Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:30 AM - SLA's and the SportCruiser (Nic)
2. 05:01 AM - Effect of paint on weight & balance (DAVID REEL)
3. 05:18 AM - Re: SLA's and the SportCruiser (Jim Sears)
4. 06:13 AM - Re: SLA's and the SportCruiser (Chuck Jensen)
5. 07:00 AM - Re: SLA's and the SportCruiser (Kevin Horton)
6. 07:05 AM - Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance (RV6 Flyer)
7. 07:56 AM - Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance (DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com)
8. 07:58 AM - Re: Painter/Fiberglasser wanted (sarg314)
9. 08:30 AM - Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance (Kevin Horton)
10. 09:04 AM - Re: SLA's and the SportCruiser (Jim Sears)
11. 09:29 AM - Re: Ammeter question (bertrv6@highstream.net)
12. 11:34 AM - Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance (Kevin Horton)
13. 11:43 AM - Re: io360-a1b (gert)
14. 11:59 AM - Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance (Larry Bowen)
15. 12:35 PM - Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance (Kevin Horton)
16. 03:30 PM - Re: Painter/Fiberglasser wanted (Dale Ensing)
17. 06:02 PM - Re: LSE Plugs... (dick martin)
18. 06:20 PM - Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance (HCRV6@comcast.net)
19. 07:43 PM - Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance (Larry Bowen)
20. 09:02 PM - Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance (DAVID REEL)
21. 09:39 PM - Re: Ammeter question (D.Bristol)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | SLA's and the SportCruiser |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Nic" <Nic@skyhi.flyer.co.uk>
Jim, I think I am on the correct list - being an RV8 owner.
You said ...
"Sorry, Nic, for being blunt; but, not all of us are loaded with cash for
this hobby. Many, like myself, struggle to afford what little we have to
contribute to this hobby. A statement like the one you made makes us poor
folks cringe a little. :-("
In answer to your points:
Build Costs: The build will be considerably less than the cost of my RV8.
See http://www.spriteaviation.co.uk/ for details.
Build: The kit quality is equal or better than my RV with a canopy that
is complete and fits and a build time of 500 hrs max.
Running Costs: I paid E2.20L in Holland last week, that is $10.59 for a
USgallon of AVGAS. Hence the SLA with 912.
Return on Investment: This is changing rapidly, with running costs, so you
wont be able to rely on past residuals.
Future: The RV12 will be late on the scene and looks awful, but SLA's and
micros with great performance are becoming the aircraft of choice, Yes I
will still fly the RV8 for a while but the world is changing fast .......
RVList: I understood this list to be a medium to exchange ideas, so why
exile members who have different opinions?
Rgds, Nic from a rainy and windswept England
Time: 06:01:15 AM PST US
From: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Capella and other LSA's
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
It's nice that some of us are lucky enough to have enough cash on hand to
afford one of the new LSA aircraft. Some are pretty nifty looking.
Unfortunately, I've read from readers of some publications that folks aren't
too happy about the pricing. Granted, it does cost to produce these
aircraft; but, most of the folks we're trying to get into the fold of
aviation can no longer support the costs of entry. Thus, we're trying to
get those who've had to leave, for some reason, to return. And what about
the ultralight pilots we'd like to convert?
With the cost of a new LSA ready-to-fly aircraft, most just shake their
heads and not bother.
Nic erred when he said to the RV-list that he can't understand why anyone
would want to build a RV-12 when there are so many good LSAs out there. As
Jerry mentioned, price would be a major factor to most of us, unless one is
looking for a good used LSA compliant aircraft. Some of those are pricey,
enough. Building an aircraft is how many of us can afford to have what we
want, even LSA.
When I read Nic's statement, I couldn't help but wonder why Nic is on the
RV-list. Based on his statement, he may be better off in a LSA discussion
group. I can't help but feel that he can better afford one than I can.
Sorry, Nic, for being blunt; but, not all of us are loaded with cash for
this hobby. Many, like myself, struggle to afford what little we have to
contribute to this hobby. A statement like the one you made makes us poor
folks cringe a little. :-(
I know this group is primarily made up of RV builders/flyers; so, it stands
to reason that when LSA comes up on this list, the RV-12 is the answer for
many of us. I've looked at some of the other kits, knowing that they fly
well, and wonder how their flimsy construction, when compared to a RV, can
hold together. I also wonder how well they'll hold up in the used aircraft
market. One of the main reasons I own my RV is that I know I can get most,
if not all, of my investment back out of it. I'm not so sure about those
others. I'm a little biased, Nic. I'll bet I'm not alone. :-)
Anyway, I'm betting Nic really didn't mean what he said the way he said it.
