Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:14 AM - MT Prop & Alum spinner (sjhdcl@kingston.net)
2. 07:03 AM - Re: Gross weight -- change to more OR less? (Paul Besing)
3. 07:05 AM - Re: MDRA rule change, gross weight increase (glen matejcek)
4. 07:57 AM - Re: Tods Canopies ()
5. 08:01 AM - Re: Re: Flush Latch Source ? (carlos)
6. 09:22 AM - Re: Todd's Canopies (plennon105)
7. 11:02 AM - Re: MT Prop & Alum spinner (LessDragProd@aol.com)
8. 11:17 AM - Removing white plastic covering from aluminum (Finn Lassen)
9. 11:51 AM - Re: Removing white plastic covering from aluminum (vft@AOL.COM)
10. 12:39 PM - Re: Removing white plastic covering from aluminum (Chuck)
11. 01:38 PM - Travis Hamblen (IO-390) (William Gill)
12. 04:52 PM - Weathermeister (Jack Lockamy)
13. 05:43 PM - Re: Weathermeister (Dan Checkoway)
14. 07:43 PM - Re: Congrats (Frank Stringham)
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: | MT Prop & Alum spinner |
I have a 2 blade (MTV15B) MT Prop with the standard white spinner. Has
anyone used a polished alum spinner with MT prop? Can't find one
anywhere.
Steve
RV7A
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: Gross weight -- change to more OR less? |
When I set my GW on my -6A I spoke with an unnamed person at Van's...Their response
was something like this:
"On the record, you should set your Max Gross at xxxx (can't remember, 1400 maybe?)"
"Off the record, I personally know of many RV's flying around at 1700-1800 pounds
with no problem...just keep it in CG, and don't fly aerobatics at those weights"
So, like Mark said, don't exceed the CG...YOU are the manufacturer, you can set
your GW wherever you like. I personally used 1650 I think which was a 200
pounds or so more. I have flown it at that, but the issue comes with an aft CG
when you burn off fuel. Do what you like with the weight, but evaluate the
scenarios carefully when burning off fuel, because RV's can get out of CG really
easily if you exceed those weights by much after you burn off fuel.
Paul Besing
Mark Frederick <f1boss@gmail.com> wrote:
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 5.6G instead
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 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, gross weight increase |
Troupe,
Without any flaming or offense intended, the statement "If you want to fly
at XXXX + XXX, then your G limits are reduced, and your maneuvering speed
goes up." is half wrong and very dangerous. A wing is designed to support
a particular limit load, in pounds of force. This force is generated at
the critical angle of attack and at the maneuvering speed as published for
MTOW. If you achieve the critical angle of attack at a speed greater than
the MTOW Va, YOU WILL EXCEED THE MAX DESIGN LOAD FOR THE WING.
I suspect that lapses of understanding such as this are precisely why Van's
has been so vocal in their protests against design changes lately. It's
much more practical than getting everybody a degree in aero.
Please, folks, if you do not have a background in aero engineering, consult
with someone who does before tinkering with such fundamental design
elements. After all, we don't know what we don't know.
Pax-
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Tods Canopies |
There does seem to be a problem with his index page. The menu page is below which
list prices and canopy types.
http://www.toddscanopies.com/tdmenu.htm
Regards,
Pat Lennon
RV7 empenage
---------------------------------
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: Flush Latch Source ? |
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
> That's it exactly :-) Now if I can just find B&G Aviation Parts or at worst
> the Cessna shop.
>
> Thanks Bill S
>
This might help also. Here is a pdf of a Camloc catalog from Fairchild
Fastners for the KM610/KM680 series flush mounted panel latches. See
page H-58.
http://www.unirexinc.com/catalog/camloc_ram-h.pdf
Don't know the cost though.
Carlos
RV-7A N174PP reserved
--
Carlos Hernandez <carlosh@sec-engr.com>
Structural Engineers, LLC
2111 E. Broadway Rd. - Suite 3
Tempe, AZ 85282
Phone: 480.968.8600
Fax: 480.968.8608
www.sec-engr.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged.
This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or
organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or
an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this
email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained
herein is prohibited. If you have received this email in error,
please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this
email from your system.
