Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:11 AM - RV-6 static port location? (Kevin Horton)
2. 03:19 AM - Altimeter movements on landing roll (Kevin Horton)
3. 05:08 AM - Re: All electric RV! (Tom & Cathy Ervin)
4. 06:36 AM - Re: All electric RV! (Bret Smith)
5. 06:53 AM - Engine monitor survey (Bob Collins)
6. 07:20 AM - Re: All electric RV! (Bob J.)
7. 07:20 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Brian Meyette)
8. 07:54 AM - Re: RV-6 static port location? (Steve Allison)
9. 08:09 AM - Re: Altimeter movements on landing roll (David Leonard)
10. 08:10 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
11. 08:31 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (David Leonard)
12. 08:37 AM - Rv8 Tail Kit for sale (Al Grajek)
13. 08:58 AM - Re: Altimeter movements on landing roll (Kevin Horton)
14. 09:10 AM - Re: RV-6 static port location? (Tim Bryan)
15. 09:10 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Tim Bryan)
16. 09:15 AM - Re: Duckworks Light Dimensions (don wentz)
17. 09:23 AM - Re: RV-6 static port location? (Terry Watson)
18. 10:48 AM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
19. 11:57 AM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
20. 12:03 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
21. 12:09 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
22. 12:43 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
23. 12:47 PM - Re: Duckworks Light Dimensions (Brian Meyette)
24. 01:03 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
25. 01:44 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
26. 01:46 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Ron Lee)
27. 01:47 PM - Why does my engine back-fire ? (Gerry Filby)
28. 02:32 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (n801bh@netzero.com)
29. 03:14 PM - Re: Why does my engine back-fire ? ()
30. 03:29 PM - Re: Why does my engine back-fire ? (Ron Lee)
31. 03:56 PM - Re: Why does my engine back-fire ? (Andy Gold)
32. 03:56 PM - Re: Why does my engine back-fire ? (Darrell Reiley)
33. 04:01 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
34. 04:05 PM - Re: Why does my engine back-fire ? (Dave Nellis)
35. 04:24 PM - Re: Why does my engine back-fire ? (Tom Gummo)
36. 05:03 PM - A&P Recomendation at KRIC (David Schaefer)
37. 05:36 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
38. 06:06 PM - Re: A&P Recomendation at KRIC (scott bilinski)
39. 06:45 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (David Dalton)
40. 06:51 PM - Re: Why does my engine back-fire ? (Bill Boyd)
41. 08:05 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
42. 08:50 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
43. 09:40 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Skylor Piper)
44. 09:52 PM - Re: Why does my engine back-fire ? (Gerry Filby)
45. 10:34 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Rob Prior)
46. 11:07 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Jerry Springer)
47. 11:09 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Jerry Springer)
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: | RV-6 static port location? |
I'm communicating with someone who is chasing a static system
accuracy issue on an RV-6. He didn't build the aircraft, and he
can't find the info on where Van recommends putting the pop rivets
for the static ports. I'd appreciate it if an RV-6 builder could
either provide a detailed description of the recommended location, or
scan and e-mail me the sketch that Van provided.
Thanks,
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
do not archive
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: | Altimeter movements on landing roll |
I'm communicating with an RV-6 owner who has noted interesting
altimeter movements as the aircraft slows down on the runway after
landing. He says that "from touchdown to stop, the alitmeter goes
down forty feet".
I'm betting the altimeter isn't getting much attention during the
landing roll, but I would be interested in hearing from anyone who
has paid attention to what it does.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: | Re: All electric RV! |
Dean, I am as "Thrifty" as the next guy but I a have a B&C set up on my
RV6-A and it will be the same on the Rocket I am building.
Tom
in Sunny Ohio (10G)
----- Original Message -----
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:57 AM
Subject: RV-List: All electric RV!
> <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
>
> Gotta agree with Dan here. Last year about this time I was trying to
> finalize my electrical system and had decided that I was going to add a
> second alternator on the vacuum pump pad as backup. But while I was
> drawing
> up everything on autocad I also did quite a bit of thinking. I have been
> a
> reader of the Aeroelectric list for the last 4 years. Those that partake
> of
> that list know that there has been much weeping and nashing of teeth in a
> multi-month debate that has been raging about internally regulated versus
> externally regulated alternators.
