Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:04 AM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Bob Collins)
2. 07:17 AM - RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (glen matejcek)
3. 07:42 AM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Chuck Jensen)
4. 08:06 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Larry Mac Donald)
5. 08:17 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins)
6. 08:37 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Steven DiNieri)
7. 08:53 AM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (bill shook)
8. 08:57 AM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (Curt Reimer)
9. 09:21 AM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Tedd McHenry)
10. 09:33 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins)
11. 09:47 AM - Re: Cirruss Accident question (Mark Sletten)
12. 11:05 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Jerry Springer)
13. 11:07 AM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Robin Marks)
14. 11:26 AM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
15. 11:36 AM - Re: Re: Cirruss Accident question (Chuck Jensen)
16. 11:45 AM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (Jerry Calvert)
17. 12:09 PM - Video Camera (Tedd McHenry)
18. 12:14 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Steve)
19. 12:17 PM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Bob Collins)
20. 12:18 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bill Schlatterer)
21. 12:47 PM - RV-7 For Sale (jrlewismail-rv@yahoo.com)
22. 01:12 PM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (sarg314)
23. 02:19 PM - Thanks and seeya later.... (n801bh@netzero.com)
24. 02:27 PM - Re: Re: Cirruss Accident question (Terry Watson)
25. 05:14 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Vanremog@aol.com)
26. 07:27 PM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Ron Lee)
27. 07:34 PM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Bob Collins)
28. 08:58 PM - Re: Video Camera (David Karlsberg)
29. 09:16 PM - Re: Video Camera (Chris W)
30. 10:26 PM - Trim control module flap switch (DEAN PSIROPOULOS)
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: | RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
Thanks, Dave. How would you -- or anyone else lurking -- compare the
characterisitics of the Piper and Cessna to the way an RV behaves in similar
situaitons. I'm intrigued by your assessment of the power pull and the
oscillations. How would each compare to a typical RV?
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Nellis
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:17 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !!
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Nellis <truflite@yahoo.com>
Bob,
I I did my PPL training in a Cherokee 140, 2-180s, and an Archer II.
Shortly after receiving my PPL, I joined a flying club with 5 Cessnas. The
difference between the two makes is substantial.
First of all, Piper and Cessna each use a different airfoils. Piper is more
of a symmetrical airfoil where Cessna uses a more flat bottom airfoil. The
biggest difference I noticed is that when removing power in the Pipers, the
nose would begin to fall off immediately and would occilate to a stable
flightpath within two cycles of occilation. When the nose would fall the
aircraft would gain very little speed before stabilizing. The Cessnas, on
the other hand would occilate five or six times before stabilizing. When
power is pulled back, the nose would fall off with a slight delay and then
would fall off well beyond what you would expect. This would cause a large
increase in airspeed and then the occilations. The occilations could be
avoided by adding a little back pressure to the stick and then slowly
removing the the back pressure allowing the aircraft to stabilize. Once
stabilized, the Cessnas would ride like on rails, just like the Pipers.
Second, on landing and flair, the Pipers were not as forgiving as the
Cessnas should you be a bit high on flair. I thought I was going to punch
the mains through the wings once with my instructor on board.
Quite embarassing. The stall is quick due to the airfoil shape. Flairs are
done almost touching the runway. As for ground effect, the symmetrical
airfoil does ride ground effect but not as long as the Cessnas. Careful
application of back pressure will raise the nose nicely and the aircraft
will settle with just a little chirp of the mains. I made one landing in
training so slick, I was waiting for the mains to chirp and the nose wheel
settled onto the runway. I was down and did not know it. One of the few
attaboys I ever got from that instructor.
Flairs and landings in the Cessnas are little different in my experience.
The flat(ter) bottom airfoil will still generate lift at higher angles of
attack. Hence, a higher flair angle is not needed and if applied will
balloon you up more so than the Pipers. That is not to say you should three
point a Cessna trike gear or that a Piper will not balloon, on the contrary.
The Cessnas seem to generate a lot of ground effect. I have landed a 172
holding it off the runway about one foot with full flaps and have touched
down with the airspeed indicator not able to read the
airspeed. Not easy to do. My instructor told me to
practice this occassionally. If you have a blown tire, this would be the
way to bring it in safely and touching down with minimum speed. I never
thought about having to make a landing like that, but I know how to do it.
My home field is in the middle of a commercial area of town so losing an
engine on final is not an option one would want to encounter. I fly final
at 80 knots till over the fence and then pull power. Ride the ground effect
and touch down. If all goes well, I can leisurely pull off the runway in
about 2000 feet with minimum braking only because there are very few
taxiways available. Better to go further than heat up the brakes.
I hope this gives some insight into the diffences regarding ground effect.
By the way, I needed about
5 hours transition time into the Cessnas because of the different traits
involved in landing. Humbling to say the least but an education worth
having.
Fly safe,
Dave Nellis
--- Bob Collins <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net> wrote:
> // So I got approx 20 hours in a Cherokee Warrior before the first
> flight.
>
>
> That reminds me of a question I was thinking about asking driving home
> the other night (before I got distracted by the Cirrus accident). When
> I transitioned from a high wing (172) to the low wing (Warrior), I had
> difficulty -- and still do sometimes -- judging the "ground effect"
> properly. in the Warrior. I've never seen this
> evaluated in RV discussions
> but can anyone who's flown in both compare the ground effect
> characteristics of the two raft?
>
> Bob
>
> Do not archive
>
__________________________________________________
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Tedd-
Wow, what perfectly eloquent and succinct response! Well done!
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> Jerry:
>
> > I'd like to start a thread here and have folks weigh in on the
subject.
>
> I'll take you up on that.
>
> I think the myth that RVs are difficult to fly is a little like the
taildragger
> myth in that pilots who have little or no experience with both types fret
about
> them while pilots who regularly fly them can't understand what the big
deal is.
>
> But the RV myth differs in that, while a pilot new to taildraggers does
have to
> learn a couple of new things to fly them, someone transitioning from,
say, a
> C-172 to an RV doesn't have to learn anything new. It's possible that
he'll
> have to be a bit more careful to do the things he should be doing in his
Cessna
> (but might have got lax about). But he doesn't have to learn anything
new.
>
> I suspect another factor leading to the RV myth is that so many private
pilots
> have a background in a handful of airplanes that are designed to handle a
> certain way (C-150/172, Cherokee), and RVs handle differently. I checked
out
> in a C-172 long after I started flying RVs, and I found it much more
difficult
> to learn than the RV. So I suspect it's the CHANGE that people find
difficult,
> not the airplane. But, as a result of demographics, that change is far
more
> likely to be Cessna-to-RV than the other way around.
>
> Finally, there's the effect of manoeuvrability. Any vehicle that has
quicker
> transient response and more sensitive controls is EASIER than a
> lower-performance vehicle once you've adjusted to it. But it's also
HARDER to
> go up the performance chain than to stay where you are (or go down).
>
> ---
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC, Canada
>
>
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: | N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Jeff,
In many ways, the instances you cite are evidence that the system
works--to a degree. Yes, da Mayor dug up Meigs, but did have to pay a
fine (even though the taxpayers foot the bill) and suffered endless
legal, verbal and public opinion assault. Granted, this did little to
discourage da Mayor, but the next one in line to do the same thing (with
fines now increased by a factor of 10) will give pause and consider
whether they wish to go through the same wringer that da Mayor was put
through.
The ADIZ? Well, I admit it's still there, but the politicos that
attempted to make it permanent for a few minutes of self-congratulatory
air time ran for cover in the face of the pushback from the aviation
community. Which side will prevail? Depends on who wants it more.
