first=20flight=20in=20a=20Citabria=20with=20a=20new=20instructor...hmmm...new
instructor=20and=20new=20plane.=20=20We=20did=20the=20normal=20preflight=20inspection=20and
strapped=20in.=20=20He=20gave=20me=20the=20first=20takeoff=20and=20at=20500',=20he=20pulled=20the
power=20on=20me.=20=20The=20training=20kicked=20in=20and=20I=20dropped=20the=20nose.=20
"Whatcha=20gonna=20do=20now?"=20he=20asked.
I=20set=20up=20a=20glide=20and=20picked=20a=20farm=20field=20which=20I=20had=20no=20trouble=20making.
I=20didn't=20have=20time=20to=20simulate=20emergency=20radio=20calls,=20xpdr=20changes=20and
so=20forth,=20or=20I=20should=20say=20that=20I=20didn't=20bother=20with=20these=20things=20as=20I
felt=20that=20flight=20required=20all=20of=20my=20attention=20at=20the=20moment.
Afterwards,=20my=20instructor=20told=20me=20that=20I=20saved=20my=20life,=20but=20lost=20the
airplane=20as=20my=20field=20of=20choice=20would=20have=20caused=20us=20to=20flip=20over=20on=20our
backs=20since=20it=20was=20too=20soft.=20=20I=20felt=20pretty=20good=20about=20responding=20in=20a
survivable=20manner=20in=20a=20plane=20that=20I=20had=20only=20flown=20for=20less=20than=20a
minute=20before=20I=20had=20"lost"=20my=20engine.
He=20then=20took=20us=20back=20to=20the=20runway=20and=20went=20through=20the=20simulation=20"his"
way.=20=20As=20soon=20as=20we=20hit=20500',=20he=20pulled=20the=20power.=20=20He=20made=20a=20very=20steep
turn=20back=20and=20easily=20made=20the=20runway.=20=20We=20shut=20down=20for=20a=20moment=20and=20he
said=20something=20that=20has=20stuck=20with=20me=20ever=20since-
"Always=20fly=20the=20plane=20in=20which=20you=20are=20flying."
Sounds=20like=20something=20that=20Yogi=20Berra=20would=20come=20up=20with...
He=20explained=20that=20I=20was=20used=20to=20flying=20Cessna=20152's=20and=20my=20response=20to
the=20simulation=20had=20"Cessna"=20written=20all=20over=20it.=20=20The=20Citabria=20was
capable=20of=20so=20much=20more=20than=20the=20Cessna,=20and=20I=20failed=20to=20take=20advantage
of=20it.=20=20Given=20the=20same=20simulation=20today,=20I=20would=20still=20look=20for=20my=20farm
field.=20=20I=20recognize=20that=20in=20my=20current=20state=20of=20training,=20the=20farm=20field
represents=20a=20chance=20to=20live=20and=20the=20turn-back=20represents=20a=20chance=20to
die.=20=20Maybe=20after=20I=20become=20a=20better=20pilot,=20I=20can=20pull=20the=20turn-back
maneuver=20off,=20but=20for=20now,=20I=20will=20default=20to=20the=20crops=20until=20my=20training
can=20catch=20up=20with=20the=20RV's=20capabilities...
After=20we=20got=20back=20up=20in=20the=20air,=20we=20worked=20a=20grass=20strip=20next=20to=20the
runway.=20=20He=20made=20me=20keep=20a=20very=20tight=20pattern.=20=20If=20I=20started=20drifting
away=20from=20the=20glide=20distance,=20he=20would=20pull=20the=20power=20right=20away=20and
tell=20me=20to=20prove=20to=20him=20that=20I=20can=20still=20make=20the=20grass.=20=20It=20became=20a
fun=20sport=20after=20a=20few=20failures=20had=20driven=20the=20lesson=20home=20to=20me.=20=20I=20fell
in=20love=20with=20the=20Citabria=20and=20her=20sweet=20manners=20on=20the=20ground=20and=20air.
Her=20wheel=20pants=20were=20a=20green=20mess=20after=20working=20the=20grass=20runway,=20but=20it
was=20worth=20the=20effort!
Tinman
RV-8-=20Finishing=20kit=20=20
Messages=20originating=20from=20AstenJohnson,=20Inc.=20e-mail=20servers=20are=20scanned=20for=20viruses=20and=20other=20threats=20prior=20to=20delivery=20using=20e-mail=20security=20services=20powered=20by=20MessageLabs=20Inc.
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: ICOM A200 com radio, Flightcom 403 panel mount intercom |
for sale
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Seiders <seiders@bellsouth.net> intercom
for sale
Gerald, how much for the Icom , and is it tso'd or not?
Dick Seiders
At 09:34 PM 3/6/2006, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson <gerric@shaw.ca>
>
>For Sale:
>
>ICOM A200 com radio, Flightcom 403 panel mount intercom. Both units
>brand new, never been turned on!
>All original documents, etc.
>In Alberta, Canada
>Reason for selling is buying Garmin Nav/Com radio.
>
>Save on new cost, brokerage fees, GST.
>
>Was to be going into my RV6A
>
>Gerald Richardson,
>Dunmore, Alberta
>Canada
>
>--
>03/06/2006
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Insurance Premium Up |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@nationair.com>
Paul, I'd guess you're insured with AIG for a couple reasons. From the FAA
registry (if I found the right one) there are 5 owners, and I think it's
more likely for AIG to write a group like than than the other company
(Global Aerospace's EAA Program). Also, AIG typically has a 3-5% increase
just about every year. Inflation on the cost of claims is normally sighted
as the reason. Most of the other companies increase their premiums less
regularly, but often by larger amounts so it evens things out.
I would recommend that you do make sure that (if at least one of the group
of owners is an AOPA member) the renewal quote includes AIG's AOPA discount.
Only one owner/pilot has to supply their valid AOPA number for that to
apply. AIG has been getting better at applying that discount at renewals if
it was applied the previous year, but it does get missed sometimes.
Hope that helps.
John "JT" Helms
Branch Manager
NationAir Insurance Agencies, Inc.
***Notice to All Recipients***
Please be advised that we cannot bind, modify, or cancel coverage via the
Internet, email or voicemail. Please call our office at (877) 475-5860 to
speak with a NationAir Representative. Thank you for your cooperation.
