Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:17 AM - Re: Ryton sumps ()
2. 03:52 AM - Re: AD compliance documentation questions ()
3. 05:05 AM - MA-4 carbs (Steve Glasgow)
4. 07:39 AM - Re: Ryton sumps (Rhonda Bewley)
5. 07:47 AM - Fw: Ryton sumps (Joe & Jan Connell)
6. 08:08 AM - Re: Ryton sumps (sportav8r@aol.com)
7. 09:43 AM - FW: Ryton sumps (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
8. 10:27 AM - Re: Ryton sumps (Karen and Robert Brown)
9. 10:49 AM - Re: Ryton sumps (Ralph E. Capen)
10. 10:56 AM - Ryton sumps Ryton sumps Another fix or Solution (Condon, Philip M.)
11. 11:44 AM - Re: Ryton sumps (Karen and Robert Brown)
12. 12:01 PM - Re: Ryton sumps (DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com)
13. 12:36 PM - Re: Ryton sumps (BPA)
14. 12:48 PM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Bob 1)
15. 01:22 PM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Mickey Coggins)
16. 01:26 PM - Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport (Bob C.)
17. 02:53 PM - Re: Re: Ryton sumps (Charlie England)
18. 03:06 PM - Hangar question - Not RV related (Tim Bryan)
19. 03:13 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (Konrad L. Werner)
20. 03:25 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (Ron Lee)
21. 03:34 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (Darrell Reiley)
22. 03:36 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (John Jessen)
23. 04:22 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (Steve Eberhart)
24. 04:24 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (Tim Bryan)
25. 04:34 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (Richard Seiders)
26. 04:42 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (Konrad L. Werner)
27. 05:01 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (linn Walters)
28. 06:17 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (Craig)
29. 06:57 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (Charlie England)
30. 07:09 PM - Re: MA-4 carbs (Dave Nellis)
31. 07:19 PM - Re: Hangar question - Not RV related (Dale Ensing)
32. 09:07 PM - Ryton recks (DEAN PSIROPOULOS)
33. 09:18 PM - Re: not rv related (Jekyll)
34. 10:01 PM - rv-6a for sale (Steven DiNieri)
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Didn't Superior just sell the company off to a German company.
My experience in the past when a company has a massive design problem with their
product line, they end up selling it off to another company, who of course
does not support the old line. Both times in the past it was with electronic
items not engine parts. Is that an effort to avoid liability? I wounder it the
German company knew about this before they bought it?
Not saying this is Superior's reason for the buy out, but I see this time and
time again, a company sell off ownership preceded by some massive design or QC
screw up of a product or line of products.
I guess there is something to be said for certified parts that have stood the
test of time.
George RV-7
__________________________________________________
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: AD compliance documentation questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
We are experimental amateur built and don't have to meet any AD or is there any
log book entry or maintenance regulation. All we have to do is have a condition
inspection sign off in the last 12 months. Bottom line we have NO regulations
and our aircraft are not certified or need to meet any particular regulation
(unless noted in the operating limitations).
However from a common sense stand point and what I do is comply with AD's on
my engine. I was on the fence about changing the prop Gov oil line from aluminum
to a stainless steel part. If the aluminum is properly supported, chance of
failure is nil (by the fact for many decades, on many planes, flown many hours
with no problem). I ended up changing it because the parts where fairly cheap.
Ramp checks? Who has been ramped checked? I get checked about once a year, but
that is airline flying. In private flying or as a corporate or CFI pilot instructor,
never in 20 years of flying. The chance is your more likely to get ramped
from a law officer because you just did a buzz job or wants to know if you
paied the state sales / use tax on the plane.
We have great freedom lets not goof it up by doing dumb things. Right now the
FAA has a healthy we don't need to know and don't want to know, you are experimental,
RIGHT wink wink nod nod. Fact is the FAA has a hard enough time doing
their other jobs. This may be a hit on our collective ego's, but flying little
planes that mostly seat two people is not a priority. However as HOMEBUILTS
have progressed into 6 place pressurized turboprops that can fly in the flight
levels (well above FL180). The FAA has a hard time ignoring this since they are
mixing it up with the airline traffic. I predict (it already has happened)
there will be two classes of amateur homebuilt experimental, small and large (turbine).
I hope we can stay off the Fed's radar and continue to enjoy minimal government
oversight so we can continue to exercise judgment and self imposed (common
sense) practices. I think by and large most homebuilts are very airworthy and
flown safely. However if this changes things will change. Just do the prudent
thing, but don't be paranoid. No one really cares about your AD status (at this
time). It is experimental RIGHT?
George
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve Glasgow" <willfly@carolina.rr.com>
While I was gone on Vacation I saw a question about the MA-4-5 carb idle =
mixture setting, but was unable to respond do to receive only status.
In the August 2004 Light Plane Maintenance periodical, I found the =
following:
"Some MA-4 series carbs have something of a strange glitch in that you =
can attempt to richen the mixture with the screw, but a 25 RPM rise at =
altitude is all you'll get. Often these engines will have no rise at all =
at sea level. Not to worry. The MA-4 series will operate well despite =
the strange behavior, and problems are few.
No not, however, back the idle mixture knob out so far that =
holding-spring tension is lost. There have been reports of the valve =
falling out in flight."
To bad I did not see this before I lost mine on my first flight. Oh =
well. If you do loose the screw in flight, all is well till you land =
and the engine idles slower than in flight. When this happens you are =
calling for full rich, and the engine quits due to flooding.
The point is, for MA-4 series only, adjust the idle mixture screw till =
the engine idles well on the ground and forget trying to get a rise when =
shutting down. Mine has been trouble free for the last 300 hours. =
Sometimes I see a slight rise when shutting down, but it seems to be =
totally dependant on atmospheric pressure and temperature.
Steve Glasgow - Cappy
N123SG RV-8
Cappy's Toy
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
Our Cold air system is available only on the IO-540. We designed and
build them as an experimental replacement for the Lycoming certified
cold air sump (which costs approx. $8500) for any model parallel or
angle head IO/AEIO-540.