If he did, he's subscribed to the wrong list. Those of us on this list have
RVs in our blood. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
RV-12 in the future? Maybe.
do not archive
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: | Effect of paint on weight & balance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
I reweighed my RV8A today because I thought the paint job might make a
significant change. Not only did the aircraft seem faster after being
painted but the pitch control forces seemed lighter when flying single
pilot. In previous posts, I have reported a significant increase in cruise
speed when moving the moment arm aft, probably due to reduced pitch
stability drag. Thinking about it, I realized that a lot more of the
surface area of the aircraft is behind the balance point near the wing spar
than in front of it, so it would make sense that the empty aircraft moment
arm would be further aft once it was painted. Here are the actual numbers:
Weight unpainted: 1051
Weight painted: 1077
Paint weight added: 26 lb
Unpainted CG: 77.46
Painted CG: 78.53 inches aft of datum
If you haven't weighed your airplane since painting and have occasion to
load it near the aft limit, beware! You might loose pitch control.
Dave Reel - RV8A
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SLA's and the SportCruiser |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
> Jim, I think I am on the correct list - being an RV8 owner.
>
I learned from another lister that you own an RV-8 and may be a little
unhappy with it. Thus, your quickness to consider another LSA over the
RV-12. If you're unhappy with RVs, you may prefer to discuss LSAs on
another list. Discussing RVs has to leave a bad taste in your mouth, if
you're unhappy with what you have.
BTW, did you build your RV or buy it? To those of us who've built and flown
our own RVs, there's a strong bonding to the designs and manufacturer, which
you may not have if you bought your RV. As for the dislike of the design,
it's only as good as the builder. A well built RV is a dream to fly. A
poorly built RV will be only as good as the builder made it.
> Build Costs: The build will be considerably less than the cost of
> my RV8. See http://www.spriteaviation.co.uk/ for details.
>
A ready built LSA is over $100KUS, which is more than your RV-8 unless you
put a lot of extra goodies in it. Of course, it's not if you bought your
RV. I just wonder how the price of the Sportcruiser experimental LSA will
compare to the RV-12. I'd rather compare to something like a Zodiac, which
is much closer to how one would build the RV-12. The Sportcruiser is a QB
assembly job with some possible building restrictions that we don't have
with experimentals that meet LSA standards. I'm sure a QB RV-12 would have
the same quality as the Sportcruiser.
If one builds a Zodiac, or RV-12, I'm betting the cost will be about half,
or less, of the ready built LSA, unless one is talking about one of the
fabric covered two place ultralights. Even those can be pricey. I did not
do the monetary conversion, or don't know what the cost would be for
shipping in the US, for the Sportcruiser.
> Build: The kit quality is equal or better than my RV with a canopy >
> that is complete and fits and a build time of 500 hrs max.
>
Ah. We are talking about the experimental LSAs. OK, you have a
manufactured aircraft, for the most part, that has most of the things done
for you by those who do the same things every day. I would expect, for the
price, everything to fit nicely. Also, many of the LSA designs are glass,
which in itself makes things look nice. When one builds a RV, it's up the
the builder to do a good job, if the finished product is to look good. If
your RV is not up to the good looks that I see very often in my area, the
failure was not in the design. It was in the builder. My own RV doesn't
match up to the beauty that I see in some of the RVs in my area, to include
some beautiful RV-8s. I blame myself for that.
Since I did take the time to look at the Sportcruiser web site, let me say
something about its fit and finish. It's a nifty looking design. The
canopy is designed somewhat like that of the Zodiac and RV-12, though. I
did notice in some pictures that the canopy is not fitting as well as I'd
like to see at the rear of the canopy. I saw what looked like brake lines
hanging out in the open air, under the fuse. Tacky and may be a carry over
from ultralight thinking. The cowling top cover has very few fasteners
which leads to gaps in the spaces between them. One can clearly see them in
the photos. I could go on; but, I'm not going to beat up on what looks like
a nice airplane. I want to point out that every design has something that
displeases the eyes of the beholder. :-)
> Running Costs: I paid E2.20L in Holland last week, that is $10.59 > for a
> USgallon of AVGAS. Hence the SLA with 912.
>
Yeah, that Avgas can be pretty expensive in England. Here, we can run auto
gas in many of our RVs, if we want to. If one sets up a RV-12, or Zodiac,
to run on auto gas, the cost won't be prohibitive for a poor guy like me.
Of course, flying anywhere in England, or Europe in general, costs more than
I can afford. It trully is a rich man's hobby. In the US, even a poor guy
like me can afford to own and fly an airplane, if one watches his expenses
carefully.
> Return on Investment: This is changing rapidly, with running costs, > so
> you wont be able to rely on past residuals.
>
Maybe not; but, I'd rather take my chances on having my RV retain its value
over several years than to chance it on any other aircraft, be it a LSA,
commercially built aircraft, or experimental aircraft. BTW, there are some
really neat experimentals in the US that are flying today, meet the LSA
criteria, and cost almost nothing on the used aircraft market. The reason
is that they did not retain their value.
> Future: The RV12 will be late on the scene and looks awful, but > SLA's
> and micros with great performance are becoming the aircraft > of choice,
> Yes I will still fly the RV8 for a while but the world is
> changing fast .......
