Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:23 AM - Throttle cable length (Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR)
2. 06:27 AM - Re: Heatset woes (Denis Walsh)
3. 06:29 AM - Re: Aileron Brackets (Denis Walsh)
4. 06:48 AM - AVMAP Mounting... (Bill VonDane)
5. 08:42 AM - Cirrus - OT (Bill Boyd)
6. 09:03 AM - throttle cable length (Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com)
7. 09:03 AM - Re: Cirrus - OT (Bob Collins)
8. 09:46 AM - Closing gap in Flap Actuator to Fuselage interface (Ernie & Margo)
9. 09:56 AM - Re: Cirrus - OT (Ron Lee)
10. 10:24 AM - Re: Closing gap in Flap Actuator to Fuselage interface (Matthew Brandes)
11. 10:44 AM - Re: Cirrus - OT (Terry Watson)
12. 10:50 AM - O320-E2A for sale ()
13. 10:57 AM - Re: Cirrus - OT (Bob Collins)
14. 11:03 AM - Re: Closing gap in Flap Actuator to Fuselage interface (Albert Gardner)
15. 11:14 AM - Re: Re: Cirrus - OT (Bill Boyd)
16. 11:33 AM - Re: Re: Cirrus - OT (Cory Emberson)
17. 11:41 AM - Closing gap in Flap Actuator to Fuselage interface (James H Nelson)
18. 11:46 AM - Re: Cirrus - OT (Bob Collins)
19. 12:14 PM - Re: Cirrus - OT (Bill Boyd)
20. 12:19 PM - Re: Cirrus - OT (Bob Collins)
21. 12:50 PM - Re: Re: Cirrus - OT (Ralph E. Capen)
22. 01:19 PM - Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) (Dwight Frye)
23. 01:23 PM - Re: Re: Cirrus - OT (oliver h washburn)
24. 01:25 PM - weights... (JOHN STARN)
25. 03:19 PM - Re: Re: Cirrus - OT (Rob Prior (rv7))
26. 03:22 PM - Re: Cirrus - OT (Bob Collins)
27. 04:22 PM - Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) (Tedd McHenry)
28. 04:56 PM - Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) (Hedrick)
29. 04:59 PM - Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) (Dwight Frye)
30. 05:38 PM - Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
31. 05:48 PM - Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) (Bob Collins)
32. 05:51 PM - Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) (Bob Collins)
33. 05:59 PM - RV6 ram air issues (n801bh@netzero.com)
34. 06:12 PM - Re: Re: Closing gap in Flap Actuator to Fuselage interface (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
35. 06:35 PM - Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) (Kyle Boatright)
36. 07:09 PM - Re: RV6 ram air issues (Tracy Crook)
37. 10:14 PM - Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) (Vanremog@aol.com)
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: | Throttle cable length |
I'm installing an O-360-A1A engine converted over to an IO-360-A1A
using a Precision Fuel body, on an RV-7A. It looks like I can use the
standard FAB airbox and a lot of the other Fire Wall Forward components
(Van's service dept says that I'll need to swap out the VA-149 for the
VA-182 and delete the Gascolator.) They also indicated that a longer
mixture cable may also be needed, but no one with the Fuel Injected 360
had confirmed this for them, so they weren't sure.
Can anyone out there that has installed the IO-360-A1A (vertical sump)
engine comment on the final throttle and mixture cable part numbers (&
lengths) ???? Even an IO-320-D1A installation should have the same
cables.......
Fred Stucklen
RV-7A N924RV
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: Heatset woes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@comcast.net>
I chose Peltor because of the thin headband top. I have been
satisfied with it.
Denis Walsh
On Oct 11, 2006, at 07:27 5207400010, Cleaveland Aircraft Tool wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Cleaveland Aircraft Tool"
> <mail@cleavelandtool.com>
>
> On this subject has anyone found a good "no headband" headset for
> the RVs? I don't have much headroom in the RV4 so I bought a
> Panther headset that uses custom earmolds. The headset fits
> perfect and is Sooo comfortable, on the ground it works great, but
> above 1500rpm and the mic feeds all the noise to the intercom and
> radio. The earmolds block out as much noise as our Telex ANR and
> Bose ANR, but since the mic is useless I need another solution. I
> have been fighting with it since May and just today sent it back
> again this time with a recording of different headsets vs. theirs.
> I expect I will be getting a refund and will try something else. I
> was impressed with the ClarityAloft headset at Oshkosh, but it was
> not in an aircraft. I would have been impressed with the Panther
> on the ground. Any advise would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> Mike Lauritsen
> Cleaveland Aircraft Tool
> mike@cleavelandtool.com
> www.cleavelandtool.com
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 10:26 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Heatset woes
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>>
>>
>>> Verify that your headset jacks are proper for the headset. Are
>>> there
>>
>> three prongs to match the three sections of a stereo headset. Not
>> sure
>> how this works but worth checking.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Aileron Brackets |
Seems Sound
Denis Walsh
On Oct 11, 2006, at 07:04 7949500010, MLWynn@aol.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I assembled my aileron brackets today and commenced riveting them
> on the rear spar. I found that I couldn't get my squeezer to reach
> the most forward rivet (near the already riveted on top skin). I
> couldn't figure out how to buck it effectively, so I decided to put
> a cherrymax rivet in. It seems quite solid. Have not done the
> other wing yet. Does that seem sound or should I drill it out and
> think some more?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Wings
> San Ramon, California
>
>
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: | AVMAP Mounting... |
I just an AVMAP EKP-IV and am looking for creative ways of mounting it
to my panel... I already know about the panel dock from
AirGizmos....but am looking for other mounting options...
Any ideas and installation photos would be greatly appreciated!!
Thanks!
-Bill
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
Is it just me, or is this make of aircraft involved in a lot of
accidents since its debut? Whenever I see ad ad for Cirrus touting
their parachute, I think, "It's a good thing you have one, because in
that aircraft, it's likely you'll need it one day."
