Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:19 AM - Re: Electric Flaps option (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
2. 03:26 AM - Re: Electric Flaps option (Jerry Springer)
3. 05:53 AM - Re: Electric Flaps option (Larry Pardue)
4. 07:08 AM - Re: Electric Flaps option (Tim Bryan)
5. 07:21 AM - Re: Electric Flaps option (Charlie England)
6. 07:30 AM - Re: Certification details, was tail lifting... (glen matejcek)
7. 08:04 AM - Tail lifting during full power static test (Jeff Linebaugh)
8. 09:37 AM - Re: Electric flaps option (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
9. 10:40 AM - Re: Re: Electric flaps option (Ron Lee)
10. 11:58 AM - RV-7 or RV-9 ? (Jim Peoples)
11. 12:16 PM - Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? (Kyle Boatright)
12. 12:30 PM - Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? (Jeff Point)
13. 12:43 PM - Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? (Tom Gummo)
14. 01:01 PM - [ Alf Olav Frog ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! (Email List Photo Shares)
15. 01:15 PM - [ Bobby Hargrave ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! (Email List Photo Shares)
16. 01:20 PM - [ Bobby Hargrave ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! (Email List Photo Shares)
17. 02:14 PM - Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? (Ron Lee)
18. 02:24 PM - Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
19. 02:24 PM - Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
20. 02:42 PM - Re: Battery to firewall (bertrv6@highstream.net)
21. 02:45 PM - Re: Battery to firewall (bertrv6@highstream.net)
22. 02:58 PM - Re: Battery to firewall (bertrv6@highstream.net)
23. 03:12 PM - NAV AID QUESTION (bertrv6@highstream.net)
24. 03:14 PM - Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? (Doc Custer)
25. 04:17 PM - Re: NAV AID QUESTION (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
26. 06:34 PM - Where to put garmin GPS (Kyle Boatright)
27. 07:05 PM - Re: Where to put garmin GPS (Ron Lee)
28. 08:10 PM - Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? (Jim Peoples)
29. 08:11 PM - Where to put garmin GPS (James H Nelson)
30. 08:35 PM - Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? (Dan Checkoway)
31. 08:45 PM - Re: Where to put garmin GPS (Mike Kraus)
32. 08:58 PM - Re: Re: Certification details, was tail lifting... (RV6 Flyer)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electric Flaps option |
--> RV-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 8/18/06 9:49:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
n5lp@warpdriveonline.com writes:
> Just goes to show that it doesn't take a whole lot of sense to become
> a CFII/ATP. I don't believe in 5 kts over stall either, but 80 knots
> over the fence is unsafe and stupid.
>
> do not archive
>
> Larry Pardue
> Carlsbad, NM
>
=============
OK, Larry:
You made the statement now explain why?
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
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: Electric Flaps option |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
FLYaDIVE@aol.com wrote:
>-
>
>5 - I have always preferred MANUAL FLAPS but both RV-6's I fly have electric
>flaps. They are acceptable. But, I still prefer Manual.
>Why? I lost all electric and could not deploy the flaps.
>When was the last time you practiced a ZERO FLAP landing?
>Did you hit the numbers?
>
>
After flying 300 hours with manual flaps I installed electric and never
have looked back, it is a whole lot easier to
deploy the flaps without hitting your passenger in the ribs.
>I read the spec sheet too and seen what they say about how SLOW the stall
>speed is. I was also taught by a CFII/ATP that has 2000 Hours in RV-6's. His
>answer was: "You want to fly 5 Kts over Stall on approach? Not with Me or My
>Plane! 80 Kts over the fence!"
>
>
80 kts over the fence is way to fast, I use about 70-75 MPH.
>The RV-6 is not the most stable of planes at slow speeds and the flaps do
>make it MUCH better on the final approach.
>
>
I don't find that to be true at all, flaps do help to slow down but
that is about all they do. I don't find they do anything for stability.
>And before you guys light your flame throwers. I have about 250 Hours in
>RV-6's, just don't expect them to fly like a C-150. My comments are REAL and
you
>have to keep it real if you don't want to bend any metal.
