---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 11/08/06: 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:12:52 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:29:07 PM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:23:20 AM PST US From: "Jim Jewell" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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)" Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:14 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: MDRA rule change > > On 20:41:18 2006-11-07 "Jim Jewell" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:43:44 AM PST US From: khorton01@rogers.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 =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" =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)" =0ATo: =0ASent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:14 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV-List )" =0A>=0A> On 20:41:18 2006-11-07 "Jim Jewell" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:24:43 AM PST US From: "JAMES MCCHESNEY" 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 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:42:23 AM PST US From: "Ken Arnold" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:49:43 AM PST US From: Jeff Dowling Subject: Re: RV-List: Digital Photo Re-sizer > http://bluefive.pair.com/pixresizer.htm > * > * ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:59:05 AM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:22:24 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 > *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) > > * > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:44:02 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: Digital Photo Re-sizer From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:18:51 AM PST US From: "Patrick Kelley" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:50:17 AM PST US From: Hans Conser Subject: Re: RV-List: 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)" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:14 PM > Subject: Re: RV-List: MDRA rule change > > >> >> On 20:41:18 2006-11-07 "Jim Jewell" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:10:11 AM PST US From: "Mark Frederick" Subject: RV-List: Gross weight -- change to more OR less? Time: 11:16:31 PM PST US From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" Subject: Re: RV-List: MDRA rule change On 20:41:18 2006-11-07 "Jim Jewell" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:25:43 AM PST US From: "Dave Mader" Subject: RV-List: Todd's Canopies 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:27:33 AM PST US From: "John Danielson" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:11:16 AM PST US From: "Bob J." Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:29:53 AM PST US From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" Subject: RE: RV-List: Digital Photo Re-sizer On 7:42:16 2006-11-08 "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:21:51 AM PST US From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" Subject: Re: RV-List: Gross weight -- change to more OR less? On 2:24:53 2006-11-08 "Jim Jewell" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:21:22 PM PST US From: Darrell Reiley Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:07:25 PM PST US From: Richard Dudley Subject: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:53:55 PM PST US From: "Bill Schlatterer" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:58:13 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 > >