Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:55 AM - Re: Re: F635 bellcrank (Bob Perkinson)
2. 03:35 AM - Re: GPS antenna under cowl (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
3. 05:19 AM - Re: GPS antenna under cowl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?=)
4. 05:25 AM - Re: GPS antenna under cowl (Williams, Glenn)
5. 05:29 AM - Pitot Static and Transponder Checks (Richard Dudley)
6. 05:45 AM - Re: [Bulk] Re: Holes under horizonal stab (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?=)
7. 07:14 AM - Re: Building question (Brian Meyette)
8. 07:16 AM - Re: Building question (Brian Meyette)
9. 07:31 AM - Re: GPS antenna under cowl (Dave Mader)
10. 07:48 AM - Re: Holes under horizonal stab (Kevin Horton)
11. 09:20 AM - antenna (Wheeler North)
12. 09:58 AM - Re: Aircraft Logbook requirements (Tim Bryan)
13. 01:32 PM - Flap actuator rod end bearings (Gerry Filby)
14. 01:57 PM - Re: Flap actuator rod end bearings (Kyle Boatright)
15. 01:57 PM - Re: Flap actuator rod end bearings (Ralph E. Capen)
16. 02:47 PM - Re: Flap actuator rod end bearings (bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net (Bob Collins))
17. 03:04 PM - Re: Flap actuator rod end bearings (Phil Birkelbach)
18. 04:06 PM - Re: Flap actuator rod end bearings (Kevin Horton)
19. 04:25 PM - viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop (windsaloft@rmisp.com)
20. 04:55 PM - Re: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing (Randy Lervold)
21. 05:16 PM - Re: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop (Lamar Lawson)
22. 05:49 PM - Re: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing (Gerry Filby)
23. 06:00 PM - Re: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop (linn Walters)
24. 06:16 PM - Re: Flap actuator rod end bearings (Bob J.)
25. 06:28 PM - Re: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop (Bob J.)
26. 06:37 PM - Re: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop (Kevin Horton)
27. 06:57 PM - Re: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing (Mike Robertson)
28. 07:01 PM - Re: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing (Mike Robertson)
29. 08:19 PM - Re: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop (LessDragProd@aol.com)
30. 08:55 PM - Re: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing (Gerry Filby)
31. 09:31 PM - Re: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop (Kelly McMullen)
32. 10:59 PM - Re: Flap actuator rod end bearings (Mickey Coggins)
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: | Re: F635 bellcrank |
I would read that to mean that there should not be any lateral movement on
the bearing shaft. I don't think the movement at the tip of the bell crank
is anything to be concerned about unless it is excessive to the point of
binding the rod bearing.
Bob Perkinson
Hendersonville, TN.
RV9 N658RP Reserved
If nothing changes
Nothing changes
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of jlfernan
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:28 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: F635 bellcrank
The instructions start at the bottom of 8-10 and finish with "...with no
side to side play". top of page 8-11.
--------
Jorge Fernandez
N214JL Reserved
9A QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=85578#85578
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: | GPS antenna under cowl |
Yes,
My RV8 has solid top coat metallic red. It's a 'pearl' coat, meaning the
metal flakes are fine and dense. No issues on the GPS under cowl for me.
Its 3 coats of this base coat paint.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:24 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: GPS antenna under cowl
<billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Anybody have any experience with a cowl mount under fiberglass with a
metallic topcoat paint job. Someone noted before that this might be
trouble and that was exactly what I was planning to do! Anyone actually
tried it?
Thanks
Bill S
7a engine
Do not archive
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: | GPS antenna under cowl |
(long)
I believe the problem with satellite reception is that if the antenna is
inside an electrically conducting enclosure, then the radio waves do not
pass through. Correct me if I am wrong, electricians call such an enclosure
a Faraday cage. So, applying this reasoning, any surface which is
electrically conducting, such as aluminium, steel, copper, carbon fiber,
metallic paint and others will hinder reception.
As to temperatures inside the front baggage compartment on a very hot sunny
day, you have to consider two factors: direct sunlight on the surface -
color will be a determining factor, and the green house effect, ventilation
becomes the determining factor. If your front top skin is colored black and
you shut the canopy and not cover it than you have the worst possible
scenario.
Let me explain what the green house effect is and then it will be easy to
understand how to minimize it. I don't mean to be pompous but some of you
may not know the underlying principles. UV's will pass through glass and
will hit the inside of the airplane. That's energy going inside the cabin.
The surfaces heated by the UVs will radiate infrared light. It is the same
light as the UV except that the wavelength is a lot longer. The infrared
light will not pass through the canopy - it will bounce off and thus gets
trapped. The energy has consequently nowhere to go so things inside the
cabin wind up getting hot. Now, if you crack the canopy open hot air will
escape and will be replaced by cooler outside air, thus alleviating the
green house effect. Another solution is to cover the canopy with a
reflecting silver tarpaulin to prevent UVs from coming in. You can also put
a shiny reflecting surface inside the canopy so that the UVs should be
reflected outwards back through the canopy. The trick is to catch the UVs
and throw them back out before they get converted to infrared. You can
verify this with an experiment you can try now that it is winter. Go to your
fireplace, assuming that you have a good fire going. If there is nothing
between you and the flames, you will feel the heat. Now take a piece of
transparent glass such as is used for windows. Put it between the flames and
your hand. You won't feel the heat any more but you can see the flames
through the glass. Conclusion: low energy light which you can see does pass
through however high energy light, infrared, which feels hot but which you
cannot see, does not pass through. As a sideline, if you put a transparent
glass shield in front of your fire place, then you are throwing a lot of
heat out the chimney as very little will pass through the glass to heat up
your living room.
I enjoyed that - I hope I did not annoy anybody nor insult anyone's
intelligence with my technical meanderings.
Michele
RV8 - Finishing
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
Sent: vendredi 5 janvier 2007 04:28
Subject: RE: RV-List: GPS antenna under cowl
>Anybody have any experience with a cowl mount under fiberglass with a
>metallic topcoat paint job. Someone noted before that this might be
>trouble and that was exactly what I was planning to do! Anyone actually
>tried it?