>
> Several people who bought internally regulated alternators from auto parts
> stores (and a few from Van's) have had problems with them and some
> multiple
> problems. I'd heard a lot about the B&C externally regulated alternators
> (modern day Nippon Denso modified for external regulation and balanced to
> minimize vibration). I'd also heard that B&C had very few returns on
> these
> units over a long period of time and people on the list who'd used them
> confirmed that premise. So....much as I did NOT want to spend the money
> (about three times the price of a NEW alternator from an auto parts
> store),
> I returned Van's internally regulated unit and bought the B&C 60 amp unit
> and regulator.
>
> I originally left off the backup alternator from my CAD drawings thinking
> that I'd add it later and install it after the airplane flies (I've been
> working on this RV-6 for 10 years and want to get it in the air). But
> after
> all the hallaballoo on the aeroelectric list and the talk of how reliable
> the B&C alternators are, I gave it some more thought and now keep asking
> myself if I need to do the aux alternator at all. Although I plan on
> doing
> instrument flying (when necessary) I don't expect it to be an
> "all-the-time"
> thing. This airplane is my traveling machine and stress reliever not an
> air
> taxi and if the weather is really bad I plan on staying on the ground. I
> decided that since, the B&C alternator is so reliable, I have a magneto on
> one side, a backup battery inside my Dynon EFIS and my mission is not IFR
> all the time....there is no need to install the aux alternator right now
> (or
> maybe ever).
>
> Everything is new right now, including the alternator and I don't want to
> spend the time and effort to install and wire an aux alternator into my
> system right now. And, I'd rather not spend another $1000 for the unit
> and
> its regulator since I've gone way over budget on this airplane already.
> Just
> a few thoughts for you to ponder. No I don't work for B&C and, I don't
> like
> the price on these alternators but, if it turns out to be as reliable as
> they say, it will have been worth it (and I shouldn't need to worry about
> a
> back up for a long time).
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Registering and paying those use taxes, oh boy!
>
>
> -----------------Original message-----------------------------
>>From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: All Electric RV ?
>>
>>None of the above (or below as the case may be). How much truly "in the
>>solid soup" IFR flying do you really plan to do? How much soup time
>>have you logged in the past 1-2 years? How many of those flights was a
>>MUST scenario and not a MIGHT scenario (where you HAD to be somewhere).
>>Be honest.
>>
>>Unless your engine depends on electrons flowing for the fan to keep
>>turning (i.e. dual electronic ignition without backup such as LASAR or
>>P-Mag), I'm a big proponent of KISS. And that means one battery, one
>>HIGH QUALITY alternator, done deal.
>
>
>
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: All electric RV! |
Dean,
You have just eloquently detailed what Bob N calls the "worry bucket".
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Wings"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:57 AM
Subject: RV-List: All electric RV!
> <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
>
> Gotta agree with Dan here. Last year about this time I was trying to
> finalize my electrical system and had decided that I was going to add a
> second alternator on the vacuum pump pad as backup. But while I was
> drawing
> up everything on autocad I also did quite a bit of thinking. I have been
> a
> reader of the Aeroelectric list for the last 4 years. Those that partake
> of
> that list know that there has been much weeping and nashing of teeth in a
> multi-month debate that has been raging about internally regulated versus
> externally regulated alternators.
>
> Several people who bought internally regulated alternators from auto parts
> stores (and a few from Van's) have had problems with them and some
> multiple
> problems. I'd heard a lot about the B&C externally regulated alternators
> (modern day Nippon Denso modified for external regulation and balanced to
> minimize vibration). I'd also heard that B&C had very few returns on
> these
> units over a long period of time and people on the list who'd used them
> confirmed that premise. So....much as I did NOT want to spend the money
> (about three times the price of a NEW alternator from an auto parts
> store),
> I returned Van's internally regulated unit and bought the B&C 60 amp unit
> and regulator.
>
> I originally left off the backup alternator from my CAD drawings thinking
> that I'd add it later and install it after the airplane flies (I've been
> working on this RV-6 for 10 years and want to get it in the air). But
> after
> all the hallaballoo on the aeroelectric list and the talk of how reliable
> the B&C alternators are, I gave it some more thought and now keep asking
> myself if I need to do the aux alternator at all. Although I plan on
> doing
> instrument flying (when necessary) I don't expect it to be an
> "all-the-time"
> thing. This airplane is my traveling machine and stress reliever not an
> air
> taxi and if the weather is really bad I plan on staying on the ground. I
> decided that since, the B&C alternator is so reliable, I have a magneto on
> one side, a backup battery inside my Dynon EFIS and my mission is not IFR
> all the time....there is no need to install the aux alternator right now
> (or
> maybe ever).