***Confidentiality Notice***
The Information in this email and any attachments therein is intended for
the addressee(s) only and may contain confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and/or any attachments
thereto is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
notify us immediately by email, attaching the original message, and delete
the original message from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sherri & Paul
Richardson
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: RV-List: Insurance Premium Up
--> RV-List message posted by: "Sherri & Paul Richardson"
<prichar@mail.win.org>
Hello,
I just received my insurance quote for our RV-6A, and it is up $100. Is that
fairly common?
Thanks,
Paul Richardson
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: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham@hotmail.com>
George
Enjoyed your info and directions to web sites to gain more
info.............but..........enough with the condecending put down side
shots at those of us not as schooled as you. I usually just delete at the
first sign of war words........but ............this time I am glad I
finished your story line. So please in the future just the facts and turn in
your parent/child persona for the more dignified adult role.
Having been a life long, now retired public school teacher, I am very
thicked skinned and can take what ever cheap shot you want to throw my way!
CHEERS>>>>>>>>>>>
Frank at SGU and SLC
>From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs)
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 04:18:31 -0800 (PST)
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag P L E A S E E X P L A I N
> From: "Condon, Philip M." <pcondon@mitre.org>
>
>
> >Whoa.....strong words! How cay one know this when the E/P MAG
> >units are so new ? Please put some more words around the
>"Better"
> >descriptor word you choose. Certainly, fully describing the
>attributes
> >of each and why one unit is superior to another is appropriate
> >here...right ??
>
>
>Wow Philip, you are pretty demanding for some one who is asking for
> free advice. Let me be abrupt with you. Do you know ANYTHING about
> electronic ignition? Did you bother looking at the archives for info on
> the P/E-mag? I am going out on a limb and guess no? If I said CDI or
> Induction Ignition would that mean anything to you?
>
> There was an EAA sport aviation article a few months back, suggest
> you read it. I also would visit all the web sites of each manufacture.
>
> Electroair: http://www.electroair.net/
> Lightspeed: http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/
> P/E-mag: http://emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
> Aeorsparks: http://www.aerosparks.com/home.htm
>
>
> Now let me give you the facts of EI life. All ignitions are similar
> however with fear you will challenge me and call me a lier, I agree
> with Dick Martin 100%. The Lightspeed Plasma III is likely the
> highest performance and has the most performance features.
> Folks, who KNOW way more than you about engine performance
> pick the Lightspeed. And your comment to this as, SO?
>
>
> Now there are subtle differences between EI brands. I would explain
> why the Lightspeed is considered to be a higher performance EI,
> but not sure you would understand. Leave it to say its a MS-CDI
> (multi spark - capacitance discharge ignition).
>
>
> Bottom line is they all will give hotter longer (fatter) spark than
> a magneto, can advance timing based on manifold pressure and
> RPM and should be more reliable with no points to wear.
>
>
> The other ignitions, such as E/P-mag and Electroair are induction
> ignitions. Look up the difference.
>
>
> if you look at coils, electroair uses two LARGE coils compared
> to the single coil in the E/P-mag. Because E/P-mag has a
> *form factor* design that is all-in-one. Therefor it must make
> some compromises in coil size. Common sense would say
> that the E/P-mag spark will be less. Indeed E/P-mag does
> not promote itself as a "performance ignition" but a low cost
> easier to install ignition. In their FAQ there was a statement
> to this affect and they do not publish performance specs. I
> am not saying the E/P-mag is not good, just that is has
> smaller coils than electroair for example. Make your own
> conclusion, but lets be real. If you are an average every
> day pilot 3% may be good enough and if you race you
> need 4%. I don't know the differences but at lean mixtures
> and high altitude the Lightspeed should burn the mixture
> better, and it also has features no other ignition has, such
> as cockpit controlled vairable timing and read out, as well
> as RPM/MAP read outs.
>
> The big claim to fame for the E/P-mag is more compact
> installtion with out sattalite components and the self
> powered feature, that allows dual EI with not need to
> consider a small AUX battery.
>
>
> Last fact, there has been no real heads-up comparison
> between Brands. Leave it to say that they all will give much
> better performance than a MAG. I guess you will now ask
> show me or prove it. Again you need to research it, but you
> can expect, smoother operation and gain efficiency and
> performance. How much efficiency you receive is based on
> how you fly. In cruise at altitude, EI is very efficient, primarily
> not only from the much hotter longer spark but the advance
> timing at low power settings. As I guess? you know Mags
> have fixed timing.
>
>
> As far as auto PLUGS or aviaition PLUGS. I prefer Aviation
> plugs. They are more massive and rugged and known to
> work well. Auto plugs have been shown to be fine for some
> builders however there have been some anomalies. COST?
> Penutes. In the big picture auto plugs will NOT be any factor
> in you big picture. At first $3.00 sounds great VS. $16.00;
> However aviaition plugs can last 1000 or 2000 hours. Most
> auto plugs, needed or not are replaced as soon as every
> oil change to a few 100 hours. Last is performance. An
> EXPERT in aviation ignition who I talked to that knows more
> about ignition than you ever will, found increased performance
> using aviation plugs verses auto plugs. One pilot-builder also
> found that his engine was stronger with aviation plugs when
> he switched between Av and Auto and than back again.
> Again no heads up comparison. Trust me.
>
> I am NOT saying autoplugs are not good; however you may
> have NO choice depending on what brand EI you buy.
> (electroair and E/P-mag are the only ones offering a plug
> option from the factory.)
>
> As said Autolite UREM 37BY's are only $16.00ea & may last
> 2 to 5 times longer, so autoplugs are not a huge factor when
> you think of fuel, oil and all the other cost. For some reason
> autoplugs are replaced more by their pilot/owners; however
> some have reported to run theirs up to 700 hours of more.
> I don't know of what the high time auto plug is, but aviation
> plugs can go to TBO. Aviation plugs are replaced more
> for being dropped than wear. Also hold a Aviation plug.
> TWO large electrodes on the side, vs. an autoplugs single
> electrode which caps or covers the center, shadowing the
> spark. Also the aviation plug has a metal outer case that
> is more rugged and my provide better heat transfer and
> cooling. All conjector but based on observation of the obvious.
> Last is the autoplug adapters, another thing to buy. Just
> my preference to go aviation plug if able. Take it or leave it.