And then there's this brilliant piece of reporting from Fox regarding
yesterday's crash in NYC: "The parachute apparently did not engage
after the crash." (stated twice).
Apparently, the ballistic chute isn't supposed to "engage" until after
you crash. Maybe it's like a visual ELT to help find the wreckage.
To the emergency responders, I'm sure an undeployed ballistic chute is
an imminent threat.
NORAD is proud of themselves for scrambling fighters within 10 minutes
to all our major cities. "Sends a message to the terrorists." Just
who/what were they hoping to find? And what did they think they could
do about it - down every aircraft over a major city that isn't on an
IFR flight plan?
Okay- preaching to the choir here, but I do NOT feel safer knowing
that fighters were scrambled while I could have been innocently and
ignorantly tooling around the patch yesterday. This kind of knee-jerk
reaction needs a serious policy review, but since it plays well with
the voters, I suppose we will never see an end of it. End of rant,
but I do wonder about those Cirrus aircraft... I could swear they
have a corner on the accident market, but I've no hard numbers to back
that assumption up.
-Stormy
do not archive
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: | throttle cable length |
--> RV-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
I have an IO-360B1B (vertical induction) with an Airflow Performance fuel
injection. I had to replace my mixture cable from Vans with a longer one -
around 4 inches longer if I remember right, but im not absolutely sure on
that figure. I guess this may not be of much value since you have the
Precision system, but if you order the cable several inches longer than the
minimum length needed, its still very usable. Too short doesnt work at
all.
regards
Erich Weaver
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
//Okay- preaching to the choir here, but I do NOT feel safer knowing that fighters
were scrambled while I could have been innocently and ignorantly tooling around
the patch yesterday. This kind of knee-jerk reaction needs a serious policy
review, but since it plays well with//
Damned if you do and Damned if you don't. Read the Sept. 11th report and the heap
of criticism for lack of response. Thent hey respond and they get criticized
for responding.
At the time, the interest of an innocent or ignorant pilot tooling around probably
were outweighed by the interests of the larger population.
BTW, I just got into work (I'm a...umm... Journalist) and saw the same "after"
comment in AP copy on our Web site. I just changed it, obviously.
Do not archive
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67351#67351
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: | Closing gap in Flap Actuator to Fuselage interface |
Listers: I am finishing up my RV-9A outstanding tasks - which take
forever.
I'm looking for a better way to seal the Flap Actuator push rod hole in
the baggage compartment. There is a small gap in the hole affecting the
fuselage side and the baggage area interface - the space is needed for
the rod to move the flap. Not large but will let in any slush that the
wheels kick up. A boot won't work very well. I was going to make a
plate with several platenuts holding two pieces of Van's engine baffle
material - with a slit for the connector rod and rod end bearings.
There's got to be a simpler, less time-consuming way to seal off this
hole. What have others done in this tight area. Thanks for any ideas.
Ernie (99.5% done - only 20% to go)
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>Is it just me, or is this make of aircraft involved in a lot of
>accidents since its debut? Whenever I see ad ad for Cirrus touting
>their parachute, I think, "It's a good thing you have one, because in
>that aircraft, it's likely you'll need it one day."
My first thought after hearing it was a Cirrus was of another inept
Cirrus pilot tempting Darwinism and losing. After hearing about the
2000' wide VFR corridor there I think that my initial perception was
accurate.
I have no desire to fly with a Cirrus pilot anymore than I would a
VW driver. Note all the ads that show a VW being safe because it
survives side impacts yet all that suggests is that VW drivers cannot
drive defensively.
Ron Lee
Do not archive
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: Closing gap in Flap Actuator to Fuselage interface |
Funny.. was just thinking about this very thing now that we are approaching
winter and I'm attempting to draft proof the RV. (Wife complained last
winter the heat doesn't work good enough.)
My thought was to take some baffle material as you suggested, cut out an
appropriate sized hole with a slit somewhere to slip it over the flap tube
and then just glue it or pop rivet it in place. Let me know if you come up
with a better idea.
Matthew
N523RV :: RV-9A :: 129 hours
http://www.n523rv.com <http://www.n523rv.com/>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Bill,
Regarding your comments on the accident rate of the Cirrus, the last thing I
saw professing to be based on hard numbers did indicate a higher rate for
the Cirrus than say the typical Cessna or Piper. I believe it was attributed
to them being relatively high performance, and that maybe they were being
sold to affluent newcomers to flying -- sort of a substitute for a Bonanza.
The parachute system seems to be more appealing to non or new flyers than
experienced pilots.
Another reason the Cirrus accident numbers may seem higher is that every
time one comes down under a parachute and saves all on board it makes the
news. And there have been several such incidents, and at least a couple of
failures where the chute was apparently fired too low, or not attempted at
all.
It almost sounds like the start of a joke but it's often too tragic to be
funny.... "Two doctors in a Bonanza ..." See the "Never Again" in the
current AOPA Flyer.
I get to fly right seat in my friends SR-22 on occasion. It's a great
airplane with climb & cruise performance in the same ballpark as an RV with
twice the fuel flow. If I were buying instead of building, and I could
afford one, it would likely be my first choice.
As for NORAD launching their fighters, good for them, and I'm glad it wasn't
necessary with the 20-20 hindsight of knowing that this time an airplane
flying into a high rise building in New York wasn't part of coordinated
attack.
The thing to worry about now is the reaction of the uninformed wondering
about why "we" let small airplanes within 20 miles of a city anyway.
Terry
Do not archive
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
Is it just me, or is this make of aircraft involved in a lot of
accidents since its debut? Whenever I see ad ad for Cirrus touting
their parachute, I think, "It's a good thing you have one, because in
that aircraft, it's likely you'll need it one day."
And then there's this brilliant piece of reporting from Fox regarding
yesterday's crash in NYC: "The parachute apparently did not engage
after the crash." (stated twice).
Apparently, the ballistic chute isn't supposed to "engage" until after
you crash. Maybe it's like a visual ELT to help find the wreckage.