We do not have a cold air sump for the 360 engines. We tested some many
years ago and found that there was no performance enhancement, so we
decided not to pursue.
The IO-540 Cold Air System sells for $3995 as a stand alone unit, $3495
with an engine purchase.
Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.
Tulsa, OK 74115
(918) 835-1089 phone
(918) 835-1754 fax
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
Here's the deal:
If you want a "cold air sump", there seems to be 3 choices-
Ryton sump by Superior
Magnesium sump by ECI
Barrett Precision cold air sump
All the other metal sumps out there-
Aerosport Power
Aero Engines
Superflite
Are all copies of the Lycoming cast aluminum sump (not cold air sumps)
I don't have the information on the Barrett Cold Sump system, but it is
=
the most expensive of the three. I'll post that here when I find it.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Joe & Jan Connell" <jconnell@rconnect.com>
Guys,
Here is an item from E-Magair regarding composite sumps.
He indicates back-firing can fracture composite sumps. I
hope this info is of value. I have an Aerosport O-320 with a
Slick and a P-Mag...
Joe Connell
Stewartville, MN
RV-9A, baffle & cowling
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Dement
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: Service Update
Service Update
Run Mode Starting Delay:
Starting September, 2005 new production units (as well as units getting =
firmware updates after this time) will have a Run Mode Starting Delay =
("RMSD") feature that will prevent plug firing until the ignition sees =
two (2) passes of the TDC index. At start up, this will help ventilate =
the intake and exhaust chambers of accumulated vapor.
Normal RMSD Operation - RMSD will engage when a "normal" start up =
sequence is followed. i.e. The ignition is powered ON WHILE the key (or =
other p-lead switch) is in the OFF position. (Note: This is the same =
sequence used for entering Set Up Mode). Pilots then turn ON =
(unground) the p-lead switch and start the engine.
Bypassing the RMSD - The RMSD can be bypassed (fire on the first index =
pass) simply by powering the ignition ON WHILE the key (or other p-lead =
switch) is in the ON position. This will enable prop starting, if =
needed. Keep in mind that bypassing RMSD will increase the possibility =
of igniting fuel vapor (if present) on the "wasted" side of the spark - =
see below. At the time of this writing, this is felt to be problematic =
only for those customers using composite oil sumps. For them, bypassing =
RMSD will risk damaging the sump.
Emulating RMSD - It is also possible to emulate the RMSD manually =
(without the update) if you use toggle (or similar) switches instead of =
a key type ignition switch. Keeping the ignition p-lead switches =
grounded (OFF) for a few revolutions during engine start, will =
accomplish the same thing. Those who elect to not get the RMSD update =
might use this technique when performing hot starts. See below.
Background - Wasted spark systems avoid the weight, mechanical =
complexity, and high altitude operating issues associated with =
traditional ignition distributors. In a wasted spark system, plugs are =
fired in pairs at A) the charged cylinder that's ready to ignite, as =
well as B) the opposing cylinder during the exhaust stroke. This second =
spark is not intended to ignite, hence the name "wasted spark". =
However, when restarting an engine shortly after shut down (a hot =
start), it is possible for fuel vapor to accumulate in the intake =
manifold. This vapor can be ignited by what is normally the "wasted" =
side of the spark during valve overlap. [Valve overlap is when intake =
and exhaust valves are momentarily open at the same time.] Even so, in =
the one controlled (test cell) instance where this was observed, the =
event itself was rather unremarkable. It was heard only as a hard =
"puff" prior to engine start. However, in the test cell instance, the =
intake manifold channeled this "puff" to the sump, which was later =
measured as a 15 to 20 psi pulse. This pulse cracked the light weight =
composite sump installed on this particular engine. An identical =
replacement sump did the same thing during a second hot start. When =
replaced with a standard aluminum sump, the problem did not recur on any =
subsequent (hot or cold) starts.
To date, we have no other reports of sump related issues. So it's =
tempting (and maybe appropriate) to narrowly define this as the only =
configuration (fuel injection with side entry composite sumps) at risk, =
but we don't know that with certainty. Either way, we'd rather engage =
such issues with solutions, rather than require customers avoid =
innovative and exciting new products. So the Run Mode Starting Delay =
will be incorporated as a standard feature. It is also available as an =
upgrade (free of charge) to all customers getting a firmware update =
after September 1, 2005. The RMSD update is not mandatory unless you =
are using, or plan to use a composite sump. NOTE: RMSD is a new =
feature, and we cannot guarantee it will, in all cases, prevent ignition =
on the wasted spark side if conditions are just right. In which case, a =
composite sump, if used, could be damaged.
We hope this update is in keeping with your expectations of E-MAG =
customer service and support. As always, your questions and comments =
are welcome and very much appreciated.
Brad Dement
E-MAG Ignitions
649 Boling Ranch Road
Azle, Texas 76020
(817) 448-0555
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
I guess if one is wired per the AeroElectric schematic for dual P-mags, that the
RMSD bypass can be accomplished by use of the Ignition Maintenance Mode switch
in conjunction with the progressive transfer toggles that control normal ignition
operation. I have the old firmware and the Nuckolls wiring, and love the
way it starts my Lycoming on the first or second blade. I'd hate to give that
up for a firmware upgrade (which I need for the stumble issue) and not having
a Ryton sump to fret over.
-Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe & Jan Connell <jconnell@rconnect.com>
Sent: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:45:36 -0500
Subject: Fw: RV-List: Ryton sumps
--> RV-List message posted by: "Joe & Jan Connell" <jconnell@rconnect.com>
Guys,
Here is an item from E-Magair regarding composite sumps.
He indicates back-firing can fracture composite sumps. I
hope this info is of value. I have an Aerosport O-320 with a
Slick and a P-Mag...
Joe Connell
Stewartville, MN
RV-9A, baffle & cowling
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Dement
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: Service Update
Service Update
Run Mode Starting Delay:
Starting September, 2005 new production units (as well as units getting =
firmware updates after this time) will have a Run Mode Starting Delay =
("RMSD") feature that will prevent plug firing until the ignition sees =
two (2) passes of the TDC index. At start up, this will help ventilate =
the intake and exhaust chambers of accumulated vapor.
