Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:12 AM - If You Got This Email, You Haven't Made A Contribution Yet! :-) (Matt Dralle)
1. 09:29 PM - Clarification On New Contribution Module Operation... (Matt Dralle)
2. 02:23 AM - Re: MDRA rule change (Jim Jewell)
3. 05:43 AM - Re: MDRA rule change (khorton01@rogers.com)
4. 06:24 AM - Digital Photo Re-sizer (JAMES MCCHESNEY)
5. 06:42 AM - Re: Digital Photo Re-sizer (Ken Arnold)
6. 06:49 AM - Re: Digital Photo Re-sizer (Jeff Dowling)
7. 06:59 AM - Re: Digital Photo Re-sizer (Bruce Gray)
8. 07:22 AM - Re: Digital Photo Re-sizer (Tim Olson)
9. 07:44 AM - Re: Digital Photo Re-sizer (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
10. 08:18 AM - Re: Digital Photo Re-sizer (Patrick Kelley)
11. 08:50 AM - Re: MDRA rule change (Hans Conser)
12. 09:10 AM - Gross weight -- change to more OR less? (Mark Frederick)
13. 09:25 AM - Todd's Canopies (Dave Mader)
14. 09:27 AM - Re: Digital Photo Re-sizer (John Danielson)
15. 10:11 AM - Re: Todd's Canopies (Bob J.)
16. 10:29 AM - Re: Digital Photo Re-sizer (Rob Prior (rv7))
17. 11:21 AM - Re: Gross weight -- change to more OR less? (Rob Prior (rv7))
18. 02:21 PM - Re: Todd's Canopies (Darrell Reiley)
19. 06:07 PM - Compression Test (Richard Dudley)
20. 06:53 PM - Re: Re: Flush Latch Source ? (Bill Schlatterer)
21. 06:58 PM - Re: Compression Test (Kelly McMullen)
Message 0
| 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: | If You Got This Email, You Haven't Made A Contribution Yet! :-) |
If you received this particular Matronics List Email message, its because you haven't
yet made a Contribution to support your Lists! This is the first PBS-like
funds drive message under the new distribution system. The new system selectively
sends out the Contribution messages ONLY to those that forgot to whip
out the 'ol credit card this year to support the continued operation and upgrade
of the Matronics Email Lists! Don't you wish PBS worked that way? :-)
You heard that right. Once you make your Contribution, these support requests
messages during November will suddenly stop coming to your personal email inbox!
Pardon me if I seem kind of excited about the new feature. I've wanted to
implement something like this for a number of years now, but it was always such
a daunting task to modify the back-end List processing code, that I just kept
putting it off. Finally this year, I just decided to bite the bullet and put
the code-pounding time it to make it work. A few days later, bam! A working
system!
Anyway, I'll stop gushing now. I really do appreciate each and every one of your
individual Contributions to support the Lists. It is your support that enables
me to upgrade the hardware and software that are required to run a List Site
like this. It also goes to pay for the Commercial-Grade Internet connection
and to pay the rather huge electric bill to keep the computer gear running
and the air conditioner powered up.
Your personal Contribution matters because when combined with other Listers such
as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running. I accept exactly
ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites. I can't stand
the pop-up ads and all other commercialism that is so prevalent on the Internet
these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List site.
I'm pretty sure you don't either.
If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email
Lists, please make a Contribution today to keep it that way!!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: | Clarification On New Contribution Module Operation... |
Dear Listers,
A number of Listers emailed and indicated that, even though they had made a Contribution
this year, they still received the Contribution message yesterday.
I looked into it and I found a slight anomaly (ok, bug) in the new code specifically
as it related to Listers that had made their Contribution through PayPal
AND have a DIFFERENT email address for their PayPal account and for their Matronics
List subscription.
If your PayPal account email address is DIFFERENT than the email address you are
subscribed to the Matronics List(s) as, then my new code module couldn't tell
that you had made a Contribution, since it was using the PayPal email address
instead of the List email.
I've fixed this issue for any new PayPal Contributions, but I don't have any easy
way of resolving this for any of the previous Contribtuions. Again, this is
ONLY an issue if your PayPal and Matronics List email addresses ARE NOT the
same. Otherwise, everything works great.