>
>
I don't expect it to fly like a 150 my RV-6 flies much better than a 150
and that is real, BTW I have been flying mine for 18 years. :)
>
>
>Barry
>"Chop'd Liver"
>
>
Jerry
do not archive
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: Electric Flaps option |
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Pardue <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
On Aug 19, 2006, at 4:18 AM, FLYaDIVE@aol.com wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 8/18/06 9:49:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> n5lp@warpdriveonline.com writes:
>
>> Just goes to show that it doesn't take a whole lot of sense to become
>> a CFII/ATP. I don't believe in 5 kts over stall either, but 80
>> knots
>> over the fence is unsafe and stupid.
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>> Larry Pardue
>> Carlsbad, NM
>>
> =============
> OK, Larry:
>
> You made the statement now explain why?
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
I wasn't tactful, but it hit a nerve. When I was about 14 and a real
airplane nerd, I rode in the back seat of a 172 while my dad took
flying lessons. The instructor had him approaching at 77 knots (90
mph in those days). Well this is about 20 knots too fast and I
observed first hand the drawbacks. It is very hard to land this
way. Somehow you have to get rid of all the speed and it takes a
long time and uses a lot of runway. Transitioning from 80 knots to
45 knots while transitioning into ground effect with the attendant
nose down pitching and all the while maintaining a precise height is
not trivial. Meantime you are exposed to all the vagaries of wind
gusts and thermals and many times people just lose patience and go
ahead and dump it on the nosegear.
I have watched quite a few of these too fast approaches in RVs,
cringing all the while. Most times they get away with it, sometimes
they don't. Locally, two pilots have ended up with their RVs on
their back at the conclusion of first flights. I don't know, but do
strongly suspect the ole dump it unto the nose wheel after a too fast
approach because I have seen that several times from pilots with
experience in the airplanes. When the approach is at the proper
speed, it is a much easier and more natural transition to the proper
landing attitude, just a bit more back pressure does it.
I previously mentioned the other big problem, you can't land anywhere
but on a overlong runway. Again, I have seen this problem first
hand. When you are having to slam on the brakes at the end of a
2,000 foot runway, something is bad wrong. When you can't get
stopped at all on such a runway and have an expensive repair bill,
you will wish you used the correct approach speed.
By the way some of this does not apply to tailwheel airplanes. You
can, for your own amusement, land a tailwheel airplane at just about
any speed, safely, if the runway is long enough.
do not archive
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electric Flaps option |
I got to ask of any. What are the best speeds for landing?
start the approach, slow to ?
maintain this till final
Then on final slow to ? over the fence?
Assuming tail wheel and constant speed rv-6
Tim
-------Original Message-------
From: Larry Pardue
Subject: Re: RV-List: Electric Flaps option
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Pardue <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
On Aug 19, 2006, at 4:18 AM, FLYaDIVE@aol.com wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 8/18/06 9:49:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> n5lp@warpdriveonline.com writes:
>
>> Just goes to show that it doesn't take a whole lot of sense to become
>> a CFII/ATP. I don't believe in 5 kts over stall either, but 80
>> knots
>> over the fence is unsafe and stupid.
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>> Larry Pardue
>> Carlsbad, NM
>>
> =============
> OK, Larry:
>
> You made the statement now explain why?
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
I wasn't tactful, but it hit a nerve. When I was about 14 and a real
airplane nerd, I rode in the back seat of a 172 while my dad took
flying lessons. The instructor had him approaching at 77 knots (90
mph in those days). Well this is about 20 knots too fast and I
observed first hand the drawbacks. It is very hard to land this
way. Somehow you have to get rid of all the speed and it takes a
long time and uses a lot of runway. Transitioning from 80 knots to
45 knots while transitioning into ground effect with the attendant
nose down pitching and all the while maintaining a precise height is
not trivial. Meantime you are exposed to all the vagaries of wind
gusts and thermals and many times people just lose patience and go
ahead and dump it on the nosegear.
I have watched quite a few of these too fast approaches in RVs,
cringing all the while. Most times they get away with it, sometimes
they don't. Locally, two pilots have ended up with their RVs on
their back at the conclusion of first flights. I don't know, but do
strongly suspect the ole dump it unto the nose wheel after a too fast
approach because I have seen that several times from pilots with
experience in the airplanes. When the approach is at the proper
speed, it is a much easier and more natural transition to the proper
landing attitude, just a bit more back pressure does it.