Normal RMSD Operation - RMSD will engage when a "normal" start up =
sequence is followed. i.e. The ignition is powered ON WHILE the key (or =
other p-lead switch) is in the OFF position. (Note: This is the same =
sequence used for entering Set Up Mode). Pilots then turn ON =
(unground) the p-lead switch and start the engine.
Bypassing the RMSD - The RMSD can be bypassed (fire on the first index =
pass) simply by powering the ignition ON WHILE the key (or other p-lead =
switch) is in the ON position. This will enable prop starting, if =
needed. Keep in mind that bypassing RMSD will increase the possibility =
of igniting fuel vapor (if present) on the "wasted" side of the spark - =
see below. At the time of this writing, this is felt to be problematic =
only for those customers using composite oil sumps. For them, bypassing =
RMSD will risk damaging the sump.
Emulating RMSD - It is also possible to emulate the RMSD manually =
(without the update) if you use toggle (or similar) switches instead of =
a key type ignition switch. Keeping the ignition p-lead switches =
grounded (OFF) for a few revolutions during engine start, will =
accomplish the same thing. Those who elect to not get the RMSD update =
might use this technique when performing hot starts. See below.
Background - Wasted spark systems avoid the weight, mechanical =
complexity, and high altitude operating issues associated with =
traditional ignition distributors. In a wasted spark system, plugs are =
fired in pairs at A) the charged cylinder that's ready to ignite, as =
well as B) the opposing cylinder during the exhaust stroke. This second =
spark is not intended to ignite, hence the name "wasted spark". =
However, when restarting an engine shortly after shut down (a hot =
start), it is possible for fuel vapor to accumulate in the intake =
manifold. This vapor can be ignited by what is normally the "wasted" =
side of the spark during valve overlap. [Valve overlap is when intake =
and exhaust valves are momentarily open at the same time.] Even so, in =
the one controlled (test cell) instance where this was observed, the =
event itself was rather unremarkable. It was heard only as a hard =
"puff" prior to engine start. However, in the test cell instance, the =
intake manifold channeled this "puff" to the sump, which was later =
measured as a 15 to 20 psi pulse. This pulse cracked the light weight =
composite sump installed on this particular engine. An identical =
replacement sump did the same thing during a second hot start. When =
replaced with a standard aluminum sump, the problem did not recur on any =
subsequent (hot or cold) starts.
To date, we have no other reports of sump related issues. So it's =
tempting (and maybe appropriate) to narrowly define this as the only =
configuration (fuel injection with side entry composite sumps) at risk, =
but we don't know that with certainty. Either way, we'd rather engage =
such issues with solutions, rather than require customers avoid =
innovative and exciting new products. So the Run Mode Starting Delay =
will be incorporated as a standard feature. It is also available as an =
upgrade (free of charge) to all customers getting a firmware update =
after September 1, 2005. The RMSD update is not mandatory unless you =
are using, or plan to use a composite sump. NOTE: RMSD is a new =
feature, and we cannot guarantee it will, in all cases, prevent ignition =
on the wasted spark side if conditions are just right. In which case, a =
composite sump, if used, could be damaged.
We hope this update is in keeping with your expectations of E-MAG =
customer service and support. As always, your questions and comments =
are welcome and very much appreciated.
Brad Dement
E-MAG Ignitions
649 Boling Ranch Road
Azle, Texas 76020
(817) 448-0555
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Just as an FYI, I know many vendors don't like to come off as pushing =
their products on the lists so I thought I would forward this.....
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: Rhonda Bewley [mailto:Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Ryton sumps
Sure Michael:
Barrett's Cold Air system is a vacuum impregnated magnesium casting =
which is durable and lightweight. The castings used to be made of =
aluminum, but we switched them to magnesium for the weight savings. The =
plenum box removes intake charge from hot oil bath, resulting in approx
15 bolt on hp in a parallel head engine. Aerobatic bosses are =
integrally cast, resulting in no welds to crack. The system is complete =
with hardware, fittings and gaskets, no additional parts to buy and may =
be installed with the engine already mounted.
The Van's standard cowl on the RV-10 doesn't fit with our cold air =
because the system has horizontal induction and the inlet air is in the =
wrong location on the cowl.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rhonda Bewley
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:34 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Ryton sumps
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
Our Cold air system is available only on the IO-540. We designed and =
build them as an experimental replacement for the Lycoming certified =
cold air sump (which costs approx. $8500) for any model parallel or =
angle head IO/AEIO-540.
We do not have a cold air sump for the 360 engines. We tested some many =
years ago and found that there was no performance enhancement, so we =
decided not to pursue.
The IO-540 Cold Air System sells for $3995 as a stand alone unit, $3495 =
with an engine purchase.
Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.
Tulsa, OK 74115
(918) 835-1089 phone
(918) 835-1754 fax
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
Here's the deal:
If you want a "cold air sump", there seems to be 3 choices-
Ryton sump by Superior
Magnesium sump by ECI
Barrett Precision cold air sump
All the other metal sumps out there-
Aerosport Power
Aero Engines
Superflite
Are all copies of the Lycoming cast aluminum sump (not cold air sumps)
I don't have the information on the Barrett Cold Sump system, but it is =
the most expensive of the three. I'll post that here when I find =
it.
=
=
=
=
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
we do have the Ryton composite sump. Superior tells us that ours was #
11 to break. We are running slick mags.
This is huge news.
Up to now everyone has been repeating the mantra that the problems with =
the Superior ryton sump have only occurred while coupled with electronic =
ignitions utilizing wasted spark technology. If one has failed with =
mags, then I would think all those people running Lasar ignitions are =
now also under the same shadow of risk. Doug, do you have additional =
details like when/how the failure occurred? A photo posted somewhere =
would be most enlightening.
For those of us in the same situation, I believe we should all write to =
Tim Archer, president of Superior, as well as Frank Thielert, who just =
bought Superior, and express our concerns for a rapid solution to this =
issue. They should pull the sumps off the market now and inform all =
owners of the possibility of failure and the need to inspect the =
induction system at the end of each flight. At the same time they need =
to recognize the need/market for a reliable, lightweight cold air =
induction system. Come on guys, this isn't rocket science.