If you made a PayPal Contribution before 11/09/06 AND your email addresses don't
match, please drop me an email at " info@matronics.com " (do not reply to this
message!) and give me your Name, and both Email Addresses and I will manually
update the records so that things will work as advertised.
Sorry for the hassle! New code; new bugs... :-)
To make a Contribution, please see: http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administration
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: MDRA rule change |
Hi Rob,
As far as the blessing letter from Van goes, a copy of one exists and is
being sent to me to use in defence of my request should I desire to go
forward with the !750 LB propposed gross weight.
"Fortunately, in the case of the RV-6/6A, there is an out. Some years ago
(probably in a weak moment) Vans released a letter suggesting, in some
roundabout language, that operation at weights up to 1750 lbs was
permissible with a reduced CG range at the higher weights. Curt Reimer,
a fellow RV-6er here in Winnipeg, was able to locate a copy of this
letter and we both were able to use it as supporting documentation to
get a gross weight of 1750 lbs authorized for the initial 25hr "test"
period".
No offence taken Rob.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: MDRA rule change
>
> On 20:41:18 2006-11-07 "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net> wrote:
>> A month or two ago I registered my RV6-a with the MOT. The application
>> included a requested gross weight which I set at 1775 lb.
>
> What criteria did you use to arrive at this new gross weight? Did you do
> any structural analysis of the airframe to confirm that it will handle the
> increased gross weight? What will be your aerobatic gross weight? Are
> you
> increasing that as well? What analysis have you done to support those
> numbers? Has anyone done analysis to show that the RV-6 will operate
> safely at 1775 gross and CAR/FAR Part 23 limits?
>
>> Will the onus be on me to go through a structural testing regime to
>> prove the airframe is up to the task.
>
> No offense intended, but if you haven't gone through the structural
> testing, or know of someone who has, or perhaps have the blessing in
> writing from Van's Aircraft, I would go so far as to say you are foolhardy
> to request the increased gross weight in the first place. Why not just
> request the book gross weight, and load it up with whatever you want to?
> It's no safer.
>
> Please keep in mind that when building an RV-6 as per the plans, the kit
> manufacturer's engineering analysis limits the airframe to a specific
> gross
> weight. If you have made structural changes to the airframe to raise that
> gross weight, you are no longer building a Van's RV-6. You are building a
> Jim Jewell Mk. 1, and Transport Canada has every right to request your
> engineering justification for every structural piece on the aircraft. If
> you haven't made structural changes, you're taking a risk with yourself
> and
> your passengers.
>
> Many RV-6's have been built and registered at gross weights over the Van's
> limit. It doesn't make it safe.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
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: MDRA rule change |
There are two very separate issues here - what is safe? and what is require
d by the regulations? This is one of many areas where simply complying wit
h the regs is not sufficient to have a safe operation, and just because som
ething is safe does not mean that it is allowed by the regs.=0A=0ASafety -
obviously an increase in weight puts higher loads on the structure, and the
aircraft must be operated differently if safe margins are to be maintained
. Builders should operate at lower load factors, avoid rough runways and h
ard landings, avoid strong winds, etc. =0A=0ARegs - I see nothing in CAR 5
49 or Airworthiness Manual (AWM) 549 that gives the MDRA a mandate to requi
re engineering analysis for weight increases. AWM 549.19 says:=0A=0A549.19
Inspections and Maintenance=0A=0A(a) During fabrication and after final as
sembly the aircraft shall be inspected for workmanship and general servicea
bility according to a schedule acceptable to the Minister. Particular atten
tion shall be paid to enclosed areas of the primary structure, which are no
t visible after final assembly.=0A=0AInformation Note: (Ref. AMA 549/1A, pa
ragraph 7).=0A=0AAirworthiness Manual Advisory (AMA) 549/1A has been There
are two very separate issues here - what is safe? and what is required by t
he regulations? This is one of many areas where simply complying with the
regs is not sufficient to have a safe operation, and just because something