I just read a post about that today I think from Mr Martin (The slow one)
or Mr Ayers. Seems they had to remove some of it but check the web
archives.
There may be such a cowl at the airport that I can check in a day or so.
If so I will try a handheld receiver under it and report back.
Ron Lee
Do not archive
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: | GPS antenna under cowl |
Havent posted in awhile but here is my take on the matter if anyone really
cares. Just place the GPS antenna inside the canopy either on the glare
shield away from your view or behind you on the fuselage as the canopy will
slide right over it. This eliminates drag and it looks sexy too. Just my
opinion.
Glenn Williams A&P
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michle Delsol
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:21 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: GPS antenna under cowl
<michele.delsol@microsigma.fr>
(long)
I believe the problem with satellite reception is that if the antenna is
inside an electrically conducting enclosure, then the radio waves do not
pass through. Correct me if I am wrong, electricians call such an enclosure
a Faraday cage. So, applying this reasoning, any surface which is
electrically conducting, such as aluminium, steel, copper, carbon fiber,
metallic paint and others will hinder reception.
As to temperatures inside the front baggage compartment on a very hot sunny
day, you have to consider two factors: direct sunlight on the surface -
color will be a determining factor, and the green house effect, ventilation
becomes the determining factor. If your front top skin is colored black and
you shut the canopy and not cover it than you have the worst possible
scenario.
Let me explain what the green house effect is and then it will be easy to
understand how to minimize it. I don't mean to be pompous but some of you
may not know the underlying principles. UV's will pass through glass and
will hit the inside of the airplane. That's energy going inside the cabin.
The surfaces heated by the UVs will radiate infrared light. It is the same
light as the UV except that the wavelength is a lot longer. The infrared
light will not pass through the canopy - it will bounce off and thus gets
trapped. The energy has consequently nowhere to go so things inside the
cabin wind up getting hot. Now, if you crack the canopy open hot air will
escape and will be replaced by cooler outside air, thus alleviating the
green house effect. Another solution is to cover the canopy with a
reflecting silver tarpaulin to prevent UVs from coming in. You can also put
a shiny reflecting surface inside the canopy so that the UVs should be
reflected outwards back through the canopy. The trick is to catch the UVs
and throw them back out before they get converted to infrared. You can
verify this with an experiment you can try now that it is winter. Go to your
fireplace, assuming that you have a good fire going. If there is nothing
between you and the flames, you will feel the heat. Now take a piece of
transparent glass such as is used for windows. Put it between the flames and
your hand. You won't feel the heat any more but you can see the flames
through the glass. Conclusion: low energy light which you can see does pass
through however high energy light, infrared, which feels hot but which you
cannot see, does not pass through. As a sideline, if you put a transparent
glass shield in front of your fire place, then you are throwing a lot of
heat out the chimney as very little will pass through the glass to heat up
your living room.
I enjoyed that - I hope I did not annoy anybody nor insult anyone's
intelligence with my technical meanderings.
Michele
RV8 - Finishing
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
Sent: vendredi 5 janvier 2007 04:28
Subject: RE: RV-List: GPS antenna under cowl
>Anybody have any experience with a cowl mount under fiberglass with a
>metallic topcoat paint job. Someone noted before that this might be
>trouble and that was exactly what I was planning to do! Anyone actually
>tried it?
I just read a post about that today I think from Mr Martin (The slow one)
or Mr Ayers. Seems they had to remove some of it but check the web
archives.
There may be such a cowl at the airport that I can check in a day or so.
If so I will try a handheld receiver under it and report back.
Ron Lee
Do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pitot Static and Transponder Checks |
Thanks to all who responded to my request for FAR references to pitot
static and transponder checks.
Richard Dudley
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: Holes under horizonal stab |
I am intrigued - what holes Ander the RV8 HS need tapping??
Michele
RV8 - Finishing
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
Sent: vendredi 5 janvier 2007 03:07
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: RV-List: Holes under horizonal stab
On 4 Jan 2007, at 07:18, Rick Gray wrote:
> I think Bobby wanted to know how to drill and tap the holes.....not
> make the strips??
To tap the holes, I used a cylindrical tap holder that has a sliding
extension arm to turn it.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: Building question |
Hi Jorge,
Well, I guess you did get some other answers by now, but I checked it out
for you last night. I have no side-to-side play, but there is a small
amount of axial (rotational inboard/outboard) play in it. Without going to
all the trouble of hard-mounting a dial indicator and getting an exact
reading, I was able to hold a dial indicator against the vertical frame
piece there and measure the axial play. I measured approximately
0.020-0.025 at the end of the bellcrank while it was in a vertical
position. Here is a pic of how I measured it. IMHO< that small amount of
axial (not side-to-side) play is normal and not ot worry about. It
translates to a small fraction of that at the bearing, and woul dbe just
normal bearing clearance, IMHO.
This is a pic of the setup, to help you picture what Im talking about:
-----Original Message-----
From: Fernandez, Jorge L. (MDPD) [mailto:jlfernandez@mdpd.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:00 PM
Subject: Building question
Plane's looking great, which I were that far along. I was wondering if you
could do me a favor. I just installed the F-635 bellcrank, that one that's
mounted mid-fuse. The instructions say there should be no side to side
movement. My spacers fit snug and the washers are tight against the
bearing, but if you hold the crank by the long portion, you get a small
amount of movement in the bearing itself. The next time you're working on
your plane, could you check yours to see if it's the same as mine. I posted
on Vansairforce.net, but only got one response. Ken Scott at Vans says it
will "probably" be OK. I hate that word. Before I order any new parts, I
want to make sure that my bearing is bad or not. Any help will be greatly
appreciated.