Since I have totally lost confidence in the Ryton sump (as it's =
currently manufactured), the solution I have been forced into is to try =
(and I mean try...since there are none currently available anywhere) and =
purchase an aftermarket cast aluminum forward facing sump. I am told =
the shortest lead time is several weeks, with no firm delivery date. At =
the time I receive it, I'll then have to completely re-do the fiberglass =
snorkel, the fuel lines and linkages to compensate for the different =
geometry of the two sumps. Superior is apparently willing to cover =
$1000 for reimbursement of my old sump. The new one will cost about =
$2200, so besides the lost 100 hours or so of labor, I'll be out an =
additional $1500 dollars or so.
bob brown
rv7a
last few things, and a new induction system.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
A few letters to them might help....
A few other letters might help also......EAA, AOPA, FAA
-----Original Message-----
>From: Karen and Robert Brown <bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
>Sent: May 17, 2006 1:25 PM
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Ryton sumps
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
>
>we do have the Ryton composite sump. Superior tells us that ours was #
> 11 to break. We are running slick mags.
>
>This is huge news.
>
>Up to now everyone has been repeating the mantra that the problems with =
>the Superior ryton sump have only occurred while coupled with electronic =
>ignitions utilizing wasted spark technology. If one has failed with =
>mags, then I would think all those people running Lasar ignitions are =
>now also under the same shadow of risk. Doug, do you have additional =
>details like when/how the failure occurred? A photo posted somewhere =
>would be most enlightening.
>
>For those of us in the same situation, I believe we should all write to =
>Tim Archer, president of Superior, as well as Frank Thielert, who just =
>bought Superior, and express our concerns for a rapid solution to this =
>issue. They should pull the sumps off the market now and inform all =
>owners of the possibility of failure and the need to inspect the =
>induction system at the end of each flight. At the same time they need =
>to recognize the need/market for a reliable, lightweight cold air =
>induction system. Come on guys, this isn't rocket science.
>
>Since I have totally lost confidence in the Ryton sump (as it's =
>currently manufactured), the solution I have been forced into is to try =
>(and I mean try...since there are none currently available anywhere) and =
>purchase an aftermarket cast aluminum forward facing sump. I am told =
>the shortest lead time is several weeks, with no firm delivery date. At =
>the time I receive it, I'll then have to completely re-do the fiberglass =
>snorkel, the fuel lines and linkages to compensate for the different =
>geometry of the two sumps. Superior is apparently willing to cover =
>$1000 for reimbursement of my old sump. The new one will cost about =
>$2200, so besides the lost 100 hours or so of labor, I'll be out an =
>additional $1500 dollars or so.
>
>bob brown
>rv7a
>last few things, and a new induction system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Ryton sumps Ryton sumps Another fix or Solution |
Cc: <bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>, <DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com>, "Condon, Philip
M." <pcondon@mitre.org>
--> RV-List message posted by: "Condon, Philip M." <pcondon@mitre.org>
I made a forward facing sump out of a Lycoming magnesium casting from a
B1A sump. The Normal B1A sump has a rearward machined injector mount
and also has a rough cast area in the front that can be machined flat
and the studs mounted to mount a front injector. I spent 90 dollars at
a machine shop in my little 'berg where I live to machine the front
rough cast flat and thread the studs. I cut a plate from 1/4 inch
aluminum stock to make a plate for the rear hole. Works fine and when
you eye-ball the sump you can see where the cast areas are identical in
the front or rear. This is not a TSO/FAA/PMA/STC'ed mod, but as
experimental, works great. The magnesium is light too. Not the cold air
thing, but at least not subject to breakage either.
I have a spare, untouched sump (as described); When I looked into this
a few years ago. One salvage yard sent me one a few months after I
contacted them...... then they didn't have one initially. Wires got
crossed and the sent me one (with a bill for 750$). So, I wound up with
two, modified the one now on my airplane--hence the spare in the
garage. Maybe this is a solution for the Ryton folks........
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I've been on the phone all day researching this topic. Thanks for =
pointing me in the right direction Gary.
Here's the deal:
If you want a "cold air sump", there seems to be 3 choices-
Ryton sump by Superior
Magnesium sump by ECI
Barrett Precision cold air sump
All the other metal sumps out there-
Aerosport Power
Aero Engines
Superflite
Are all copies of the Lycoming cast aluminum sump (not cold air sumps)
The Ryton sump (by Superior Engines) we've discussed before here, it =
costs 1000 to 1300 dollars and will break when used with a wasted spark
=
electronic ignition system...if not sooner, then later. You might not
=
know it's broken unless you inspect it closely like I did. Superior =
does not see the magnitude of the problem of the sumps it has in the =
field, but is currently in a "redesign" of the Ryton sump to address
the =
wasted spark ignition issue. The new sump is expected out by October.
=
Based on other new product announcements, I wouldn't look for it a day
=
sooner.
.......................................................................
....
The magnesium sump by ECI is just now becoming available and costs
about =
$2400 including the tubes. There are two of them out there on aircraft
=
so far. If you want to be #3, they should be ready to ship on May 22.
=
I was told I'd have to fab a support bracket for the Bendix or AFP
servo =
because that was "too much weight" out there for the induction portion
=
of the sump to hold unsupported. That bothered me. The flange for =
mounting the fuel servo is also forward from where the Ryton sump
flange =
is, which will mean more extensive alteration of the air snorkel to get
=
it to fit.
I don't have the information on the Barrett Cold Sump system, but it is
=
the most expensive of the three. I'll post that here when I find it.
I guess that's it...
My choice will be the Superflight sump, when it's available in a few =
weeks. It's a clone of the Lycoming forward facing sump, so it's not a
=
"cold air sump". I have made peace with that and decided if I get a =
sump that WON'T BREAK, that will be more important than a few more =
horsepower. All these clones of the Lycoming forward facing sump are =
priced about the same at $2200.