>
> Everything is new right now, including the alternator and I don't want to
> spend the time and effort to install and wire an aux alternator into my
> system right now. And, I'd rather not spend another $1000 for the unit
> and
> its regulator since I've gone way over budget on this airplane already.
> Just
> a few thoughts for you to ponder. No I don't work for B&C and, I don't
> like
> the price on these alternators but, if it turns out to be as reliable as
> they say, it will have been worth it (and I shouldn't need to worry about
> a
> back up for a long time).
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Registering and paying those use taxes, oh boy!
>
>
> -----------------Original message-----------------------------
>>From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: All Electric RV ?
>>
>>None of the above (or below as the case may be). How much truly "in the
>>solid soup" IFR flying do you really plan to do? How much soup time
>>have you logged in the past 1-2 years? How many of those flights was a
>>MUST scenario and not a MIGHT scenario (where you HAD to be somewhere).
>>Be honest.
>>
>>Unless your engine depends on electrons flowing for the fan to keep
>>turning (i.e. dual electronic ignition without backup such as LASAR or
>>P-Mag), I'm a big proponent of KISS. And that means one battery, one
>>HIGH QUALITY alternator, done deal.
>
>
>
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: | Engine monitor survey |
I'm trying to put a thing together for the Hotline, similar to what I did for transition
training; basically, folks reviewing their choices for engine monitors
and, hopefully, both a pro and con perspective. Add it all up and it I think
it provides a good companion to an interesting article in Kitplanes this month.
I haven't had a heck of a lot of success with the Yahoogroup, so I'm sur the RV
list will be better.
I've got a series of about 6 questions. If you're in the mood, let me know and
I'll send them to you.
Email me at bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net.
and thanks!
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94972#94972
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: All electric RV! |
I have a Niagara alternator in the -6, and have had zero issues with it in
over 600 hours, after going thru two Van's rebuilt alternators. Its the
same ND alternator that B&C modifies. I have the same thing on the Rocket.
Why anyone would want an alternator with an external regulator is beyond me,
because there are several technical reasons why they are designed the way
they are to begin with. I drank the ext. regulator kool-aid when I didn't
know better! FWIW I horsetraded for a used B&C starter that needed to be
rebuilt. When I called B&C they wanted $150 for a new brush assembly. I
took it over to a friend's starter shop, he put new brushes in it, cost to
replace the brushes was $5.00. Just because you pay more doesn't
necessarily make something better.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
do not archive
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
This description certainly sounds a lot different from previous accounts
I've read. If true that he was alive and talking to people as he was being
burned to death, with only a broken leg from the crash, that is quite a
different matter and might explain what had seemed to most of us to be a
egregious verdict.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 5:55 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Interesting new stuff from Aircraft Maintenance Technology today. Turns out
the fire crews did testify.
http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=3391
(http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=3391)
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94828#94828
--
1:23 PM
--
7:54 AM
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: RV-6 static port location? |
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> I'm communicating with someone who is chasing a static system accuracy
> issue on an RV-6. He didn't build the aircraft, and he can't find the
> info on where Van recommends putting the pop rivets for the static
> ports. I'd appreciate it if an RV-6 builder could either provide a
> detailed description of the recommended location, or scan and e-mail
> me the sketch that Van provided.
From the RV-6 builders manual, Figure 8-15:
1 inch forward of bulkhead F-607
2.5 inches below the longeron
Steve
RV-6A wiring
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Altimeter movements on landing roll |
Sounds like a static port issue (low pressure area around the static port).
Dave Leonard
On 2/14/07, Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm communicating with an RV-6 owner who has noted interesting
> altimeter movements as the aircraft slows down on the runway after
> landing. He says that "from touchdown to stop, the alitmeter goes
> down forty feet".