Jorge Fernandez
305-934-3418
--
1:34 PM
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: Building question |
BTW, the pushrod you see going aft is my BMA Autopilot elevator servo
control rod.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Meyette [mailto:brianpublic2@starband.net]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 10:13 AM
Cc: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Building question
Hi Jorge,
Well, I guess you did get some other answers by now, but I checked it out
for you last night. I have no side-to-side play, but there is a small
amount of axial (rotational inboard/outboard) play in it. Without going to
all the trouble of hard-mounting a dial indicator and getting an exact
reading, I was able to hold a dial indicator against the vertical frame
piece there and measure the axial play. I measured approximately
0.020-0.025 at the end of the bellcrank while it was in a vertical
position. Here is a pic of how I measured it. IMHO< that small amount of
axial (not side-to-side) play is normal and not ot worry about. It
translates to a small fraction of that at the bearing, and woul dbe just
normal bearing clearance, IMHO.
This is a pic of the setup, to help you picture what Im talking about:
-----Original Message-----
From: Fernandez, Jorge L. (MDPD) [mailto:jlfernandez@mdpd.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:00 PM
Subject: Building question
Plane's looking great, which I were that far along. I was wondering if you
could do me a favor. I just installed the F-635 bellcrank, that one that's
mounted mid-fuse. The instructions say there should be no side to side
movement. My spacers fit snug and the washers are tight against the
bearing, but if you hold the crank by the long portion, you get a small
amount of movement in the bearing itself. The next time you're working on
your plane, could you check yours to see if it's the same as mine. I posted
on Vansairforce.net, but only got one response. Ken Scott at Vans says it
will "probably" be OK. I hate that word. Before I order any new parts, I
want to make sure that my bearing is bad or not. Any help will be greatly
appreciated.
Jorge Fernandez
305-934-3418
--
1:34 PM
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: | GPS antenna under cowl |
Same here, three coats of metallic blue. Heard the warnings but thought I
would try it just to see and its worked fine.
Dave Mader
-----Original Message-----
<mike.stewart@us.ibm.com>
Yes,
My RV8 has solid top coat metallic red. It's a 'pearl' coat, meaning the
metal flakes are fine and dense. No issues on the GPS under cowl for me.
Its 3 coats of this base coat paint.
Mike
Anybody have any experience with a cowl mount under fiberglass with a
metallic topcoat paint job. Someone noted before that this might be
trouble and that was exactly what I was planning to do! Anyone actually
tried it?
Thanks
Bill S
7a engine
Do not archive
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Holes under horizonal stab |
These are the holes for the screws that attach the lower empennage
fairing. The screws go into the upper longeron.
Kevin Horton
On 5 Jan 2007, at 08:47, Michle Delsol wrote:
> <michele.delsol@microsigma.fr>
>
> I am intrigued - what holes Ander the RV8 HS need tapping??
>
> Michele
> RV8 - Finishing
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
> Sent: vendredi 5 janvier 2007 03:07
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: RV-List: Holes under horizonal stab
>
>
> On 4 Jan 2007, at 07:18, Rick Gray wrote:
>
>> I think Bobby wanted to know how to drill and tap the holes.....not
>> make the strips??
>
> To tap the holes, I used a cylindrical tap holder that has a sliding
> extension arm to turn it.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
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 |
|
I glued some dark cloth (I used green because it I had it and it went with
the interior scheme, I would use black next time as it does glare a little
at certain angles) on my glare shield and at the last minute sewed some
pockets onto it for pencils, glasses and charts. It was an epiphany that
works very well and ended up getting two GPS pucks stuck into the bottom
(fwd end) of the pockets.
The GPS pucks are lower than the fwd canopy retention strip so no effect on
fwd view.
Reception is always less than a minute and never gets lost even when doing a
loop/roll.
W
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: | Aircraft Logbook requirements |
For comparison sake, what have other RV-6 owners determined for Vso, Vx, and
Vy?
Tim
RV-6
57 hours flying
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV6 Flyer
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 4:00 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Aircraft Logbook requirements
>
>
> I know of no requirement to log every test flight in the aircraft records.
> If you find a requirement, please post it here or email me off list.
>
> You do need to make an entry following the completion of Phase I in the
> aircraft records. Check your operating limitations for wording. It should
> say something like:
>
> "I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and
> the
> aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and
> throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous operating
> characteristics or design features, and is safe for operation. The
> following
> aircraft operating data has been demonstrated during the flight testing:
> speeds Vso ______, Vx ______, and Vy ______, and the weight ______ and CG
> location ______ at which they were obtained."
>
> The above verbiage is from FAA Order 8130.2F Change 2.
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/1
> 8b1d64bc8f90136862571d40072d8e1/$FILE/Order%208130F%20with%20chg%202%20inc
> orporated.pdf
>
> Repairman Certificate:
> Phone your FSDO and make an appointment.
> EAA says to apply at time of certification. As a DAR that works out of a
> MIDO, I cannot accept the application.
> http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/How%20to%20get%20Your%20Repai
> rman%20Certificate.html
>
> See AC65-23A for what the FAA wants.
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircul
> ar.nsf/0/a61550959e374561862569ba0052b860/$FILE/AC65-23A.pdf
>
> You need to complete FAA Form 8610-2.
> http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8610-2.pdf
>
> You will take the completed 8610-2 to your FSDO appointment along with
> what
> ever other documents that the ASI desires to see. Expect to take
> aircraft
> builder's log, 8130.7, and Operating Limitations. (Take copies of the
> 8130-7 and Operating Limitations.)
>
> I recommend getting the repairman certificate out of the way BEFORE you
> change registration. Could muddy the waters.
>
> Sorry I cannot help you with Texas tax info as I am in the Peoples
> Republic
> of California, the land of taxes.
>
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,973 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://www.rvdar.com
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Tim Bryan" <n616tb@btsapps.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Aircraft Logbook requirements
> Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:33:19 -0600
>
>
>
> I have completed my phase I test flight time and need to make a note in
> the
> aircraft logbook. Someone told me I am supposed to log every flight in
> there as well. Is that so? I logged all my test flights in a separate
> notebook, but not in the Ac logbook. What are the requirements?