I sure think there's a market out there for a well made cold air =
induction system...but I don't think there's a good one at a reasonable
=
price that's available yet.
For those of you who are running Ryton sumps, I encourage you to
inspect =
them very closely and very regularly. Like every time you fly. Two of
=
these sumps that have broken here have actually broken into pieces that
=
fell out onto the ground below the aircraft. The others have just =
cracked. In the case of my sump, the engine still ran fine with the =
cracked sump. Had we had the engine cowled, I would have had no reason
=
to uncowl it to inspect it before going flying. Had the lower part of
=
the sump (where the fuel servo mounts) broken off in flight, I am sure
=
it would have ruined my day.
bob
rv7a
last few things plus a new induction system
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
I am posting this letter I received from Bill Wallace, multiple RV =
builder and EAA Tech Counselor:
Doug;
My neighbor, Bob Brown forwarded your message to me this morning... =
Sorry to hear the bad news.
I also have a ryton sump in my RV8A along with LASAR Ignition, so far, =
(80) hours), I have not had any problems. However, with your revelation =
my confidence level has diminished substantially and I would like to ask =
you for some specific detail of your sump failure. For example, was it =
on a "hot Start", did it blow out a chunk or crack, did you actually =
hear it blow, or any additional detail you may think pertinent.
I have a hard time buying that there have been "only" 11 sump failures, =
we have had four failures out of a population of four ryton sump =
Superior engines here at the Independence Airpark alone! Denny =
Jackson's RV8 has two failures, (aft/lower air sump blow-outs) with a =
dual Jeff Rose electronic ignition system, on "hot " starts; Ron =
Russell had a failure (Light speed ignition), that made his engine run =
"a little' rough at idle, he subsequently flew home and upon landing =
could hardly keep it running long enough to get to his hangar. His sump =
had jagged fore to aft opening along the entire bottom of his air sump. =
Unfortunately, Ron Russell is no longer with us, so further detail is =
not available. Bob Brown's sump cracked at the mating line of the air =
sump and oil sump without any audible backfire, (on a second engine test =
run).
This is our local history at this time. I am fully supportive of any =
methods we could legally come up with to get Superior's attention and =
quick resolution to this faulty ryton sump problem.
Regards,
Bill Wallace
EAA Technical Counselor
bswal@msn.com
do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com
My partner (A&P) was starting the engine and it backfired and blew the
bottom out of the induction plenum. He called Superior and they told him it was
the 11th, but all the others were with electronic ignition. Supposed to be about
200 engines on service. Probably not likely to happen in flight but I don't
feel good about it.
Doug
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "BPA" <BPA@BPAENGINES.COM>
Regardless of what type of ignition source you have, or, which sump you
have be it a Ryton, ECI, Lycoming, or Happy Joes from Kokamoe, if the
electric boost pump is used to prime the engine, you are getting fuel in
the intake plenum, plane (only spelling I know :)and simple! That is the
reason for the drain (sniffle valve). It is important that the sniffle
valve be located in the LOWEST spot on the induction part of the system,
with the plane at it's natural resting attitude. You have to realize
that if the pump is turned on say for 5 seconds, you have to wait until
you are confident that any excess fuel in the plenum has drained before
you crank the engine. This is in my opinion the cause of the Ryton
issue.
Allen Barrett
BPE, Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Karen and
Robert Brown
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Ryton sumps
--> RV-List message posted by: "Karen and Robert Brown"
<bkbrown@ashcreekwireless.com>
I am posting this letter I received from Bill Wallace, multiple RV =
builder and EAA Tech Counselor:
Doug;
My neighbor, Bob Brown forwarded your message to me this morning... =
Sorry to hear the bad news.
I also have a ryton sump in my RV8A along with LASAR Ignition, so far, =
(80) hours), I have not had any problems. However, with your revelation
=
my confidence level has diminished substantially and I would like to ask
=
you for some specific detail of your sump failure. For example, was it
=
on a "hot Start", did it blow out a chunk or crack, did you actually =
hear it blow, or any additional detail you may think pertinent.
I have a hard time buying that there have been "only" 11 sump failures,
=
we have had four failures out of a population of four ryton sump =
Superior engines here at the Independence Airpark alone! Denny =
Jackson's RV8 has two failures, (aft/lower air sump blow-outs) with a =
dual Jeff Rose electronic ignition system, on "hot " starts; Ron =
Russell had a failure (Light speed ignition), that made his engine run =
"a little' rough at idle, he subsequently flew home and upon landing =
could hardly keep it running long enough to get to his hangar. His sump
=
had jagged fore to aft opening along the entire bottom of his air sump.
=
Unfortunately, Ron Russell is no longer with us, so further detail is =
not available. Bob Brown's sump cracked at the mating line of the air =
sump and oil sump without any audible backfire, (on a second engine test
=
run).
This is our local history at this time. I am fully supportive of any =
methods we could legally come up with to get Superior's attention and =
quick resolution to this faulty ryton sump problem.
Regards,
Bill Wallace
EAA Technical Counselor
bswal@msn.com
do not archive
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
Any one have some data points about real (not simulated) 180 deg turn
to touchdown gliding performance?
Jim Oke
RV-6A
Wpg., MB
Sorta, Jim.
The last guy I knew that survived a 180 emergency back to the airport did
not make it.
Although he survived, his aircraft was a near total and so was his
passenger's face.
Many surgeries needed before even a shadow of her good looks returned.
No shoulder harnesses installed.
FYI...
Normally, a 180 turn will just put an aircraft PARALLEL with the departure
runway.
More than likely you will need additional turning [and time] to line up....
and then a turn [and time] in the opposite direction to utilize the
departure runway.
Add in downwind speed and things can get very interesting.
I believe a decision to turn back to the airport is like the popularity of
the lottery.
There are always enough winners to keep the suckers coming.
Bob - over a half century of flight
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> I believe a decision to turn back to the airport is like the popularity of
> the lottery.
> There are always enough winners to keep the suckers coming.