>
>
> LAST read and understand every word and graph of the
> Cafe Foundation electronic ignition research articles.
> http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition1.pdf
> http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition2.pdf
> http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition3.pdf
>
>
> After you read the research, check the archives, read the EAA
> article and manufacture web sites (better call or write each one
> with spacific questions) get back to us, Phil. Dick by the way
> has one of the fastest RV-8's around and has competed in
> racing so I think you should consider his comments a little
> more than So?
>
> Cheers George
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
>
>
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: Battery cranking power |
--> RV-List message posted by: Skylor Piper <skylor4@yahoo.com>
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the
fact that the Panasonic LC-RD1217P has a higher
internal resistance than the Odyssey batteries do.
Panasonic literature states 12 miliohms at 77 degrees,
while the Odyssey PC680 is 7 miliohms. This may not
sound like much, but during high current draw when
cranking the engine, this can make a considerable
difference in voltage drop at the battery.
Skylor
RV-8 Under Construction
Firewall Forward...
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: | Reading List Messages - NOT |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Holland" <hollandm@pacbell.net>
I'm probably doing something wrong, but after browsing list messages for
awhile, eventually I can longer select the thread I choose. It's as if the
pointer no-longer is synchronized?
Do other listers have this problem or is it something with my system? Very
strange behavior and I've experienced it on several machines. I don't see
anything is the FAQ's about this behavior but I could have missed it. Maybe
Matt has an answer for us?
Thanks,
Getting psyched to redo my tanks covers (mumble, mumble)....
Mike Holland
RV9A N192MH
65 hours, still grinning!
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: To Turn or Not to Turn... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chuck <chuck515tigger@yahoo.com>
.... oh darn. I seem to have mis-placed my secret decoder ring.
I guess I'll have to do it the old fashion way. Let's see.... dump all the
20's, delete all the = signs, there that should do it.
"Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alexander, Don"
My=20recent=20training=20experience=20with=20a=20new=20instructor=20brought=20a=20couple=20of
learnings=20with=20it.=20=20(Both=20good=20and=20bad...)
I=20had=20my=20first=20flight=20in=20a=20Citabria=20with=20a=20new=20instructor...hmmm...new
instructor=20and=20new=20plane.=20=20We=20did=20the=20normal=20preflight=20inspection=20and
strapped=20in.=20=20He=20gave=20me=20the=20first=20takeoff=20and=20at=20500',=20he=20pulled=20the
power=20on=20me.=20=20The=20training=20kicked=20in=20and=20I=20dropped=20the=20nose.
"Whatcha=20gonna=20do=20now?"=20he=20asked.
I=20set=20up=20a=20glide=20and=20picked=20a=20farm=20field=20which=20I=20had=20no=20trouble=20making.
I=20didn't=20have=20time=20to=20simulate=20emergency=20radio=20calls,=20xpdr=20changes=20and
so=20forth,=20or=20I=20should=20say=20that=20I=20didn't=20bother=20with=20these=20things=20as=20I
felt=20that=20flight=20required=20all=20of=20my=20attention=20at=20the=20moment.
Afterwards,=20my=20instructor=20told=20me=20that=20I=20saved=20my=20life,=20but=20lost=20the
airplane=20as=20my=20field=20of=20choice=20would=20have=20caused=20us=20to=20flip=20over=20on=20our
backs=20since=20it=20was=20too=20soft.=20=20I=20felt=20pretty=20good=20about=20responding=20in=20a
survivable=20manner=20in=20a=20plane=20that=20I=20had=20only=20flown=20for=20less=20than=20a
minute=20before=20I=20had=20"lost"=20my=20engine.
He=20then=20took=20us=20back=20to=20the=20runway=20and=20went=20through=20the=20simulation=20"his"
way.=20=20As=20soon=20as=20we=20hit=20500',=20he=20pulled=20the=20power.=20=20He=20made=20a=20very=20steep
turn=20back=20and=20easily=20made=20the=20runway.=20=20We=20shut=20down=20for=20a=20moment=20and=20he
said=20something=20that=20has=20stuck=20with=20me=20ever=20since-
"Always=20fly=20the=20plane=20in=20which=20you=20are=20flying."
Sounds=20like=20something=20that=20Yogi=20Berra=20would=20come=20up=20with...
He=20explained=20that=20I=20was=20used=20to=20flying=20Cessna=20152's=20and=20my=20response=20to
the=20simulation=20had=20"Cessna"=20written=20all=20over=20it.=20=20The=20Citabria=20was
capable=20of=20so=20much=20more=20than=20the=20Cessna,=20and=20I=20failed=20to=20take=20advantage
of=20it.=20=20Given=20the=20same=20simulation=20today,=20I=20would=20still=20look=20for=20my=20farm
field.=20=20I=20recognize=20that=20in=20my=20current=20state=20of=20training,=20the=20farm=20field
represents=20a=20chance=20to=20live=20and=20the=20turn-back=20represents=20a=20chance=20to
die.=20=20Maybe=20after=20I=20become=20a=20better=20pilot,=20I=20can=20pull=20the=20turn-back
maneuver=20off,=20but=20for=20now,=20I=20will=20default=20to=20the=20crops=20until=20my=20training
can=20catch=20up=20with=20the=20RV's=20capabilities...
After=20we=20got=20back=20up=20in=20the=20air,=20we=20worked=20a=20grass=20strip=20next=20to=20the
runway.=20=20He=20made=20me=20keep=20a=20very=20tight=20pattern.=20=20If=20I=20started=20drifting
away=20from=20the=20glide=20distance,=20he=20would=20pull=20the=20power=20right=20away=20and
tell=20me=20to=20prove=20to=20him=20that=20I=20can=20still=20make=20the=20grass.=20=20It=20became=20a
fun=20sport=20after=20a=20few=20failures=20had=20driven=20the=20lesson=20home=20to=20me.=20=20I=20fell
in=20love=20with=20the=20Citabria=20and=20her=20sweet=20manners=20on=20the=20ground=20and=20air.
Her=20wheel=20pants=20were=20a=20green=20mess=20after=20working=20the=20grass=20runway,=20but=20it
was=20worth=20the=20effort!
Tinman
RV-8-=20Finishing=20kit=20
Messages=20originating=20from=20AstenJohnson,=20Inc.=20e-mail=20servers=20are=20scanned=20for=20viruses=20and=20other=20threats=20prior=20to=20delivery=20using=20e-mail=20security=20services=20powered=20by=20MessageLabs=20Inc.