>
> Also on a second question: How do I get my repairmen certificate for my
> RV?
> I am the builder and the current owner, but planning to transfer title to
> a
> corp. I need to make sure I can get the repairmen cert for it.
>
> By the way, if anybody in Texas has details of the tax situation here,
> please contact me off list. Thanks
>
> Thanks for any help as always
> Tim Bryan
> Frankston, Texas
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
> http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/
>
>
>
>
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: | Flap actuator rod end bearings |
N696WG(RV-9, Aerosport IO-320) got its Special Airworthyness Certificate thismorning.
One thing that came up was that the DAR didn't like the typeof rod-end
bearing that attaches the flap pushrod to the inboard rib ofthe flap. He complained
that this type of rod end doesn't have a boltand wide area washer to retain
the bearing in place in the event of afailure (from the plans this is a CM-4MS
rod end bearing). If thebearing fails it can slip off the end and loose your
flap into thewind. Obvious potential for an immediate role and catastrophe.
Have folks changed out these rod end bearings for alternates ? And if so what have
you changed them for ?
g
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flap actuator rod end bearings |
Check the archives. Several posts address this issue.
Here's one quote from Gary Vanremortel:
>I did replace the aluminum links per plans with 4130 steel tubing based on
>a
>comment made by Tom Green. I also used a normal (non-studded) rod end
>bearing (same as the top one) on the lower end of the link, a real AN4 bolt
>and a steel spacer (was a 1/4" ID drill bushing) in lieu of the studded
>bearing which the manufacturer does not load rate. I also used a large OD
>capture washer on the inboard side of the bearing in case the race breaks
>formation with the rest of the bird. This to avoid the dreaded split flap
>condition.
>-Gary VanRemortel
>vanremog(at)aol.com
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerry Filby" <gerf@gerf.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: RV-List: Flap actuator rod end bearings
>
> N696WG(RV-9, Aerosport IO-320) got its Special Airworthyness Certificate
> thismorning. One thing that came up was that the DAR didn't like the
> typeof rod-end bearing that attaches the flap pushrod to the inboard rib
> ofthe flap. He complained that this type of rod end doesn't have a boltand
> wide area washer to retain the bearing in place in the event of afailure
> (from the plans this is a CM-4MS rod end bearing). If thebearing fails it
> can slip off the end and loose your flap into thewind. Obvious potential
> for an immediate role and catastrophe.
>
> Have folks changed out these rod end bearings for alternates ? And if so
> what have you changed them for ?
>
> g
>
>
>
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: Flap actuator rod end bearings |
I'm interested in this myself for the same reason your DAR was....
These are standard with all of Vans kits that I know of. I haven't heard of anyone
swapping them out and your DAR is the first I've heard of that didn't like
them - although now hearing his story, I'm inclined to be concerned myself.
I have heard of one of the links that this bearing is attached to failing, the
associated landing was uneventful - I don't know when in the sequence it failed.
I would think if it failed in flight with the flaps retracted, aerodynamic pressure
would keep the failed one up and you would get asymetric (sp) deployment
when you attempt to lower the flaps which you should recognize easily. I would
also think that there would be too much pressure on it to fail in this manner
if the flaps were already deployed.
My (probably not even) .02 worth
Ralph Capen
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>Sent: Jan 5, 2007 4:31 PM
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Flap actuator rod end bearings
>
>
>N696WG(RV-9, Aerosport IO-320) got its Special Airworthyness Certificate thismorning.
One thing that came up was that the DAR didn't like the typeof rod-end
bearing that attaches the flap pushrod to the inboard rib ofthe flap. He complained
that this type of rod end doesn't have a boltand wide area washer to retain
the bearing in place in the event of afailure (from the plans this is a CM-4MS
rod end bearing). If thebearing fails it can slip off the end and loose
your flap into thewind. Obvious potential for an immediate role and catastrophe.
>
>Have folks changed out these rod end bearings for alternates ? And if so what
have you changed them for ?
>
>g
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flap actuator rod end bearings |
I think your DAR is very wise. There are several areas on my plane where I've added
washers around the rod-end bearing to prevent failure. One of the ones I
see people going "unwashered" quite often is the TruTrak servo arm. I really think
large washers should be added on either side of those as well.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
>> >N696WG(RV-9, Aerosport IO-320) got its Special Airworthyness Certificate
> thismorning. One thing that came up was that the DAR didn't like the typeof
> rod-end bearing that attaches the flap pushrod to the inboard rib ofthe flap.
He
> complained that this type of rod end doesn't have a boltand wide area washer
to
> retain the bearing in place in the event of afailure (from the plans this is
a
> CM-4MS rod end bearing). If thebearing fails it can slip off the end and loose
> your flap into thewind. Obvious potential for an immediate role and catastrophe.
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: Flap actuator rod end bearings |
I seem to remember reading once that Van did some testing on one of
the designs many moons ago, where they deployed one flap on purpose
and they found that the ailerons were more than adequate to handle
the roll moment. I wish I could remember where I read that.
It seems to me that this is a very simple, lightweight design. The
failure mode is 'fairly' benign and those bearings are easy to check
during pre-flight (I give mine a pretty mean tug before every
flight). So, why add weight or complexity on a design that is flying
in thousands of airplanes without a real good reason.
Phil
On Jan 5, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> <recapen@earthlink.net>
>
> I'm interested in this myself for the same reason your DAR was....
>
> These are standard with all of Vans kits that I know of. I haven't
> heard of anyone swapping them out and your DAR is the first I've
> heard of that didn't like them - although now hearing his story,
> I'm inclined to be concerned myself.
>
> I have heard of one of the links that this bearing is attached to
> failing, the associated landing was uneventful - I don't know when
> in the sequence it failed.
>
> I would think if it failed in flight with the flaps retracted,
> aerodynamic pressure would keep the failed one up and you would get
> asymetric (sp) deployment when you attempt to lower the flaps which
> you should recognize easily. I would also think that there would
> be too much pressure on it to fail in this manner if the flaps were
> already deployed.