To the emergency responders, I'm sure an undeployed ballistic chute is
an imminent threat.
NORAD is proud of themselves for scrambling fighters within 10 minutes
to all our major cities. "Sends a message to the terrorists." Just
who/what were they hoping to find? And what did they think they could
do about it - down every aircraft over a major city that isn't on an
IFR flight plan?
Okay- preaching to the choir here, but I do NOT feel safer knowing
that fighters were scrambled while I could have been innocently and
ignorantly tooling around the patch yesterday. This kind of knee-jerk
reaction needs a serious policy review, but since it plays well with
the voters, I suppose we will never see an end of it. End of rant,
but I do wonder about those Cirrus aircraft... I could swear they
have a corner on the accident market, but I've no hard numbers to back
that assumption up.
-Stormy
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: | O320-E2A for sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: <ziggyrocket@cox.net>
I just got the word that my new Aerosport O320 is ready to ship, but I need to sell my other O320, details at: http://members.cox.net/ziggyrocket/
RV9A 90% done, 100% to go.
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: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
One of the things we, as pilots, are going to have to do -- whether we like it
or not -- is to adopt an attitude that people don't have a right to ask the question
about "why we let small planes near cities"
Yes, they're uninformed. But consider the stupid pilot as the same as the drunk
driver. Both represent a threat to public safety. And it certainly makes sense
to ask why we allow drunk drivers on the road.
Sure, we don't say "why do we allow cars on the road," but this isn't a game of
who can come up with the better logic or metaphor, it's a job of INFORMING the
uninformed, not mocking them. So we all have a personal stake in being part
of the educational process that doesn't just shut them up, but brings them over
to our side.
Regarding the Cirrus situation, being a Minnesota company and all and me being
in the media and all, I've lobbied for a look at their marketing strategies for
years. Years. No luck. Today we actually have a reporter joining the othre
million reporters pursuing it.
Before I got to work today, our reporter was alreayd pursuing the "is it a safe
plane" angle. Wrong angle. It's a great, great plane. But if you go back and
look at that original James Fallows' story on Cirrus many years ago in Atlantic
Monthly, it's not hard to see what the problem is.
In fact, the head of the Cirrus owners in 2003
"Flying is still a mental game. It may be a strange paradox that all of this added
safety is attracting people who should not be flying, period," said Mike Radomsky,
a Houston, Texas, pilot and president of the Cirrus Owners and Pilots
Association"
There is no question in my mind that lack of appropriate training is at the heart
of their safety record. Too many pilots fit the Cory Lidle profile.
Get license in FEbruary
Buy Cirrus in July
Dead in October
Someone's going to connect the dots pretty soon, and when they do, I hope everyone
is ready with a good defense of the sport pilot rules that are aimed at getting
even more pilots in the air with even less training. Fortunately, they're
in lighter planes. But I think it's still a legitimate concern until the rules
prove otherwise.
My $.02.
Bob
St. Paul
Do not archive
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67372#67372
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: | Closing gap in Flap Actuator to Fuselage interface |
Most RV's don't do anything. Several have made wing root fairings that
extend over the flap and cover the hole from above-mainly for
appearance.
Fortunately, not much slush here in Yuma, even in the dead of winter.
Haven't had any sand get in though.
Albert Gardner
Yuma, AZ
RV-9A N872RV
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernie & Margo
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:42 AM
Subject: RV-List: Closing gap in Flap Actuator to Fuselage interface
Listers: I am finishing up my RV-9A outstanding tasks - which take
forever.
I'm looking for a better way to seal the Flap Actuator push rod hole in
the
baggage compartment. There is a small gap in the hole affecting the
fuselage side and the baggage area interface - the space is needed for
the
rod to move the flap. Not large but will let in any slush that the
wheels
kick up. A boot won't work very well. I was going to make a plate with
several platenuts holding two pieces of Van's engine baffle material -
with
a slit for the connector rod and rod end bearings.
There's got to be a simpler, less time-consuming way to seal off this
hole.
What have others done in this tight area. Thanks for any ideas.
Ernie (99.5% done - only 20% to go)
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
> At the time, the interest of an innocent or ignorant pilot tooling around probably
were outweighed by the interests of the larger population.
>
>
Bob, I guess my point was that it's a difficult-to-impossible task to
sort out friendlies from threats in a "9/11/01 redux" scenario. The
skies might swarm with angry interceptor aircraft, but who's going to
call the bogies for them? And by what criteria?
Take-home message: secure the (commercial) cockpit and arm the flight
crews. Write off the (perceived) threat from GA aircraft as being
both small, from a kilo-tonnage standpoint, and indefensible but not
worth the bother (as are, one would judge by the measures _not_ taken,
the Ryder truck threat, the container freight threat, the explosive
vest threat, and so on, ad nauseam). Life is risky and the world a
dangerous place. Government can mitigate some risks but never secure
against all possible harms. Vote out any demagogues who would imply
otherwise.
I'd prefer the old freedom to the much-vaunted new security. My $.02,
but worth somewhat more.
-Stormy do not archive
Friends don't let friends drive a Cirrus <g>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Cory Emberson <bootless@earthlink.net>
Good post.
Maybe it's time to bring John Deakin's post-9/11 Pelican's Perch column
that so thoroughly analyzed the difference between transport-class jets
versus biz and GA planes in terms of inflicted damage ...
Bill Boyd wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
>
>> At the time, the interest of an innocent or ignorant pilot tooling
>> around probably were outweighed by the interests of the larger
>> population.
>>
>>
> Bob, I guess my point was that it's a difficult-to-impossible task to
> sort out friendlies from threats in a "9/11/01 redux" scenario. The
> skies might swarm with angry interceptor aircraft, but who's going to
> call the bogies for them? And by what criteria?