---------------------------------
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
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: Insurance Premium Up |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Lockamy, Jack L" <jack.lockamy@navy.mil>
Mine just went DOWN $354 after the first year of claim-free flight! Was $1783
first year... just renewed for $1429!
Particulars are:
Broker: Falcon Insurance Agency (EAA Ins. Program), Kerrville, TX (866-647-4322)
Underwriter: AIG
Aircraft: RV-7A
Coverage: Full ($75K hull value and $1 million liability)
Pilot: 1000 hrs, MEI, ASEL, (280 hrs tail wheel)
Hours in type: 185
Accidents/claims: One (1) 9/8/2002 (see http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=3D20020913X01607&ntsbno=3DLAX02LA279&akey=3D1 )
I really like the folks at Falcon Insurance Agency. They took real good care of
me after my Sonex crash. Their agent actually called the Intensive Care unit
where I was hospitalized within 8 hours of my accident! They ensured my girlfriend
that she should contact them immediately if I needed anything at all.
That's good service and it made my family feel MUCH better during a bad situation...
They were extremely easy to work with. Even if their rates were higher
than a competitor's, I would pay the difference for the outstanding service
they provide.
My two cents,
Jack Lockamy
RV-7A N174JL
Camarillo, CA
www.jacklockamy.com
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: To Turn or Not to Turn... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01@butter.toast.net>
reposting Don's message with the "=20"s all removed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:20 AM
Subject: RV-List: To Turn or Not to Turn...
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alexander, Don"
> <Don.Alexander@astenjohnson.com>
>
> My=20recent=20training=20experience=20with=20a=20new=20instructor=20brought=20a=20couple=20of
> learnings=20with=20it.=20=20(Both=20good=20and=20bad...)
>
etc etc etc
My recent training experience with a new instructor brought a couple of
learnings with it. (Both good and bad...)
I had my first flight in a Citabria with a new instructor...hmmm...new
instructor and new plane. We did the normal preflight inspection and
strapped in. He gave me the first takeoff and at 500', he pulled the
power on me. The training kicked in and I dropped the nose.
"Whatcha gonna do now?" he asked.
I set up a glide and picked a farm field which I had no trouble making.
I didn't have time to simulate emergency radio calls, xpdr changes and
so forth, or I should say that I didn't bother with these things as I
felt that flight required all of my attention at the moment.
Afterwards, my instructor told me that I saved my life, but lost the
airplane as my field of choice would have caused us to flip over on our
backs since it was too soft. I felt pretty good about responding in a
survivable manner in a plane that I had only flown for less than a
minute before I had "lost" my engine.
He then took us back to the runway and went through the simulation "his"
way. As soon as we hit 500', he pulled the power. He made a very steep
turn back and easily made the runway. We shut down for a moment and he
said something that has stuck with me ever since-
"Always fly the plane in which you are flying."
Sounds like something that Yogi Berra would come up with...
He explained that I was used to flying Cessna 152's and my response to
the simulation had "Cessna" written all over it. The Citabria was
capable of so much more than the Cessna, and I failed to take advantage
of it. Given the same simulation today, I would still look for my farm
field. I recognize that in my current state of training, the farm field
represents a chance to live and the turn-back represents a chance to
die. Maybe after I become a better pilot, I can pull the turn-back
maneuver off, but for now, I will default to the crops until my training
can catch up with the RV's capabilities...
After we got back up in the air, we worked a grass strip next to the
runway. He made me keep a very tight pattern. If I started drifting
away from the glide distance, he would pull the power right away and
tell me to prove to him that I can still make the grass. It became a
fun sport after a few failures had driven the lesson home to me. I fell
in love with the Citabria and her sweet manners on the ground and air.
Her wheel pants were a green mess after working the grass runway, but it
was worth the effort!
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: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 3:29:57 2006-03-07 luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> Again, the pre flight briefed and demo'd numbers:
>
> 120 mph climbout with fixed pitch prop, flaps up and at
> 400 feet AGL pulled power back to idle
> rolled into 60 degree bank and not one degree more and
> pulled elevator firmly but did not let the airspeed get down to his
> PRE ESTABLISHED ABSOLUTE MIN AND BRIEFED BEFORE FLIGHT 80 mph.
>
> The RV had no trouble doing this.
And again, as others have pointed out, this was a contrived situation. The
pilot briefed and prepared for an engine out on takeoff, and everything
went according to plan.
Try the same thing on a climbout when you're not expecting an engine
failure, when you're half-way through retracting your flaps, talking about
where you're going with your passenger, and playing with the GPS. I'm sure
you'll lose more than 100 feet getting from [engine failure] to [lined up
on the runway].
Yes, the RV can do this turn. No, we're not all going to be enough on the
ball to make it do that in an unexpected high-stress situation.
-Rob
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: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
It doesn't matter at what altitude the power fails. It matters at
what altitude you have sufficient control of the situation to make
any further decisions.
If it takes you a half second or 5 seconds to respond, it doesn't
matter. Once you have control of the situation, then you check your
altitude for your minimum turn-back altitude.
-Joe
do not archive
On Mar 7, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Rob Prior (rv7) wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
>
> And again, as others have pointed out, this was a contrived
> situation. The
> pilot briefed and prepared for an engine out on takeoff, and
> everything
> went according to plan.
>
> Try the same thing on a climbout when you're not expecting an engine
> failure, when you're half-way through retracting your flaps,
> talking about
> where you're going with your passenger, and playing with the GPS.
> I'm sure
> you'll lose more than 100 feet getting from [engine failure] to
> [lined up
> on the runway].
>
> Yes, the RV can do this turn. No, we're not all going to be enough
> on the
> ball to make it do that in an unexpected high-stress situation.
>
> -Rob
>
>
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: Reading List Messages - NOT |
--> RV-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Hum, that's an interesting issue. I'm wondering if the articles are getting updated
out from underneath you? The content on the List Browse is updated with
any new posts that have come in every 30 minutes on the :15 and :45 of each hour
. See if synchronization loss happens with this update and let me know...
Matt Dralle
List Admin
At 07:42 AM 3/7/2006 Tuesday, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Holland" <hollandm@pacbell.net>
>
>I'm probably doing something wrong, but after browsing list messages for
>awhile, eventually I can longer select the thread I choose. It's as if the
>pointer no-longer is synchronized?