>
> I'm betting the altimeter isn't getting much attention during the
> landing roll, but I would be interested in hearing from anyone who
> has paid attention to what it does.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
> do not archive
>
>
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
My websites at:
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html
http://leonardiniraq.blogspot.com
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
There was no question that he was alive and talking to people. Both sides in
the motions I wrote about verified this. The "broken leg" angle is a new
one, and I'm not sure I believe it. The Corbitt's attorney described him as
being "alive and well," which also might embellish his state a little more.
But if you look at the two motions that I posted, it's quite like each side
was at two different crashes. And the EAA's motion seemed to say -- that
while he was alive, he was probably going to die anyway.
I would like to see the transcripts of the firefighters testimony or
depositions, however. And I believe there is no question that the
firefighters hooked up their lines improperly and then used water on a fuel
fire. To what extent that hastened his demise, I don't know, of course.
The one thing that took me by surprise is this assertion
"Smith also uncovered EAA documents that required the regional group arrange
for full-time fire protection with a turret fire truck and trained airport
rescue firefighters."
That's the first I'd heard of this. Also, the writer -- who did not cover
the trial -- said the town's fire chief said the fire should have been put
out in 90 seconds. It wouldn't surprise me that the writer has this person
confused with the gentleman from Virginia, the head of fire units at
airports there, who said that.
Keep in mind, only one side was quoted in this article as the other side
didn't return the writers phone calls. Not sure why, but a lot of people
think "no comment" makes stories go away. It doesn't. It only makes your
side of the story go away.
Bob
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Meyette
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
--> <brianpublic2@starband.net>
This description certainly sounds a lot different from previous accounts
I've read. If true that he was alive and talking to people as he was being
burned to death, with only a broken leg from the crash, that is quite a
different matter and might explain what had seemed to most of us to be a
egregious verdict.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 5:55 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Interesting new stuff from Aircraft Maintenance Technology today. Turns out
the fire crews did testify.
http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=3391
(http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=3391)
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94828#94828
--
1:23 PM
--
7:54 AM
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
You have got to be kidding me. Even if the crash didn't kill him, it still
caused the fire that did kill him. He still built the plane that trapped
him. He also crashed the plane causing himself to become trapped. How can
that only be 15% responsible for his own death??? Sounds more like 90-100%
to me.
If he was so 'alive and well' why didn't he use his own fire extinguisher to
put it out while it was still small?
(*(*^^^%$$n lawyers!
Dave Leonard
On 2/14/07, Brian Meyette <brianpublic2@starband.net> wrote:
>
>
> This description certainly sounds a lot different from previous accounts
> I've read. If true that he was alive and talking to people as he was
> being
> burned to death, with only a broken leg from the crash, that is quite a
> different matter and might explain what had seemed to most of us to be a
> egregious verdict.
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob Collins
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 5:55 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
>
>
> Interesting new stuff from Aircraft Maintenance Technology today. Turns
> out
> the fire crews did testify.
>
> http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=3391
> (http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=3391)
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94828#94828
>
>
> --
> 1:23 PM
>
> --
> 7:54 AM
>
>
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
My websites at:
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html
http://leonardiniraq.blogspot.com
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: | Rv8 Tail Kit for sale |
Sorry, Gang.
I forgot to list the price. Ill take $1000. I am in Lexington, Ky
Jetjoc
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Altimeter movements on landing roll |
Yes, this could be caused by static system position error. But, the aircraft supposedly
has Van's standard pop-rivet static ports, so I wonder why this aircraft
is different from the others. I have asked him to do a static system leak
check, as this is another possible cause.
Kevin
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:06:33 -0800
"David Leonard" <wdleonard@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds like a static port issue (low pressure area around the static port).
>
> Dave Leonard
>
>
> On 2/14/07, Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm communicating with an RV-6 owner who has noted interesting
> > altimeter movements as the aircraft slows down on the runway after
> > landing. He says that "from touchdown to stop, the alitmeter goes
> > down forty feet".
> >
> > I'm betting the altimeter isn't getting much attention during the
> > landing roll, but I would be interested in hearing from anyone who
> > has paid attention to what it does.
> >
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: | RV-6 static port location? |
And on both sides. In case it wasn't obviously known.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve Allison
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:51 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6 static port location?
>
>
> Kevin Horton wrote:
> >
> > I'm communicating with someone who is chasing a static system accuracy
> > issue on an RV-6. He didn't build the aircraft, and he can't find the
> > info on where Van recommends putting the pop rivets for the static
> > ports. I'd appreciate it if an RV-6 builder could either provide a
> > detailed description of the recommended location, or scan and e-mail
> > me the sketch that Van provided.