is safe does not mean that it is allowed by the regs.=0A=0ASafety - obviou
sly an increase in weight puts higher loads on the structure, and the aircr
aft must be operated differently if safe margins are to be maintained. Bui
lders should operate at lower load factors, avoid rough runways and hard la
ndings, avoid strong winds, etc. =0A=0ARegs - I see nothing in CAR 549 or A
irworthiness Manual (AWM) 549 that gives the MDRA a mandate to require engi
neering analysis for weight increases. AWM 549.19 says:=0A=0A549.19 Inspec
tions and Maintenance=0A=0A(a) During fabrication and after final assembly
the aircraft shall be inspected for workmanship and general serviceability
according to a schedule acceptable to the Minister. Particular attention sh
all be paid to enclosed areas of the primary structure, which are not visib
le after final assembly.=0A=0AInformation Note: (Ref. AMA 549/1A, paragraph
7).=0A=0AAirworthiness Manual Advisory (AMA) 549/1A has been superseded by
AMA549/1B, which says:=0A by AMA549/1B, which says:=0A=0A3. Background and
Discussion .... Given that Transport Canada policy is to keep the airwor
thiness standards for amateur-built aircraft to a minimum, Chapter 549 of t
he Airworthiness Manual contains the parameters necessary to define an airc
raft as being eligible for designation in this category, and minimum requir
ements for instruments, equipment and operating information necessary to be
eligible for a special C of A for amateur=91built aircraft. ...=0A
=0AThe section on Design and Construction makes no mention whatsoever about
engineering analysis of structure. =0A=0AThe section on Inspections makes
no mention of an assessment of the design from an engineering point of view
.=0A=0AThe only limits on weight are the max weight for the category, and t
he max wing loading to avoid being classifed as a high performance aircraft
. It is worth noting that some Canadian RV and Rocket builders have declar
ed max gross weights that mean the aircraft is classified as a high perform
ance aircraft, which means the pilot needs a type rating to legally fly the
aircraft. This has not been noticed by Transport Canada, but I fear that
an insurance company could use this to claim that the pilot was not qualifi
ed to fly the aircraft, and thus they did not have to pay out.=0A=0AThe MDR
A should be challenged here. It is OK for them to remind builders that the
laws of physics haven't changed since Van designed the aircraft, and that
weight increases may reduce safety. But they should not be allowed to requ
ire engineering analysis on the fly.=0A=0AKevin Horton=0AOttawa, Canada=0A
=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Jim Jewell <jjewell@telus.net>
=0ATo: rv-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Wednesday, November 8, 2006 5:24:53 AM
=0ASubject: Re: RV-List: MDRA rule change=0A=0A--> RV-List message posted b
y: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>=0A=0AHi Rob,=0A=0AAs far as the blessin
g letter from Van goes, a copy of one exists and is =0Abeing sent to me to
use in defence of my request should I desire to go =0Aforward with the !750
LB propposed gross weight.=0A=0A"Fortunately, in the case of the RV-6/6A,
there is an out. Some years ago=0A(probably in a weak moment) Vans released
a letter suggesting, in some=0Aroundabout language, that operation at weig
hts up to 1750 lbs was=0Apermissible with a reduced CG range at the higher
weights. Curt Reimer,=0Aa fellow RV-6er here in Winnipeg, was able to locat
e a copy of this=0Aletter and we both were able to use it as supporting doc
umentation to=0Aget a gross weight of 1750 lbs authorized for the initial 2
5hr "test"=0Aperiod".=0A=0A No offence taken Rob.=0A=0AJim=0A----- Original
Message ----- =0AFrom: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>=0ATo: <rv-list@matron
ics.com>=0ASent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:14 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV-List
)" <rv7@b4.ca>=0A>=0A> On 20:41:18 2006-11-07 "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.n
et> wrote:=0A>> A month or two ago I registered my RV6-a with the MOT. The
application=0A>> included a requested gross weight which I set at 1775 lb.
=0A>=0A> What criteria did you use to arrive at this new gross weight? Did
you do=0A> any structural analysis of the airframe to confirm that it will
handle the=0A> increased gross weight? What will be your aerobatic gross
weight? Are =0A> you=0A> increasing that as well? What analysis have you
done to support those=0A> numbers? Has anyone done analysis to show that t
he RV-6 will operate=0A> safely at 1775 gross and CAR/FAR Part 23 limits?