I previously mentioned the other big problem, you can't land anywhere
but on a overlong runway. Again, I have seen this problem first
hand. When you are having to slam on the brakes at the end of a
2,000 foot runway, something is bad wrong. When you can't get
stopped at all on such a runway and have an expensive repair bill,
you will wish you used the correct approach speed.
By the way some of this does not apply to tailwheel airplanes. You
can, for your own amusement, land a tailwheel airplane at just about
any speed, safely, if the runway is long enough.
do not archive
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
==========
==========
==========
==========
==========
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: Electric Flaps option |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Larry Pardue wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Larry Pardue <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2006, at 4:18 AM, FLYaDIVE@aol.com wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 8/18/06 9:49:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> n5lp@warpdriveonline.com writes:
>>
>>> Just goes to show that it doesn't take a whole lot of sense to become
>>> a CFII/ATP. I don't believe in 5 kts over stall either, but 80 knots
>>> over the fence is unsafe and stupid.
>>>
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>> Larry Pardue
>>> Carlsbad, NM
>>>
>> =============
>> OK, Larry:
>>
>> You made the statement now explain why?
>>
>> Barry
>> "Chop'd Liver"
>>
> <snipped>
> I previously mentioned the other big problem, you can't land anywhere
> but on a overlong runway. Again, I have seen this problem first
> hand. When you are having to slam on the brakes at the end of a
> 2,000 foot runway, something is bad wrong. When you can't get
> stopped at all on such a runway and have an expensive repair bill,
> you will wish you used the correct approach speed.
>
> By the way some of this does not apply to tailwheel airplanes. You
> can, for your own amusement, land a tailwheel airplane at just about
> any speed, safely, if the runway is long enough.
>
> do not archive
>
> Larry Pardue
> Carlsbad, NM
I'd take exception to even that. Want to see my wall ornament, created
*by my CFI* when he tried to land my RV-4 at around 90 kts? At that
speed, the tail is so high that the slightest gust or stick movement,
soft spot, etc can put the prop in the dirt.
More important, as Larry & I both hinted at, if you always come in that
fast you aren't likely to survive an off-airport landing unless you fly
over the CA dry lakes or Bonneville salt flats.
The hardest thing for me, even after ~10 years of flying -4's, is making
myself fly final *slow* enough.
Charlie
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Certification details, was tail lifting... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Gerry and list-
RE:
>"Did you're engine supplier not run your engine in the test
>stand before delivering it to you ? It should be marked in the
>log book, I think. I.E. do you really need to run it for a
>whole hour ? Aerosport ran my engine for a total of 45 mins
>before it was delivered - so apart from a short short "shake
>down" run and some taxi tests - its next run will be the wild
>blue yonder."
> Listers--We are close to flying our RV-6. On the airworthiness
> certificate
> application it requires the builder to state that "the powerplant
> installation has undergone at least one hour of ground
> operation at various speeds from
> idle to full power. . . ."
I have a couple observations / questions- first, my recollection of the
procedure is that, yes, the "engine installation" has to be run for an
hour. This would indicate that the test cell time does not contribute to
meeting this requirement. However, I just went through my airworthiness
cert ap, and my copy only references the fact that the aircraft was
"inspected and is airworthy and is eligible for the airworthiness
certificate requested". Am I missing something, or has the form been
changed? My copy is dated 10-04. Has the engine run provision been
dropped, or is it relocated somewhere else?
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: | Tail lifting during full power static test |
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: Electric flaps option |
I have considered going back to manual flaps after having two flap motor
failures in the first 300 hours... Luckily, both happened close to home. First
was with flaps up, so I got to make an unrehearsed no flaps landing, which was
a non-event. The second was flaps down, refused to retract after landing,
also at home base. I could imagine being someplace and flying along at 90 knots
C-150 style for an hour or three...
So I became somewhat of an expert on flap motor cleaning/replacement. To
Van's credit, they replaced the motor second time around, no troubles since...
(fingers crossed),,,
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
RV6a
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: Electric flaps option |
At 10:35 AM 8/19/2006, you wrote:
>I have considered going back to manual flaps after having two flap motor
>failures in the first 300 hours... Luckily, both happened close to home.