>
Yes, it is. I'm growing older and may consider buying a new LSA, if I were
richer than I am; but, I'm not. With that, I have to consider what I can
afford. As for the looks, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Very few
of the LSAs have caught my eye as being trully beautiful craft. Some are
plain ugly! Those that are really neat are priced accordingly.
With so many LSAs on the open market, these days, one has to be wary of the
designs, how long these companies will be in business, product support, etc.
Those of us with RVs know that Van has been around for a long time, has
solid designs, has good product support, and will most likley be around for
some time to come.
> RVList: I understood this list to be a medium to exchange ideas, > so
> why exile members who have different opinions?
>
It is; but, I wasn't really responding to your love of LSAs. I like some of
those, myself. I was responding to what seemed like arrogance in that it's
easy for the rich to just toss money at things when many of us on the list
are not able to do that. Thus, we're builders because that's what we can
afford.. After having done it, one gets an attachment to designs. For us,
it's the RV. We get pretty defensive when someone cuts them down. They're
great designs with a good bang for the buck. Since you've been known to cut
down the design because of your experiences with your RV, you may not be as
closely attached to the design as many of us are. You may be more happy
discussing LSAs than RVs, which means you may be happier on another list.
> Rgds, Nic from a rainy and windswept England
And, this may be the reason for our opposing opinions. I considered your
statement to be somewhat arrogant; but, I now see where you're from and
better understand your reasoning. With that, I'm sure you'll find that
we'll continue to disagree because we don't have the same values. In the
US, I can afford to own and fly a RV. In England, I can't even afford the
gas. I'd have to be one of those guys who goes to airports and collects
registration numbers as a hobby.
In Europe, folks talk,and own, ultraligts, etc. because that's all most can
afford, if they can afford that. We in the US talk about more powerful
aircraft because the cost, and restrictions of operations, are not as
prohibitive. If you own your own RV in England, that says you're pretty
well off. Your statement that started this discussion hinted at that and
made me cringe because it seemed a bit arrogant. To be fair, I've known
other Englishers who were a tad arrogant, to me. Again, a difference in
where we live.
Jim Sears in KY
do not archive
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | SLA's and the SportCruiser |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Hi, Jim,
I know some Englishmen myself. I don't know that I would say they're
'arrogant' as much as proud....and justifiably so. After all, they gave
us our language, our laws, much of our culture, most of our political
system, many of our attitudes....wow, now that I think about it--dang
those Englishmen, they're the ones to blame, it's all their fault!!!!
Just kidding and Do Not Archive
Chuck Jensen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Sears
> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:15 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: SLA's and the SportCruiser
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>
>
> > Jim, I think I am on the correct list - being an RV8 owner.
> >
>
> I learned from another lister that you own an RV-8 and may be
> a little
> unhappy with it. Thus, your quickness to consider another
> LSA over the
> RV-12. If you're unhappy with RVs, you may prefer to discuss LSAs on
> another list. Discussing RVs has to leave a bad taste in
> your mouth, if
> you're unhappy with what you have.
>
> BTW, did you build your RV or buy it? To those of us who've
> built and flown
> our own RVs, there's a strong bonding to the designs and
> manufacturer, which
> you may not have if you bought your RV. As for the dislike
> of the design,
> it's only as good as the builder. A well built RV is a dream
> to fly. A
> poorly built RV will be only as good as the builder made it.
>
> > Build Costs: The build will be considerably less than the cost of
> > my RV8. See http://www.spriteaviation.co.uk/ for details.
> >
>
> A ready built LSA is over $100KUS, which is more than your
> RV-8 unless you
> put a lot of extra goodies in it. Of course, it's not if you
> bought your
> RV. I just wonder how the price of the Sportcruiser
> experimental LSA will
> compare to the RV-12. I'd rather compare to something like a
> Zodiac, which
> is much closer to how one would build the RV-12. The
> Sportcruiser is a QB
> assembly job with some possible building restrictions that we
> don't have
> with experimentals that meet LSA standards. I'm sure a QB
> RV-12 would have
> the same quality as the Sportcruiser.
>
> If one builds a Zodiac, or RV-12, I'm betting the cost will
> be about half,
> or less, of the ready built LSA, unless one is talking about
> one of the
> fabric covered two place ultralights. Even those can be
> pricey. I did not
> do the monetary conversion, or don't know what the cost would be for
> shipping in the US, for the Sportcruiser.
>
> > Build: The kit quality is equal or better than my RV
> with a canopy >
> > that is complete and fits and a build time of 500 hrs max.
> >
>
> Ah. We are talking about the experimental LSAs. OK, you have a
> manufactured aircraft, for the most part, that has most of
> the things done
> for you by those who do the same things every day. I would
> expect, for the
> price, everything to fit nicely. Also, many of the LSA
> designs are glass,
> which in itself makes things look nice. When one builds a
> RV, it's up the
> the builder to do a good job, if the finished product is to
> look good. If
> your RV is not up to the good looks that I see very often in
> my area, the
> failure was not in the design. It was in the builder. My
> own RV doesn't
> match up to the beauty that I see in some of the RVs in my
> area, to include
> some beautiful RV-8s. I blame myself for that.