=0A>=0A>> Will the onus be on me to go through a structural testing regime
to=0A>> prove the airframe is up to the task.=0A>=0A> No offense intended,
but if you haven't gone through the structural=0A> testing, or know of some
one who has, or perhaps have the blessing in=0A> writing from Van's Aircraf
t, I would go so far as to say you are foolhardy=0A> to request the increas
ed gross weight in the first place. Why not just=0A> request the book gros
s weight, and load it up with whatever you want to?=0A> It's no safer.=0A>
=0A> Please keep in mind that when building an RV-6 as per the plans, the k
it=0A> manufacturer's engineering analysis limits the airframe to a specifi
c =0A> gross=0A> weight. If you have made structural changes to the airfra
me to raise that=0A> gross weight, you are no longer building a Van's RV-6.
You are building a=0A> Jim Jewell Mk. 1, and Transport Canada has every r
ight to request your=0A> engineering justification for every structural pie
ce on the aircraft. If=0A> you haven't made structural changes, you're tak
ing a risk with yourself =0A> and=0A> your passengers.=0A>=0A> Many RV-6's
have been built and registered at gross weights over the Van's=0A> limit.
It doesn't make it safe.=0A>=0A> -Rob=0A>=0A>=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
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: | Digital Photo Re-sizer |
Hi Listers
A while back there was a discussion regarding the size of photo
attachments to list postings. During this discussion someone mentioned a
free photo-re-sizer utility which I am unable to locate either on my
computer or in the archives. Does anyone have this info handy? Any help
appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim McChesney
-7A QB Wings and Fuse (almost done)
N-622WR (reserved)
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Digital Photo Re-sizer |
James,
Type Photo Resizer in your Google tab. It will return several free
programs to try.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: JAMES MCCHESNEY
To: rv-list
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:24 AM
Subject: RV-List: Digital Photo Re-sizer
Hi Listers
A while back there was a discussion regarding the size of photo
attachments to list postings. During this discussion someone mentioned a
free photo-re-sizer utility which I am unable to locate either on my
computer or in the archives. Does anyone have this info handy? Any help
appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim McChesney
-7A QB Wings and Fuse (almost done)
N-622WR (reserved)
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Digital Photo Re-sizer |
> http://bluefive.pair.com/pixresizer.htm
> *
> *
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: | Digital Photo Re-sizer |
Best I've found.
http://www.irfanview.com/
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JAMES MCCHESNEY
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:24 AM
Subject: RV-List: Digital Photo Re-sizer
Hi Listers
A while back there was a discussion regarding the size of photo attachments
to list postings. During this discussion someone mentioned a free
photo-re-sizer utility which I am unable to locate either on my computer or
in the archives. Does anyone have this info handy? Any help appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim McChesney
-7A QB Wings and Fuse (almost done)
N-622WR (reserved)
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: Digital Photo Re-sizer |
www.irfanview.com is a little more than a simple resizer, but
it is very useful.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Ken Arnold wrote:
> James,
> Type Photo Resizer in your Google tab. It will return several free
> programs to try.
> Ken
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* JAMES MCCHESNEY <mailto:rvtach@msn.com>
> *To:* rv-list <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:24 AM
> *Subject:* RV-List: Digital Photo Re-sizer
>
> Hi Listers
>
> A while back there was a discussion regarding the size of photo
> attachments to list postings. During this discussion someone
> mentioned a free photo-re-sizer utility which I am unable to locate
> either on my computer or in the archives. Does anyone have this info
> handy? Any help appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim McChesney
> -7A QB Wings and Fuse (almost done)
> N-622WR (reserved)
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: | Digital Photo Re-sizer |
If you are using Microsoft XP, the Microsoft Image Resizer Power Toy is
free and simple to use.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JAMES MCCHESNEY
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: RV-List: Digital Photo Re-sizer
Hi Listers
A while back there was a discussion regarding the size of photo
attachments to list postings. During this discussion someone mentioned a
free photo-re-sizer utility which I am unable to locate either on my
computer or in the archives. Does anyone have this info handy? Any help
appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim McChesney
-7A QB Wings and Fuse (almost done)
N-622WR (reserved)
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: | Digital Photo Re-sizer |
MS Paint works well for just cropping, file resizing, and image resizing.
