---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 03/07/06: 42 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:51:49 AM PST US From: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) Subject: Re: RV-List: 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" > --> 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:05:38 AM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport --> 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. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 03:31:30 AM PST US From: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: > --> 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: 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 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:33:47 AM PST US From: "Dana Overall" Subject: Re: RV-List: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam --> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" >From: Kysh >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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:23:50 AM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) --> RV-List message posted by: Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag P L E A S E E X P L A I N From: "Condon, Philip M." >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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:23:50 AM PST US From: JVanLaak@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:48:42 AM PST US From: Hopperdhh@aol.com Subject: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:02:05 AM PST US From: Jeff Point Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery cranking power --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:26:48 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: To Turn or Not to Turn... From: "Alexander, Don" --> 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.=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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:40:46 AM PST US From: Richard Seiders intercom for sale Subject: Re: RV-List: ICOM A200 com radio, Flightcom 403 panel mount intercom for sale --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Seiders 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:54:23 AM PST US From: "John Helms" Subject: RE: RV-List: Insurance Premium Up --> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:22:53 AM PST US From: "Frank Stringham" Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) --> RV-List message posted by: "Frank Stringham" 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: >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: > >Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag P L E A S E E X P L A I N > From: "Condon, Philip M." > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:38:55 AM PST US From: Skylor Piper Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery cranking power --> RV-List message posted by: Skylor Piper 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:42:37 AM PST US From: "Mike Holland" Subject: RV-List: Reading List Messages - NOT --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Holland" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:49:35 AM PST US From: Chuck Subject: Re: RV-List: To Turn or Not to Turn... --> RV-List message posted by: Chuck .... 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:59:09 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance Premium Up From: "Lockamy, Jack L" --> RV-List message posted by: "Lockamy, Jack L" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:25:38 AM PST US From: "Dan Morrow" Subject: Re: RV-List: To Turn or Not to Turn... --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Morrow" reposting Don's message with the "=20"s all removed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander, Don" Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:20 AM Subject: RV-List: To Turn or Not to Turn... > --> 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...) > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:29:32 AM PST US From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:56:51 AM PST US From: Joseph Larson Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport --> RV-List message posted by: Joseph Larson 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)" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:02:07 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: Re: RV-List: Reading List Messages - NOT --> RV-List message posted by: Matt Dralle 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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:36 AM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: RV-List: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:17 AM PST US From: ogoodwin@comcast.net Cc: Joseph Larson Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 > --> RV-List message posted by: Joseph Larson > > 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)" > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:41:41 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) From: James H Nelson --> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:11:07 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 7 Mar 2006, at 14:21, Bill Dube wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:40:27 PM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:43:25 PM PST US From: Sam Buchanan Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan Bill Dube wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:14:31 PM PST US From: halbenjamin@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:14:31 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 7 Mar 2006, at 16:37, Dan Checkoway wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:51:08 PM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: RV-List: Battery choices (was: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision) --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:16:01 PM PST US From: Hopperdhh@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:19:45 PM PST US From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" Subject: Re: RV-List: Trimming Engine Baffles to fit top cowling --> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" 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" 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:00:45 PM PST US From: "Mark Rose" Subject: Fw: RV-List: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Rose" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Rose" 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" > To: > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 7:14 PM > Subject: Re: RV-List: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam > > >> --> RV-List message posted by: Kysh >> >> As Mannan J. Thomason was saying: >>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mannan J. Thomason" >>> >>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:10:48 PM PST US From: Bill Dube Subject: RV-List: OT: Battery choices --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:16:24 PM PST US From: sarg314 Subject: Re: RV-List: annodized instrument panel? --> 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 > > > > ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 07:16:25 PM PST US From: Sherman Butler Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) --> RV-List message posted by: Sherman Butler 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:16:25 PM PST US From: "Kyle Boatright" Subject: RV-List: Fuel Tank SB Question --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:16:25 PM PST US From: Hopperdhh@aol.com 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 ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 07:48:04 PM PST US From: scott bilinski Subject: Re: RV-List: annodized instrument panel? --> RV-List message posted by: scott bilinski 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:48:04 PM PST US From: "Jeff Orear" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Tank SB Question --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" 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" Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:09 PM Subject: RV-List: Fuel Tank SB Question > --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:17:43 PM PST US From: "Mannan J. Thomason" Subject: RV-List: Cleaning Pro-Seal from sealing surfaces --> RV-List message posted by: "Mannan J. Thomason" "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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:23:56 PM PST US From: William Scaringe Subject: RV-List: Clecos and Pneumatic Cleco Installation Tool for Sale --> RV-List message posted by: William Scaringe 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:56:30 PM PST US From: "Konrad L. Werner" Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7/9 Seat Foam Offer --> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" 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 --