>
> My (probably not even) .02 worth
> Ralph Capen
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>> Sent: Jan 5, 2007 4:31 PM
>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RV-List: Flap actuator rod end bearings
>>
>>
>> N696WG(RV-9, Aerosport IO-320) got its Special Airworthyness
>> Certificate thismorning. One thing that came up was that the DAR
>> didn't like the typeof rod-end bearing that attaches the flap
>> pushrod to the inboard rib ofthe flap. He complained that this
>> type of rod end doesn't have a boltand wide area washer to retain
>> the bearing in place in the event of afailure (from the plans this
>> is a CM-4MS rod end bearing). If thebearing fails it can slip off
>> the end and loose your flap into thewind. Obvious potential for an
>> immediate role and catastrophe.
>>
>> Have folks changed out these rod end bearings for alternates ? And
>> if so what have you changed them for ?
>>
>> g
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Flap actuator rod end bearings |
It would be possible for a builder to do a flight test to check what
would happen if this failure occurred. If I were doing the flight
test, I would do it as follows:
Remove one flap rod, and use some duct tape at the inboard trailing
edge of the flap to hold it up against the fuselage. This is to
ensure that it remains retracted on the ground and during take off.
Review bail out procedures, and select a test area in an uninhabited
area. Don a parachute and helmet.
Do a take off and climb to a safe altitude.
Slow to normal approach speed, and set up in a simulated stabilized
approach using whatever power you normally use.
Select flaps down, using aileron to hold wings level. If you run out
of aileron, note how much flap is deployed, then retract the flaps.
If you reach full flap and still have some aileron left, release the
stick to allow it to go to neutral. Wait one second, then grab the
stick and recover control. This is a rough simulation of what would
happen if the flaps were fully deployed, then one flap bearing (or
flap rod) failed, and that flap suddenly retracted. If the response
with a one second delay wasn't too frightening, repeat with a longer
delay before resuming control.
Retract the flaps and repeat at approach speed with idle power.
Retract the flaps, then try the whole thing again at approach speed,
but in a full power climb. This simulates what would happen if the
failure occurred when you aborted a landing, and had not yet
retracted the flaps.
Repeat at max speed for flap deployment, using various power settings.
Finish the flight with an approach and landing with the flaps retracted.
Repeat the whole exercise for the other flap, as it isn't obvious
which side would be the worse failure.
If the results from all the above tests show that this is a
survivable failure, then everything is OK as is. If the results show
there is a problem, then modify the design to address the DAR's
concern. You would also need to figure out how to ensure a flap rod
never fails, as the results of that failure would be the same as a
failure of the bearing. Maybe some sort of repetitive inspection
would be in order.
Kevin Horton
On 5 Jan 2007, at 18:03, Phil Birkelbach wrote:
>
> I seem to remember reading once that Van did some testing on one of
> the designs many moons ago, where they deployed one flap on purpose
> and they found that the ailerons were more than adequate to handle
> the roll moment. I wish I could remember where I read that.
>
> It seems to me that this is a very simple, lightweight design. The
> failure mode is 'fairly' benign and those bearings are easy to
> check during pre-flight (I give mine a pretty mean tug before every
> flight). So, why add weight or complexity on a design that is
> flying in thousands of airplanes without a real good reason.
>
> Phil
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
>> <recapen@earthlink.net>
>>
>> I'm interested in this myself for the same reason your DAR was....
>>
>> These are standard with all of Vans kits that I know of. I
>> haven't heard of anyone swapping them out and your DAR is the
>> first I've heard of that didn't like them - although now hearing
>> his story, I'm inclined to be concerned myself.
>>
>> I have heard of one of the links that this bearing is attached to
>> failing, the associated landing was uneventful - I don't know when
>> in the sequence it failed.
>>
>> I would think if it failed in flight with the flaps retracted,
>> aerodynamic pressure would keep the failed one up and you would
>> get asymetric (sp) deployment when you attempt to lower the flaps
>> which you should recognize easily. I would also think that there
>> would be too much pressure on it to fail in this manner if the
>> flaps were already deployed.
>>
>> My (probably not even) .02 worth
>> Ralph Capen
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>>> Sent: Jan 5, 2007 4:31 PM
>>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: RV-List: Flap actuator rod end bearings
>>>
>>>
>>> N696WG(RV-9, Aerosport IO-320) got its Special Airworthyness
>>> Certificate thismorning. One thing that came up was that the DAR
>>> didn't like the typeof rod-end bearing that attaches the flap
>>> pushrod to the inboard rib ofthe flap. He complained that this
>>> type of rod end doesn't have a boltand wide area washer to retain
>>> the bearing in place in the event of afailure (from the plans
>>> this is a CM-4MS rod end bearing). If thebearing fails it can
>>> slip off the end and loose your flap into thewind. Obvious
>>> potential for an immediate role and catastrophe.
>>>
>>> Have folks changed out these rod end bearings for alternates ?
>>> And if so what have you changed them for ?
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
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: | viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop |
I've not been able to find anything in the archives on this, so will ask:
What viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S props exist for my RV-6A?
I just got popped by the hub AD -- it is mounted on my O-360 A1A engine.
I think that electrofluxing each 100 hrs AND at annual will break me
quickly ($375/iteration plus labor). In addition to the hub hitting this
AD, the blades have been identified by the prop shop as barely out of
thickness tolerances at the 30" station, so new blades are needed.
My options that I am aware of, a new Hartzell hub ($1700) plus blades
($4400) plus labor ($1700) puts me up in new prop realm rather than foot
the bill for a rebuild.
I have been out of building since 1999, and am simply flying (or trying
to!) and now need to do a quick survey of available C/S prop alternatives
that I can use to replace mine.
Email direct is preferred:
windsaloft@rmisp.com
terri watson
RV-6A N1977D
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: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing |
Mike, just to clarify, if you're getting a new plane in the air that is
NOT intended for IFR flight there is no pitot/static system leak test
required, only the encoder and transponder? My understanding, maybe
wrongly, was that the leak test WAS required as part of initial
certification.