Usually, just resaving the image with Paint's default jpeg setting will
reduce the file size significantly. You can resize an image by specifying a
stretch factor; if you don't like the result click undo and try another.
The most difficult is cropping. Use the selection tool to select the area
you want and drag it to the upper left corner (or select the entire object
and drag it until the upper left is where you want). Then use the
Attributes menu item to set the width and height to clip to the bottom
corner. If you crop too much, undo. Not as handy as a cropping tool, but
it's both free and pre-installed.
Pat Kelley - RV-6A - Still attaching wing, no progress due to school
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JAMES MCCHESNEY
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:24 AM
Subject: RV-List: Digital Photo Re-sizer
Hi Listers
A while back there was a discussion regarding the size of photo attachments
to list postings. During this discussion someone mentioned a free
photo-re-sizer utility which I am unable to locate either on my computer or
in the archives. Does anyone have this info handy? Any help appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim McChesney
-7A QB Wings and Fuse (almost done)
N-622WR (reserved)
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: MDRA rule change |
Jim, I need a copy of that letter... (Please)
Hans
On Nov 8, 2006, at 3:24 AM, Jim Jewell wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> As far as the blessing letter from Van goes, a copy of one exists and
> is being sent to me to use in defence of my request should I desire to
> go forward with the !750 LB propposed gross weight.
>
> "Fortunately, in the case of the RV-6/6A, there is an out. Some years
> ago
> (probably in a weak moment) Vans released a letter suggesting, in some
> roundabout language, that operation at weights up to 1750 lbs was
> permissible with a reduced CG range at the higher weights. Curt Reimer,
> a fellow RV-6er here in Winnipeg, was able to locate a copy of this
> letter and we both were able to use it as supporting documentation to
> get a gross weight of 1750 lbs authorized for the initial 25hr "test"
> period".
>
> No offence taken Rob.
>
> Jim
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:14 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: MDRA rule change
>
>
>>
>> On 20:41:18 2006-11-07 "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net> wrote:
>>> A month or two ago I registered my RV6-a with the MOT. The
>>> application
>>> included a requested gross weight which I set at 1775 lb.
>>
>> What criteria did you use to arrive at this new gross weight? Did
>> you do
>> any structural analysis of the airframe to confirm that it will
>> handle the
>> increased gross weight? What will be your aerobatic gross weight?
>> Are you
>> increasing that as well? What analysis have you done to support those
>> numbers? Has anyone done analysis to show that the RV-6 will operate
>> safely at 1775 gross and CAR/FAR Part 23 limits?
>>
>>> Will the onus be on me to go through a structural testing regime to
>>> prove the airframe is up to the task.
>>
>> No offense intended, but if you haven't gone through the structural
>> testing, or know of someone who has, or perhaps have the blessing in
>> writing from Van's Aircraft, I would go so far as to say you are
>> foolhardy
>> to request the increased gross weight in the first place. Why not
>> just
>> request the book gross weight, and load it up with whatever you want
>> to?
>> It's no safer.
>>
>> Please keep in mind that when building an RV-6 as per the plans, the
>> kit
>> manufacturer's engineering analysis limits the airframe to a specific
>> gross
>> weight. If you have made structural changes to the airframe to raise
>> that
>> gross weight, you are no longer building a Van's RV-6. You are
>> building a
>> Jim Jewell Mk. 1, and Transport Canada has every right to request your
>> engineering justification for every structural piece on the aircraft.
>> If
>> you haven't made structural changes, you're taking a risk with
>> yourself and
>> your passengers.
>>
>> Many RV-6's have been built and registered at gross weights over the
>> Van's
>> limit. It doesn't make it safe.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Gross weight -- change to more OR less? |
Time: 11:16:31 PM PST US
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: MDRA rule change
On 20:41:18 2006-11-07 "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net> wrote:
> A month or two ago I registered my RV6-a with the MOT. The application
> included a requested gross weight which I set at 1775 lb.