>First was with flaps up, so I got to make an unrehearsed no flaps landing,
>which was a non-event. The second was flaps down, refused to retract after
>landing, also at home base. I could imagine being someplace and flying
>along at 90 knots C-150 style for an hour or three...
I was flying with a guy during his test phase (in my plane) and he had a
problem
with the electric flaps unable to retract up after a touch n go. We landed
and found the
problem. Can't remember the cause. May have been a blown fuse.
Ron Lee
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 |
|
I could use some feedback from the list on whether to build an RV7 with a 160 HP
engine;
or an RV9 with a 160 HP engine.
With the RV7 i would be at the bottom of the engine list but able to move up...
with the RV9 i would be at the top.
are there any other significant differences or issues that i should be looking
at to make this choice?
thx in adv.
jp
---------------------------------
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: RV-7 or RV-9 ? |
160 hp will power either aircraft just fine. The question is whether
you want to trade the more docile behavior of the -9 for the ability to
do aerobatics in the -7.
That's what it all boils down to.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Peoples
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:05 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-7 or RV-9 ?
I could use some feedback from the list on whether to build an RV7
with a 160 HP engine;
or an RV9 with a 160 HP engine.
With the RV7 i would be at the bottom of the engine list but able to
move up... with the RV9 i would be at the top.
are there any other significant differences or issues that i should be
looking at to make this choice?
thx in adv.
jp
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: RV-7 or RV-9 ? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Well Jim, it depends a lot on what kind of flying you plan to do. Are
you more of a weekend VFR flyer? Or, will you be flying IFR and making
long trips? Do you want to fly acro or formation? What kind of strip
will you be based at? What is your current level of experience? These
are all questions which will help guide your choice.
As far as moving up to a bigger engine- yes, it can and has been done,
but it is a lot of work, more than just bolting a new engine on. If you
ever plan to move up to a bigger engine, you might want to think about
doing that engine initially.
Jeff Point
RV-6 flying
RV-8 preview plans
Milwaukee
do not archive
>*
>*
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? |
Jim,
I would seem to me that the RV-7 and RV-9 has two different missions.
The RV-9 has NO aerobatic capabilities while the RV-7 has some.
If you don't want to go upside down ever, then RV-9 else RV-7.
Tom
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Peoples
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV-7 or RV-9 ?
I could use some feedback from the list on whether to build an RV7
with a 160 HP engine;
or an RV9 with a 160 HP engine.
With the RV7 i would be at the bottom of the engine list but able to
move up... with the RV9 i would be at the top.
are there any other significant differences or issues that i should be
looking at to make this choice?
thx in adv.
jp
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: | [ Alf Olav Frog ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Alf Olav Frog <alfolavf@online.no>
Lists: RV-List,RV6-List,RV7-List,RV9-List
Subject: Prevent Water Behind Panel
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/alfolavf@online.no.08.19.2006/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures@matronics.com
----------------------------------------------------------
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: | [ Bobby Hargrave ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Bobby Hargrave <bphargrave@worldnet.att.net>
Lists: RV-List,RV4-List,RV6-List,RV7-List,RV8-List,RV9-List,RV10-List
Subject: Sticky Exhaust Valve
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/bphargrave@worldnet.att.net.1.08.19.2006/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures@matronics.com
----------------------------------------------------------
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: | [ Bobby Hargrave ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Bobby Hargrave <bphargrave@worldnet.att.net>
Lists: RV-List,RV4-List,RV8-List
Subject: Canopy Skirt
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/bphargrave@worldnet.att.net.2.08.19.2006/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures@matronics.com
----------------------------------------------------------
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
At 12:05 PM 8/17/2006, you wrote:
>I could use some feedback from the list on whether to build an RV7 with a
>160 HP engine;
>or an RV9 with a 160 HP engine.
>
>With the RV7 i would be at the bottom of the engine list but able to move
>up... with the RV9 i would be at the top.
>
>are there any other significant differences or issues that i should be
>looking at to make this choice?
Sounds like you are building around an engine. Personally I suggest
the largest (or close) engine that the manufacturer/designer approves.
Thus for a -7 I would go no lower than 180 hp. Some will disagree with
my view but because I live at 7000' and fly into the mountains I want
horsepower. I tell anyone looking to buy a completed RV to not
even consider one less than 180 HP.