>Do other listers have this problem or is it something with my system? Very
>strange behavior and I've experienced it on several machines. I don't see
>anything is the FAQ's about this behavior but I could have missed it. Maybe
>Matt has an answer for us?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Getting psyched to redo my tanks covers (mumble, mumble)....
>
>Mike Holland
>
>RV9A N192MH
>65 hours, still grinning!
>
>
>
>
>
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
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: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
Figure about 300 amps for the starter current.
30 feet of 2 gage is about 5 milli-ohms. The battery is 12 milli-ohms.
Add in 2 or 3 for the contactors and the terminals and you are up to 20
milli-ohms.
At 300 amps, the starter is getting just 6.8 volts, even on a warm day
with a fully-charged battery. (This may not be enough voltage to run an
electronic ignition, by the way.)
>>> Series-Wound (SW) versus Permanent Magnet (PM) starters <<
The torque curves and voltage versus RPM are quite different for a
SW motor and a PM motor. The PM motor is simpler, so we will start with
that.
The torque of the PM motor is directly proportional to the current
supplied. The "back EMF" (**) of the PM motor is directly proportional
to the RPM. The internal resistance is typically slightly lower compared
to a SW motor of the same size. PM motors are typically more efficient
than SW motors. PM motors are typically lighter than SW motors.
The torque of a SW motor is proportional to the square of the
current. The back EMF of a SW motor is proportional to the rpm times the
current. The internal resistance is typically slightly higher than a PM
motor of the same size. The zero RPM torque is typically MUCH higher
than a PM motor of the same size.
If the wires are long, the battery is weak, or the oil in the engine
is thick, it is easy to "fall off the curve" of a PM starter. If you do
not supply it with enough voltage to push the current through the
windings to make the torque required to turn the engine at all. If it
spins at all, it will likely spin fast enough to start the engine. It is
more of a "yes or no" operation.
The SW starter is more forgiving. Since the torque is proportional
to the current squared, you can more often generate enough torque with a
weak battery and/or long wires to get the engine (with thick oil) to at
least turn slowly. Once the engine turns, however, the back EMF
(proportional to both current and RPM) pinches off the torque quite
rapidly. Thus, it may not ever be able to spin fast enough to actually
start the engine if the conditions are unfavorable. It has a much
broader "almost enough" zone of operation than the PM starter.
Bill Dube'
(**) Back EMF is the voltage the motor will create internally as it
spins that opposes the applied voltage. All motors are generators, after
all. :
)
Skylor Piper wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Skylor Piper <skylor4@yahoo.com>
>
>One thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the
>fact that the Panasonic LC-RD1217P has a higher
>internal resistance than the Odyssey batteries do.
>Panasonic literature states 12 miliohms at 77 degrees,
>while the Odyssey PC680 is 7 miliohms. This may not
>sound like much, but during high current draw when
>cranking the engine, this can make a considerable
>difference in voltage drop at the battery.
>
>Skylor
>RV-8 Under Construction
>Firewall Forward...
>
>
>
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 |
|
Cc: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
| Subject: | Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: ogoodwin@comcast.net
That is the clearest and most well thought out post in this whole thread.
Olen
do not archive
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
>
> It doesn't matter at what altitude the power fails. It matters at
> what altitude you have sufficient control of the situation to make
> any further decisions.
>
> If it takes you a half second or 5 seconds to respond, it doesn't
> matter. Once you have control of the situation, then you check your
> altitude for your minimum turn-back altitude.
>
> -Joe
>
> do not archive
>
> On Mar 7, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Rob Prior (rv7) wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
> >
> > And again, as others have pointed out, this was a contrived
> > situation. The
> > pilot briefed and prepared for an engine out on takeoff, and
> > everything
> > went according to plan.
> >
> > Try the same thing on a climbout when you're not expecting an engine
> > failure, when you're half-way through retracting your flaps,
> > talking about
> > where you're going with your passenger, and playing with the GPS.
> > I'm sure
> > you'll lose more than 100 feet getting from [engine failure] to
> > [lined up
> > on the runway].
> >
> > Yes, the RV can do this turn. No, we're not all going to be enough
> > on the
> > ball to make it do that in an unexpected high-stress situation.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) |
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Thanks George,
The explination on ignitions systems should be a "clearing" item
for thoes who are considering upgrading from standard Mag's. Me?, I am
using two "P" mags from E-Magair with auto plugs. Not flying yet but
maybe this fall.
Jim Nelson
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: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 7 Mar 2006, at 14:21, Bill Dube wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>
> Figure about 300 amps for the starter current.
>
> 30 feet of 2 gage is about 5 milli-ohms. The battery is 12 milli-ohms.
> Add in 2 or 3 for the contactors and the terminals and you are up
> to 20
> milli-ohms.
>
> At 300 amps, the starter is getting just 6.8 volts, even on a warm day
> with a fully-charged battery. (This may not be enough voltage to
> run an
> electronic ignition, by the way.)
Great post - thanks for the info.
I believe the voltage drop in the battery contactor and the positive
lead from the starter is one reason why Klaus Savier recommends that
his EI be connected directly to the battery. This way it is not
subjected to some of the voltage drop that the starter gets, so it
should be seeing a slightly higher voltage than the starter. Every
volt counts.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> I believe the voltage drop in the battery contactor and the positive
> lead from the starter is one reason why Klaus Savier recommends that
> his EI be connected directly to the battery. This way it is not
> subjected to some of the voltage drop that the starter gets, so it
> should be seeing a slightly higher voltage than the starter. Every
> volt counts.
FWIW, I did not follow Klaus' instructions when I wired up the LSE Plasma II
on my RV-7. I didn't connect the power directly to the battery. Instead I
connected it to a fuse on my always-hot battery bus. That way it doesn't
suffer from the voltage drop across the contactor that you mentioned, it
won't die if the contactor dies, etc. -- but it's still wired in a central,
consistent manner at a fuse block. Just the choice that I made because it
seemed to suit my needs better. YMMV.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Bill Dube wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>
> Figure about 300 amps for the starter current.
>
> 30 feet of 2 gage is about 5 milli-ohms. The battery is 12 milli-ohms.