>>What criteria did you use to arrive at this new gross weight? Did you do
>>any structural analysis of the airframe to confirm that it will handle the
>>increased gross weight? What will be your aerobatic gross weight? Are
you
>>increasing that as well? What analysis have you done to support those
>>numbers? Has anyone done analysis to show that the RV-6 will operate
>>safely at 1775 gross and CAR/FAR Part 23 limits?
Come on -- lighten up! It's a 125LB increase!
Van's has done the static testing to the limit of the wing structure, so
there really isn't a reason to do that again. They say it is good for XGs at
XXXX weight, and I believe them. If you want to fly at XXXX + XXX, then your
G limits are reduced, and your maneuvering speed goes up. There is a bit
more to it then this, but that's the Reader's Digest version. As an example,
you can look in the C-172 POH and see that the ship is certified in 2
categories by using different weights and CG location limits; one category
allows for higher G loading and a smaller CG range, but at lower weights,
while the other limits the G with increased weight and an increase in the CG
range. I'll bet your RV6 can be approved using 2 different loading schedules
by using the C-172 POH as an example, along with the wing loading limits
provided by Van's.
I seem to recall that the RV4 specs call out a max aerobatic weight vs a
MTOW, so that would suggest that Van already uses a schedule that more or
less follows what Cessna uses.
I will suggest that it is possible to load the ship so it is within the
capabilities of the wing at a max of 2Gs, but the gear might not take the
load. As an example, 1650 MTOW x 6G = 9900. So, if I load 'er up to 9900/2
or 4950LBS (GEEZ!), the wings will be within limits at 2Gs. At such weights
you will need to consider the floor structure, but as far as I know, the
whole ship is good for 6G at the factory spec'd weight...except for the
gear, so that makes this an exercise that cannot actually be accomplished.
So much for a non-stop flight to Hawaii! You'll have to stop at least
once... ;-)
Using the above calcs show that the 1775 lb ship will be good for
5.6Ginstead of 6G, and still be within the design limits of the wing.
Most
pilots would not have any problem staying within those limits.
While the FAR 23 limits are a good design criteria to follow, the
experimental world is not required to follow those criteria. Transport
Canada CAN add licensing requirements for the pilot if the wing loading is
above about 20 lbs/sq ft.
I would not, however, exceed the CG limits set by Van's.
> Will the onus be on me to go through a structural testing regime to
> prove the airframe is up to the task.
>>No offense intended, but if you haven't gone through the structural
>>testing, or know of someone who has, or perhaps have the blessing in
>>writing from Van's Aircraft, I would go so far as to say you are foolhardy
>>to request the increased gross weight in the first place. Why not just
>>request the book gross weight, and load it up with whatever you want to?
>>It's no safer.
Nor is it any more dangerous if you do some 3rd grade math -- see my
statement above. When you load outside the manufacturer's spec'd MTOW, your
insurance is, of course, null and void. And as far as I know, the
'manufacturer' is the builder.
>>Please keep in mind that when building an RV-6 as per the plans, the kit
>>manufacturer's engineering analysis limits the airframe to a specific
gross
>>weight. If you have made structural changes to the airframe to raise that
>>gross weight, you are no longer building a Van's RV-6. You are building a
>>Jim Jewell Mk. 1, and Transport Canada has every right to request your
>>engineering justification for every structural piece on the aircraft. If
>>you haven't made structural changes, you're taking a risk with yourself
and
>>your passengers.
>>Many RV-6's have been built and registered at gross weights over the Van's
>>limit. It doesn't make it safe.
Nor does it make it immediately unsafe -- again, see above. Additionally,
FAR 23 allows for a flight program to prove the strength of aircraft
structures -- calculations are not the only method of proving structural
abilities. I will also suggest that such MTOW increases have been used for
quite some time, and we have not heard of pilots landing their planes with
damage to the structure from such loading, so it could follow that such
weight increases would be allowed under FAR 23....which does not apply
anyway.
But, if you have data to back up your statements, by all means we had better
have a look at such.