>
> Take-home message: secure the (commercial) cockpit and arm the flight
> crews. Write off the (perceived) threat from GA aircraft as being
> both small, from a kilo-tonnage standpoint, and indefensible but not
> worth the bother (as are, one would judge by the measures _not_ taken,
> the Ryder truck threat, the container freight threat, the explosive
> vest threat, and so on, ad nauseam). Life is risky and the world a
> dangerous place. Government can mitigate some risks but never secure
> against all possible harms. Vote out any demagogues who would imply
> otherwise.
>
> I'd prefer the old freedom to the much-vaunted new security. My $.02,
> but worth somewhat more.
>
> -Stormy do not archive
>
> Friends don't let friends drive a Cirrus <g>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Closing gap in Flap Actuator to Fuselage interface |
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Matt,
I haven't gotten that far but a "bellows" arrangement would be
better in making up for vertical and horizontal motion of the flap
actuator rod as it goes thru the fuselage. Even if it was not a bellows
a long very thin rubber sleeve would work for air infiltration. I got
something like that from "Orvendorfer" (sp) for controlling air coming
into the fuselage below the floor and under your seat. A nylon fabric
that will not let air thru works. You get the idea.
Jim
RV9-A FWF
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
[quote="sportav8r(at)gmail.com"]
>
> Bob, I guess my point was that it's a difficult-to-impossible task to
>
> sort out friendlies from threats in a "9/11/01 redux" scenario.
True enough, but success or failure at doing so isn't going to mean anything if
your resources are sitting on Cape Cod. Keep in mind, at the time, nobody knew
what was going on...so a decision to put the assets where you might need them
seems to me like a logical choice. Cities don't just have one firehouse downtown
for a reason.
We have no evidence at all, frankly, that some F-18s were up making life miserable
for a bunch of GA pilots or anybody else. Or that they weren't.
My takeaway? Keep your options for action open. If that means putting an F-18 over
Chicago for a few hours, it's OK with me.
Isn't that why we have them?
Do not archive
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67380#67380
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
Terry, you and Bob Collins make good points. This thread has given me
a chance to hear and think, as well as to vent, and I'm glad it has
not degenerated (so far).
My late brother in law used to sell Beechcraft. He referred to the
Bonanza as the Fork-Tailed Doctor Killer, and warned me not to act
like my typical brethren if ever I learned to fly. Point well taken.
-Stormy
do not archive
On 10/12/06, Terry Watson <terry@tcwatson.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> Bill,
>
> Regarding your comments on the accident rate of the Cirrus, the last thing I
> saw professing to be based on hard numbers did indicate a higher rate for
> the Cirrus than say the typical Cessna or Piper. I believe it was attributed
> to them being relatively high performance, and that maybe they were being
> sold to affluent newcomers to flying -- sort of a substitute for a Bonanza.
> The parachute system seems to be more appealing to non or new flyers than
> experienced pilots.
>
> Another reason the Cirrus accident numbers may seem higher is that every
> time one comes down under a parachute and saves all on board it makes the
> news. And there have been several such incidents, and at least a couple of
> failures where the chute was apparently fired too low, or not attempted at
> all.
>
> It almost sounds like the start of a joke but it's often too tragic to be
> funny.... "Two doctors in a Bonanza ..." See the "Never Again" in the
> current AOPA Flyer.
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds me that
low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend a LOT
of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training.
Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly this thing
safely."
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67390#67390
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
I think that this is what we should derive.......
I have had transition training - and time before and after....and I know I'm not
ready yet.....I'm glad that I have some time to get ready while I'm finishing
my plane
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Collins <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
>Sent: Oct 12, 2006 3:18 PM
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Re: Cirrus - OT
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
>
>Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds me that
low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend a LOT
of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training.
>
>Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly this thing
safely."
>
>--------
>Bob Collins
>St. Paul, Minn.
>RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
>http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67390#67390
>
>
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: | Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye <dwight@openweave.org>
On Thu Oct 12 15:18:35 2006, Bob Collins wrote :
>Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds me
>that low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend
>a LOT of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training.
>
>Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly this
>thing safely."
Interesting that you make this comment when you do. I have been pondering that
very same issue lately. Similar thoughts (i.e. regarding the "ticket-in-Feb,
Cirrus-in-July, dead-in-Oct" sequence of events) occurred to me about the NYC
accident too.
Regarding your particular point, we'll use my situation as an example. I am
a low-time pilot. I have roughly 350 hours spread over a decade-plus. I have
owned a plane (1967 Cherokee 180, and boy I miss it), gotten my instrument
ticket, and have maybe 8 hours of tailwheel time spread over a few -years-.
The tailwheel plans that I've flown are an RV-6 and a Citabria (by flown I
don't mean just having gotten a ride in, but have done take-offs and landings
with instructors).
I'm a slow builder, so still have time to think about what to do, but I do
get my engine in about a month and a half and think it is remotely possible
I could have the RV-7 flying in as little as a year. (Imagine me crossing
my fingers as I type that sentence ... not an easy thing to do, I'll tell
you.) Two years max. (More crossing of fingers!)
When I go talk to various local folks the response is "Don't sweat it, you'll
do fine". Ok. Great. But ..... I'm left not entirely convinced. I have this
vague worry that what I _should_ do is go out and buy me something along the
lines of a Luscombe 8A for $20K, commit to putting 50 hours/year on it while
I finish the RV, and -then- do the required type-specific RV transition
training with Mike Seager. When I've got the RV flying, sell the Luscombe
(for a tidy profit ... yeah, right) and start my flight testing.
You see, I want to be SURE that I can safely fly my RV once I finish it .....
but when I talk to other folks I start to feel like a paranoid, and that my
concerns are leading me in the direction of overkill. What say you experienced
folks? Am I being overly cautious?
What I do know is that if I bend this RV after all my _wife's_ help riveting,
I'll be in deep deep trouble. :)
-- Dwight
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "oliver h washburn" <ollie6a@earthlink.net>
A guy flys into the side of a building and it's the planes fault?? Come on
> [Original Message]
> From: Bob Collins <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 10/12/2006 2:07:43 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Cirrus - OT
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
>
> One of the things we, as pilots, are going to have to do -- whether we
like it or not -- is to adopt an attitude that people don't have a right to
ask the question about "why we let small planes near cities"
>
> Yes, they're uninformed. But consider the stupid pilot as the same as the
drunk driver. Both represent a threat to public safety. And it certainly
makes sense to ask why we allow drunk drivers on the road.