Personally, when it comes up, I crank out letters and emails to FAA,
NTSB, and Congressmen. Does it do any good? Who knows---its still
there, but it's not permanent (yet).
There's other instances where pushback to a compromise has worked. We
are all familiar with the Presidential TFRs. A year or two ago, every
self-important politico down to the Secretary level was asking for TFRs.
Even when they were just spending a day at a resort being wined-n-dined
by their owners (aka lobbyists). They wanted their own TFR...not
because of safety, but because it made them feel more important. As
best I can tell, personal-TFR thing has been damped due to backpush and
criticism. So, this is an example of a compromise that sort of
worked--we complain and the politico crawls back in his hole. Though
like the groundhog, to perennially reappear, so vigilance is a necessary
cost of doing the business of rights and privilege protection.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Jeffery J. Morgan
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 1:21 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan"
> --> <jmorgan@compnetconcepts.com>
>
> Chuck,
>
> While I agree with the idea of compromise, and don't want to
> sound against it, I have to ask, where was the compromise in
> what Daley asks for in Chicago, Walt got for Disney, and many
> others like them? If there was a discussion and consensus,
> which I stated earlier, and the decision was that it was for
> the good of all, I am okay with it. However, too often, there
> is a closed door discussion and decision that has no
> consensus. ADIZ is the largest in my mind. Can you factor
> that into your argument? What was the consensus there?
>
> I truly would like to understand, and have tried, but reason
> and logic have escaped those places, which is too often
> becoming the norm. I don't try to come off as a one sided
> person, and am truly open, as I tried to express by stating
> if it was good for the common good, I can understand the
> sacrifice. After all, that is what we ask the military to
> do. However if there is no reasonable explanation, how can
> you agree to say it is better than nothing? If the folks
> ahead of me did that, we wouldn't be flying, driving,
> learning, etc... Where do you draw the acceptable line?
>
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jensen
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:37 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
> Jeffery,
> I share your concern about the erosion of rights, but what
> terrifies me is the concept of unfettered rights and freedom.
> What makes a society work is compromise, something that has
> been notably scarce in the political arena in the last 10-15
> years. It is compromise that allows an overlaps of
> conflicting rights to be resolved. The push and shove of
> compromise allows stakeholders to each win a little but no
> one to lose everything. In the immediate instance, if I ever
> decide to fly the East River, which I doubt, I would rather
> have to contact ATC and be able to fly it then to be
> prohibited from doing so under all circumstances. The
> restriction may do little for safety, but it does much to
> salve the public outcry--is this too great a compromise to
> enter into to retain the right to fly the river? A purest
> would feel its too great a price, a realist would say it is
> the price to pay.
>
> Finally, lest we confuse rights with privilege, we should
> remind ourselves that flying is a privilege granted by the
> majority since it has been determined, when controlled by
> rules and regulations, to be of minimal harm to the
> commonweal. We live in a great country because (for the most
> part) most activities are permitted unless they are shown to
> be harmful and detrimental to individuals, groups or society
> as a whole. In many other countries, the starting point is
> everything is prohibited unless by birth or gun, one gains
> the power to do it.
>
> So, with good fortune and elections, may the exercise of our
> rights and privileges not be encumbered any more than
> absolutely necessary to not infringe on the peace and
> tranquility of others. Self-restraint in exercising our
> rights and privileges as well as education and lively support
> for the preservation of the same is our best defense against
> creeping rights, privilege and liberty erosion.
>
> Chuck Jensen
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffery J.
> > Morgan
> > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:48 PM
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
> >
> >
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan"
> > --> <jmorgan@compnetconcepts.com>
> >
> > The problem itself, isn't the actual result of the NOTAM, but rather
> > the way it came to be. The whole thing is not a result of any
> > reasonable cause. It is strictly because of the public
> outcry. This
> > is exactly what we as pilots and aviation professionals
> need to stop.
> >
> > It is a slippery slope that we are straddling here. If you
> look at the
>
> > notams in effect over Disney properties for example and ask yourself
> > what purpose/role they fill, what do you see? Clearly the
> limits of
> > distance and height are not enough to stop anyone that is bent on
> > breaking the rules, but enough to satisfy the public that something
> > was done. Same applies for the Stadium TFR's that come up.
> >
> > In the end, all it did was allow those entities to control the
> > advertising above their properties. Nothing else was
> accomplished by
>
> > them, nor is there any justification for them. Technical violations
> > will be plenty, but safety and reason are no where in the picture.
> >
> > So, if we as a group agree that this isn't a big deal, then we are
> > agreeing that is it okay to let others take away our freedoms one
> > piece at a time for reasons that aren't justifiable. If there is a
> > reason, beyond public outcry, and it will enhance safety, then I am
> > willing to agree. However, when it is not based on
> something that is
> > tangible or reasonable, then I have to not just go along,
> even if it
> > isn't a big deal.
> >
> > I personally have been appalled at what folks are willing to give up
> > in the USA. Since the 9/11 attacks, slowly all rights that for
> > hundreds of years people have fought and died over, we are
> willing to
> > slowly give up and agree it is okay to do that "in the name of
> > security". Though the intent is to be benevolent in nature,
> it is ripe
>
> > for abuse of power. I think that there have been specific things
> > taking place that show how it can be taken away. It is
> simple enough
> > to say that the government has the right to spy on
> terrorists, but not
>
> > on us citizens. However we have seen that all comes down to a
> > definition by someone other than us and what they decide goes.
> >
> > Remember the pilot insecurity rule? The TSA has the right to revoke
> > your license, without disclosing why (under the guise of national
> > security) for any person and/or reason. They don't need to disclose
> > what evidence they had, nor was there an appeal process.
> Again it was
>
> > suggested that normal folks need not worry, but what if you ended up
> > on the wrong side of that because of a misspelling, glitch
> in system,
> > or common name, you have no recourse! Folks agreed to it
> when it was
> > for terrorists, but never though it would apply to them.
> When it did,
>
> > they had no recourse! As much as it is easy to say it doesn't apply
> > to me, it will eventually. The idea that is it not a big
> deal is what
>
> > will erode away the capacity we have as pilots. Once they do away
> > with us, the public will turn on the next easy group. I
> would suggest
> > that we need to not be so easy going about it, and fight
> and demand an
>
> > reasonable explanation about it all. It is time to stop being the
> > scapegoat for folks irrational understanding of our world.
> > Bob Collins is right on the money when he suggests that we educate
> > folks about what it is we do. Now more than ever or my
> children will
> > likely not be able to enjoy the world of aviation as we do
> today and
> > less that of my grandparents...
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
> > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:53 PM
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
> >
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> >
> >
> > > It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of
> > > regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR
> corridor,
> > > squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result
> of public
> > outcry.
> >
> > My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to talk to
> > ATC
> > (Laguardia) beyond a certain
> > point in that area. Hardly a big deal.
> >
> > Ron Lee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com>
Bob,
I tried this about a year ago.
Sitting at the table of a restaurant, after a wake, with a
producer of Channel 10 T.V. in Rochester N.Y. The
subject of aviation came up and during the conversation
I asked Ed what my chances were of educating the entire
medea within the county. That this would be Chapter 44
of the EAA teaching the media about G.A. and the
caracteristics of a plane in flight so as to demonstrate to
them what a stall was. And that it was not an engine failure.
Ed took about 30 seconds to think about it and then
replied "You haven't got a snowball's chance in hell."
That was not the reply I had expected. And when I asked
how he could be so sure he replied "Because the turn
over rate is 50%".
So while some of us want to make a difference we
are faced with the problem of How?
Larry Mac Donald
lm4@juno.com
Rochester N.Y.