>
> From the RV-6 builders manual, Figure 8-15:
>
> 1 inch forward of bulkhead F-607
> 2.5 inches below the longeron
>
>
> Steve
> RV-6A wiring
>
>
>
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
If you read this story (and believe it) there was no reason why the crash
victim didn't just step out of the wreck and walk away from it (or hobble as
his leg was broke). The story said he was standing up in the plane talking
to them. This is bunk! He was trapped by the wreckage and he knew he was
going to die as his comments to the first people to arrive were "Forget it,
I am already dead".
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Meyette
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:16 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
>
>
> This description certainly sounds a lot different from previous accounts
> I've read. If true that he was alive and talking to people as he was
> being
> burned to death, with only a broken leg from the crash, that is quite a
> different matter and might explain what had seemed to most of us to be a
> egregious verdict.
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob Collins
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 5:55 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
>
>
> Interesting new stuff from Aircraft Maintenance Technology today. Turns
> out
> the fire crews did testify.
>
> http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=3391
> (http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=3391)
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94828#94828
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 1:23 PM
>
> --
> 7:54 AM
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Duckworks Light Dimensions |
Hi Kyle,
As the maker of the Duckworks Landing Lights, I just wanted to pass
along
that I have and do make any portions of my kits available to those who
need
an install =91for their own lamp/reflector=92.
I can provide the whole kit minus the light, which would give you
instructions, templates, lens, hardware, etc., or, any sub-parts.
I know that sometimes a guy just wants to use =91something else=92, so I
do what
I can to minimize that effort for you.
In addition, I=92m happy to help you come-up with a mounting solution
for your
lamp, or at least be a sounding board for your ideas, to assist you.
Finally, we do offer 3 versions of the kits, the 55w halogen original, a
100w Round PAR-36 Halogen, and the Round PAR-36 HID/Xenon.
Our HID uses the top of the line Phillips Bulb and Ballast in the D1S
format.
Each of the round lamps are available as upgrades to my (and other) kit
installations, and install very easily, using the original mounting
holes,
in just a few minutes.
Just wanted to make sure you all knew about the options and that I am
more
than happy to help in any way I can.
Keep building, it=92s worth it!
Don =91The Duck=92 Wentz
HYPERLINK "http://www.duckworksaviation.com/"www.duckworksaviation.com
RV-6 N790DW 980hrs (completed in 94)
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kyle Boatright
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:03 PM
Subject: RV-List: Duckworks Light Dimensions
I'm looking for a couple of dimensions from the "standard" duckworks
landing
light kit, and hope someone can help me out.
First, what is the overall width of the cutout in the leading edge?
Second, what is the overall height of the cutout in the leading edge?
(Note,
I need the height of the opening in a wing, not the template dimension).
Third, I need the height of the aluminum backing plate for the light.
You ask why? I'm scouring the web for a cheap HID upgrade that'll fit
without too much work.
Thanks in advance...
Kyle Boatright
2/13/2007
--
2/13/2007
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: | RV-6 static port location? |
Kevin,
Have a look at the instructions that came with your RV-8 kit. They might be
the same instructions as for the 6.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:05 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV-6 static port location?
I'm communicating with someone who is chasing a static system
accuracy issue on an RV-6. He didn't build the aircraft, and he
can't find the info on where Van recommends putting the pop rivets
for the static ports. I'd appreciate it if an RV-6 builder could
either provide a detailed description of the recommended location, or
scan and e-mail me the sketch that Van provided.
Thanks,
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
do not archive
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
That was the testimony of one witness. I'm unfamiliar if any others heard it. His
testimony, specifically was:
"Did you ever talk to him?" Swift was asked.
"Not an open conversation," Swift testified.
"What were the first things he said to you?"
"He said, 'I'm a dead man.,'" Swift said.
***
The "forget it" part is new to me.
However, it's important to remember that Swift's testimony doesn't make it fact.
It doesn't make it not fact. It makes it his testimony.
But there was also Peter Ali and Simon Butler, who submitted depositions in February
2006 to that effect. Ali said he arrived at the crash site about three minutes
after the crash and, "the pilot was standing up in the middle of the aircraft
and it looked like he still had some straps on -- apparently seat belt
straps -- and he stood during the entire ordeal as the men were trying to keep
the flames at bay with small extinguishers. People were yelling at the pilot
to try and cut loose and get out of the aircraft," he said.