> Add in 2 or 3 for the contactors and the terminals and you are up to 20
> milli-ohms.
>
> At 300 amps, the starter is getting just 6.8 volts, even on a warm day
> with a fully-charged battery. (This may not be enough voltage to run an
> electronic ignition, by the way.)
I've been running small Panasonic batteries for about four years. Here
are the details:
1) O-320, carbed with two mags
2) AeroShell W100 (50wt)
3) Engine continuously preheated with sump heater Dec-Feb.
4) Insulated hangar in north Alabama
5) Skytec starter, but don't recall the model or type
6) Short battery cables
The small battery was installed as a replacement for the original
Concord. I wanted to move the battery forward of the firewall and also
incorporate 'Lectric Bob's method of replacing a cheap battery every
couple of years. The Concord was still working fine after three years in
service, matter of fact it filled in nicely for a friend last year who
had a battery die unexpectedly.
The Panasonic has worked well in my situation. The only time it failed
me was once on a January morning (~20F) when I managed to get the engine
flooded during engine start (no primer) and the battery gave it up after
several attempts to crank the plane.
In my opinion, the Panasonic battery is a viable option for conditions
similar to mine. If there is a need to routinely start a chilled engine
with electronic ignition and a high-current starter, the cheap battery
probably isn't a good choice. An Odyssey would no doubt give more
reliable service under those conditions.
When I first installed a Panasonic in my RV-6, there was quite a wide
difference in the cost of it and an Odyssey. But since the Odyssey
prices have fallen in the past few years, the rational for the Panasonic
isn't as strong as it once was. Even though I have gotten good service
from the cheap batteries, I may consider an Odyssey next time.
Details of my installation:
http://thervjournal.com/battery.htm
Sam Buchanan
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: halbenjamin@aol.com
Hi Doug,
Glad to see you're back in fray...Hope you stick around!
Hal Benjamin
RV-4 Fuselage
Long Island, NY
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: B25Flyer <dougr@petroblend.com>
Sent: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 06:41:26 -0800
Subject: RV-List: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
--> RV-List message posted by: "B25Flyer" <dougr@petroblend.com>
I am baaaack!!!!!!!
Kevin Horton told me this subject had raised it's head again.
There is NO DOUBT that the turnback after takeoff can be completed in an RV.
There is also NO DOUBT that each year several people get killed trying to do it.
This happens in all kinds of airplanes including RV's.
I am alive today because I overcame the incredible urge to turnback. I wrote
this years ago when this topic came up. Please read the story at
http://www.petroblend.com/dougr/dnt-turn.htm
As the Defender of "Don't Turn Back" I remain!
Doug Rozendaal
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19895#19895
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 7 Mar 2006, at 16:37, Dan Checkoway wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>> I believe the voltage drop in the battery contactor and the positive
>> lead from the starter is one reason why Klaus Savier recommends that
>> his EI be connected directly to the battery. This way it is not
>> subjected to some of the voltage drop that the starter gets, so it
>> should be seeing a slightly higher voltage than the starter. Every
>> volt counts.
>
> FWIW, I did not follow Klaus' instructions when I wired up the LSE
> Plasma II
> on my RV-7. I didn't connect the power directly to the battery.
> Instead I
> connected it to a fuse on my always-hot battery bus. That way it
> doesn't
> suffer from the voltage drop across the contactor that you
> mentioned, it
> won't die if the contactor dies, etc. -- but it's still wired in a
> central,
> consistent manner at a fuse block. Just the choice that I made
> because it
> seemed to suit my needs better. YMMV.
And, for the record, this is exactly how I've wired my LSE Plasma
II. It should achieve the benefits of wiring directly to the
battery, while being neater and allowing an easy way to fuse the LSE
power wire.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: | Battery choices (was: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
The 14 A-hr SVR motorcycle battery is probably a better choice.
http://www.svrbatteries.com/battery_page.php?bid=1&vid=-1
This battery has an internal resistance of about 6 milli-ohms. It only
weighs 11.5 lbs.
I have pulled over 850 amps out of these on my electric drag bike.
http://www.killacycle.com
Bill Dube'
>
>I've been running small Panasonic batteries for about four years. Here
>are the details:
>
>1) O-320, carbed with two mags
>2) AeroShell W100 (50wt)
>3) Engine continuously preheated with sump heater Dec-Feb.
>4) Insulated hangar in north Alabama
>5) Skytec starter, but don't recall the model or type
>6) Short battery cables
>
>The small battery was installed as a replacement for the original
>Concord. I wanted to move the battery forward of the firewall and also
>incorporate 'Lectric Bob's method of replacing a cheap battery every
>couple of years. The Concord was still working fine after three years in
>service, matter of fact it filled in nicely for a friend last year who
>had a battery die unexpectedly.
>
>The Panasonic has worked well in my situation. The only time it failed
>me was once on a January morning (~20F) when I managed to get the engine
>flooded during engine start (no primer) and the battery gave it up after
>several attempts to crank the plane.
>
>In my opinion, the Panasonic battery is a viable option for conditions
>similar to mine. If there is a need to routinely start a chilled engine
>with electronic ignition and a high-current starter, the cheap battery
>probably isn't a good choice. An Odyssey would no doubt give more
>reliable service under those conditions.
>
>When I first installed a Panasonic in my RV-6, there was quite a wide
>difference in the cost of it and an Odyssey. But since the Odyssey
>prices have fallen in the past few years, the rational for the Panasonic
>isn't as strong as it once was. Even though I have gotten good service
>from the cheap batteries, I may consider an Odyssey next time.
>
>Details of my installation:
>
>http://thervjournal.com/battery.htm
>
>Sam Buchanan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery choices (was: Battery cranking power, Plus starter |
compa...
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Bill,
Wow! But 850 amps at about 6 volts (at 746 watts per horsepower) only comes
out to 6.8 horsepower per battery. How many are you using? 10? 20? Or, is
it a closely guarded secret?
So far, so good with Odyssey and PM starter. I'm amazed at its cranking
power. Have had one whump, but that was quite a while ago.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A 200 hp Flying 144 hrs.
In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:53:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
william.p.dube@noaa.gov writes:
I have pulled over 850 amps out of these on my electric drag bike.
http://www.killacycle.com
Bill Dube'
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Trimming Engine Baffles to fit top cowling |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Joe ...