Do not achcive
> One of these days, we aviators have got to recognize our
> responsibility to
> change the tone and change the results.
>
> Otherwise, see you back here after the next crash.
>
> Do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
One at a time. Same as everything else. You don't have to convince 300
million people, say, of the value of your local airport. You only have to
convince the folks that live in your town. So, if 3 new reporters come in
next year, give 'em 3 more rides.
Larry, it's the same as building an RV (hey, the required RV content!),
you're building a bunch of small parts that eventually become one part.
Think about it. Why are we flying Young Eagles? Not only to get them into
flying, but to help them understand flying. But they're -- on average --
6-10 years away from having any direct impact. Do we have that much time?
Personally, I think the EAA has missed the mark by not starting an Old
Eagles program.
It makes so much sense, it's scary.
Bob
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Mac Donald
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com>
Bob,
I tried this about a year ago.
Sitting at the table of a restaurant, after a wake, with a producer of
Channel 10 T.V. in Rochester N.Y. The subject of aviation came up and
during the conversation I asked Ed what my chances were of educating the
entire medea within the county. That this would be Chapter 44 of the EAA
teaching the media about G.A. and the caracteristics of a plane in flight so
as to demonstrate to them what a stall was. And that it was not an engine
failure.
Ed took about 30 seconds to think about it and then replied "You
haven't got a snowball's chance in hell."
That was not the reply I had expected. And when I asked how he could be so
sure he replied "Because the turn over rate is 50%".
So while some of us want to make a difference we are faced with the
problem of How?
Larry Mac Donald
lm4@juno.com
Rochester N.Y.
Do not achcive
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: | Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve@adelphia.net>
I think your kind of confirming the original point. No matter how well you
do your job of reporting and getting the facts straight, the editors and
producer's job is to make the story "digestible" to the viewer. How often
have you seen well written and researched stories hacked to pieces to "make
it better".
Usually the only time I've seen stories get published the way they were
written is in the editorial section.....
Just my observations.......steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:28 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
> I think many people have the illusion that the news media is
> some kind
> of public service, or that they have some kind of standard to uphold.
> They don't. TV news is a trick to try to get you to watch the
> commercials - nothing more. If people don't watch, they go out of
> business, so they put on stuff that they think a lot of people will
> watch - nothing more, nothing less.
You've cmbined so many generalities here, Mickey. News media and TV news are
not necessarily the same thing. I agree that TV is pretty ratings based
stuff. I just saw a study that the average amount of time in a newscast
spent on election year issues is 35 seconds. Not good especially in an,
ummm, election year. To the etent they're in the business to make money,
you're right, they're not a public service. They want to make money. Same as
we all do, I guess, but it's illogical for anyone to expect any0one even
here on this board to stop making money to perform some public service for
me.
There used to be a requirement and regulation about news in the electronic
media but that went away in our efforts to deregulate. Good or bad? You
decide.
However there's more to the "news media" than TV news and it's there I
disagree with the sweeping generalization. There are thousands of good
journalists out there who go to work every day to write a factual and
complete story. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail but almost
always they have a sense of duty to tell a story on behalf of the reader.
I missed by kid's 4th birthday (working halfway across the country) and my
20th anniversary (Wellstone crash) for no other reason than to tell the
story. I didn't make any more money from it, my employer didn't make any
more money from it. In fact, my employer didn't even tell me to do it. I'll
certainly hold my work on the Wellstone story (I think the nav beacon was
involved in the disorientation because the FAA/NTSB testing after the flight
showed abnormalities. The government made the pilots fly it until it didn't,
for one thing) up against idiots like Prof. James Fetzer any day)
There are a LOT of journalists with a sense of purpose and mission to
telling the story right. Heck, I ripped my editors and reporters (some of
whom are not senior to me) for ignoring half the stuff I told them Thursday
about where to go on the Cirrus story (Cirrus is based in this state). That
didn't go over well and if I end up losing my job for rocking the boat --
always a possibility -- it's not because I stand to gain personally, but
because I think we do have a duty to report things accurately and fairly.
Does everyone in the business? I'd say not. But are there a ton who do?
Acidentally.
BTW, one of them was Daniel Pearl, who I knew from my time in the Berkshires
when he covered small city government in North Adams. He always had a sense
of duty to the story. It got him killed.
Do not archive.
--
--
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: bill shook <billshook2000@yahoo.com>
> Jeff,
> I will vote for you if you ever decide to run for office! ;-)
Ditto
Bill
__________________________________________________
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: catto 3-blade prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer@mts.net>
> I just received a Catto 3 blade for my IO360. I just had to post a note
> to say it is a beautiful piece of work. If it flies half as good as it
> looks, I'll have a real hot rod on my hands.
I admit the 3 blade looks very cool but I went with the Catto 2 blade for
(theoretically at least) slightly higher cruise efficiency. I have been
running the Catto on my O-320 powered RV-6 for about 12 hours now and I'm
very pleased with the performance. I asked for mine to be pitched for 2700
RPM at 8000', 75% power and it is bang-on. Solo climb is 1500+ fpm, which is
better than any of the Sensenich numbers I have seen.
It came painted to match my aircraft colours and looks superb.I have only
run it in the rain for a hour or so, but the finish shows zero signs of
wear.
It does seem to run slightly rougher than my old wood prop. I'll reserve
judgement until I have it dynamically balanced like the old one.
Delivery was promised to be 2 months; it actually took five. It was worth
the wait but I'm going to keep my old prop as a spare. If I ever ding this
Catto I have no intention of being grounded for 5 months!
Curt
RV-6 C-GACR
470 hours
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: | N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Chuck:
I generally agree with what you've said, but there's something very important
to keep in mind about compromise, with respect to the political process.
Many politicians and government administrators see their role as enabling
compromise between competing factions. One group wants This, another group
wants That, and success lies in finding a combination of This and That that
both groups can live with.
There are two situations where this doesn't work very well. One is when you
have an ongoing campaing to completey curtail something (e.g., a campaign to
shut down an airport). The other is when something is under constant attack
from many directions (e.g., aviation in general). In those kinds of
situations, each "compromise" is another blow in the steady chiseling-away of
liberty.
So, when discussing these things with politicians and administrators, it's very
important to know the history and to stress the "compromises" that have already
been made. It gives them a justification for not asking you to make further
compromises. (Of course, if the politician or administrator has their own
agenda, this won't work, and you're probably talking to the wrong person.
Fortunately, that's not always the case.)
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
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: | Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
//I think your kind of confirming the original point. No matter how well you
do your job of reporting and getting the facts straight, the editors and
producer's job is to make the story "digestible" to the viewer. How often
have you seen well written and researched stories hacked to pieces to "make
it better".
Well, I'm an editor and I can tell you that very few stories should get
published as written. Ideally, however, the process is that of a "team" not
running something up a bureaucracy. The problem I had in my newsroom this
week was exactly the opposite of what you describe. The person with the most
knowledge of aviation was -- and is -- an editor, just not the editor
assigned to this story. The reporter, the editor, and the managing editor
were -- are -- non-pilots and non-educated in the field of aviation issues.
The problem I had this week was that the story that ran DID run as written.
It's the editor's job to make sure the story is "digestible" . I can't speak
for the "viewer," I can only speak for the reader and/or listener as I'm not
in TV "news" (an oxymoron, by the way).
Frankly, as I think I said before, the assumptions that are rampant in the
media toward aviation, born of ignorance more than anything else....are also
on display when aviators talk about the media and what their intent is and
what their processes are. You see the final result...what's on TV and say
"that's good enough for me." That's EXACTLY what the people who saw the
final result in new York city this week said and...voila....the FAA slaps
new restrictions on it.