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: Todd's Canopies |
There does seem to be a problem with his index page. The menu page is
below which list prices and canopy types.
http://www.toddscanopies.com/tdmenu.htm
Regards,
Pat Lennon
RV7 empenage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=73389#73389
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: MT Prop & Alum spinner |
MT Propeller has what they call a "Hi-Glo" finish for their kevlar/epoxy
spinner. If you would like to have your spinner refinished, I can check into
the cost and delivery time.
It makes the spinner look like a polished aluminum spinner.
I have a "Hi-Glo" spinner on my MTV-15 aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller, and it
looks really nice.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
Less Drag Products, Inc.
FAA certified MT Propeller Repair Station # LDSR535X
(805) 795-5377
In a message dated 11/09/2006 6:21:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sjhdcl@kingston.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: sjhdcl@kingston.net
I have a 2 blade (MTV15B) MT Prop with the standard white spinner. Has
anyone used a polished alum spinner with MT prop? Can't find one
anywhere.
Steve
RV7A
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: | Removing white plastic covering from aluminum |
After spedning a couple of hours trying to remove the white plastic
(with black backing/glue) from the rear wing spar channel of my old RV-4
kit, I'm beginning to question the wisdom of removing it at all.
Yes, I checked the archive and the hairdryer/hetgun helps, but the
material is so old or fragile that it beaks. I can remove maybe an inch
before it breaks, then have to start again with a plastic spartula to
get an edge to hold onto to pull, etc.
Anybody see any liability in leaving it on?
Finn
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Removing white plastic covering from aluminum |
Cover the affected area with old towels and soak them with mineral spirits. You
may need to soak them for a few hours but this worked very well on my F1 project.
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Melbourne (FL) Rocket Factory
-----Original Message-----
From: finn.lassen@verizon.net
Sent: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 1:06 PM
Subject: RV-List: Removing white plastic covering from aluminum
After spedning a couple of hours trying to remove the white plastic (with black
backing/glue) from the rear wing spar channel of my old RV-4 kit, I'm beginning
to question the wisdom of removing it at all.
Yes, I checked the archive and the hairdryer/hetgun helps, but the material is
so old or fragile that it beaks. I can remove maybe an inch before it breaks,
then have to start again with a plastic spartula to get an edge to hold onto to
pull, etc.
Anybody see any liability in leaving it on?
Finn
________________________________________________________________________
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Removing white plastic covering from aluminum |
WEIGHT penalty, and possibly could enhance moistures access, hence corrosion.
Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net> wrote:
After spedning a couple of hours trying to remove the white plastic
(with black backing/glue) from the rear wing spar channel of my old RV-4
kit, I'm beginning to question the wisdom of removing it at all.
Yes, I checked the archive and the hairdryer/hetgun helps, but the
material is so old or fragile that it beaks. I can remove maybe an inch
before it breaks, then have to start again with a plastic spartula to
get an edge to hold onto to pull, etc.
Anybody see any liability in leaving it on?
Finn
---------------------------------
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: | Travis Hamblen (IO-390) |
Travis,
Please contact me off-list if you get this message. I would like to
discuss your IO-390 installation if possible. Thanks.
Best regards,
Bill Gill
RV-7 FWF
wgill10@comcast.net
do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
For those who aren't aware... there is an OUTSTANDING new tool available for aviation weather info. Check out www.weathermeister.com
This aviation weather website was developed and is maintained by Dan Checkoway (aka 'Sharpie') who is a SoCAL RV-7 builder/formation pilot and frequent contributor to Kitplanes Magazine. Many of you have probably visited his RV-7 website.... www.rvproject.com. Hands down the best RV builder website on the internet.
Dan has created a MASTERPIECE!!! Weathermeister.com is a FREE web-based tool that will absolutely change the way you currently get your weather infomation when flying locally or coast-to-coast in your RV. After experiencing www.weathermeister.com, you will NEVER go back to DUATS.
Weathermeister.com displays numerous weather charts, winds aloft info, best economy
and best speed altitudes to fly based on up-to-the-minute winds aloft data,
TFRs, forecast weather conditions at your destination and airports under your
flight path, and much, much more.