Thanks for sharing your method with the list. I learned alot from your
description.
Jerry Grimmonpre'
RV8A Electrical
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe & Jan Connell" <jconnell@rconnect.com>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 5:23 PM
Subject: RV-List: Trimming Engine Baffles to fit top cowling
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Joe & Jan Connell" <jconnell@rconnect.com>
>
> Fellow Builders,
>
> I've finally gotten the RV-9A/O-320 baffle parts trimmed to match the top
> cowling and establish the baffle-to-cowling spacing. Trimming was easier
> than I feared it would be.
>
> I made a one inch diameter "washer" or "wheel" out of aluminum and drilled
> a
> small hole in the center. (A one inch washer will give you a half inch
> separation
> between the cowl and baffle -- a 3/4 inch washer will give you a 3/8 inch
> separation.) None of the baffle parts should be riveted together except
> angle
> brackets that attach to the ramp floors.
>
> I set the top cowling on top of the engine and it rested on the baffle
> parts. (The
> two forward bulkhead parts were left off as was the bottom cowling.) Put
> the
> "wheel" over the tip of a Sharpie marker. Lay the wheel against the rear
> baffle
> and push it up until it makes contact with the top cowling. Roll the
> wheel against
> the cowling while the pen transfers the shape of the cowl onto the baffle.
> The
> back cowling parts can be reached through the engine mount area. Do the
> same
> with the side baffles. You may need to cut the sharpie pen if it is too
> long to work
> with. I didn't have to although I have pretty big paws.
>
> Remove the top cowl and trim all the baffle parts where they have been
> marked.
> (You may need a vixen file to match file the adjacent baffle pieces.) I
> went
> through this routine about 4-5 times before the top cowl would fit
> properly.
> Once the top cowl settles into place and the hinges are secured, run the
> wheel
> one more time. The final pass will mark the final cowl-to-baffle spacing
> depending
> on what size washer you made. Install the two front bulkhead pieces. Use
> the
> same technique as above to mark, trim and re-fit. I was able to work
> through the
> inlets.
>
> I'm sure other builders have other ideas...
>
>
> Joe Connell
> Stewartville, MN
> RV-9A N95JJ
>
>
>
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: | Van's RV-8 Seat Foam |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Rose" <av8er2@mcleodusa.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Rose" <av8er2@mcleodusa.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam
>I paid 180 for my seats from van's 2 yrs. ago and was told by my upholster
>that I got a good deal he said he could not buy the foam for that price.
>Seem comfortable to me after 40 hrs. Mark Rose 137MR
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kysh" <vans-dragon@lapdragon.org>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 7:14 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Kysh <vans-dragon@lapdragon.org>
>>
>> As Mannan J. Thomason was saying:
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mannan J. Thomason" <mannanj@alltel.net>
>>>
>>> I noticed that Van has increased the price of his seat foam about a
>>> hundred
>>> bucks ($300) from the last time I looked. Anyone have any
>>> comments/suggestions on RV-8 seat foam, Van's or others? I'm retired, I
>>
>> I don't have much to add except that the price of foam is increasing
>> dramatically in other sectors as well. I'm not sure why. So it may be a
>> 'cost of ingredients' thing, in which case you're not likely to find a
>> 'better' source easily.
>>
>> -Kysh
>>
>> ST1300 - No name yet - > 3k mi -- STOC #5943
>> CBR-F4 - Foxy - > 56k mi
>> ~~ To fly is to truly live
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | OT: Battery choices |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
I crammed 26 of these into the battery pack. This works out to just over
200 HP. I ran these "off the shelf" type batteries for one season when I
couldn't get really high performance batteries. It was the heaviest
battery pack I have put on the bike at 300 lbs.
I don't quite draw them down to six volts. It's more like 7 volts.They
sometimes melt the straps and split open if you draw much more than 850
amps, so you can't quite draw them down to the ideal 1/2 open-circuit
voltage.
I just got a new sponsor, so I'm about to put a new pack in the bike. It
should weigh about 135 lbs and put out 350 HP or more. Hopefully these
batteries will arrive in a few weeks. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Bill Dube'
Hopperdhh@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>
>Bill,
>
>Wow! But 850 amps at about 6 volts (at 746 watts per horsepower) only comes
>out to 6.8 horsepower per battery. How many are you using? 10? 20? Or, is
>it a closely guarded secret?
>
>So far, so good with Odyssey and PM starter. I'm amazed at its cranking
>power. Have had one whump, but that was quite a while ago.
>
>Dan Hopper
>RV-7A 200 hp Flying 144 hrs.
>
>
>In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:53:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>william.p.dube@noaa.gov writes:
>
>I have pulled over 850 amps out of these on my electric drag bike.
>http://www.killacycle.com
>
>Bill Dube'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: annodized instrument panel? |
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
Scott:
(Sorry to respond so late to this, but I've been out of town). You
say it fades in the sun. Are you speaking from experience? Do some
dies/colors fade more than others?
I'm thinking of doing a very dark blue. There's a trophy maker here
in Tucson that makes electronics panels for the U of A Astronomy dept.
(my employer). You dark anodize the panel and then give him an autocad
or corel draw file of the labeling. He has a CO2 laser that then writes
the labeling into the panel by burning off the anodize, exposing the
bare aluminum underneath. Looks very good. The CO2 laser produces lines
wiht very sharp edges, you can use different fonts, etc. It doesn't
cost much either. So.... I'm interested in your experience with this.
scott bilinski wrote:
>--> 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
>
>
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a@yahoo.com>
Thanks George.
I was wondering many of the same things. I have also not had much luck in researching
the archives. Part of that is working 12 hr days and trying to build
my first airplane, after wanting to for at least 40 years.
Well you know . many of you have been there before me.
So thanks for all who have shared your thoughts.
Do not archive
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
Now let me give you the facts of EI life. All ignitions are similar
however with fear you will challenge me and call me a lier, I agree
with Dick Martin 100%. The Lightspeed Plasma III is likely the
highest performance and has the most performance features.
Folks, who KNOW way more than you about engine performance
pick the Lightspeed. And your comment to this as, SO?
LAST read and understand every word and graph of the
Cafe Foundation electronic ignition research articles.
http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition1.pdf
http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition2.pdf
http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition3.pdf
After you read the research, check the archives, read the EAA
article and manufacture web sites (better call or write each one
with spacific questions) get back to us, Phil. Dick by the way
has one of the fastest RV-8's around and has competed in
racing so I think you should consider his comments a little
more than So?