>
> Sure, we don't say "why do we allow cars on the road," but this isn't a
game of who can come up with the better logic or metaphor, it's a job of
INFORMING the uninformed, not mocking them. So we all have a personal stake
in being part of the educational process that doesn't just shut them up,
but brings them over to our side.
>
> Regarding the Cirrus situation, being a Minnesota company and all and me
being in the media and all, I've lobbied for a look at their marketing
strategies for years. Years. No luck. Today we actually have a reporter
joining the othre million reporters pursuing it.
>
> Before I got to work today, our reporter was alreayd pursuing the "is it
a safe plane" angle. Wrong angle. It's a great, great plane. But if you go
back and look at that original James Fallows' story on Cirrus many years
ago in Atlantic Monthly, it's not hard to see what the problem is.
>
> In fact, the head of the Cirrus owners in 2003
>
> "Flying is still a mental game. It may be a strange paradox that all of
this added safety is attracting people who should not be flying, period,"
said Mike Radomsky, a Houston, Texas, pilot and president of the Cirrus
Owners and Pilots Association"
>
> There is no question in my mind that lack of appropriate training is at
the heart of their safety record. Too many pilots fit the Cory Lidle
profile.
>
> Get license in FEbruary
> Buy Cirrus in July
> Dead in October
>
> Someone's going to connect the dots pretty soon, and when they do, I hope
everyone is ready with a good defense of the sport pilot rules that are
aimed at getting even more pilots in the air with even less training.
Fortunately, they're in lighter planes. But I think it's still a
legitimate concern until the rules prove otherwise.
>
> My $.02.
>
> Bob
> St. Paul
>
> Do not archive
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67372#67372
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Sorry it took so long to look it up.
My '92 Corvette Coupe LT1 6 speed weights in at 3223#.
Do Not Archive KABONG (GBA & GWB)
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net
> Someone's going to connect the dots pretty soon, and when they do,
> I hope everyone is ready with a good defense of the sport pilot rules
> that are aimed at getting even more pilots in the air with even less
> training. Fortunately, they're in lighter planes. But I think it's
> still a legitimate concern until the rules prove otherwise.
Ever since they introduced the Recreational Pilot Permit in Canada, i've
wondered the exact same thing. As far as i'm concerned, all the RPP and
Sport Pilot permits do is "dumb down" the priviledge of getting a pilot's
license. It may get more people in the air, but it looks more and more
like the tradeoff is less capable pilots.
Just my $0.02.
-Rob
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
I read the list ont he WEb site and the post is pretty much indeciperhable, but
if you're rebutting some point that I made about a plane being at fault, well,
I certainly never said that. The words speak for themselves, hopefully. We
have a role as pilots to educate the uninformed. Well, if we really give a rip.
[Wink]
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67415#67415
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: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Dwight:
I recommend getting transition training in an RV and then getting some
aerobatic instruction in your RV. Once you are comfortable doing sport
aerobatics in your RV you won't be defeated by anything you're likely to meet
in "normal" RV flying.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
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: | Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Hedrick" <khedrick@frontiernet.net>
How about a word from the unexperienced. I am a low time pilot with 400 hrs
now but when I bought my rv 6 I had a total ~125 hrs in - a 150, a 172, and
an eipper quicksilver wt shift. This was over a 20 yr period. No
tailwheel time, my cfi (Illinois Phil) really stayed with me (a long time)
and some buddies did give me some tailwheel time in their champs (big help,
thanks john and bob C).
I don't claim to be an expert, far from it, I am a average learner. I did
work (lot of hrs) at getting the landing down and systems and I was cautious
(still am), no big crosswinds. You can do this. The extra talewheel time
was good.
Your milage may vary, but have bent no metal yet.
Keith Hedrick
Carlinville IL
3lf
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dwight Frye
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:28 PM
Subject: RV-List: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT)
--> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye <dwight@openweave.org>
On Thu Oct 12 15:18:35 2006, Bob Collins wrote :
>Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds me
>that low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend
>a LOT of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training.
>
>Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly
this
>thing safely."
Interesting that you make this comment when you do. I have been pondering
that
very same issue lately. Similar thoughts (i.e. regarding the "ticket-in-Feb,
Cirrus-in-July, dead-in-Oct" sequence of events) occurred to me about the
NYC
accident too.
Regarding your particular point, we'll use my situation as an example. I am
a low-time pilot. I have roughly 350 hours spread over a decade-plus. I have
owned a plane (1967 Cherokee 180, and boy I miss it), gotten my instrument
ticket, and have maybe 8 hours of tailwheel time spread over a few -years-.
The tailwheel plans that I've flown are an RV-6 and a Citabria (by flown I
don't mean just having gotten a ride in, but have done take-offs and
landings
with instructors).
I'm a slow builder, so still have time to think about what to do, but I do
get my engine in about a month and a half and think it is remotely possible
I could have the RV-7 flying in as little as a year. (Imagine me crossing
my fingers as I type that sentence ... not an easy thing to do, I'll tell
you.) Two years max. (More crossing of fingers!)
When I go talk to various local folks the response is "Don't sweat it,
you'll
do fine". Ok. Great. But ..... I'm left not entirely convinced. I have this
vague worry that what I _should_ do is go out and buy me something along the
lines of a Luscombe 8A for $20K, commit to putting 50 hours/year on it while
I finish the RV, and -then- do the required type-specific RV transition
training with Mike Seager. When I've got the RV flying, sell the Luscombe
(for a tidy profit ... yeah, right) and start my flight testing.
You see, I want to be SURE that I can safely fly my RV once I finish it
.....
but when I talk to other folks I start to feel like a paranoid, and that my
concerns are leading me in the direction of overkill. What say you
experienced
folks? Am I being overly cautious?