That's a keeper, Bob!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
Well I did the impossible turn and am here to tell about it . . . no
dings on the aircraft either . . . it was in an old wood wing Mooney
(Mk 20A) near gross, and of course it had the manual gear and flaps .
. . I don't recall how high I was but I know I wasn't anywhere near
500 ft AGL (Probaly 200-350 AGL?). . . . I did have the gear up it was
a cold winter day . . . the engine quit . . . I bent her around hard
and got her turned back over the (7,000 ft) runway . . . popped the
gear back out just before flare.
I was young and brave and highly skilled (had just finished my
commercial program) . . . I knew I shouldn't but thought I could and
did!
Don't take this as a recommendation . . . I wouldn't have made it in
most aircraft . . . It scared the hell out of me and god knows whether
my passengers ever flew again
Good Luck!
Bob in SE Iowa
On 5/17/06, Bob 1 <rv3a.1@comcast.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1@comcast.net>
>
>
> Any one have some data points about real (not simulated) 180 deg turn
> to touchdown gliding performance?
>
> Jim Oke
> RV-6A
> Wpg., MB
>
>
> Sorta, Jim.
> The last guy I knew that survived a 180 emergency back to the airport did
> not make it.
> Although he survived, his aircraft was a near total and so was his
> passenger's face.
> Many surgeries needed before even a shadow of her good looks returned.
> No shoulder harnesses installed.
>
> FYI...
> Normally, a 180 turn will just put an aircraft PARALLEL with the departure
> runway.
> More than likely you will need additional turning [and time] to line up....
> and then a turn [and time] in the opposite direction to utilize the
> departure runway.
> Add in downwind speed and things can get very interesting.
>
> I believe a decision to turn back to the airport is like the popularity of
> the lottery.
> There are always enough winners to keep the suckers coming.
>
> Bob - over a half century of flight
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>Didn't Superior just sell the company off to a German company.
>
> My experience in the past when a company has a massive design problem with their
product line, they end up selling it off to another company, who of course
does not support the old line. Both times in the past it was with electronic
items not engine parts. Is that an effort to avoid liability? I wounder it the
German company knew about this before they bought it?
>
> Not saying this is Superior's reason for the buy out, but I see this time and
time again, a company sell off ownership preceded by some massive design or
QC screw up of a product or line of products.
>
> I guess there is something to be said for certified parts that have stood the
test of time.
>
> George RV-7
>
Hmmm......I seem to remember a certain certified tractor...uh...I mean
a/c carb changing hands a few times over the last decade, followed
shortly by an AD each time. Probably just a coincidence or 2. Or 3.
:->
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: | Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
Hi Listers, Like others, this is such a great resource even non RV rela=
ted
I am drawing plans for a hangar on my own property. While the RV will fi=
t
in a much smaller hangar, it isn't prudent (IMHO) to build a hangar that
small. What is the basic size of a hangar such as the typical T-hangars =
at
the local airport? Width, depth, and ceiling height
Thanks
Tim
RV-6 N616TB
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: Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
Don't know what a T-Hanger size is, but built it a little bigger then =
what you need whilst at it. You will never have to much room.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Bryan
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:04 PM
Subject: RV-List: Hangar question - Not RV related
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" =
<flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
Hi Listers, Like others, this is such a great resource even non RV =
rela
ted
I am drawing plans for a hangar on my own property. While the RV will =
fi
t
in a much smaller hangar, it isn't prudent (IMHO) to build a hangar =
that
small. What is the basic size of a hangar such as the typical =
T-hangars
at
the local airport? Width, depth, and ceiling height
Thanks
Tim
RV-6 N616TB
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: =
5/16/2006
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: Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Don't go with a T-hanger configuration. A 50' wide door will
hold two RVs side by side and no need to move the other.
48' might work...I can't confirm that.
Door height is probably 10' minimum and 12' better (clearance with door
up)
I doubt that you can build a hanger too large.
Ron Lee
Do not archive
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: Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com>
Hello Tim,
IMHO, no smaller than 38x40 but a 40x40 would be perfect. A 12' ceiling would
work just fine.
Darrell
Tim Bryan <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan"
Hi Listers, Like others, this is such a great resource even non RV rela=
ted
I am drawing plans for a hangar on my own property. While the RV will fi=
t
in a much smaller hangar, it isn't prudent (IMHO) to build a hangar that
small. What is the basic size of a hangar such as the typical T-hangars =
at
the local airport? Width, depth, and ceiling height
Thanks
Tim
RV-6 N616TB
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
My box hanger is 44 wide and 36 deep, or close to that. Height is a guess,
maybe 18 at it's peak?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Konrad L. Werner
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Hangar question - Not RV related
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
Don't know what a T-Hanger size is, but built it a little bigger then = what
you need whilst at it. You will never have to much room.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Bryan
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:04 PM
Subject: RV-List: Hangar question - Not RV related
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" = <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
Hi Listers, Like others, this is such a great resource even non RV =
rela
ted
I am drawing plans for a hangar on my own property. While the RV will =
fi
t
in a much smaller hangar, it isn't prudent (IMHO) to build a hangar = that
small. What is the basic size of a hangar such as the typical = T-hangars
at
the local airport? Width, depth, and ceiling height
Thanks
Tim
RV-6 N616TB
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: =
5/16/2006
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: | Re: Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: Steve Eberhart <steve@newtech.com>
Tim Bryan wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
>
> Hi Listers, Like others, this is such a great resource even non RV rela=
>ted
>
>
>I am drawing plans for a hangar on my own property. While the RV will fi=
>t
>in a much smaller hangar, it isn't prudent (IMHO) to build a hangar that
>small. What is the basic size of a hangar such as the typical T-hangars =
>at
>the local airport? Width, depth, and ceiling height
>
>
My friend and I are in the middle of building a new hangar to house our
RV-7's. The hangar is 32' x 56' with a 40' x 10' door. Inside ceiling
height is 13'. It works out pretty well with the RV's angled in. Each
can get in and out without moving the other. Of course we have only had
one in the hangar to check out how well it fits because the hangar isn't
finished and my RV-7A isn't finished either. I will post pictures
within the next couple of days. Hangar construction web page, now that
is different.