>
> Since I did take the time to look at the Sportcruiser web
> site, let me say
> something about its fit and finish. It's a nifty looking
> design. The
> canopy is designed somewhat like that of the Zodiac and
> RV-12, though. I
> did notice in some pictures that the canopy is not fitting as
> well as I'd
> like to see at the rear of the canopy. I saw what looked
> like brake lines
> hanging out in the open air, under the fuse. Tacky and may
> be a carry over
> from ultralight thinking. The cowling top cover has very few
> fasteners
> which leads to gaps in the spaces between them. One can
> clearly see them in
> the photos. I could go on; but, I'm not going to beat up on
> what looks like
> a nice airplane. I want to point out that every design has
> something that
> displeases the eyes of the beholder. :-)
>
> > Running Costs: I paid E2.20L in Holland last week, that is $10.59 >
> > for a
> > USgallon of AVGAS. Hence the SLA with 912.
> >
>
> Yeah, that Avgas can be pretty expensive in England. Here,
> we can run auto
> gas in many of our RVs, if we want to. If one sets up a
> RV-12, or Zodiac,
> to run on auto gas, the cost won't be prohibitive for a poor
> guy like me.
> Of course, flying anywhere in England, or Europe in general,
> costs more than
> I can afford. It trully is a rich man's hobby. In the US,
> even a poor guy
> like me can afford to own and fly an airplane, if one watches
> his expenses
> carefully.
>
> > Return on Investment: This is changing rapidly, with
> running costs, >
> > so
> > you wont be able to rely on past residuals.
> >
>
> Maybe not; but, I'd rather take my chances on having my RV
> retain its value
> over several years than to chance it on any other aircraft,
> be it a LSA,
> commercially built aircraft, or experimental aircraft. BTW,
> there are some
> really neat experimentals in the US that are flying today,
> meet the LSA
> criteria, and cost almost nothing on the used aircraft
> market. The reason
> is that they did not retain their value.
>
> > Future: The RV12 will be late on the scene and looks
> awful, but > SLA's
> > and micros with great performance are becoming the aircraft > of
> > choice,
> > Yes I will still fly the RV8 for a while but the world is
> > changing fast .......
> >
>
> Yes, it is. I'm growing older and may consider buying a new
> LSA, if I were
> richer than I am; but, I'm not. With that, I have to
> consider what I can
> afford. As for the looks, beauty is in the eyes of the
> beholder. Very few
> of the LSAs have caught my eye as being trully beautiful
> craft. Some are
> plain ugly! Those that are really neat are priced accordingly.
>
> With so many LSAs on the open market, these days, one has to
> be wary of the
> designs, how long these companies will be in business,
> product support, etc.
> Those of us with RVs know that Van has been around for a long
> time, has
> solid designs, has good product support, and will most likley
> be around for
> some time to come.
>
> > RVList: I understood this list to be a medium to
> exchange ideas, > so
> > why exile members who have different opinions?
> >
>
> It is; but, I wasn't really responding to your love of LSAs.
> I like some of
> those, myself. I was responding to what seemed like
> arrogance in that it's
> easy for the rich to just toss money at things when many of
> us on the list
> are not able to do that. Thus, we're builders because that's
> what we can
> afford.. After having done it, one gets an attachment to
> designs. For us,
> it's the RV. We get pretty defensive when someone cuts them
> down. They're
> great designs with a good bang for the buck. Since you've
> been known to cut
> down the design because of your experiences with your RV, you
> may not be as
> closely attached to the design as many of us are. You may be
> more happy
> discussing LSAs than RVs, which means you may be happier on
> another list.
> > Rgds, Nic from a rainy and windswept England
>
> And, this may be the reason for our opposing opinions. I
> considered your
> statement to be somewhat arrogant; but, I now see where
> you're from and
> better understand your reasoning. With that, I'm sure you'll
> find that
> we'll continue to disagree because we don't have the same
> values. In the
> US, I can afford to own and fly a RV. In England, I can't
> even afford the
> gas. I'd have to be one of those guys who goes to airports
> and collects
> registration numbers as a hobby.
>
> In Europe, folks talk,and own, ultraligts, etc. because
> that's all most can
> afford, if they can afford that. We in the US talk about
> more powerful
> aircraft because the cost, and restrictions of operations, are not as
> prohibitive. If you own your own RV in England, that says
> you're pretty
> well off. Your statement that started this discussion hinted
> at that and
> made me cringe because it seemed a bit arrogant. To be fair,
> I've known
> other Englishers who were a tad arrogant, to me. Again, a
> difference in
> where we live.
>
> Jim Sears in KY
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SLA's and the SportCruiser |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
Now we just need someone to give a bit of tolerance - tolerance for
other people, and other ideas.