Thanks,
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Robertson
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
The requirement is in FAR 91. I am sorry but I don't have my regs
with me at the moment and cann't quote exact paragraph. Basically you
need to get the transponder and encoder checked every two years for any
type of flying. You only need to get a pitot/staic check done if you
fly IFR or if the pitot/static system has been broken open for any
reason.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:13:44 -0500
> From: rhdudley1@bellsouth.net
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
>
<rhdudley1@bellsouth.net>
>
> Listers,
>
> Can someone please steer me to the FARs that address the periodic
> testing of the pitot static system, altimeter, transponder and
encoder?
> All those tests were done before my first flight. I'm now
approaching
> the two year point and would like to find the details of what tests
must
> be done before the end of the two years.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Richard Dudley
> -6A
flyi=======================
=>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Try amazing new 3D maps Check it out!
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: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop |
I know the American Propeller guys have something that does not have a speed
restriction or AD. Bob Honig there can help you. Good luck!!
Lamar
N969LS
----- Original Message -----
From: <windsaloft@rmisp.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:24 PM
Subject: RV-List: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop
>
> I've not been able to find anything in the archives on this, so will ask:
>
> What viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S props exist for my RV-6A?
>
> I just got popped by the hub AD -- it is mounted on my O-360 A1A engine.
> I think that electrofluxing each 100 hrs AND at annual will break me
> quickly ($375/iteration plus labor). In addition to the hub hitting this
> AD, the blades have been identified by the prop shop as barely out of
> thickness tolerances at the 30" station, so new blades are needed.
>
> My options that I am aware of, a new Hartzell hub ($1700) plus blades
> ($4400) plus labor ($1700) puts me up in new prop realm rather than foot
> the bill for a rebuild.
>
> I have been out of building since 1999, and am simply flying (or trying
> to!) and now need to do a quick survey of available C/S prop alternatives
> that I can use to replace mine.
>
> Email direct is preferred:
> windsaloft@rmisp.com
> terri watson
> RV-6A N1977D
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing |
I've just been through this - the leak test is NOT required for VFR Day/
Nigh flight.
g
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Lervold [mailto:randy@romeolima.com]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2007 04:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
Mike, just to clarify, if you're getting a new plane in the air that is N
OT intended for IFR flight there is no pitot/static system leak test requ
ired, only the encoder and transponder? My understanding, maybe wrongly,
was that the leak test WAS required as part of initial certification.
Thanks,
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From:Mike Robertson
To:rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
The requirement is in FAR 91. I am sorry but I don't have my regs with me
at the moment and cann't quote exact paragraph. Basically you need to ge
t the transponder and encoder checked every two years for any type of fly
ing. You only need to get a pitot/staic check done if you fly IFR or if t
he pitot/static system has been broken open for any reason.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:13:44 -0500
> From: rhdudley1@bellsouth.net
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
>
>
> Listers,
>
> Can someone please steer me to the FARs that address the periodic
> testing of the pitot static system, altimeter, transponder and encoder?
> All those tests were done before my first flight. I'm now approaching
> the two year point and would like to find the details of what tests mus
t
> be done before the end of the two years.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Richard Dudley
> -6A flyi=====================
===<>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Try amazing new 3D maps Check it out!href="http://www.matronics.com/Na
vigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-Listhref="http:/
======================
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop |
I don't know anything about the AD, but was Just thinking on the
problem. If you can dye check instead of electrofluxing, you can do
that yourself ..... it just depends on when/where the failure mode is.
As for the blades, you don't need a certified blade so thank the prop
shop and continue to use them. You were comfortable using the prop
before the prop shop got it, weren't you???
Just musing.
Linn
windsaloft@rmisp.com wrote:
>
>I've not been able to find anything in the archives on this, so will ask:
>
>What viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S props exist for my RV-6A?
>
>I just got popped by the hub AD -- it is mounted on my O-360 A1A engine.
>I think that electrofluxing each 100 hrs AND at annual will break me
>quickly ($375/iteration plus labor). In addition to the hub hitting this
>AD, the blades have been identified by the prop shop as barely out of
>thickness tolerances at the 30" station, so new blades are needed.
>
>My options that I am aware of, a new Hartzell hub ($1700) plus blades
>($4400) plus labor ($1700) puts me up in new prop realm rather than foot
>the bill for a rebuild.
>
>I have been out of building since 1999, and am simply flying (or trying
>to!) and now need to do a quick survey of available C/S prop alternatives
>that I can use to replace mine.
>
>Email direct is preferred:
>windsaloft@rmisp.com
>terri watson
>RV-6A N1977D
>
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flap actuator rod end bearings |
Hmmm. Seems to me that almost 5000 RV's have been flying with these flap
rod ends and there's never been a documented failure of them, at least that
I am aware of. A good preflight would prevent a problem with the rod ends
from causing any sort of flight control problems.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
On 1/5/07, Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com> wrote:
>
>
> N696WG(RV-9, Aerosport IO-320) got its Special Airworthyness Certificate
> thismorning. One thing that came up was that the DAR didn't like the typeof
> rod-end bearing that attaches the flap pushrod to the inboard rib ofthe
> flap. He complained that this type of rod end doesn't have a boltand wide
> area washer to retain the bearing in place in the event of afailure (from
> the plans this is a CM-4MS rod end bearing). If thebearing fails it can slip
> off the end and loose your flap into thewind. Obvious potential for an
> immediate role and catastrophe.
>
> Have folks changed out these rod end bearings for alternates ? And if so
> what have you changed them for ?
>
> g
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop |
My prop shop guy told me in the small number of hubs he'd seen with cracks,
they start from the zerk holes. He also told me that when the zerk holes in
the are properly chamfered, he's never seen cracks in those hubs, and he's
overhauled hundreds of compact-hub Hartzell's. The ones that did have
cracks spit grease, and did not fail catastrophically.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
On 1/5/07, windsaloft@rmisp.com <windsaloft@rmisp.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've not been able to find anything in the archives on this, so will ask:
>
> What viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S props exist for my RV-6A?
