---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 01/05/07: 32 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:55:33 AM PST US From: "Bob Perkinson" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:35:50 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: GPS antenna under cowl From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:19:07 AM PST US From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?= Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:25:14 AM PST US From: "Williams, Glenn" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 (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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:29:21 AM PST US From: Richard Dudley Subject: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:45:58 AM PST US From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?= Subject: RE: [Bulk] Re: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:59 AM PST US From: "Brian Meyette" Subject: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:16:13 AM PST US From: "Brian Meyette" Subject: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:31:41 AM PST US From: "Dave Mader" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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----- 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:48:02 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:20:48 AM PST US From: Wheeler North Subject: RV-List: antenna 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:58:22 AM PST US From: "Tim Bryan" Subject: RE: RV-List: 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" > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:32:33 PM PST US From: "Gerry Filby" 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 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:57:39 PM PST US From: "Kyle Boatright" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:57:39 PM PST US From: "Ralph E. Capen" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:47:38 PM PST US From: bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net (Bob Collins) Subject: Re: RV-List: 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" >> >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:04:08 PM PST US From: Phil Birkelbach Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: > > > 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 >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:06:49 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: > >> >> >> 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 >>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:25:13 PM PST US Subject: RV-List: viable alternatives to the Hartzell C/S Prop From: 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 20 ____________________________________ Time: 04:55:31 PM PST US From: "Randy Lervold" 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 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 > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:16:59 PM PST US From: "Lamar Lawson" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:49:56 PM PST US From: "Gerry Filby" 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:/ ====================== ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 06:00:50 PM PST US From: linn Walters Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:16:53 PM PST US From: "Bob J." Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:28:01 PM PST US From: "Bob J." Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:37:10 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:57:37 PM PST US From: Mike Robertson Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:01:40 PM PST US From: Mike Robertson Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:19:38 PM PST US From: LessDragProd@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:18 PM PST US From: "Gerry Filby" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:31:54 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:59:46 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.