Kevin Horton
On 12 Aug 2006, at 09:13, Chuck Jensen wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
> Hi, Jim,
>
> I know some Englishmen myself. I don't know that I would say they're
> 'arrogant' as much as proud....and justifiably so. After all, they
> gave
> us our language, our laws, much of our culture, most of our political
> system, many of our attitudes....wow, now that I think about it--dang
> those Englishmen, they're the ones to blame, it's all their fault!!!!
>
> Just kidding and Do Not Archive
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Effect of paint on weight & balance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
Using the same CALIBRATED scales:
Unpainted: 1086
Painted: 1094
Weight gain from paint equal 8 pounds.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,932 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
Subject: RV-List: Effect of paint on weight & balance
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
I reweighed my RV8A today because I thought the paint job might make a
significant change. Not only did the aircraft seem faster after being
painted but the pitch control forces seemed lighter when flying single
pilot. In previous posts, I have reported a significant increase in cruise
speed when moving the moment arm aft, probably due to reduced pitch
stability drag. Thinking about it, I realized that a lot more of the
surface area of the aircraft is behind the balance point near the wing spar
than in front of it, so it would make sense that the empty aircraft moment
arm would be further aft once it was painted. Here are the actual numbers:
Weight unpainted: 1051
Weight painted: 1077
Paint weight added: 26 lb
Unpainted CG: 77.46
Painted CG: 78.53 inches aft of datum
If you haven't weighed your airplane since painting and have occasion to
load it near the aft limit, beware! You might loose pitch control.
Dave Reel - RV8A
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance |
We gained 10# on our RV8
DO NOT ARCHIVE
D. Preston
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Painter/Fiberglasser wanted |
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
I used West to do my tail fairing. It also makes a dry micro which
sands very well. But an RC modeller/varieze builder I know recommended
I try the MGS stuff from Aircraft Spruce. It has better high temp
tolerance than most epoxies and, since it has a fast and a slow catalyst
which can be mixed together, you can adjust the working time over a
broad range. This is useful in a hot climate. I made my cooling plenum
from it. It also has a pretty low viscosity when you mix it and seems
to wet out the cloth very well.
My main point: It seems much, much stronger than West, especially when
warm. Not good for making dry micro filler because it is so tough that
it is too hard to sand. I finished my cowling with it and now use it on
everything. I keep some West around to use to make filler.
Dave Nellis wrote:
>Epoxy will be more resiliant in all enviroments.
>Check out West System Epoxy. You will get an
>education.
>
>Dave
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 12 Aug 2006, at 08:01, DAVID REEL wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
> Weight unpainted: 1051
> Weight painted: 1077
> Paint weight added: 26 lb
>
> Unpainted CG: 77.46
> Painted CG: 78.53 inches aft of datum
>
These numbers suggest that the average arm of the added weight would
be about 122.8", which is about 3.5" aft of the nominal passenger
position. Given that most of the large surface area of the wing is
ahead of this, I would have expected the average arm of the added
paint to be a bit further ahead.
Could it be that one of the weighings had an error? Either a scale
error, a levelling error, or a calculation error? Or, have other
things been added to the aircraft since the first weighing? Were the
same scales used for both weighings? Have the scales been
calibrated? If not, is it possible that a different scale was used
on the nose gear for the two weighings?
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SLA's and the SportCruiser |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>> I know some Englishmen myself. I don't know that I would say they're
>> 'arrogant' as much as proud....and justifiably so. After all, they gave
>> us our language, our laws, much of our culture, most of our political
>> system, many of our attitudes....wow, now that I think about it--dang
>> those Englishmen, they're the ones to blame, it's all their fault!!!!<<
Hey, guys. I'm not down on Englishmen. I have a couple of good friends who
are from England. In fact, one of my brothers-in-law is from the London,
England area. I'm proud to know those that I' ve befriended. However,
when I see a statement that seems arrogant, or snobbish, I just have to say
something. Maybe Nic didn't mean it that way; but, it came across that way
to me.
Personally, I think associating myself with a fine group of RV builders is
humbling. Some who are more affluent than I am sometimes tend to stick
their noses up a little too high; but, I rarely see that on the list. When
I do see it, I'm offended. I have friends I fly with who are much more
affluent than I; but, one wouldn't know it by talking with them. It's when
they pull out their flying machines that the truth comes out. :-)
As for Nic, he may not be very happy with RVs because of his own
experiences. LSA may be his way out of a bad situation. For those of us
who aren't having problems, other than those we must admit are of our own
making, RVs are probably going to be well into our futures.