>
> I just got popped by the hub AD -- it is mounted on my O-360 A1A engine.
> I think that electrofluxing each 100 hrs AND at annual will break me
> quickly ($375/iteration plus labor). In addition to the hub hitting this
> AD, the blades have been identified by the prop shop as barely out of
> thickness tolerances at the 30" station, so new blades are needed.
>
> My options that I am aware of, a new Hartzell hub ($1700) plus blades
> ($4400) plus labor ($1700) puts me up in new prop realm rather than foot
> the bill for a rebuild.
>
> I have been out of building since 1999, and am simply flying (or trying
> to!) and now need to do a quick survey of available C/S prop alternatives
> that I can use to replace mine.
>
> Email direct is preferred:
> windsaloft@rmisp.com
> terri watson
> RV-6A N1977D
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop |
Considering the potential consequences of a prop hub or blade failure
(engine comes off the mount, then loss of control due to very aft CG,
followed by fatal crash), this is not a place to cut corners. I
highly recommend compliance with the AD, and following Hartzell's
guidelines on blade dimension tolerances.
Kevin Horton
On 5 Jan 2007, at 21:02, linn Walters wrote:
> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>
> I don't know anything about the AD, but was Just thinking on the
> problem. If you can dye check instead of electrofluxing, you can
> do that yourself ..... it just depends on when/where the failure
> mode is. As for the blades, you don't need a certified blade so
> thank the prop shop and continue to use them. You were comfortable
> using the prop before the prop shop got it, weren't you???
> Just musing.
> Linn
>
> windsaloft@rmisp.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I've not been able to find anything in the archives on this, so
>> will ask:
>>
>> What viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S props exist for my
>> RV-6A?
>>
>> I just got popped by the hub AD -- it is mounted on my O-360 A1A
>> engine. I think that electrofluxing each 100 hrs AND at annual
>> will break me
>> quickly ($375/iteration plus labor). In addition to the hub
>> hitting this
>> AD, the blades have been identified by the prop shop as barely out of
>> thickness tolerances at the 30" station, so new blades are needed.
>>
>> My options that I am aware of, a new Hartzell hub ($1700) plus blades
>> ($4400) plus labor ($1700) puts me up in new prop realm rather
>> than foot
>> the bill for a rebuild.
>>
>> I have been out of building since 1999, and am simply flying (or
>> trying
>> to!) and now need to do a quick survey of available C/S prop
>> alternatives
>> that I can use to replace mine.
>>
>> Email direct is preferred:
>> windsaloft@rmisp.com
>> terri watson
>> RV-6A N1977D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pitot Static and Transponder Testing |
We don't require the leak test as part of certification due to the fact tha
t there may not be any testing facility where your plane is. It just has t
o get done as soon as possible along with the encoder and transponder. Aft
er that you should do a leak check is you ever break open the system but it
is required unless you do IFR.
Mike
From: randy@romeolima.comTo: rv-list@matronics.comSubject: Re: RV-List: Pit
ot Static and Transponder TestingDate: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 16:51:22 -0800
Mike, just to clarify, if you're getting a new plane in the air that is NOT
intended for IFR flight there is no pitot/static system leak test required
, only the encoder and transponder? My understanding, maybe wrongly, was th
at the leak test WAS required as part of initial certification.
Thanks,
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Robertson
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
The requirement is in FAR 91. I am sorry but I don't have my regs with me
at the moment and cann't quote exact paragraph. Basically you need to get
the transponder and encoder checked every two years for any type of flying.
You only need to get a pitot/staic check done if you fly IFR or if the pi
tot/static system has been broken open for any reason.Mike RobertsonDas Fed
> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:13:44 -0500> From: rhdudley1@bellsouth.net> To:
rv-list@matronics.com> Subject: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testi
t>> > Listers,> > Can someone please steer me to the FARs that address the
periodic > testing of the pitot static system, altimeter, transponder and e
ncoder?> All those tests were done before my first flight. I'm now approach
ing > the two year point and would like to find the details of what tests m
ust > be done before the end of the two years.> Thanks in advance.> > Richa
rd Dudley> -6A flyi==================
======> > >
Try amazing new 3D maps Check it out!
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get the Live.com Holiday Page for recipes, gift-giving ideas, and more.
www.live.com/?addtemplate=holiday
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pitot Static and Transponder Testing |
Except at the first encoder/transponder test after certification. You may
not even know it is being done because if the encoder is not reading out ri
ght then there is a leak in the static system. When they make a log entry
about the encoder test the faa will accept that as the static system check.
If the pitot side has a leak then you will find that out when you are tes
t flying the aircraft.
Mike
From: gerf@gerf.comTo: rv-list@matronics.comDate: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 01:48:55
+0000Subject: Re: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
I've just been through this - the leak test is NOT required for VFR Day/Ni
gh flight.g
-----Original Message-----From: Randy Lervold [mailto:randy@romeolima.com]S
ent: Friday, January 5, 2007 04:51 PMTo: rv-list@matronics.comSubject: Re:
RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
Mike, just to clarify, if you're getting a new plane in the air that is NOT
intended for IFR flight there is no pitot/static system leak test required
, only the encoder and transponder? My understanding, maybe wrongly, was th
at the leak test WAS required as part of initial certification.
Thanks,
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Robertson
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
The requirement is in FAR 91. I am sorry but I don't have my regs with me
at the moment and cann't quote exact paragraph. Basically you need to get
the transponder and encoder checked every two years for any type of flying.