What I do know is that if I bend this RV after all my _wife's_ help
riveting,
I'll be in deep deep trouble. :)
-- Dwight
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye <dwight@openweave.org>
On Thu Oct 12 19:21:02 2006, Tedd McHenry wrote :
>Dwight:
>
>I recommend getting transition training in an RV and then getting some
>aerobatic instruction in your RV. Once you are comfortable doing sport
>aerobatics in your RV you won't be defeated by anything you're likely to meet
>in "normal" RV flying.
>
>Tedd McHenry
>Surrey, BC, Canada
Tedd,
Thanks for the input! I couldn't agree more. In fact ... those steps are on
the agenda. :) I have a good friend who is now an RV-7 owner, and who sold
an Extra 300XL and bought the RV. He is in his mid-70s and decided he probably
shouldn't be pulling 5Gs on -every- flight. His wife didn't like flying in
that front cockpit either (I've flown in it, and don't blame her), so the -7
let them fly "together" again.
He has competition experience and is willing to teach me some basics ... and
then from there I intend to find someone to help me learn more advanced
aerobatics. For instance, I've flown with Rich Perkins at Attitude Aviation
(http://attitudeaviation.com) in Livermore. I was just doing some initial
tailwheel work, but he also teaches aerobatics as well as an emergency
maneuvers course. I'm tempted to go back and work with him again as the few
flights I did have with him were great experiences. But there are plenty of
other folks who can help me down that road and we'll see what make sense when
the time comes.
So ... we agree completely on that value of that kind of training. No question
about it. Oh, aside from the value of it ... its fun, too!
Learning some aerobatics, though, are past that initial getting-to-know-you
period. It is those early hours in the -7 I sweat most. I have gotten a good
bit of a feedback off-list saying "Don't sweat it", with some good support
for that view. I'm still collecting opinions, and probably will be until the
first flight in my RV. If anyone else has opinions/suggestions on good
strategies for transitioning .... I'm listening. :)
-- Dwight
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: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) |
Dwight,
While I agree that lots of transition training would be a good thing, I flew
my RV-7A with practically none. I landed a friends RV-6A from the right
seat one time and decided that I could fly the -7A that my wife and I built, and
I did. I had about 450 hours in Cessnas and Warriors, and about 100 hours
in a Grumman AA1C. The Grumman was a good "transition trainer." The RV-7A is
much more docile than that little devil.
The only problem I had on the first flight was losing the airport (not my
home field) due to the speed which I was not used to. I must warn you that
even though you are completely familiar with your airplane and panel, that when
you are flying it for the first time it is still a strange airplane that you
are not used to yet. Now, if I had had a real problem, I may have been in a
lot of trouble. But that is true of anyone on the first flight of an
airplane. I decided to risk my own life vs. someone else's in my plane.
The nosewheel RV is a very easy airplane to fly and land. I won't speak to
the tailwheel RVs. I'm not a taildragger pilot, that could be a whole
'nother story!
Dan Hopper
RV-7A 175 hours
do not archive
In a message dated 10/12/2006 4:21:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dwight@openweave.org writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye <dwight@openweave.org>
On Thu Oct 12 15:18:35 2006, Bob Collins wrote :
>Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds me
>that low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend
>a LOT of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training.
>
>Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly
this
>thing safely."
Interesting that you make this comment when you do. I have been pondering
that
very same issue lately. Similar thoughts (i.e. regarding the "ticket-in-Feb,
Cirrus-in-July, dead-in-Oct" sequence of events) occurred to me about the NYC
accident too.
Regarding your particular point, we'll use my situation as an example. I am
a low-time pilot. I have roughly 350 hours spread over a decade-plus. I have
owned a plane (1967 Cherokee 180, and boy I miss it), gotten my instrument
ticket, and have maybe 8 hours of tailwheel time spread over a few -years-.
The tailwheel plans that I've flown are an RV-6 and a Citabria (by flown I
don't mean just having gotten a ride in, but have done take-offs and landings
with instructors).
I'm a slow builder, so still have time to think about what to do, but I do
get my engine in about a month and a half and think it is remotely possible
I could have the RV-7 flying in as little as a year. (Imagine me crossing
my fingers as I type that sentence ... not an easy thing to do, I'll tell
you.) Two years max. (More crossing of fingers!)
When I go talk to various local folks the response is "Don't sweat it, you'll
do fine". Ok. Great. But ..... I'm left not entirely convinced. I have this
vague worry that what I _should_ do is go out and buy me something along the
lines of a Luscombe 8A for $20K, commit to putting 50 hours/year on it while
I finish the RV, and -then- do the required type-specific RV transition
training with Mike Seager. When I've got the RV flying, sell the Luscombe
(for a tidy profit ... yeah, right) and start my flight testing.
You see, I want to be SURE that I can safely fly my RV once I finish it .....
but when I talk to other folks I start to feel like a paranoid, and that my
concerns are leading me in the direction of overkill. What say you
experienced
folks? Am I being overly cautious?
What I do know is that if I bend this RV after all my _wife's_ help riveting,
I'll be in deep deep trouble. :)
-- Dwight
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: | Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
BTW, my original note referring to low time Cessna/Warrior pilots was
supposed to have a -- LIKE ME --- after it. I left it off. I'm about in the
same boat as Keith where experience and flight time is concerned.
The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking I'll take some of the money
out of the instrument panel and put more of it into transition training.
Do not archive
----------
How about a word from the unexperienced. I am a low time pilot with 400 hrs
now but when I bought my rv 6 I had a total ~125 hrs in - a 150, a 172, and
an eipper quicksilver wt shift. This was over a 20 yr period. No
tailwheel time, my cfi (Illinois Phil) really stayed with me (a long time)
and some buddies did give me some tailwheel time in their champs (big help,
thanks john and bob C).