Of course, I have to admit the RV-12 isn't the prettiest bird in town; but,
I still look for a company that I can trust to have a good design, have
longevity as a company for support, have good and friendly support, have
designs that are good bangs for the buck, etc.. At the moment, I tend to
look at the Zodiac, the RV-12, the Sonex, etc. as my choices. Those may not
be as good as some of the Euro LSA types; but, I know they'll probably be
around in future years when I need pieces and parts from them, even if they
may be a tad ugly. As for me, I just hope I can afford one, when the time
comes. :-)
BTW, has everyone noticed which homebuilt design is more likely to be seen
at a fly-in? I've often thought about building something besides the RV so
that I can have something different! Then, I come back to my senses. :-)
>> Now we just need someone to give a bit of tolerance - tolerance for other
>> people, and other ideas.<<
Kevin is correct. The nice thing about this forum is its collection of
ideas. I still learn from others. I don't always agree with everyone; but,
I oftentimes agree with those same folks on other ideas. Cut down the RV
designs; and, all bets are off. :-)
BTW, has anyone else read the article about the EAA Sport Pilot about the
Flight Design CT for 2006? It seems like a good design; but, it's one butt
ugly little ship. Opinions may vary. :-)
Jim in KY
RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
RV-9A (helped to build for a friend)
RV-7A #70317 (Building fuse, slowly and surely)
RV-12 in the future?
do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter question |
--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
Quoting "D.Bristol" <dbris200@sbcglobal.net>:
> If it's a meter with a "0" center and reads + and -, then it should go
> left or negative with stuff turned on and the engine not running. When
> the battery is fully charged and the engine is running it should read
> about zero or to the + side if the battery is low like just after a
> start. This kind of ammeter shows the current flowing in and out of the
> battery, the other kind that reads from 0 on the left and 80 or whatever
> your max is, is telling you what current is coming out of the alternator.
> I don't see how it could have reversed it's reading unless someone
> changed something (like re-connected the shunt backwards) assuming that
> it's just a simple analog ammeter. If it's a digital device of some
> kind, then I don't have a clue.
>
> Dave
> This is my surprise too...I got other e mails, some suggest that
the battery is the problem,, I do not know why this would be..
I will keep checking around, is a challenging mistery...
thanks
bert
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
> >
> > bertrv6@highstream.net wrote:
> >
> >> --> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi:
> >>
> >> All you experts in electrical....here is the question..
> >> when I turn the master switch, if I load any of the switches, such
> >> as Taxi lights or Strobes anything at all, the Ammeter, shows Charge..
> >> that is needle goes to Positive...should be to discharge, negative.
> >>
> >> UP to last week,, everything was fine....since First flight....
> >>
> >> It does same when Running engine... everything else seems to be fine/..
> >>
> >> What say you....I should check...how to correct this.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> Bert
> >>
> >> rv6a
> >>
> >> flying
> >>
> >> do not archive
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > As I understand it an ammeter should go higher the more things you
> > turn on, it is measuring the amp load on the system.
> >
> > Jerry
> > 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 12 Aug 2006, at 11:28, Kevin Horton wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> On 12 Aug 2006, at 08:01, DAVID REEL wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>>
>> Weight unpainted: 1051
>> Weight painted: 1077
>> Paint weight added: 26 lb
>>
>> Unpainted CG: 77.46
>> Painted CG: 78.53 inches aft of datum
>>
>
> These numbers suggest that the average arm of the added weight
> would be about 122.8", which is about 3.5" aft of the nominal
> passenger position. Given that most of the large surface area of
> the wing is ahead of this, I would have expected the average arm of
> the added paint to be a bit further ahead.
>
> Could it be that one of the weighings had an error? Either a scale
> error, a levelling error, or a calculation error? Or, have other
> things been added to the aircraft since the first weighing? Were
> the same scales used for both weighings? Have the scales been
> calibrated? If not, is it possible that a different scale was used
> on the nose gear for the two weighings?
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
Typo - that should have been 121.8" arm for the added paint. But it
still looks strange.
Kevin
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: gert <gert.v@sbcglobal.net>
Thanks Rhonda
any resolution on the correct position of the steel ring in the governor
drive adapter??
Gert
Rhonda Bewley wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
>
> The 06A19956 part number is the superceding p/n for STD-2217 according
> to the Lycoming Parts History manual. Probably no difference other than
> who the vendor is that was used to produce the part number, or a process
> change in how the seal was manufactured.
>
> Rhonda
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gert
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:07 PM
> To: rv-list; RV-8@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RV-List: io360-a1b
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: gert <gert.v@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Hi Folks
>
> can anybody tell me the difference between the 06A19956 and STD2217 oil
> seals, both are 7/8" i.d. x 1-1/2" o.d. x 5/16" wide.
> according to the parts book, my vacuum pump adapter should have the
> 06A19956 seal, but has the STD2217 seal and it needs replacing,
>
>
> also, in the parts book, page 2-4 of the parts manual, it shows steel
> ring #3 to sit on top of the drive gear, under the tail of #16. However
> on page 5-4 of the overhaul manual as well as on page 1-23 of the limits
>
> and torque supplement, it shows the steel ring under the snapring
> holding the shaft in place. I looked at two adapters, and wouldn't u
> know, one had the ring on top and one had the ring at the bottom.
> Anybody knows the correct placement??
>
> any input greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Gert
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: | Effect of paint on weight & balance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
I noticed the same thing, and my paint weighed the same 26#. The paint shop
did the second weighing -- different scales, personnel, etc.