>>-Rob
--
Cheers!
Mark
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 |
|
Has anybody dealt with Todd's Canopies lately? Their web site seems to be
down and I don't have a phone number.
Can anybody help with a number or info? Thanks.
Dave Mader
RV-6 130 hrs.
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: | Digital Photo Re-sizer |
Remember if you resize a JPEG or do any editing and save the picture,
the JPEG file will be degraded. If you keep making changes to a JPEG
file the picture will be degraded to a point you will not be able to get
the photo back to a usable file.
If you are using Photoshop, save the JPEG as a TIFF file. Edit the TIFF
file as many times as you like, no degradation. When you have the photo
that you like, resave the image as a JPEG file, but keep the TIFF file
for future use.
John L. Danielson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JAMES MCCHESNEY
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:24 AM
Subject: RV-List: Digital Photo Re-sizer
Hi Listers
A while back there was a discussion regarding the size of photo
attachments to list postings. During this discussion someone mentioned a
free photo-re-sizer utility which I am unable to locate either on my
computer or in the archives. Does anyone have this info handy? Any help
appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim McChesney
-7A QB Wings and Fuse (almost done)
N-622WR (reserved)
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: Todd's Canopies |
Here's the link I have, which works fine:
http://www.toddscanopies.com/tdmain.htm. Since his main .htm file is not
something like index.htm that would explain why the webserver doesn't show
it if you hit it with just the domain name.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
(pleased Todd's Canopies customer)
On 11/8/06, Dave Mader <davemader@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> Has anybody dealt with Todd's Canopies lately? Their web site seems to
> be down and I don't have a phone number.
>
> Can anybody help with a number or info? Thanks.
>
> Dave Mader
>
> RV-6 130 hrs.
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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: | Digital Photo Re-sizer |
On 7:42:16 2006-11-08 "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
wrote:
> If you are using Microsoft XP, the Microsoft Image Resizer Power Toy
> is free and simple to use.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
I was the one who posted the link to that the last time. The Microsoft
power toy is hands down the simplest solution. Select a bunch of photos
in your file explorer, right click, and select resize. It all happens
automatically.
Irfanview is an excellent program for doing many things, and resizing is
one of them. But it's a lot more effort if all you want is to resize a
photo for the web.
-Rob
(not putting an archive blocking comment here, because this is a good thing
to have in the archive for the next person who wants to know)
Keywords: picture photo post resize web microsoft power toy
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gross weight -- change to more OR less? |
On 2:24:53 2006-11-08 "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net> wrote:
> As far as the blessing letter from Van goes, a copy of one exists and
> is being sent to me to use in defence of my request should I desire
> to go forward with the 1750 LB propposed gross weight.
I was unaware of this... If indeed Van endorses it, then i'm sure he's done
the analysis to support it... The liability issues would be horrendous if
he hadn't. I'd like to see the wording of his letter, though... What
modifications to G-limits does he make, for both normal and aerobatic
category? What's the new aerobatic weight?
On 5:42:29 2006-11-08 khorton01@rogers.com wrote:
> This has not been noticed by Transport
> Canada, but I fear that an insurance company could use this to claim
> that the pilot was not qualified to fly the aircraft, and thus they did
> not have to pay out.
My further concern to that is that an insurance company could easily say
that you flew your aircraft at a gross weight higher than the manufacturer
recommended, and refuse to pay out... Regardless of what Transport says
about legality. A Vans RV is a known quantity to an insurer, it's expected
to have certain performance and usage characteristics that the insurance
company is comfortable with. When you make changes to the design (and
increasing gross weight is a change to design), the aircraft no longer fits
their metrics, and strictly speaking is no longer a Vans RV.
On 9:09:31 2006-11-08 "Mark Frederick" <f1boss@gmail.com> wrote:
> Come on -- lighten up! It's a 125LB increase!
Only 125lb, you say? There are RV-6's in Canada registered at 2000lb
gross. This was before Van issued or alluded to any letters, too. At what
point is an increase "reasonable"?
When you analyze the structure of a light aircraft from nose to tail, you
will learn that this is *not* a trivial change. It's not as simple as
saying "add 10% to gross weight, knock 10% off G limits". That 125lb...