We think the news media should know more about aviation. But we don't seem
to embrace the concept that aviators should know more about the news media.
In other words: we're committing the same sin we accuse the news media of,
with the same results.
The only logical and reasonable road is to first attempt to understand the
other side, and get the other side to understand you. Nothing else will
work. So the two sides are going to have to work together rather than
folding our arms, saying "you suck" and wondering why they're picking on
general aviation. Where is the evidence that that attitude works?
You know, I see those Rosie the Riveter, World War II posters -- the "We Can
Do It Posters" -- selling like hotcakes at Oshkosh and elsewhere.
Why we don't carry that atittude toward this mission is beyond me. But
we're a different country now than we were in World War II. Let's face it,
we want everything, and want to sacrifice nothing. It'd be great if it were
that easy. It wasn't then; it's not now.
Bob
Do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cirruss Accident question |
Chuck Jensen wrote:
Finally, lest we confuse rights with privilege, we should remind
ourselves that flying is a privilege granted by the majority since it
has been determined, when controlled by rules and regulations, to be
of
minimal harm to the commonweal. We live in a great country because
(for
the most part) most activities are permitted unless they are shown to
be
harmful and detrimental to individuals, groups or society as a whole.
In many other countries, the starting point is everything is
prohibited
unless by birth or gun, one gains the power to do it.
And yet in your own words Chuck, you describe a nation, ours, where
activities are "permitted." The idea that any activity must pass public
review before it's "allowed" is the first step down the slippery slope we as
a nation find ourselves - amid the bureaucracy that rules all our lives
today.
In fact, it is not the "public" that grants us the privilege to fly; it is
the Federal Aviation Administration - whose members aren't elected by
anyone. Indeed, as we all know, the vast "majority" you say granted our
flying privileges hasn't a clue what or how the FAA goes about its
bureaucratic duties.
I don't mean to beat up on you Chuck - this is a societal problem (in my
opinion) that's been developing for decades. The "public" has become so
dependant on its - our - government to tell it when, how, why, where and who
may or may not do what, it's forgotten - in fact fears - what it means to
act and think freely and independently.
I don't believe myself either a purist or realist - I try not to be any
"ist" if possible. But no one with open eyes can fail to see we, as a
nation, HAVE given up rights in the name of security. We HAVE compromised to
feel safer. I ask, safer from what?
The first time we agreed a nameless, baseless, ignorant, seemingly
inarguable fear, a bogeyman, is sound basis to restrict ANY activity, we
gave up the ideal - the very bedrock at the foundation of our nation - of
individual liberty; liberty and freedom to pursue happiness without undue
hassle by people, organizations, agencies and governments over whom we have
no control.
The terrorists who've been attacking this nation for years understand
something very clearly we as a free, comfortable and relatively safe society
seem to have forgotten; once released from the depths of ignorant
imagination, irrational fear is a powerful motivator. One feels motivated to
do. something. anything. the classic fight or flight response. Our military
efforts in the Middle East notwithstanding, I say we here at home have
chosen to run away and hide. Rather than stand up, face our fears and
acknowledge we can't protect everyone all the time, we are trying to do just
that.
It's a hard habit to break. and one our government has engaged in for a long
time. Helmet laws. seatbelt laws. any law you can think of that protects you
from yourself is indicative of the problem. To argue against any "safety"
law seems crazy and "out there," but I would love to've been there had
someone told General George Washington, one of the best horsemen of his
time, he had to wear a helmet while galloping over the hills and thru the
dales on one of his beloved fox hunts. What's changed between now and then?
Can we not allow people to choose their own level of risk?
I don't argue there should be no restriction on activities that could result
in harm to another; automobiles, tractor-trailers, boats, airplanes - they
all have the potential to harm others not involved in their operation. But I
say before we started writing laws we already had a system in place to deal
with those situations where an operator might have acted negligently. the
courts. The courts forced each and every one of us to exercise the
RESPONSIBILITY inherent in our FREEDOM to restrict our own activities.
Our focus as a nation has changed though. Instead of allowing the pursuit of
happiness and using the courts to punish those who act stupidly and
negligently, we seek to restrict "dangerous" activity BEFORE any one is
injured in the name of SAFETY. And this despite the fact that aircraft,
boats, automobiles and even the three-wheeled ATVs now banned in our country
can all be operated with relatively low risk to others - even if the risk is
high the operator - so long as the operator understands his or her
responsibility. Instead, we now count on the government to protect us. When
something goes wrong, it's someone else's fault - and now the courts are
relegated to determining if the manufacturer of a product or device
successfully deduced, in advance, every possible asinine and irresponsible
way its product might be used. It's called Tort. Why do we do this?
Ask yourself, should you have to accept restrictions on your legitimate
activities because of someone else's irrational fear? I'm with George
(Washington that is), it's ludicrous. sad, ludicrous and very Orwellian.
The Declaration of Independence claimed, among other things, that people
should be allowed to go about their lives unencumbered with restrictions
imposed by a non-representative government - can you say FAA? It also says:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness."
Why do we allow the FAA - or any other non-elected government institution -
to dole out "privileges" that our forefathers considered inalienable rights?
Because we, as a society (no offense to your Mr Jensen) are afraid. afraid
of our birthright. Afraid of "unrestricted freedom." The largesse of our
hard-working forefathers has allowed us to become ignorant, lazy and
apathetic - much like sheep protected from the wolves by the shepherd.
A free, law-abiding society can never be truly ruled by any government.
Those in power know this. A government's only power over its people is the
power to punish. Bureaucrats know this instinctively. They know the only way
they'll have the power to punish is to make laws that are punishable. So
maybe not on purpose, maybe not by design, but over a slow evolution, our
government continues to make laws, regulations, rules and restrictions and
creates a nation of punishable criminals. Can we remember them all?
Remember, ignorance of the law isn't a proper defense. Can you say IRS? And
what about the laws we disregard on a regular basis? How many of you exceed
the speed limit? Use twice the recommended fertilizer on the lawn? Take
twice the dosage of Motrin when you have a particularly bad headache?
How much do we compromise before we say enough?
Please accept this as a criticism of society as a whole and not a tirade
against you personally Chuck. Your comment sparked a deeply held personal
belief that we as a nation have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the line.
If we're to get back on track we'll have to act soon because I fear the
point of no return is fast approaching.
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com <http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com/>
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: Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
This new political group is great, just to bad it is listed as an RV-List.
Jerry
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: | RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
Bob,
At last a place where I can contribute! I was a 475 hour (4
year) pilot when I purchased my first RV (RV-4). I was also an 8 hour
tail dragger certified pilot (Citabria). While ultimately the TD was not
for me as I use my RV for commuting in all conditions the RV's are the
easiest planes I have ever flown. I am also the current owner of a Turbo
Lance II (School bus) and a D-35 Bonanza (business partner flies this)
plus in my time I have also owned two other Cherokees (very little
Cessna time as I don't like the high wing).
Ultimately I sold the -4 and purchased a beautiful 6A. The biggest
challenge for me transitioning from the -4 to the 6A was going from
right hand on the stick to left hand on the stick. That was an eye
opener the first couple of trips around the patch. Now with 125 hours in
my 6A I can honestly say that it is the easiest plane I have ever flown
and especially easy to land. IMHO it is very easy to slow down when
entering the pattern and keeping your eye on the numbers will prevent
you from ever getting close to stalling in the pattern. In my 6A I trim
full up on final again watching my speed and I am able to land it on the
mains every time holding off the nose for about as long as I want. I try
to touch down the sissy wheel as lightly as I can just for my own
satisfaction. I am extremely far from ever damaging the front gear.