I don't claim to be an expert, far from it, I am a average learner. I did
work (lot of hrs) at getting the landing down and systems and I was cautious
(still am), no big crosswinds. You can do this. The extra talewheel time
was good.
Your milage may vary, but have bent no metal yet.
Keith Hedrick
Carlinville IL
3lf
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: | Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) |
Just projecting -- since I don't know for sure -- my guess is the big
difference in a trainer vs. an RV isn't the docile characteristics per se,
but the "speed factor." I assume things happen faster. Relating this back
to the Cirrus, I don't think it's an unsafe plane, I just think it's
probably a faster airplane. There are days when -- well, when I *was* flying
(I'm grounded at the moment) -- I'd find myself behind the old truck and
just oculdn't catch up. Can any of you who have transitioned from a trainer
to an RV report on that aspect of things?
Do not archive.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hopperdhh@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT)
Dwight,
While I agree that lots of transition training would be a good thing, I flew
my RV-7A with practically none. I landed a friends RV-6A from the right
seat one time and decided that I could fly the -7A that my wife and I built,
and I did. I had about 450 hours in Cessnas and Warriors, and about 100
hours in a Grumman AA1C. The Grumman was a good "transition trainer." The
RV-7A is much more docile than that little devil.
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV6 ram air issues |
My hangar mate here in Jackson Hole Wy has a RV-6 with a 0-320, Airflow
Perf injection and a Vetter crossflow exhaust. In testing the other day
his idea was to remove the air filter to try to maximize the ram air eff
ect to the intake. He removed the filter, took off on the carb heat sour
ce feeding the injector and at a few hundred feet up switched over the s
traight ram air. Low and behold the motor just about stopped so he quick
ly pulled the carb air source again and proceeded to climb up a few more
thousand feet to play with it again. He tried all different fuel settin
gs but the motor would never smooth out running just on the ram air alon
e. He called Vans and they suggested he reinstall the filter and just le
ave it that way. He then called Airflow Perf and the guy there stated he
has heard of several guys that removed the filter without any hiccups.
Our consensus is that the incoming air is so turbulant that it is not fe
eding the throat of the injector body properly. We are really looking fo
r some feedback on others who have tried this similar trick.. The detai
ls are,,,, he is at 6600 MSL, the temp was 56f and he did most of the te
sting at 10,000 msl. Ok guys, anyone want to jump right up and give us s
ome input,, please. Thanks in advance...
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
<html><BR>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width=7> </TD>
<TD>
<P align=justify>
<P><BR>My hangar mate here in Jackson Hole Wy has a RV-6 with a 0-3
20, Airflow Perf injection and a Vetter crossflow exhaust. In testing th
e other day his idea was to remove the air filter to try to maximize the
ram air effect to the intake. He removed the filter, took off on the ca
rb heat source feeding the injector and at a few hundred feet up switche
d over the straight ram air. Low and behold the motor just about stopped
so he quickly pulled the carb air source again and proceeded to climb u
p a few more thousand feet to play with it again. He tried all different
fuel settings but the motor would never smooth out running just on the
ram air alone. He called Vans and they suggested he reinstall the filter
and just leave it that way. He then called Airflow Perf and the guy the
re stated he has heard of several guys that removed the filter without a
ny hiccups. Our consensus is that the incoming air is so turbulant that
it is not feeding the throat of the injector body properly. We are reall
y looking for some feedback on others who have tried this similar trick.
. The details are,,,, he is at 6600 MSL, the temp was 56f and he d
id most of the testing at 10,000 msl. Ok guys, anyone want to
jump right up and give us some input,, please. Thanks
in advance...</P>
<P>do not archive</P>
<P><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair.com<BR><BR></P></
========================
= - Th
bsp;Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
& Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,<
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
========================
sp; - NE
at content now also available via the 
========================
bsp;some info to the Matronics Email List&
========================
sp; - List&nbs
nbsp; &
nbsp; &
--> http://www.matronics.com/contribution<BR>_
-========================
========================
============<BR>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Closing gap in Flap Actuator to Fuselage interface |
--> RV-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 10/12/06 1:27:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
matthew@n523rv.com writes:
> My thought was to take some baffle material as you suggested, cut out an
> appropriate sized hole with a slit somewhere to slip it over the flap tube
> and then just glue it or pop rivet it in place. Let me know if you come up
> with a better idea.
>
>
> Matthew
=====================
Matt:
After spending two years asking question, plugging holes and making diverters
in the hopes of curing the CO problem that many if not al lRV-6's have ... I
have finally come up with a solution. It works and it is cheep, yet I have
not solved the UGLY part of the problem.
The solution was two curved down exhaust pipes from a local auto shop. They
are held on with 'U' Clamps and a hunk of safety wire. The only good thing I
can say about this is there is ZERO CO in the cabin.
I have tried making bellow boots to cover the flap rod, adding a rear facing
scupper scoop back by the tail, all sorts of diverters in different positions
and sizes, extra cowl flaps, the hole punched exhaust tips, lowering and
raising the exhaust pipes. NOTHING worked. Except the two curved down exhaust
pipes. They give the sound of POWER and maybe even a bit of real useful power
also.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
RV-6
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) |
I transitioned from a Tomahawk to my RV-6 with about 3-4 hours from Mike
Seager and another couple of hours in a Citabria right before the first
flight. I already had a tailwheel endorsement which I had picked up a
few years earlier in a Taylorcraft. My opinion is that the Tomahawk is
a pretty good transition aircraft to the RV, because the sight picture
and pattern speeds are very similar. The one thing that is different
about the short wing RV's is that if you get really slow, the sink rate
goes up substantially. Most trainers are more forgiving in this area.
Transition training IS important, particularly if you don't have any
experience in something with RV like performance. I strongly encourage
anyone transitioning to an RV to get some time in an RV with a CFI who
has RV experience. If for some reason, you can't make that happen,
there are a lot of RV's around these days, and many of the pilots are
very willing to give you right seat time, which can help ease the
transition. We had a local gentleman who made exactly two flights
before he had a hard landing and totaled his Mustang II. He didn't get
any transition training (even in an RV) and his prior experience was in
aircraft that are much more forgiving at low speeds.