Steve Eberhart
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: Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
Thanks to all for the answers. This is about what I was thinking. My 1=
70
was about 37' wingspan if I remember right.
Tim
-------Original Message-------
From: Darrell Reiley
Subject: Re: RV-List: Hangar question - Not RV related
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com=
>
Hello Tim,
IMHO, no smaller than 38x40 but a 40x40 would be perfect. A 12' ceiling
would work just fine.
Darrell
Tim Bryan <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan"
Hi Listers, Like others, this is such a great resource even non RV rela=
ted
I am drawing plans for a hangar on my own property. While the RV will fi=
t
in a much smaller hangar, it isn't prudent (IMHO) to build a hangar that
small. What is the basic size of a hangar such as the typical T-hangars =
at
the local airport? Width, depth, and ceiling height
Thanks
Tim
RV-6 N616TB
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and sav=
e
big.
=
=
=
=
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: Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Seiders <seiders@bellsouth.net>
Tim ours is 3000sft. 50 wide 60 deep. Holds 3 rv's comfortably, but could
do 4 with a little care.
Dick
At 07:23 PM 5/17/2006, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
>
> Thanks to all for the answers. This is about what I was thinking. My 1=
>70
>was about 37' wingspan if I remember right.
>Tim
>
>-------Original Message-------
>
>From: Darrell Reiley
>Date: 05/17/06 15:38:53
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Hangar question - Not RV related
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com=
> >
>
>Hello Tim,
>
> IMHO, no smaller than 38x40 but a 40x40 would be perfect. A 12' ceiling
>would work just fine.
>
> Darrell
>
>
>Tim Bryan <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan"
>
>Hi Listers, Like others, this is such a great resource even non RV rela=
>
>ted
>
>
>I am drawing plans for a hangar on my own property. While the RV will fi=
>
>t
>in a much smaller hangar, it isn't prudent (IMHO) to build a hangar that
>small. What is the basic size of a hangar such as the typical T-hangars =
>
>at
>the local airport? Width, depth, and ceiling height
>
>Thanks
>Tim
>RV-6 N616TB
>
>
>---------------------------------
>New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and sav=
>e
>big.
>
>
>=
>
>=
>
>=
>
>=
>
>
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: Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner@comcast.net>
Tim,
Just make it big enough not only for an RV's short dimensions, but =
rather the more common airplanes, like a Piper Cherokee or a Cessna-172. =
A minimum of 40ft. wide and minimum 30ft. deep. And make it tall =
enough, so you can build in a frame for some storage upstairs. I would =
make it 14ft. tall at the lowest part, perhaps even 16ft., just for that =
purpose (even if down the road). A friends hangar is 12ft. tall and he =
really regrets it not being an extra foot or two. Going up does not =
cost that much more in material as I found out, when compared to general =
floor size increases. Roof Pitch depends on location (I used a shallow =
1/12 pitch). With construction cost going up all the time, just build it =
right the first time around.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Bryan
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Hangar question - Not RV related
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" =
<flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
Thanks to all for the answers. This is about what I was thinking. =
My 1
70
was about 37' wingspan if I remember right.
Tim
-------Original Message-------
From: Darrell Reiley
Date: 05/17/06 15:38:53
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Hangar question - Not RV related
--> RV-List message posted by: Darrell Reiley =
<lifeofreiley2003@yahoo.com
>
Hello Tim,
IMHO, no smaller than 38x40 but a 40x40 would be perfect. A 12' =
ceiling
would work just fine.
Darrell
Tim Bryan <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan"
Hi Listers, Like others, this is such a great resource even non RV =
rela
ted
I am drawing plans for a hangar on my own property. While the RV will =
fi
t
in a much smaller hangar, it isn't prudent (IMHO) to build a hangar =
that
small. What is the basic size of a hangar such as the typical =
T-hangars
at
the local airport? Width, depth, and ceiling height
Thanks
Tim
RV-6 N616TB
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and =
sav
e
big.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: =
5/16/2006
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: Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Typical T hangars are 40' wide at the door, 20' deep at the wings and
40' deep at the tail ...... or something reasonably close to that. No
matter how big you build the 'hangar', it will soon fill up with stuff
...... and be too small. My 'workshop' is 30X80 with 16' eaves and a
15X40 single panel door, hydraulically operated.
Linn
do not archive
Tim Bryan wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
>
> Hi Listers, Like others, this is such a great resource even non RV rela=
>ted
>
>
>I am drawing plans for a hangar on my own property. While the RV will fi=
>t
>in a much smaller hangar, it isn't prudent (IMHO) to build a hangar that
>small. What is the basic size of a hangar such as the typical T-hangars =
>at
>the local airport? Width, depth, and ceiling height
>
>Thanks
>Tim
>RV-6 N616TB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: Craig <craigtxtx@yahoo.com>
When it comes to hangers, no matter how big you make it, it will be "too small"
in a year.
Mine is 46' wide by 38' deep. I wanted a minimum 40' door to accomodate my C172
I owned when I built the hanger. That width is good for many single engine
GA aircraft. The depth was a matter of how much hanger I could afford to build.
After owning this hanger for three years, I wish it was larger.
Craig
Eastover Air Ranch, Fayetteville, NC
RV8A ........ working on the canopy
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Tim Bryan wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6@bryantechnology.com>
>
> Hi Listers, Like others, this is such a great resource even non RV rela=
>ted
>
>
>I am drawing plans for a hangar on my own property. While the RV will fi=
>t
>in a much smaller hangar, it isn't prudent (IMHO) to build a hangar that
>small. What is the basic size of a hangar such as the typical T-hangars =
>at
>the local airport? Width, depth, and ceiling height
>
>Thanks
>Tim
>RV-6 N616TB
>
Most of the hangars on the airpark where I live are ~50x50 with 12'
eaves & 12' tall x 45' bifold doors. I've seen 4 Globe Swifts & a
Stinson 108 in a 50x52 hangar. (Careful fitting to do that.)