I mention this easy of landing as my Turbo Lance II does not have nearly
the elevator authority as an RV and is much more difficult to land
softly. Plus I gobble up about 4 times the runway.
Finally I am based in SBP, if VBG is Vandeburg we are neighbors and I
would be happy to give you a ride. My typical commute is SBP to BUR
flying just north of VBG. In fact I will be returning to SBP this
Tuesday if you want me to stop by for a ride. You will have to bring
your own headset as my primary set is in for servicing but that is
another post...
Side note, last week I flew from San Luis Obispo to Monterey at 6,500'.
GPS had me at 199 Kts. Wahoooo!
Robin
Robin@MrMoisture.com
RV-4 Sold
RV-6A 300 Hours
RV-10 in Pieces
RV-8A Dreaming
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !!
I've never said RVs are harder to fly. I don't know. I've ridden in one
once.
But I'm in the Richard L. Collins camp. The machine isn't the issue for
me. It's the driver. when I talk about how *I* consider the New York
accident to re-examine whether *I'm* a good enough pilot to pilot an RV,
that isn't saying anything about the RV. It's saying something about
*me.* Can I keep ahead of the plane? How much training will it take? I
don't know, but I take as 100% gospel, the reports of RV drivers about
what a good plane it is. If only some of you would drop down and give me
some stick time I'd know for sure. (vbg)
I'm not scared of flying an RV. I'm merely evaluating my present
proficiency as a pilot. Obviously, YMMV and I sure hope it does. (g)
Bob
Do not archive
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: catto 3-blade prop |
In a message dated 10/13/2006 10:40:54 PM Central Daylight Time, rv6@cox.net
writes:
I have a 3-blade Catto on my 0-320(150hp) RV6.
>>>
Howdy Jerry- what did he pitch your prop at? He labelled mine a 66x66 and it
will turn 2850 down low (2500')- I usually see about 2200 static and on
initial climb-out.
Mark E3D 150hp -6A, 360 hours
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cirruss Accident question |
Mark Sletten wrote:
Chuck Jensen wrote:
Finally, lest we confuse rights with privilege, we should remind
ourselves that flying is a privilege granted by the majority since
it
has been determined, when controlled by rules and regulations, to
be of
minimal harm to the commonweal. We live in a great country
because (for
the most part) most activities are permitted unless they are shown
to be
harmful and detrimental to individuals, groups or society as a
whole.
In many other countries, the starting point is everything is
prohibited
unless by birth or gun, one gains the power to do it.
And yet in your own words Chuck, you describe a nation, ours, where
activities are "permitted." The idea that any activity must pass public
review before it's "allowed" is the first step down the slippery slope
we as a nation find ourselves - amid the bureaucracy that rules all our
lives today.
In fact, it is not the "public" that grants us the privilege to fly; it
is the Federal Aviation Administration - whose members aren't elected by
anyone. Indeed, as we all know, the vast "majority" you say granted our
flying privileges hasn't a clue what or how the FAA goes about its
bureaucratic duties.
The FAA is not 'elected' but they are appointed by elected officials
which is consistent with virtually every branch of government and must
be so. There are millions of federal government employees, yet a few
hundred, at most, are actually elected. These elected individuals are
to speak and act on our behalf, so the FAA is not directly elected, but
they draw their power and authority from the elected officials that are
elected, so the FAA isn't illegitimate any more than the local medical
examiner, high school principal, head of your state highway commission
or the head of Homeland Security.
I don't mean to beat up on you Chuck - this is a societal problem (in my
opinion) that's been developing for decades. The "public" has become so
dependant on its - our - government to tell it when, how, why, where and
who may or may not do what, it's forgotten - in fact fears - what it
means to act and think freely and independently.
People may be blinded by beliefs and strongly held beliefs that are not
always based on fact, but I don't know that fear is causing people to
speak out. I've not noticed any reticence on this forum. You and I can
speak unkindly of the FAA without fear of a knock on the door (....for
the most part).
I don't believe myself either a purist or realist - I try not to be any
"ist" if possible. But no one with open eyes can fail to see we, as a
nation, HAVE given up rights in the name of security. We HAVE
compromised to feel safer. I ask, safer from what?
The first time we agreed a nameless, baseless, ignorant, seemingly
inarguable fear, a bogeyman, is sound basis to restrict ANY activity, we
gave up the ideal - the very bedrock at the foundation of our nation -
of individual liberty; liberty and freedom to pursue happiness without
undue hassle by people, organizations, agencies and governments over
whom we have no control.
The terrorists who've been attacking this nation for years understand
something very clearly we as a free, comfortable and relatively safe
society seem to have forgotten; once released from the depths of
ignorant imagination, irrational fear is a powerful motivator. One feels
motivated to do... something... anything... the classic fight or flight
response. Our military efforts in the Middle East notwithstanding, I say
we here at home have chosen to run away and hide. Rather than stand up,
face our fears and acknowledge we can't protect everyone all the time,
we are trying to do just that.
Without commenting on those making spurious claims of having 'made us
safe since 9/11', I believe the real reason for our safety is that very
openness and freedom of our society that makes penetrating and operating
in our society very difficult for those with bad intentions. After
9/11, I was concerned that our wide ranging freedoms would enable
terrorist to treat us like setting pigeons. Instead, our tolerance,
inclusiveness and receptiveness to new ideas and thoughts have left few
small, isolated islands from which ideologs can operate without
discovery. I can safely assure you that Homeland Security and the
billions of dollars frittered away in its name is not what has made us
safe....WE are what has made us safe. Yes, someday attach(s) will
occur, but they will be news because of their infrequency.
It's a hard habit to break... and one our government has engaged in for
a long time. Helmet laws... seatbelt laws... any law you can think of
that protects you from yourself is indicative of the problem. To argue
against any "safety" law seems crazy and "out there," but I would love
to've been there had someone told General George Washington, one of the
best horsemen of his time, he had to wear a helmet while galloping over
the hills and thru the dales on one of his beloved fox hunts. What's
changed between now and then? Can we not allow people to choose their
own level of risk?
Ah, yes, the helmet laws. The arguments are rampant about and
individuals right to go ride a motorcycle, an estimably dangerous
activity, without infringement on ones freedom by having to wear a
helmet. The second round of the argument is 'if I want to scramble my
brains is an accident, its my business." The problem is, it's not just
YOUR business. When inarguable statistics show that the number and
severity of head injuries escalate when helmets are not worn, then it
becomes societies problem. The same statistics show that a relatively
high fraction of motorcyclists that don't wear helmets also don't carry
insurance, so when one's brains are scrambled, it is left to society to
pick up the tab for hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars of
medical costs for vegetable care. At that point, society/government
gains a right, even obligation to say, 'if you are going to ride a
motorcycle, known to be dangerous and cause serious head injuries, then
you must wear a helmet that will mitigate, if not prevent such
injuries.' And, even if the cyclist does have insurance to cover his
medical costs, by not wearing a helmet (a minor infringement) and
increasing the cost of his post-accident care, then he causes my
premiums to increase. So, when an individual asserts a right to not
have to wear a helmet, I would like to know what he is going to do to
protect my rights to not have to pay for his extra medical costs? I'm
not interested in banning motorcycles, so the compromise I'm willing to
make is, if you'll wear a helmet required by law, I'll help pay for
care. In the interest of full disclosure, I've owned three motorcycles.
I enjoyed the heck out of them but with the wisdom gained with age, came
to the conclusion that the pleasure gain did not compensate for the
risk--in other words, I became a chicken.