On the accident with the Cirrus, there was a graphic on one of the news
stations showing the aircraft going up the river offset to the left side
of the vfr corridor. Then, the aircraft began a left turn (to the
narrower side of the corridor) and was unable to complete the turn. I
have no idea how accurate the graphic was, but can certainly see how a
pilot used to a slower aircraft with a tighter turning radius could have
misjudged the room necessary to complete a 180 degree turn in a faster
aircraft.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Collins
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:50 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT)
Just projecting -- since I don't know for sure -- my guess is the big
difference in a trainer vs. an RV isn't the docile characteristics per
se, but the "speed factor." I assume things happen faster. Relating
this back to the Cirrus, I don't think it's an unsafe plane, I just
think it's probably a faster airplane. There are days when -- well, when
I *was* flying (I'm grounded at the moment) -- I'd find myself behind
the old truck and just oculdn't catch up. Can any of you who have
transitioned from a trainer to an RV report on that aspect of things?
Do not archive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hopperdhh@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:37 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT)
Dwight,
While I agree that lots of transition training would be a good thing,
I flew my RV-7A with practically none. I landed a friends RV-6A from
the right seat one time and decided that I could fly the -7A that my
wife and I built, and I did. I had about 450 hours in Cessnas and
Warriors, and about 100 hours in a Grumman AA1C. The Grumman was a good
"transition trainer." The RV-7A is much more docile than that little
devil.
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV6 ram air issues |
The turbulent air theory could be it. I tried an air scoop mounted on
the carb of an open air engine (little duce coupe) and it ran rough as
hell (and this was at car speeds). Turned the scoop backwards and it
ran great.
Ram air does have some merit though. I have it on my Mazda rotary (EFI)
powered RV-4 and at 224 mph IAS I see about 32" MAP at sea level. You
can actually watch the MP rise as the airspeed climbs. Turbulence does
not affect EFI the way it does a carb. I don't really know how the
Airflow Performance system works but it looks more related to a pressure
carb than it does fuel injection.
Tracy Crook
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh@netzero.com<mailto:n801bh@netzero.com>
To: rv-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:57 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV6 ram air issues
My hangar mate here in Jackson Hole Wy has a RV-6 with a 0-320,
Airflow Perf injection and a Vetter crossflow exhaust. In testing the
other day his idea was to remove the air filter to try to maximize the
ram air effect to the intake. He removed the filter, took off on the
carb heat source feeding the injector and at a few hundred feet up
switched over the straight ram air. Low and behold the motor just about
stopped so he quickly pulled the carb air source again and proceeded to
climb up a few more thousand feet to play with it again. He tried all
different fuel settings but the motor would never smooth out running
just on the ram air alone. He called Vans and they suggested he
reinstall the filter and just leave it that way. He then called Airflow
Perf and the guy there stated he has heard of several guys that removed
the filter without any hiccups. Our consensus is that the incoming air
is so turbulant that it is not feeding the throat of the injector body
properly. We are really looking for some feedback on others who have
tried this similar trick.. The details are,,,, he is at 6600 MSL, the
temp was 56f and he did most of the testing at 10,000 msl. Ok guys,
anyone want to jump right up and give us some input,, please. Thanks
in advance...
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?RV-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) |
In a message dated 10/12/2006 1:21:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dwight@openweave.org writes:
Regarding your particular point, we'll use my situation as an example. I am
a low-time pilot. I have roughly 350 hours spread over a decade-plus. I have
owned a plane (1967 Cherokee 180, and boy I miss it), gotten my instrument
ticket, and have maybe 8 hours of tailwheel time spread over a few -years-.
The tailwheel plans that I've flown are an RV-6 and a Citabria (by flown I
don't mean just having gotten a ride in, but have done take-offs and landings
with instructors).
I'm a slow builder, so still have time to think about what to do, but I do
get my engine in about a month and a half and think it is remotely possible
I could have the RV-7 flying in as little as a year. (Imagine me crossing
my fingers as I type that sentence ... not an easy thing to do, I'll tell
you.) Two years max. (More crossing of fingers!)
When I go talk to various local folks the response is "Don't sweat it, you'll
do fine". Ok. Great. But ..... I'm left not entirely convinced. I have this
vague worry that what I _should_ do is go out and buy me something along the
lines of a Luscombe 8A for $20K, commit to putting 50 hours/year on it while
I finish the RV, and -then- do the required type-specific RV transition
training with Mike Seager. When I've got the RV flying, sell the Luscombe
(for a tidy profit ... yeah, right) and start my flight testing.
You see, I want to be SURE that I can safely fly my RV once I finish it .....
but when I talk to other folks I start to feel like a paranoid, and that my
concerns are leading me in the direction of overkill. What say you
experienced
folks? Am I being overly cautious?
======================================
In my situation, I first flew a Cherokee 140 in the late sixties for about 5
hours during a high school aviation ground school, then nothing for 15 yrs.
I reacquainted myself with flying when I built and flew an ultralight Eipper
MXL for 400 or so hours back in the mid-eighties. Then came the Kitfox 1 in
the late eighties that I built, got my private license in and put 450 hrs on
over 8 years. Then I built the RV-6A, first flying it in early '98 after a
grand total of one flying hour of additional training (mostly pattern work to
get your head in front of the airplane). I have since taken a few hours of
aerobatic and unusual attitude training to round out my experience, but I
believe that my RV is the best handling plane money can buy.
RVs fly very much the way I always imagined/wished other planes should,
light and responsive controls, but not the least bit twitchy. I have flown my
Kitfox and my RV in every kind of weather/winds, short of tornadoes and
hurricanes, and as long as I was willing to cinch down on the straps, it has always
gotten me thru the chop to where I'm going. If you are an average pilot like
me, after just a few moments at the controls you will feel like your RV is
wired directly into your brain.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 811hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
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! --
|