Is a -9 with 160 HP more marketable than a -7 with 160 HP? I have
no idea.
Ron Lee
Do not archive
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? |
neither, split the diff and get the 8.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee
>
> At 12:05 PM 8/17/2006, you wrote:
> >I could use some feedback from the list on whether to build an RV7 with a
> >160 HP engine;
> >or an RV9 with a 160 HP engine.
> >
> >With the RV7 i would be at the bottom of the engine list but able to move
> >up... with the RV9 i would be at the top.
> >
> >are there any other significant differences or issues that i should be
> >looking at to make this choice?
>
> Sounds like you are building around an engine. Personally I suggest
> the largest (or close) engine that the manufacturer/designer approves.
>
> Thus for a -7 I would go no lower than 180 hp. Some will disagree with
> my view but because I live at 7000' and fly into the mountains I want
> horsepower. I tell anyone looking to buy a completed RV to not
> even consider one less than 180 HP.
>
> Is a -9 with 160 HP more marketable than a -7 with 160 HP? I have
> no idea.
>
> Ron Lee
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>neither, split the diff and get the 8.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
<BR><BR>> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <RONLEE@PCISYS.NET><BR>>
<BR>> At 12:05 PM 8/17/2006, you wrote: <BR>>
>I could use some feedback from the list on whether to build an RV7 with a
<BR>> >160 HP engine; <BR>> >or an RV9 with a 160 HP engine. <BR>>
> <BR>> >With the RV7 i would be at the bottom of the engine list
but able to move <BR>> >up... with the RV9 i would be at the top. <BR>>
> <BR>> >are there any other significant differences or issues that
i should be <BR>> >looking at to make this choice? <BR>> <BR>>
Sounds like you are building around an engine. Personally I suggest <BR>>
the largest (or close) engine that the manufacturer/designer approves. <BR>>
<BR>> Thus for a -7 I would go no lower than 180
hp. S
the W
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: RV-7 or RV-9 ? |
neither, split the diff and get the 8.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee
>
> At 12:05 PM 8/17/2006, you wrote:
> >I could use some feedback from the list on whether to build an RV7 with a
> >160 HP engine;
> >or an RV9 with a 160 HP engine.
> >
> >With the RV7 i would be at the bottom of the engine list but able to move
> >up... with the RV9 i would be at the top.
> >
> >are there any other significant differences or issues that i should be
> >looking at to make this choice?
>
> Sounds like you are building around an engine. Personally I suggest
> the largest (or close) engine that the manufacturer/designer approves.
>
> Thus for a -7 I would go no lower than 180 hp. Some will disagree with
> my view but because I live at 7000' and fly into the mountains I want
> horsepower. I tell anyone looking to buy a completed RV to not
> even consider one less than 180 HP.
>
> Is a -9 with 160 HP more marketable than a -7 with 160 HP? I have
> no idea.
>
> Ron Lee
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>neither, split the diff and get the 8.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
<BR><BR>> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <RONLEE@PCISYS.NET><BR>>
<BR>> At 12:05 PM 8/17/2006, you wrote: <BR>>
>I could use some feedback from the list on whether to build an RV7 with a
<BR>> >160 HP engine; <BR>> >or an RV9 with a 160 HP engine. <BR>>
> <BR>> >With the RV7 i would be at the bottom of the engine list
but able to move <BR>> >up... with the RV9 i would be at the top. <BR>>
> <BR>> >are there any other significant differences or issues that
i should be <BR>> >looking at to make this choice? <BR>> <BR>>
Sounds like you are building around an engine. Personally I suggest <BR>>
the largest (or close) engine that the manufacturer/designer approves. <BR>>
<BR>> Thus for a -7 I would go no lower than 180
hp. S
the W
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Battery to firewall |
--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
Quoting Rquinn1@aol.com:
> Bert, We did that and have noticed no adverse effects at all. One advantage
> is the fact that you can get to the new location with a battery charger and
> even with a jumper cable if you locate the battery near the oil inspection
> door
> as we did.
> We replaced the Odesy battery after 4 years but only because we wanted too.
> It worked well for us.