I don't argue there should be no restriction on activities that could
result in harm to another; automobiles, tractor-trailers, boats,
airplanes - they all have the potential to harm others not involved in
their operation. But I say before we started writing laws we already had
a system in place to deal with those situations where an operator might
have acted negligently... the courts. The courts forced each and every
one of us to exercise the RESPONSIBILITY inherent in our FREEDOM to
restrict our own activities.
Our focus as a nation has changed though. Instead of allowing the
pursuit of happiness and using the courts to punish those who act
stupidly and negligently, we seek to restrict "dangerous" activity
BEFORE any one is injured in the name of SAFETY. And this despite the
fact that aircraft, boats, automobiles and even the three-wheeled ATVs
now banned in our country can all be operated with relatively low risk
to others - even if the risk is high the operator - so long as the
operator understands his or her responsibility. Instead, we now count on
the government to protect us. When something goes wrong, it's someone
else's fault - and now the courts are relegated to determining if the
manufacturer of a product or device successfully deduced, in advance,
every possible asinine and irresponsible way its product might be used.
It's called Tort. Why do we do this?
In most instances, restricting activities before one is injured is based
on an established pattern that those who have have already engaged in
that activity were often injured. This is the well accepted safety
measure of learning from other's mistakes so we don't have to repeat
them. This is a prized behavior in the individual (and why we take
extensive pilot training and read articles like "Never Again")--there is
no reason that government shouldn't exhibit the same behavior wherein
they discourage people from engaging in unnecessarily dangerous
behavior.
Ask yourself, should you have to accept restrictions on your legitimate
activities because of someone else's irrational fear? I'm with George
(Washington that is), it's ludicrous... sad, ludicrous and very
Orwellian.
The Declaration of Independence claimed, among other things, that people
should be allowed to go about their lives unencumbered with restrictions
imposed by a non-representative government - can you say FAA? It also
says: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
Yes, but as discussed, FAA is representative government, even if they
don't always represent us in the fashion we think reasonable. As far as
altering or abolishing government when it becomes destructive, that
system is already in place....it's called elections. Just because
elections don't always come out the way that we think they should,
doesn't mean that they don't work. My election finger is already itchy
and the 7th is still three weeks away!
Why do we allow the FAA - or any other non-elected government
institution - to dole out "privileges" that our forefathers considered
inalienable rights? Because we, as a society (no offense to your Mr
Jensen) are afraid... afraid of our birthright. Afraid of "unrestricted
freedom." The largesse of our hard-working forefathers has allowed us to
become ignorant, lazy and apathetic - much like sheep protected from the
wolves by the shepherd.
Mark, you can be sure that I'm not offended. There are probably times I
should be, but I'm not. The exchange of ideas and perspectives are
never offending. Nor am I afraid of 'unrestricted freedom', though I
have great reservations about other exercising their birthright,
especially if owning a car, driving it, operating it in a wild manner
and driving 85 mph through a school zone (all restricted by government)
is considered one of those birthrights. Where does birthright and
unrestricted freedom end and common sense and responsibility
begin...that is what each individual and our government has to
continually sort out. It's never easy and never ending, but claims of
unlimited, unrestricted rights are unworkable--very attractive to the
ear, but somewhat less attractive if put to practice.
A free, law-abiding society can never be truly ruled by any government.
Those in power know this. A government's only power over its people is
the power to punish. Bureaucrats know this instinctively. They know the
only way they'll have the power to punish is to make laws that are
punishable. So maybe not on purpose, maybe not by design, but over a
slow evolution, our government continues to make laws, regulations,
rules and restrictions and creates a nation of punishable criminals. Can
we remember them all? Remember, ignorance of the law isn't a proper
defense. Can you say IRS? And what about the laws we disregard on a
regular basis? How many of you exceed the speed limit? Use twice the
recommended fertilizer on the lawn? Take twice the dosage of Motrin when
you have a particularly bad headache?
Your reference to a 'law abiding society can never be ruled by
government' is an interesting observation, particularly so when it was
the Government that made the laws that are abided by in the first place.
Rhetorically, how can we be free is we are abiding by the laws made by
government? Are not those laws abridging our freedom? In short, the
answer is yes, but it is a necessary compromise for an ordered, safe,
free society. Government just happens to be the arbiter in the middle
of all of our individual rights.
How much do we compromise before we say enough?
We compromise by allowing an ineffectual ADIZ around DC, but we say
'enough' when they try to make it permanent, knowing that future change
of something that is temporary is always possible, but once
permanent....well it's permanent, so that's when we through down the
gauntlet.
Please accept this as a criticism of society as a whole and not a tirade
against you personally Chuck. Your comment sparked a deeply held
personal belief that we as a nation have taken a wrong turn somewhere
along the line. If we're to get back on track we'll have to act soon
because I fear the point of no return is fast approaching.
Mark, no personal criticism perceived. I share your concern that some
wrong turns have been taken and I intend to grab the steering wheel on
the 7th, but the greatness of this country is we are constantly turning.
Despite continual predictions of our imminent 'going to hell in a hand
basket', we still seem to be doing pretty well, at least in comparisons
to most others.
Despite the viewpoints I've espoused, please know that I am NOT a fan of
government..big, small or otherwise. I simply view it as a necessary
evil that requires constant monitoring to see that it does it's job
properly. As a recent comedic movie trailer states, 'politicians are
like baby diapers...they both need to be changed regularly...and for the
same reason.'
Chuck Jensen
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com <http://www.legacyfgbuilder.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: | Re: catto 3-blade prop |
I bought this Catto prop from another RV'er who had it on a 160hp 0-320
and it is pitched at 64x70.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop
In a message dated 10/13/2006 10:40:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
rv6@cox.net writes:
I have a 3-blade Catto on my 0-320(150hp) RV6.
>>>
Howdy Jerry- what did he pitch your prop at? He labelled mine a 66x66
and it will turn 2850 down low (2500')- I usually see about 2200 static
and on initial climb-out.
Mark E3D 150hp -6A, 360 hours
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
I'm looking for a video camera to mount on my airplane. This one is for sale
at a local motorcycle shop, and looks like a good choice.
http://www.twenty20camera.com/motorcyclecamera.php
I'm interested in hearing from anyone with experience doing this sort of thing.
Is this a good choice of camera, or are there better options? This camera has
a resolution of 400 lines, which sounds reasonable for NTSC video, but that's
purely a layman's opinion. Am I going to get "TV quality" video from this
camera?
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
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: Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: Steve <steve@theagile.net>
Jerry Springer wrote:
>This new political group is great, just to bad it is listed as an RV-List.
>
>Jerry
I was just thinking about joining a politico list -- maybe they'd
actually have something about RV there. :-)
Steve
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: | RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
Wow. Fabulous assessment Robin. but, sorry, VBG actually stood for "very
big grin." You need to move to Minnesota. (vbg) :*)
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !!
Bob,
At last a place where I can contribute! I was a 475 hour (4
year) pilot when I purchased my first RV (RV-4). I was also an 8 hour tail
dragger certified pilot (Citabria). While ultimately the TD was not for me
as I use my RV for commuting in all conditions the RV's are the easiest
planes I have ever flown. I am also the current owner of a Turbo Lance II
(School bus) and a D-35 Bonanza (business partner flies this) plus in my
time I have also owned two other Cherokees (very little Cessna time as I
don't like the high wing).
Ultimately I sold the -4 and purchased a beautiful 6A. The biggest challenge
for me transitioning from the -4 to the 6A was going from right hand on the
stick to left hand on the stick. That was an eye opener the first couple of
trips around the patch. Now with 125 hours in my 6A I can honestly say that
it is the easiest plane I have ever flown and especially easy to land. IMHO
it is very easy to slow down when entering the pattern and keeping your eye
on the numbers will prevent you from ever getting close to stalling in the
pattern. In my 6A I trim full up on final again watching my speed and I am
able to land it on the mains every time holding off the nose for about as
long as I want. I try to touch down the sissy wheel as lightly as I can just
for my own satisfaction. I am extremely far from ever damaging the front
gear.