Where will it go on the airframe? Will you increase your baggage capacity
from 60 lb to 120lb? If so, you need to cut in *half* the G-limit on your
baggage compartment floor. Will you add fuel to the wing by increasing the
tank by one bay? You'll reduce the load on the wing spar at the wing root,
but you'll increase the shear load on the skins outboard of the existing
tank, *and* you'll move the stress concentration caused by the tank ending
out one bay along the wing. Was the spar taper designed to take that?
People assume that the weight will be just "spread around". If it could be
uniformly spread around the airframe as a thin film of excess weight then
you could indeed say that 10% more weight equals 10% less G-limit. There
would never be an issue, and our gross weight and G-limits could be shown
as a line on a graph and not a hard number limit. But realistically the
weight isn't applied that way. The airframe components don't weigh any
different, it's all the additional "stuff" that people add that makes the
difference. It gets applied in discrete locations, that need to be
considered individually to determine the overall effect on safety and
performance.
> Nor is it any more dangerous if you do some 3rd grade math -- see my
> statement above. When you load outside the manufacturer's spec'd
> MTOW, your insurance is, of course, null and void. And as far as I
> know, the 'manufacturer' is the builder.
Personally I prefer to fly airplanes that weren't built using 3rd grade
math. You're right, in Canada the builder is classified as the
manufacturer, but i'm sure the insurer will still consider the manufacturer
of the kit when they choose whether to insure you. If you showed up on an
insurer's doorstep with a "john doe special", two seat, weight and
performance like an RV, worth $75K US, do you pay the same rate as someone
with a built-to-plans (structurally, anyway) RV, of which there are
thousands flying? This is something I don't know the answer to... It just
seems silly to me that an insurer would accept that their risk is the same
whether you build a "known quantity" or a "one-off" design.
-Rob
PS - I was unlucky in that the airframe structures course I took at
university used the RV-6 as their design example the year *after* I took
the course. My class used a Murphy Rebel. The analysis is pretty much the
same on either aircraft though, and the things you need to consider are
significant. On the plus side, I know how to make the airframe of a Murphy
Rebel fully aerobatic, but it's not knowledge that i'm likely to put to
use. :)
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: Todd's Canopies |
Here's an email address:
BSILVER05@aol.com
Darrell Reiley
RV7A "Reiley Rocket"
N622DR Reserved
N469RV Reserved
CenTex_RV_Aircraft-owner@yahoogroups.com
Want to start your own business?
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
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: | Compression Test |
Listers,
I read in some descriptions of the differential compression test that
for engines with displacement under 1000 cubic inches the orifice of the
tester should be .040" and above 1000 ci the orifice should be.060".
Some catalogs distinguish between <5" bore and > 5" bore rather than
displacement. My O-320 is 5.125" bore and 320 cubic inches. I want to
purchase the appropriate tester.
I would appreciate your advice.
Thanks in advance.
Richard Dudley
-6A flying
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flush Latch Source ? |
That's it exactly :-) Now if I can just find B&G Aviation Parts or at worst
the Cessna shop.
Thanks Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Flush Latch Source ?
This may be what you are looking for.
http://tinyurl.com/yamptp
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
> Does anyone know where to find this latch.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=72813#72813
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compression Test |
The FAA guidance in AC43-13-1b was changed, to the under/over 5"
designator by someone that doesn't have a clue about engines, as every
Lyc bigger than an O-290 has greater than 5" bore and has been tested by
the standard tester for eternity. The high volume tester is for radial
engines.
Just get the regular .040 orifice model.
Richard Dudley wrote:
>
> Listers,
>
> I read in some descriptions of the differential compression test that
> for engines with displacement under 1000 cubic inches the orifice of
> the tester should be .040" and above 1000 ci the orifice should
> be.060". Some catalogs distinguish between <5" bore and > 5" bore
> rather than displacement. My O-320 is 5.125" bore and 320 cubic
> inches. I want to purchase the appropriate tester.
> I would appreciate your advice.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Richard Dudley
> -6A flying
>
>
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! --
|