> Rollie & Rod
> RV6A
>
>
Thanks good to hear
Bert
rv6a
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery to firewall |
--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
Quoting "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
>
> I bought Vans Odyssey battery box and a couple of chunks of angle and
> attached it to the vertical angles below the cutout pan for the oil filter on
> the aft side of the firewall. The lower two attach bolts allow the unit to
> hinge down and aft after disconnecting the cables for service.
>
> Pictures - zap me direct.....
> Ralph
> RV6AQB N822AR @ N06 firewall foreward......
> Ralph: Thanks for the info.
would love to see your set up... what I do to see pictures? do not see
address for it..
Bert
rv6a
do not archive
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: bertrv6@highstream.net
> >Sent: Aug 17, 2006 3:28 PM
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RV-List: Battery to firewall
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
> >
> >
> >
> >Hello:
> >
> >I am thinking of getting rid, of the concord battery, on my rv6a,
> >and install an Odyssey one; on the fire wall, like the new Rv's.
> >
> >Is just to hard to get underneath, the panel, when one needs to serve
> >the battery.
> >
> >Has any one done this,, pro's and conn's ? I do not think the C.G would
> >change that much?
> >
> > I think I have the room for it..
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Bert
> >
> >rv6a
> >
> >do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Re: Battery to firewall |
--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
Quoting Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>
> bertrv6@highstream.net wrote:
> > --> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello:
> >
> > I am thinking of getting rid, of the concord battery, on my rv6a,
> > and install an Odyssey one; on the fire wall, like the new Rv's.
> >
> > Is just to hard to get underneath, the panel, when one needs to serve
> > the battery.
> >
> > Has any one done this,, pro's and conn's ? I do not think the C.G would
> > change that much?
> >
> > I think I have the room for it..
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bert
> >
> > rv6a
>
>
> Here ya go, Bert:
>
> http://thervjournal.com/battery.htm
>
> I have been very happy with the firewall-mounted battery on my RV-6. I
> didn't reweigh the plane but considering the new battery is lighter than
> the Concord I suspect the mod had very little impact on CG. I couldn't
> detect any difference in flight characteristics after the move.
>
> Sam Buchanan
> SAM; THANKS AS ALWAYS YOU GIVE GOOD AND RELIABLE INFO. AND WITH
PHOTOS TO BOOT....
I HOP I CAN BUILT THE SUPPORT FOR IT, HATE TO PAY VAN's $ 50.00 for it..
I was considering getting the oddysey basttery, but you present
a good alternative.
thanks
bert rv6a
When are you flying to Orlando, we would like to see your plane, show it
at our chapter 74..
I am in Sanford Airport..if you ever come this way let me know 407.384.4961
do not archive
>
>
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: | NAV AID QUESTION |
--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
HI; I FINALLY CONNECTED MY NAV AID.. THAST IS BRACKET TO CONTROL STICK
AND PLUG, AND WIRE..ALL FINISHED.
BUT NOW....I SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE ALERONS, BY TURNING THE KNOB ON THE
AID UNIT... IT DOES NOT... NOTHING HAPPENS...I KNOW POWER IS GOING TO THE
SERVO, BECAUSE I SAW THE CRANK MOVING WHEN I WAS CENTERED IT,...
IT IS FRUSTRATING, I KNOW I AM DOING OR DID SOMETHING WRONG, CHANCES ARE
THE UNIT IS OK...
WHAT IS THE SUGGESTIONS OF THOSE, WITH THE NAV WING LEVELER UNIT/
ANY ONE HAD SAME TROUBLE/
THANKS
BERT
RV6A
do not archive
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: RV-7 or RV-9 ? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doc Custer" <ddcuster@wmv-co.us>
If you want a long distance cross-country IFR capable airplane go with the
9. If you want aerobatics go with the 7.
For IFR I recommend at least a wing leveler, and for lots of hard IFR the
top of the line autopilot that will do holding patterns, etc.
Doc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Point" <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 or RV-9 ?
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
> Well Jim, it depends a lot on what kind of flying you plan to do. Are you
> more of a weekend VFR flyer? Or, will you be flying IFR and making long
> trips? Do you want to fly acro or formation? What kind of strip will you
> be based at? What is your current level of experience? These are all
> questions which will help guide your choice.