I mention this easy of landing as my Turbo Lance II does not have nearly the
elevator authority as an RV and is much more difficult to land softly. Plus
I gobble up about 4 times the runway.
Finally I am based in SBP, if VBG is Vandeburg we are neighbors and I would
be happy to give you a ride. My typical commute is SBP to BUR flying just
north of VBG. In fact I will be returning to SBP this Tuesday if you want me
to stop by for a ride. You will have to bring your own headset as my primary
set is in for servicing but that is another post.
Side note, last week I flew from San Luis Obispo to Monterey at 6,500'. GPS
had me at 199 Kts. Wahoooo!
Robin
Robin@MrMoisture.com
RV-4 Sold
RV-6A 300 Hours
RV-10 in Pieces
RV-8A Dreaming
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !!
I've never said RVs are harder to fly. I don't know. I've ridden in one
once.
But I'm in the Richard L. Collins camp. The machine isn't the issue for me.
It's the driver. when I talk about how *I* consider the New York accident to
re-examine whether *I'm* a good enough pilot to pilot an RV, that isn't
saying anything about the RV. It's saying something about *me.* Can I keep
ahead of the plane? How much training will it take? I don't know, but I
take as 100% gospel, the reports of RV drivers about what a good plane it
is. If only some of you would drop down and give me some stick time I'd know
for sure. (vbg)
I'm not scared of flying an RV. I'm merely evaluating my present
proficiency as a pilot. Obviously, YMMV and I sure hope it does. (g)
Bob
Do not archive
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: | Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Also reported with to be "controlled with a Joystick instead of conventional
steering wheel,..... ".
Bill S
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:16 PM
Subject: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
I have listened to the news reports and am amazed how many times I heard
that the "engineS were running" or the "propellerS" have been located & are
being sent for further examination. There were not multiple engines or
propellers but on the third day after the accident I again saw an info babe
babbling on about something to which she has no knowledge or understanding.
Passing on misinformation from a misinformed source. Do Not Archive these
soapbox ravings. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists
,
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 |
|
I am selling my RV-7 due to a divorce settlement.=0AThe specifics are liste
d below.=0AI will gladly answer any questions anyone may have.=0AI bought t
his kit new in Dec 2002 and have almost completed it.=0AThis is a Quick Bui
ld RV-7 taildragger with a slider canopy.=0AIt includes ALL Van's kits part
s (emp,fuse, wing, and finish) as well as much more.=0AThe cowl is for a st
andard 150-180 hp Lyc.=0AI do not have an engine, accessories, or prop.=0A
Info on my plane:=0ARV-7 w/ slider = QB complete with all kit parts=0ABu
ild Status: Ready for engine/prop/ panel / canopy install=0AEquipment / Av
ionics: (Will permit IFR flight with 3 times redundancy!)=0A- Fuel tank fl
op tubes for inverted flight=0A- Strobes=0A- 2 axis Auto-Pilot W/ Vertical
Speed Hold & GPS Track (servos installed)=0A- Blue Mountain Avionics EFIS
=0A- RMI Engine Monitor=0A- RMI Encoder w/independent compass system=0A- Dy
non EFIS=0A- Dual Pitot static systems=0A- Landing light=0A- Taxi Light=0A-
Electric Aileron and Elevator Trim=0A- Custom stick grips enable trim, aut
o-pilot, and nav control=0A- Electric Flaps=0A- EMI Fuel Monitor System=0A-
Wingtip comm./nav antennas=0A- Aviation grade wiring installed=0AI am a pr
ofessional pilot (USAF) and was building this for myself.=0AThe build quali
ty is EXCELLENT.=0AOver $60K invested (not including any build time).=0AI w
ill sell for $45K cash (no trades or notes).=0AInterested persons may conta
ct me directly at the following email:=0A jrlewismail-rv@yahoo.com
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: catto 3-blade prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
Curt:
I think you have the right prop. Craig recommends the 3-blade for
the O-360 because it has better harmonics than the 2-blade - on the
O-360. On the O-320 the 2-blade's harmonics are just fine. If I had an
O-320, I'd have gotten the 2-blade also. (It's significantly cheaper!)
Curt Reimer wrote:
> I admit the 3 blade looks very cool but I went with the Catto 2 blade
> for (theoretically at least) slightly higher cruise efficiency. I have
> been running the Catto on my O-320 powered RV-6 for about 12 hours now
> and I'm very pleased with the performance. I asked for mine to be
> pitched for 2700 RPM at 8000', 75% power and it is bang-on. Solo climb
> is 1500+ fpm, which is better than any of the Sensenich numbers I have
> seen.
>
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: | Thanks and seeya later.... |
Thanks to all who gave me feedback on list and off about the ram air que
stion. Also all the RV-10 guys who contacted me either directly or to my
website enquiring about my V-8 for experimentals hang tight for a few m
ore weeks till I get a handle on the possibilities of having a firewall
forward kit available for the RV-10 this year.
Thanks again and of course do not archive this shameless plug. <G>
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Tedd-
Wow, what perfectly eloquent and succinct response! Well done!
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> Jerry:
>
> > I'd like to start a thread here and have folks weigh in on the
subject.
>
> I'll take you up on that.
>
> I think the myth that RVs are difficult to fly is a little like the
taildragger
> myth in that pilots who have little or no experience with both types f
ret
about
> them while pilots who regularly fly them can't understand what the big
deal is.
>
> But the RV myth differs in that, while a pilot new to taildraggers doe
s
have to
> learn a couple of new things to fly them, someone transitioning from,
say, a
> C-172 to an RV doesn't have to learn anything new. It's possible that
he'll
> have to be a bit more careful to do the things he should be doing in h
is
Cessna
> (but might have got lax about). But he doesn't have to learn anything
new.
>
> I suspect another factor leading to the RV myth is that so many privat
e
pilots
> have a background in a handful of airplanes that are designed to handl
e a
> certain way (C-150/172, Cherokee), and RVs handle differently. I chec
ked
out
> in a C-172 long after I started flying RVs, and I found it much more
difficult
> to learn than the RV. So I suspect it's the CHANGE that people find
difficult,
> not the airplane. But, as a result of demographics, that change is fa
r
more
> likely to be Cessna-to-RV than the other way around.
>
> Finally, there's the effect of manoeuvrability. Any vehicle that has
quicker
> transient response and more sensitive controls is EASIER than a
> lower-performance vehicle once you've adjusted to it. But it's also
HARDER to
> go up the performance chain than to stay where you are (or go down).