Yours is a light plane.
http://www.rvproject.com/wab/wab.jsp?id'
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DAVID REEL [mailto:dreel@cox.net]
> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:01 AM
> To: rvlist
> Subject: RV-List: Effect of paint on weight & balance
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
> I reweighed my RV8A today because I thought the paint job
> might make a significant change. Not only did the aircraft
> seem faster after being painted but the pitch control forces
> seemed lighter when flying single pilot. In previous posts,
> I have reported a significant increase in cruise speed when
> moving the moment arm aft, probably due to reduced pitch
> stability drag. Thinking about it, I realized that a lot
> more of the surface area of the aircraft is behind the
> balance point near the wing spar than in front of it, so it
> would make sense that the empty aircraft moment arm would be
> further aft once it was painted. Here are the actual numbers:
>
> Weight unpainted: 1051
> Weight painted: 1077
> Paint weight added: 26 lb
>
> Unpainted CG: 77.46
> Painted CG: 78.53 inches aft of datum
>
> If you haven't weighed your airplane since painting and have
> occasion to load it near the aft limit, beware! You might
> loose pitch control.
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Effect of paint on weight & balance |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
Larry,
Just curious - what is your empty weight and CG, and how much did the
empty CG move aft with the paint job?
Kevin
On 12 Aug 2006, at 14:57, Larry Bowen wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
>
> I noticed the same thing, and my paint weighed the same 26#. The
> paint shop
> did the second weighing -- different scales, personnel, etc.
>
> Yours is a light plane.
>
> http://www.rvproject.com/wab/wab.jsp?id'
>
> -
> Larry Bowen
> Larry@BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DAVID REEL [mailto:dreel@cox.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:01 AM
>> To: rvlist
>> Subject: RV-List: Effect of paint on weight & balance
>>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>>
>> I reweighed my RV8A today because I thought the paint job
>> might make a significant change. Not only did the aircraft
>> seem faster after being painted but the pitch control forces
>> seemed lighter when flying single pilot. In previous posts,
>> I have reported a significant increase in cruise speed when
>> moving the moment arm aft, probably due to reduced pitch
>> stability drag. Thinking about it, I realized that a lot
>> more of the surface area of the aircraft is behind the
>> balance point near the wing spar than in front of it, so it
>> would make sense that the empty aircraft moment arm would be
>> further aft once it was painted. Here are the actual numbers:
>>
>> Weight unpainted: 1051
>> Weight painted: 1077
>> Paint weight added: 26 lb
>>
>> Unpainted CG: 77.46
>> Painted CG: 78.53 inches aft of datum
>>
>> If you haven't weighed your airplane since painting and have
>> occasion to load it near the aft limit, beware! You might
>> loose pitch control.
>>
>> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
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: Painter/Fiberglasser wanted |
Where is the painter located in Alabama please? And the name of company?
Thanks
Dale Ensing
do not archieve
----- Original Message -----
From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Painter/Fiberglasser wanted
In a message dated 08/11/2006 9:25:01 AM Central Daylight Time,
sjhdcl@kingston.net writes:
I'm looking for a professional painter for my RV-7A.
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=527
0
Still very pleased 1-1/2 yrs later.
Mark Phillips
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LSE Plugs... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
Bill,
I am not where I can verify the number, but I think that I am using Denso
last numbers are 27 ESRU ( ask Klaus). More expensive but perform better.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill VonDane" <bill@vondane.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: RV-List: LSE Plugs...
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bill VonDane" <bill@vondane.com>
>
> What are you all using for plug with your LSE systems? They came with
> Denso
> W24EMR-C plugs, but was wondering if anyone is using anything different...
>
> Thanks...
> -Bill VonDane
> RV-8A ~ www.rv8a.com
>
>
>
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: | Effect of paint on weight & balance |
FWIW, using the same calibrated electronic scales my RV-6 gained 17 pounds with
paint (Jet Glo, not clear coated.)
--
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 250hours
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer"
>
>
> Using the same CALIBRATED scales:
>
> Unpainted: 1086
> Painted: 1094
>
> Weight gain from paint equal 8 pounds.
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,932 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "DAVID REEL"
> To: "rvlist"
> Subject: RV-List: Effect of paint on weight & balance
> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:01:22 -0400
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL"
>
> I reweighed my RV8A today because I thought the paint job might make a
> significant change. Not only did the aircraft seem faster after being
> painted but the pitch control forces seemed lighter when flying single
> pilot. In previous posts, I have reported a significant increase in cruise
> speed when moving the moment arm aft, probably due to reduced pitch
> stability drag. Thinking about it, I realized that a lot more of the
> surface area of the aircraft is behind the balance point near the wing spar
> than in front of it, so it would make sense that the empty aircraft moment
> arm would be further aft once it was painted. Here are the actual numbers:
>
> Weight unpainted: 1051
> Weight painted: 1077
> Paint weight added: 26 lb
>
> Unpainted CG: 77.46
> Painted CG: 78.53 inches aft of datum
>
> If you haven't weighed your airplane since painting and have occasion to
> load it near the aft limit, beware! You might loose pitch control.