If you are building on agricultural land & want to save money, find the
chicken farmers in your area & ask them who builds their houses
(chicken, that is). For us, the chicken house builder was waaay cheaper
than any other option, except maybe do-it-yourself. Just about any
desirable width; length from here to eternity. The guy we used erects
the trusses on footing pads (no slab needed) so you can let the ground
dry out & get well packed with vehicle traffic before pouring the slab.
The interior & exterior can be as fancy as you desire after the roof is
up & the slab is poured.
I added a 30' wide 'lean-to' shop to my hangar, using metal purlins from
a metal building supplier. 12' at the original eave, 8' at the new eave
& I can taxi an RV into the shop. (~10' height at the prop location).
Anything taller is pretty much wasted (for RV's) unless you go up to at
least 14' eaves so you can add a mezzanine.
A 12' tall bi-fold door is just barely tall enough to accept something
like a Baron or big antique Biplane. Something like a Hydro-swing
one-piece door will add almost 2' to the usable opening.
My shop addition has 2" foam under the roof/in the walls & is at least
15 degrees cooler in the summer than the original hangar. I regret not
insulating under the slab when I had it poured.
I've probably told you more than you ever wanted to know; time to stop.
Charlie
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Nellis <truflite@yahoo.com>
We had a club 172 quit on final due to the idle
mixture needle departing the aircraft. Fortunately,
the pilot was over the fence when he pulled the
throttle to idle. That is when it quit. His landing
was uneventful other than having to be pushed off the
runway.
Dave
--- Steve Glasgow <willfly@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Steve Glasgow"
> <willfly@carolina.rr.com>
>
> While I was gone on Vacation I saw a question about
> the MA-4-5 carb idle =
> mixture setting, but was unable to respond do to
> receive only status.
>
> In the August 2004 Light Plane Maintenance
> periodical, I found the =
> following:
>
> "Some MA-4 series carbs have something of a strange
> glitch in that you =
> can attempt to richen the mixture with the screw,
> but a 25 RPM rise at =
> altitude is all you'll get. Often these engines will
> have no rise at all =
> at sea level. Not to worry. The MA-4 series will
> operate well despite =
> the strange behavior, and problems are few.
>
> No not, however, back the idle mixture knob out so
> far that =
> holding-spring tension is lost. There have been
> reports of the valve =
> falling out in flight."
>
> To bad I did not see this before I lost mine on my
> first flight. Oh =
> well. If you do loose the screw in flight, all is
> well till you land =
> and the engine idles slower than in flight. When
> this happens you are =
> calling for full rich, and the engine quits due to
> flooding.
>
> The point is, for MA-4 series only, adjust the idle
> mixture screw till =
> the engine idles well on the ground and forget
> trying to get a rise when =
> shutting down. Mine has been trouble free for the
> last 300 hours. =
> Sometimes I see a slight rise when shutting down,
> but it seems to be =
> totally dependant on atmospheric pressure and
> temperature.
>
> Steve Glasgow - Cappy
> N123SG RV-8
> Cappy's Toy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
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: Hangar question - Not RV related |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
Start by checking the local building codes for hangars.Especially if you are
in an airpark. Some places have limits on the foot print and the maximum
height.
Dale Ensing
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
Whew, I really looked at Superior and liked their product but am now glad
that I didn't pay Superior money for a Superior engine that turns out to be
not so Superior after all! I would have liked the roller rockers though
(they came out with them just AFTER I ordered my TMX from Mattituck) and I
can understand why you folks with -7s and -8s want the forward facing sump.
I'd like to get rid of the air intake on my cowl underside too but no room
on the RV-6 for snorkel. I'll live with it. I guess the optimum thing to
do at this point is find a forward facing sump made of aluminum or
magnesium. Don't think I'd go to the hassle of the cold air induction, more
work for few horsepower and it's not like our RVs are underpowered. I went
through that conversation with myself on the constant speed prop and decided
I'd sacrifice a little (and it's damn little) bit of extra runway length and
put the $3000.00 dollars in the gas tank instead. At the current price of
fuel that's looking like a better and better decision every day. Good luck
on this one. It's bad enough we have to pay a fortune for these engines but
when the manufacturer says they have MORE MONEY for replacements of things
that are THEIR problem it really gets old (aka Lycoming piston pins of a few
years back, and their subpar [my opinion] metallurgical specs to the vendor
on the TIO-540 cranks with the ADs, pathetic). And their marketing/sales
reps wonder why we get so cranky......DUH!!!
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Panel finishing, wiring
Do not archive
__________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________
Time: 09:10:48 AM PST US
From: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Subject: RV-List: Re:Ryton sumps
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Guys,
Please post your messages concerning these sumps also on
_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/XP-360Forum/_
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/XP-360Forum/) . I am
sure the guys at Superior check that one so important they know what the
sentiment is out here. Last time I talked to them about these failures, they
assured me "It's never happened in flight." Cold comfort. They also said
they're
working on a replacement, but not free to present owners unless you "have a
problem". These folks need to step up, communicate with their customers, and
schedule free replacements when available. Mine is still in the garage, but
90/90, so I hope they get off their duff. My .10.
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: not rv related |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jekyll" <rcitjh@aol.com>
That's Indian Springs air field, not Indian Hills.
I saw Blue Man Group in Vegas. I've attended many concerts, shows plays and etc.
in my life, all over the world but I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS ACT. It
will blow your mind!
It is clean, family fun. Well, it's not actually clean except that there's no vulgarity
or not-ready-for-prime-time language. Lots of paint flying around but
they don't get it on the audience.
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=35154#35154
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve@adelphia.net>
I've held out as long as I can, but I have to sell my 6a to make room for
an rv-10 thats now on gear legs and taking way too much room. To expedite
to process I'm gonna list it on EBay Saturday morning. The only reason I
would mention it on this list would be to give a lister or "friend of"
lister, if interested, the opportunity to inspect and perhaps buy an
excellent aircraft in a more relaxed pace than auction. If there is any
interest I can postpone the eBay listing.
Check it out at http://www.preautoacc.com/precision/N231RV.html
Now back to your regularly scheduled program...........
Do not archive
Steven DiNieri
--
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: 5/16/2006
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! --
|