>
> ---
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC, Canada
>
>
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
<html><P>Thanks to all who gave me feedback on list and off about the ra
m air question. Also all the RV-10 guys who contacted me either dir
ectly or to my website enquiring about my V-8 for experimentals han
g tight for a few more weeks till I get a handle on the possibilities of
having a firewall forward kit available for the RV-10 this year.&n
bsp; </P>
<P>Thanks again and of course do not archive this shameless plug. &
lt;G><BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair.com<BR><
BR>-- "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>&nbs
p;wrote:<BR>--> RV-List message posted by: "
glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net><BR><BR>Hi
Tedd-<BR><BR>Wow, what perfectly eloquent and s
uccinct response! Well done!<BR><BR><BR>> -
-> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHe
nry <tedd@vansairforce.org><BR>><BR>> Jerry:<BR>&g
t;<BR>> > I'd like to start a t
hread here and have folks weigh in&n
bsp; on the<BR>subject.<BR>><BR>> I'll take&nb
sp;you up on that.<BR>><BR>> I think 
;the myth that RVs are difficult to f
ly is a little like the<BR>taildragger<BR>>&
nbsp;myth in that pilots who have little&n
bsp;or no experience with both types fret<
BR>about<BR>> them while pilots who regularl
y fly them can't understand what the
big<BR>deal is.<BR>><BR>> But the RV myth
differs in that, while a pilot new&n
bsp;to taildraggers does<BR>have to<BR>> learn&nb
sp;a couple of new things to fly them
, someone transitioning from,<BR>say, a<BR>> 
;C-172 to an RV doesn't have to learn
anything new. It's possible that<BR>he'l
l<BR>> have to be a bit more caref
ul to do the things he should be 
;doing in his<BR>Cessna<BR>> (but might have
got lax about). But he doesn't 
;have to learn anything<BR>new.<BR>><BR>> I&nb
sp;suspect another factor leading to the R
V myth is that so many private<BR>pilots<B
R>> have a background in a handful 
;of airplanes that are designed to handle&
nbsp;a<BR>> certain way (C-150/172, Cherokee),&nb
sp;and RVs handle differently. I checked<
BR>out<BR>> in a C-172 long after I&nbs
p;started flying RVs, and I found it
much more<BR>difficult<BR>> to learn than th
e RV. So I suspect it's the CHA
NGE that people find<BR>difficult,<BR>> not
the airplane. But, as a result of&nb
sp;demographics, that change is far<BR>more<BR>>&
nbsp;likely to be Cessna-to-RV than the ot
her way around.<BR>><BR>> Finally, there's&nbs
p;the effect of manoeuvrability. Any vehi
cle that has<BR>quicker<BR>> transient response&n
bsp;and more sensitive controls is EASIER
than a<BR>> lower-performance vehicle once y
ou've adjusted to it. But it's also<
BR>HARDER to<BR>> go up the performance 
;chain than to stay where you are (or
go down).<BR>><BR>> ---<BR>><BR>> Tedd&
nbsp;McHenry<BR>> Surrey, BC, Canada<BR>><BR>><B
========================
========================
- The RV-List Email Fo
;List utilities such as the Subscriptions
========================
========================
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FO
========================
========================
sp; - NEW MATRONICS LI
========================
========================
- List Contribution Web Site
p; &nbs
p; -Matt 
========================
========================
=<BR><BR><BR><BR></P>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Cirruss Accident question |
Excellent discussion of the issue of regulation, Mark. You may be familiar
with a book with a title that escapes me at the moment, written by an
economist maybe eight or ten years ago, that demonstrated that product
safety evolved much faster in the absence of regulations than it does when
we have such things as helmet, seatbelt, smoke detector and various other
laws to protect us from our own ignorance (or worse). Certainly we can see
it in certified vs. experimental aviation, but it applies across the board -
food, housing, drugs, and all the other areas where a regulated economy
freezes innovation at the last (hopefully) good idea before the bureaucracy
decided to save us from ourselves. The flaw in their argument that is fatal
to the great innovations that we will never see is that we are as reckless,
ignorant, or just plain stupid as they are, or more generously, as they
think we are.
But be aware that there are some on this list that some on this list that
think plastic airplanes ought to be outlawed. (Just kidding..I hope!)
Terry
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: Cirrus & journalists |
In a message dated 10/15/2006 11:09:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jsflyrv@verizon.net writes:
This new political group is great, just to bad it is listed as an RV-List.
================================================
Well... we've been the religious fervor list before and we recovered from
that, so I guess we'll leave the political science (an oxymoron if I ever heard
one) thread behind in November. ;o)
Do not archive.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 811hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
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: | RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Forget about all this stuff. Just go fly an RV. If I can
do it most others can as well with reasonable time in
type.
Ron Lee
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: | RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
I'm thinking of organizing a national RV Builder's Motivation Day, and mate
builders with willing "former" builders (aka: RV pilots). Think that's
something folks would support?
Bob
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:27 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !!
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Forget about all this stuff. Just go fly an RV. If I can
do it most others can as well with reasonable time in type.
Ron Lee
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: Video Camera |
--> RV-List message posted by: David Karlsberg <claypride@hotmail.com>
NTSC has 480 lines of resolution. Most of the cameras these days are
recording higher than that. Also... Those little CMOS sensors aren't the
best. Won't be broadcast quality but may work for your needs. Also don't
forget you will need to buy another video camera (or deck) to use as a
recorder.
On 10/15/06 12:08 PM, "Tedd McHenry" <tedd@vansairforce.org> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> I'm looking for a video camera to mount on my airplane. This one is for sale
> at a local motorcycle shop, and looks like a good choice.
>
> http://www.twenty20camera.com/motorcyclecamera.php
>
> I'm interested in hearing from anyone with experience doing this sort of
> thing.
> Is this a good choice of camera, or are there better options? This camera has
> a resolution of 400 lines, which sounds reasonable for NTSC video, but that's
> purely a layman's opinion. Am I going to get "TV quality" video from this
> camera?
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC, Canada
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Video Camera |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <3edcft6@cox.net>
Tedd McHenry wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> I'm looking for a video camera to mount on my airplane. This one is for sale
> at a local motorcycle shop, and looks like a good choice.
>
> http://www.twenty20camera.com/motorcyclecamera.php
>
> I'm interested in hearing from anyone with experience doing this sort of thing.
> Is this a good choice of camera, or are there better options? This camera has
> a resolution of 400 lines, which sounds reasonable for NTSC video, but that's
> purely a layman's opinion. Am I going to get "TV quality" video from this
> camera?
>
Seems like a bit of a rip off to me. It is basically what the security
camera people call a bullet camera. They also include a mount, a
voltage regulator, and a microphone. You can get an line level output
mic for only $10. Since you already have an intercom in the plane, I
don't know why you would want one. You can make a voltage regulator for
a few dollars. Last but not least you can get just as good or better
camera for around $150 or less. If you don't want to bother with a
regulator for the plane, just use an 8 cell battery pack. AA NiMh or
NiCd will both last plenty long. The cameras normally come with a
mount, but it probably wouldn't hold up under the vibration in the
plane, it would be best to make your own.
You can get these cameras in a lot of places just be sure you are
getting a good one. As that site you linked to points out there are
some pretty crappy cameras out there. I recommend looking for one with
the Sony EX view electronics in it. They have 480 lines Color or 600
for the B&W versions. Just google for bullet camera and Sony EX view.
Should find a lot. You can get them in a wide range of lens sizes too.
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"
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: | Trim control module flap switch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
I purchased a trim control module from F1 Rocket Boy because I'd heard that
electric elevator trim on RVs was too sensitive in the pattern and not
sensitive enough in cruise (or is it vice versa). In any case, if you
install a switch that is actuated by the flaps, then the unit will
automatically change the trim motor speed to match aircraft configuration.
Since I have manual flaps on my RV-6 this may fall on deaf ears (seems like
everyone has electric flaps in the RV world) but I'll ask it anyway.
If you have one of these trim rate changers and you utilized some sort of
switch that is actuated by the lowering the flaps how did you set it up?
Did you set it up to activate the switch when the flaps were fully extended
or only partially? How and where did you mount the switch? Any info would
be appreciated. Those that installed and AOA system from Advanced Flight
Systems (formerly Proprietary Software Systems) have to do the same thing
with their flap actuated switch so you folks with this AOA may also be able
to help me here (same criteria apply for mounting the AOA flap actuated
switch as the trim changer). Any photos and guidance on the install would
be much appreciated. Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Down to that last 1% of the 90% to-go and very excited about 1st flight.
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! --
|