>
> As far as moving up to a bigger engine- yes, it can and has been done, but
> it is a lot of work, more than just bolting a new engine on. If you ever
> plan to move up to a bigger engine, you might want to think about doing
> that engine initially.
>
> Jeff Point
> RV-6 flying
> RV-8 preview plans
> Milwaukee
> do not archive
>
>
>>*
>>*
>>
>
>
>
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: NAV AID QUESTION |
Bert,
Do you have the switch in the right hand position -- Wing Leveler? Center
is off -- servo out of gear.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 8/19/2006 6:13:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bertrv6@highstream.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
HI; I FINALLY CONNECTED MY NAV AID.. THAST IS BRACKET TO CONTROL STICK
AND PLUG, AND WIRE..ALL FINISHED.
BUT NOW....I SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE ALERONS, BY TURNING THE KNOB ON THE
AID UNIT... IT DOES NOT... NOTHING HAPPENS...I KNOW POWER IS GOING TO THE
SERVO, BECAUSE I SAW THE CRANK MOVING WHEN I WAS CENTERED IT,...
IT IS FRUSTRATING, I KNOW I AM DOING OR DID SOMETHING WRONG, CHANCES ARE
THE UNIT IS OK...
WHAT IS THE SUGGESTIONS OF THOSE, WITH THE NAV WING LEVELER UNIT/
ANY ONE HAD SAME TROUBLE/
THANKS
BERT
RV6A
do not archive
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: | Where to put garmin GPS |
I buzzed down to Aircraft Spruce today and took my first really good
look at a Garmin 396. I realize I'm the last person in the world to
look at one, but I figure that the farther away I stay from more
expensive toys, the better on my bank account. One of the neat things
about dropping in on Aircraft Spruce on a not so busy day was that they
said "Take the GPS, go outside with it, drive around with it if you
want." I said "Can I take it for a flight?" and they said "Sure, just
have it back by closing time." I'm not sure if they meant that, but it
was nice to take the unit outside the store and run through the features
for a few minutes. There is simply no way to do that at an airshow.
I was very impressed. The menus and features are easy to figure out
without relying on a manual, and the resolution is awesome.
Anyway, the question I had after giving the thing a good once over is
"Where would I put one?". I have a Lowrance Airmap 100, which I usually
just rest on my leg, but I don't think the Garmin will work that way.
So, side by side RV'ers, where do you put your Garmin GPS? I'm not
really interested in putting it on the glareshield, and I've already
spent all of my panel space...
Now that I've ruled out most of the obvious places, what are your
suggestions?
Kyle Boatright
2001 RV-6
400+ hours
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: Where to put garmin GPS |
>So, side by side RV'ers, where do you put your Garmin GPS? I'm not really
>interested in putting it on the glareshield, and I've already spent all of
>my panel space...
Is the left corner of the window/glareshield workable?
Ron Lee
do not archive
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: RV-7 or RV-9 ? |
Thanks for the feedback... i know it is all common sense and i've heard most of
it before... but is has helped me clarify my decision to hear back from you guys...
who would know any better than this group?
Onward and upward.
jp
---------------------------------
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: | Where to put garmin GPS |
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Kyle,
I am putting my GPS on the mount provided my Airmap 500. It will
be bolted to the left side "P/N F704K upright cap strip" that goes from
the spar up to my roll bar. I have put K1000 nuts behind it so I can
mount anything I want in that area. Since it is an area that is fastened
by the blind rivets, you could just drill them out and put in at least
three blind nuts for max holding power. I'm also putting in three blind
nuts on the co-pilots cap strip for any thing else I may want to hook up
in that area. The mount provided by Lowrance is very flexible. I would
thin that Garmin would have something similar.
Jim Nelson
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 or RV-9 ? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
As a long distance cross-country flyer, I have 2 words for you:
FUEL CAPACITY
I'm not even gonna beat my chest about acro or structure or sportiness or
even top speed. Let's just consider fuel.
Say you put the same O-320 in both an RV-7[A] and an RV-9[A]. 6 more
gallons = another HOUR of flying. Somebody mentioned "long distance
cross-country." I can't help equating fuel capacity to range, all else
being equal.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (1040 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc Custer" <ddcuster@wmv-co.us>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 or RV-9 ?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Doc Custer" <ddcuster@wmv-co.us>
>
> If you want a long distance cross-country IFR capable airplane go with the
> 9. If you want aerobatics go with the 7.