You only need to get a pitot/staic check done if you fly IFR or if the pi
tot/static system has been broken open for any reason.Mike RobertsonDas Fed
> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:13:44 -0500> From: rhdudley1@bellsouth.net> To:
rv-list@matronics.com> Subject: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testi
t>> > Listers,> > Can someone please steer me to the FARs that address the
periodic > testing of the pitot static system, altimeter, transponder and e
ncoder?> All those tests were done before my first flight. I'm now approach
ing > the two year point and would like to find the details of what tests m
ust > be done before the end of the two years.> Thanks in advance.> > Richa
rd Dudley> -6A flyi==================
======<> > >
Try amazing new 3D maps Check it out!
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://forums.matronics.com
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song.- Get a customized station.- Try MSN Radio powe
red by Pandora.
http://radio.msn.com
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop |
There are some practical propeller alternatives listed on my website,
_www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
There are no midrange RPM restrictions on these propellers when used on the
Lyc. 360 engine.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
(805) 795-5377
In a message dated 01/05/2007 4:27:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
windsaloft@rmisp.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: windsaloft@rmisp.com
I've not been able to find anything in the archives on this, so will ask:
What viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S props exist for my RV-6A?
I just got popped by the hub AD -- it is mounted on my O-360 A1A engine.
I think that electrofluxing each 100 hrs AND at annual will break me
quickly ($375/iteration plus labor). In addition to the hub hitting this
AD, the blades have been identified by the prop shop as barely out of
thickness tolerances at the 30" station, so new blades are needed.
My options that I am aware of, a new Hartzell hub ($1700) plus blades
($4400) plus labor ($1700) puts me up in new prop realm rather than foot
the bill for a rebuild.
I have been out of building since 1999, and am simply flying (or trying
to!) and now need to do a quick survey of available C/S prop alternatives
that I can use to replace mine.
Email direct is preferred:
windsaloft@rmisp.com
terri watson
RV-6A N1977D
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing |
Just read my own post ... I would add ...
... But why on earth would you not want to do it ? Don't you want to know
if your pitot/static system is functioning properly ?
g
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerry Filby [mailto:gerf@gerf.com]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2007 05:48 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
I've just been through this - the leak test is NOT required for VFR Day/
Nigh flight.
g
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Lervold [mailto:randy@romeolima.com]
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2007 04:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
Mike, just to clarify, if you're getting a new plane in the air that is N
OT intended for IFR flight there is no pitot/static system leak test requ
ired, only the encoder and transponder? My understanding, maybe wrongly,
was that the leak test WAS required as part of initial certification.
Thanks,
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From:Mike Robertson
To:rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
The requirement is in FAR 91. I am sorry but I don't have my regs with me
at the moment and cann't quote exact paragraph. Basically you need to ge
t the transponder and encoder checked every two years for any type of fly
ing. You only need to get a pitot/staic check done if you fly IFR or if t
he pitot/static system has been broken open for any reason.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:13:44 -0500
> From: rhdudley1@bellsouth.net
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Pitot Static and Transponder Testing
>
>
> Listers,
>
> Can someone please steer me to the FARs that address the periodic
> testing of the pitot static system, altimeter, transponder and encoder?
> All those tests were done before my first flight. I'm now approaching
> the two year point and would like to find the details of what tests mus
t
> be done before the end of the two years.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Richard Dudley
> -6A flyi=====================
===<>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Try amazing new 3D maps Check it out!href="http://www.matronics.com/Na
vigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-Listhref="http:/
/forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.comget="_blank">http://w
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop |
If you know your blades are about worn out, the best alternative is
Hartzell's offer of a trade in for new prop at ~$5600. Putting a new hub
together with new blades at individual parts pricing and labor makes no
sense. Also, a new prop will have more meat to it, and give you full
design performance, something old blades won't.
BTW, the testing is eddy current, not magnaflux or dye penetrant. Shops
have been doing it for as little as $150.
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> Considering the potential consequences of a prop hub or blade failure
> (engine comes off the mount, then loss of control due to very aft CG,
> followed by fatal crash), this is not a place to cut corners. I
> highly recommend compliance with the AD, and following Hartzell's
> guidelines on blade dimension tolerances.
>
> Kevin Horton
>
> On 5 Jan 2007, at 21:02, linn Walters wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know anything about the AD, but was Just thinking on the
>> problem. If you can dye check instead of electrofluxing, you can do
>> that yourself ..... it just depends on when/where the failure mode
>> is. As for the blades, you don't need a certified blade so thank the
>> prop shop and continue to use them. You were comfortable using the
>> prop before the prop shop got it, weren't you???
>> Just musing.
>> Linn
>>
>> windsaloft@rmisp.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've not been able to find anything in the archives on this, so will
>>> ask:
>>>
>>> What viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S props exist for my RV-6A?
>>>
>>> I just got popped by the hub AD -- it is mounted on my O-360 A1A
>>> engine. I think that electrofluxing each 100 hrs AND at annual will
>>> break me
>>> quickly ($375/iteration plus labor). In addition to the hub hitting
>>> this
>>> AD, the blades have been identified by the prop shop as barely out of
>>> thickness tolerances at the 30" station, so new blades are needed.
>>>
>>> My options that I am aware of, a new Hartzell hub ($1700) plus blades
>>> ($4400) plus labor ($1700) puts me up in new prop realm rather than
>>> foot
>>> the bill for a rebuild.
>>>
>>> I have been out of building since 1999, and am simply flying (or trying
>>> to!) and now need to do a quick survey of available C/S prop
>>> alternatives
>>> that I can use to replace mine.
>>>
>>> Email direct is preferred:
>>> windsaloft@rmisp.com
>>> terri watson
>>> RV-6A N1977D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flap actuator rod end bearings |
Kevin Horton wrote:
> It would be possible for a builder to do a flight test to check what
> would happen if this failure occurred. If I were doing the flight test,
> I would do it as follows:
>
> Remove one flap rod, and use some duct tape at the inboard trailing edge
> of the flap to hold it up against the fuselage. This is to ensure that
> it remains retracted on the ground and during take off.
>
> Review bail out procedures, and select a test area in an uninhabited
> area. Don a parachute and helmet. ...
Wow, Kevin, reading that gave me the chills. I think I'll wait for the
results of your testing! :-)
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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! --
|