Cheers George
Sherman Butler
RV7a empennage
finally the first rivets driven tonight!!!
Sherman Butler
RV-7a Empennage
Idaho Falls
---------------------------------
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
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: | Fuel Tank SB Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net>
How clean does everything need to be when the fuel tank access covers go back on?
I've removed them, and have spent a fair amount of time cleaning them, but
there is still a thin layer of proseal in several areas.
I'm particularly interested in comments from people who completed this task (for
whatever reason) months or years ago. How clean were the surfaces in your tanks,
and have you had any problems since?
Thanks in advance,
Kyle Boatright
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-7/9 Seat Foam Offer |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Seat foam seeking listers,
Thanks for the great response. The seat kit is sold.
do not archive
Dan
RV-7A
In a message dated 3/7/2006 7:55:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Hopperdhh@aol.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Foam seeking listers,
Back in 2003 I purchased the seat foam kit for my RV-7A from Van's and
never
used it. I went with Oregon Aero. I must have thought I was rich back
then!
Anyway, if anyone wants the kit for what I paid plus shipping, I would be
tickled. I paid $190 from my invoice dated 4.21.03. This works on the
RV-7
and RV-9 -- both seats. This is just foam, no covering, new in the box.
The box is 14.5" x 16" x 31" and weighs 13 lbs. Calculate UPS or Fed Ex
shipping from zip code 46901.
First email followed with a Postal Money Order within 10 days takes it.
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A Flying since July 2004 -- 144 hours
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: | Re: annodized instrument panel? |
--> RV-List message posted by: scott bilinski <rv8a2001@yahoo.com>
I have seen several differnet colors fade that have been exposed to the sun. I
would contact a company that does annodizing and see what they say. My brother
just finished building a race car from scratch and did not annodize any of the
alum because of the fading, again I think your best bet would be to contact
the company that you would pick to do the work.
sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net> wrote: --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314
Scott:
(Sorry to respond so late to this, but I've been out of town). You
say it fades in the sun. Are you speaking from experience? Do some
dies/colors fade more than others?
I'm thinking of doing a very dark blue. There's a trophy maker here
in Tucson that makes electronics panels for the U of A Astronomy dept.
(my employer). You dark anodize the panel and then give him an autocad
or corel draw file of the labeling. He has a CO2 laser that then writes
the labeling into the panel by burning off the anodize, exposing the
bare aluminum underneath. Looks very good. The CO2 laser produces lines
wiht very sharp edges, you can use different fonts, etc. It doesn't
cost much either. So.... I'm interested in your experience with this.
scott bilinski wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: scott bilinski
>
>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
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
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: | Re: Fuel Tank SB Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
Kyle:
I had one of my access covers off due to a leaky BNC connector (capacitance
senders). I was able to get down to clean, bare aluminum by cleaning things
up with Xylol. Seemed to work quite well.
YMMV
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P
Ready for inspection (finally!!)
Pesthigo, WI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:09 PM
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Tank SB Question
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net>
>
> How clean does everything need to be when the fuel tank access covers go
> back on? I've removed them, and have spent a fair amount of time cleaning
> them, but there is still a thin layer of proseal in several areas.
>
> I'm particularly interested in comments from people who completed this
> task (for whatever reason) months or years ago. How clean were the
> surfaces in your tanks, and have you had any problems since?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Kyle Boatright
>
>
>
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: | Cleaning Pro-Seal from sealing surfaces |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mannan J. Thomason" <mannanj@alltel.net>
"How clean does everything need to be when the fuel tank access covers go back
on?"
Kyle:
Years ago I worked briefly for a shop that specialized in Mooneys. They wanted
the surfaces to be really clean before re-sealing. Their method, was to take
a piece of plexiglass, cut it into strips approx. one inch by five or six inches
long. sharpen one end on a grinder or belt sander at about a 45 degree angle.
that does a very good job of scraping most of the old sealant off. as it
gets dull or chipped, re-sharpen.
You then scuff the area with a stainless steel brush (the one that looks sort of
like a tooth brush), which, by the way was recommended by Van in the construction
manual. This will remove the remnants of the sealant and leave a good tooth
(pun) for the new sealant. Of course clean the area with naptha or other
cleaner before applying new sealant.
For all practical purposes, where you are now is probably fine; but it only takes
a few minutes with the stainless brush to do a really nice job.
I just did mine last week and this method worked great. No leaks.
Mannan Thomason
RV-8 Almost flying
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 |
|
| Subject: | Clecos and Pneumatic Cleco Installation Tool for Sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: William Scaringe <bscaringe@sbcglobal.net>
Hi Builders,
I have the following items for sale on Ebay:
100 new copper (1/8, #30) clecos with cleco installation pliers.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7597931255
150 new silver (3/32", #40) clecos with cleco installation pliers.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7597931901
New pneumatic cleco installation tool.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7597932657
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-7/9 Seat Foam Offer |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
Good evening Dan,
Would you accept a personal check for $215, so I don't have to fight my way into
a Post-Office for a simple Money Order?
It is OK with me if you think you need to wait until my check clears first (as
I am not in a hurry to get the foam right away anyway).
I could have a personal check out by tomorrow morning. Let me know.
Thanks,
Konrad Werner
(505) 480-4545
----- Original Message -----
From: Hopperdhh@aol.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7/9 Seat Foam Offer
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Seat foam seeking listers,
Thanks for the great response. The seat kit is sold.
do not archive
Dan
RV-7A
In a message dated 3/7/2006 7:55:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Hopperdhh@aol.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Foam seeking listers,
Back in 2003 I purchased the seat foam kit for my RV-7A from Van's and
never
used it. I went with Oregon Aero. I must have thought I was rich back
then!
Anyway, if anyone wants the kit for what I paid plus shipping, I would be
tickled. I paid $190 from my invoice dated 4.21.03. This works on the
RV-7
and RV-9 -- both seats. This is just foam, no covering, new in the box.
The box is 14.5" x 16" x 31" and weighs 13 lbs. Calculate UPS or Fed Ex
shipping from zip code 46901.
First email followed with a Postal Money Order within 10 days takes it.
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A Flying since July 2004 -- 144 hours
--
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! --
|