If you sign up for the premium service ($4.95 monthly or $49.95 yearly...), you can store your own aircraft info and frequently flown cross-country routes that will accurately give you fuel burn, ETE, etc. The premium service is an unbelievable value once you see how powerful, and easy to use the tools available really are. I encourage everyone to visit www.weathermeister.com., evaluate it's awesome capabilities, and sign-up for the premium service to keep the site alive! (NOTE: The Premium service provides a LOT more info than the free site.)
As a government employee, I still don't understand how a fellow like Dan Checkoway
can single-handedly provide such a useful tool for evaluating flight weather
conditions when the entire government (read FAA...) can not provide readable
or barely understandable weather info to us. Weathermeister.com displays it
all so clearly.
If you haven't checked out www.weathermeister.com, you owe it to yourself to try it. I use it EVERY time I intend to fly...
Tell a friend about the site. They WILL thank you!!!
Jack Lockamy
RV-7A N174JL 250 hrs.
Camarillo, CA
www.jacklockamy.com
NOTE: Although Dan C. is a friend of mine, he is not aware of this posting nor did he endorse this message. I am in no way affiliated with www.weathermeister.com. I'm just a a VERY grateful user that appreciates the weather tool Dan has created and wanted to share it with my fellow RV builders/pilots who may not have discovered it yet.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weathermeister |
Thanks for the plug, Jack! Sounds like it's been treating you well on all
those trips out to NM.
More customization features in the works...
do not archive
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Lockamy" <jacklockamy@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:51 PM
Subject: RV-List: Weathermeister
>
> For those who aren't aware... there is an OUTSTANDING new tool available
> for aviation weather info. Check out www.weathermeister.com
>
> This aviation weather website was developed and is maintained by Dan
> Checkoway (aka 'Sharpie') who is a SoCAL RV-7 builder/formation pilot and
> frequent contributor to Kitplanes Magazine. Many of you have probably
> visited his RV-7 website.... www.rvproject.com. Hands down the best RV
> builder website on the internet.
>
> Dan has created a MASTERPIECE!!! Weathermeister.com is a FREE web-based
> tool that will absolutely change the way you currently get your weather
> infomation when flying locally or coast-to-coast in your RV. After
> experiencing www.weathermeister.com, you will NEVER go back to DUATS.
>
> Weathermeister.com displays numerous weather charts, winds aloft info,
> best economy and best speed altitudes to fly based on up-to-the-minute
> winds aloft data, TFRs, forecast weather conditions at your destination
> and airports under your flight path, and much, much more.
>
> If you sign up for the premium service ($4.95 monthly or $49.95
> yearly...), you can store your own aircraft info and frequently flown
> cross-country routes that will accurately give you fuel burn, ETE, etc.
> The premium service is an unbelievable value once you see how powerful,
> and easy to use the tools available really are. I encourage everyone to
> visit www.weathermeister.com., evaluate it's awesome capabilities, and
> sign-up for the premium service to keep the site alive! (NOTE: The
> Premium service provides a LOT more info than the free site.)
>
> As a government employee, I still don't understand how a fellow like Dan
> Checkoway can single-handedly provide such a useful tool for evaluating
> flight weather conditions when the entire government (read FAA...) can not
> provide readable or barely understandable weather info to us.
> Weathermeister.com displays it all so clearly.
>
> If you haven't checked out www.weathermeister.com, you owe it to yourself
> to try it. I use it EVERY time I intend to fly...
>
> Tell a friend about the site. They WILL thank you!!!
>
> Jack Lockamy
> RV-7A N174JL 250 hrs.
> Camarillo, CA
> www.jacklockamy.com
>
> NOTE: Although Dan C. is a friend of mine, he is not aware of this
> posting nor did he endorse this message. I am in no way affiliated with
> www.weathermeister.com. I'm just a a VERY grateful user that appreciates
> the weather tool Dan has created and wanted to share it with my fellow RV
> builders/pilots who may not have discovered it yet.
>
>
>
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 |
|
Dan
Congrats on the Sport Aviation plug on the Sport Air workshop.
Good Luck!
Frank @ SGU and SLC
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
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! --
|