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>FWIW, using the same calibrated electronic scales my RV-6 gained 17
pounds with paint (Jet Glo, not clear coated.)</DIV>
<DIV class=signature id=signature>--<BR>Harry Crosby <BR>RV-6 N16CX, 250hours</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
L@COX.
NET><BR>> <BR>> I reweighed my RV8A today because I thought the paint job
might make a <BR>> significant change. Not only did the aircraft seem faster
after being <BR>> painted but the pitch control forces seemed lighter when
flying single <BR>> pilot. In previous posts, I have reported a significant
increase in cruise <BR>> speed when moving the moment arm aft, probably
due to reduced pitch <BR>> stability drag. Thinking about it, I realized that
a lot more of the <BR>> surface area of the aircraft is behind the balance
point near the wing spar <BR>> than in front of it, so it would make sense
that the empty aircraft moment <BR>> arm would be further aft once it was
painted. Here are the actual numbers: <BR>> <BR>> Weight unpainted: 1051
<BR>> Weight painted: 1077 <BR>> Paint weight added: 26 lb <BR>>
<BR>> Unpainted CG: 77.46 <BR>> Painted CG: 78.53 inches aft of datum <BR>>
<BR>> If you haven't weighed your airplane
since
o avai
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: | Effect of paint on weight & balance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Before paint: 1106 and 77.08.
After paint: 1130 and 79.11.
That's obviously a 24 pound gain after paint, not 26 as I said before. Mine
is a PPG base-coat/clear coat.
Cheers,
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Horton [mailto:khorton01@rogers.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 3:33 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Effect of paint on weight & balance
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> Larry,
>
> Just curious - what is your empty weight and CG, and how much
> did the empty CG move aft with the paint job?
>
> Kevin
>
> On 12 Aug 2006, at 14:57, Larry Bowen wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
> >
> > I noticed the same thing, and my paint weighed the same 26#. The
> > paint shop did the second weighing -- different scales, personnel,
> > etc.
> >
> > Yours is a light plane.
> >
> > http://www.rvproject.com/wab/wab.jsp?id'
> >
> > -
> > Larry Bowen
> > Larry@BowenAero.com
> > http://BowenAero.com
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: DAVID REEL [mailto:dreel@cox.net]
> >> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:01 AM
> >> To: rvlist
> >> Subject: RV-List: Effect of paint on weight & balance
> >>
> >> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
> >>
> >> I reweighed my RV8A today because I thought the paint job
> might make
> >> a significant change. Not only did the aircraft seem faster after
> >> being painted but the pitch control forces seemed lighter
> when flying
> >> single pilot. In previous posts, I have reported a significant
> >> increase in cruise speed when moving the moment arm aft,
> probably due
> >> to reduced pitch stability drag. Thinking about it, I
> realized that
> >> a lot more of the surface area of the aircraft is behind
> the balance
> >> point near the wing spar than in front of it, so it would
> make sense
> >> that the empty aircraft moment arm would be further aft
> once it was
> >> painted. Here are the actual numbers:
> >>
> >> Weight unpainted: 1051
> >> Weight painted: 1077
> >> Paint weight added: 26 lb
> >>
> >> Unpainted CG: 77.46
> >> Painted CG: 78.53 inches aft of datum
> >>
> >> If you haven't weighed your airplane since painting and
> have occasion
> >> to load it near the aft limit, beware! You might loose pitch
> >> control.
> >>
> >> Dave Reel - RV8A
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Effect of paint on weight & balance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
Both weights were taken with the same set of certified digital scales
borrowed from my local EAA chapter. Same procedure was used in each case
though 5 months intervened. I believe the results to be quite accurate.
It's good to see that Larry got similar results. I had bare metal &
fiberglass surfaces in the initial weight. Alan Woodson's Texas Aero Color
provided pinhole filling and all the rest. I'm quite satisfied with the
paint job & enjoyed working with Alan, but I envy you guys with 8 lb paint
jobs.
Dave Reel - RV8A
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: Ammeter question |
Bert,
The battery can't cause this kind of problem. If you're using a
"standard" type of ammeter with an internal or external shunt, it almost
has to be a wiring error. Maybe you just didn't notice it before.
Dave B. -6 So Cal
Eaa Technical Counselor
bertrv6@highstream.net wrote:
>> This is my surprise too...I got other e mails, some suggest that
>>
>>
>the battery is the problem,, I do not know why this would be..
>I will keep checking around, is a challenging mistery...
>
>thanks
>
>bert
>
>
>>>>Hi:
>>>>
>>>>All you experts in electrical....here is the question..
>>>>when I turn the master switch, if I load any of the switches, such
>>>>as Taxi lights or Strobes anything at all, the Ammeter, shows Charge..
>>>>that is needle goes to Positive...should be to discharge, negative.
>>>>
>>>>UP to last week,, everything was fine....since First flight....
>>>>
>>>>It does same when Running engine... everything else seems to be fine/..
>>>>
>>>>What say you....I should check...how to correct this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|