>
> For IFR I recommend at least a wing leveler, and for lots of hard IFR the
> top of the line autopilot that will do holding patterns, etc.
>
> Doc
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Point" <jpoint@mindspring.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 1:30 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 or RV-9 ?
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>>
>> Well Jim, it depends a lot on what kind of flying you plan to do. Are
>> you more of a weekend VFR flyer? Or, will you be flying IFR and making
>> long trips? Do you want to fly acro or formation? What kind of strip
>> will you be based at? What is your current level of experience? These
>> are all questions which will help guide your choice.
>>
>> As far as moving up to a bigger engine- yes, it can and has been done,
>> but it is a lot of work, more than just bolting a new engine on. If you
>> ever plan to move up to a bigger engine, you might want to think about
>> doing that engine initially.
>>
>> Jeff Point
>> RV-6 flying
>> RV-8 preview plans
>> Milwaukee
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>>*
>>>*
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Where to put garmin GPS |
I built a new instrument panel and installed it right under the Dynon
D180..... EFIS, Engine Monitor, GPS, Weather, XM satellite radio, all
in two instruments....
-Mike Kraus
RV-4 Flying with a new instrument panel.....
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kyle Boatright
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 9:32 PM
Subject: RV-List: Where to put garmin GPS
I buzzed down to Aircraft Spruce today and took my first really good
look at a Garmin 396. I realize I'm the last person in the world to
look at one, but I figure that the farther away I stay from more
expensive toys, the better on my bank account. One of the neat things
about dropping in on Aircraft Spruce on a not so busy day was that they
said "Take the GPS, go outside with it, drive around with it if you
want." I said "Can I take it for a flight?" and they said "Sure, just
have it back by closing time." I'm not sure if they meant that, but it
was nice to take the unit outside the store and run through the features
for a few minutes. There is simply no way to do that at an airshow.
I was very impressed. The menus and features are easy to figure out
without relying on a manual, and the resolution is awesome.
Anyway, the question I had after giving the thing a good once over is
"Where would I put one?". I have a Lowrance Airmap 100, which I usually
just rest on my leg, but I don't think the Garmin will work that way.
So, side by side RV'ers, where do you put your Garmin GPS? I'm not
really interested in putting it on the glareshield, and I've already
spent all of my panel space...
Now that I've ruled out most of the obvious places, what are your
suggestions?
Kyle Boatright
2001 RV-6
400+ hours
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Certification details, was tail lifting... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
On an Application for Airworthiness (FAA Form 8130-6
http://forms.faa.gov/redirect.asp?fnumber=8130-6&url=forms/faa8130-6d.pdf&hit=19),
only sections I, II, and III need filed out by the Applicant for an
Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft.
Where are you finding a requirement to run the engine 1 hour? I just
completed my recurrent training on 24 July 2006. I know of NO requirement
for a one hour engine run before your airworthiness inspection.
Gary A. Sobek
DAR Function Code 46 (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft)
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,936 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://www.rvdar.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-List: RE: Certification details, was tail lifting...
--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Gerry and list-
RE:
>"Did you're engine supplier not run your engine in the test
>stand before delivering it to you ? It should be marked in the
>log book, I think. I.E. do you really need to run it for a
>whole hour ? Aerosport ran my engine for a total of 45 mins
>before it was delivered - so apart from a short short "shake
>down" run and some taxi tests - its next run will be the wild
>blue yonder."
> Listers--We are close to flying our RV-6. On the airworthiness
> certificate
> application it requires the builder to state that "the powerplant
> installation has undergone at least one hour of ground
> operation at various speeds from
> idle to full power. . . ."
I have a couple observations / questions- first, my recollection of the
procedure is that, yes, the "engine installation" has to be run for an
hour. This would indicate that the test cell time does not contribute to
meeting this requirement. However, I just went through my airworthiness
cert ap, and my copy only references the fact that the aircraft was
"inspected and is airworthy and is eligible for the airworthiness
certificate requested". Am I missing something, or has the form been
changed? My copy is dated 10-04. Has the engine run provision been
dropped, or is it relocated somewhere else?
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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! --
|