Do not archive
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-039#95039
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: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Another thought on the standing up issue, the report states that the
plane came to rest on its nose with the tail in the air. With a 5 point
harness, and a person dangling in the seat would it not appear that they
were standing up, slightly bent over? This from a perspective of the
non-flying public who were the first on the scene? And how is 15% at
fault determined when the crash would not have happened in the first
place without pilot error. Also did anyone catch he built the plane? He
was a buyer not a builder! Forced to back taxi? He went to the wrong end
of the runway! He was a low time pilot, in a hurry to depart, did a piss
poor preflight, and bought the farm for it. Short and simple.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
That was the testimony of one witness. I'm unfamiliar if any others
heard it. His testimony, specifically was:
"Did you ever talk to him?" Swift was asked.
"Not an open conversation," Swift testified.
"What were the first things he said to you?"
"He said, 'I'm a dead man.,'" Swift said.
***
The "forget it" part is new to me.
However, it's important to remember that Swift's testimony doesn't make
it fact. It doesn't make it not fact. It makes it his testimony.
But there was also Peter Ali and Simon Butler, who submitted depositions
in February 2006 to that effect. Ali said he arrived at the crash site
about three minutes after the crash and, "the pilot was standing up in
the middle of the aircraft and it looked like he still had some straps
on -- apparently seat belt straps -- and he stood during the entire
ordeal as the men were trying to keep the flames at bay with small
extinguishers. People were yelling at the pilot to try and cut loose and
get out of the aircraft," he said.
Do not archive
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-039#95039
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
That's what I've been wondering too. I didn't see how someone could be both strapped
in their seat AND standing up. One of the witnesses -- and I can't offhand
remember who it was -- testified that he moved the tail to get at the guy.
So, yeah, if the thing came in nose first, I suppose technially it looked like
he was standing up.
Do not archive
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-054#95054
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
//And how is 15% at
fault determined when the crash would not have happened in the first
place without pilot error.
The best example I can come up with is the chain-of-errors thing that we've always
been taught. Just one error won't kill you, but if a chain of them, will.
Even breaking one chain would prevent an accident.
Back up a little bit in the case and you'll see the answer.
One of the reasons the EAA was held liable is because they (1) Held a fly-in and
(2) "Invited" Mr. Corbitt in.
The "what if" can go on and on. He wouldn't have died if he hadn't crashed. True.
He wouldn't have crashed if he hadn't flown in. True. He wouldn't have flown
in if he hadn't been "invited." True. He wouldn't have been invited if there
hadn't been a fly-in. True.
Trying to find where the "chain of events" started... as with any chain... isn't
always easy.
And in this case, it also wasn't a fact in dispute.
He died because his plane crashed. But is that the only reason he died? THAT's
the question the jury appeared to have wrestled with and what much of the case
was about.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-058#95058
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
True that they invited him, but they did not make him hurry or rish the
pre-flight or taxi to the wrong end of the runway. Nor did they make him
as a low time pilot make the decisions he did. End result is personal
responsibility.
But I know it is different in this case because he would likely say it
was his fault, but it is his wife and her "outstanding lawyer" that made
the assertion of who was to blame.
Sad situation and hope the defense gets a better lawyer on appeal.\
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:09 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
//And how is 15% at
fault determined when the crash would not have happened in the first
place without pilot error.
The best example I can come up with is the chain-of-errors thing that
we've always been taught. Just one error won't kill you, but if a chain
of them, will. Even breaking one chain would prevent an accident.
Back up a little bit in the case and you'll see the answer.
One of the reasons the EAA was held liable is because they (1) Held a
fly-in and (2) "Invited" Mr. Corbitt in.
The "what if" can go on and on. He wouldn't have died if he hadn't
crashed. True. He wouldn't have crashed if he hadn't flown in. True. He
wouldn't have flown in if he hadn't been "invited." True. He wouldn't
have been invited if there hadn't been a fly-in. True.
Trying to find where the "chain of events" started... as with any
chain... isn't always easy.
And in this case, it also wasn't a fact in dispute.
He died because his plane crashed. But is that the only reason he died?
THAT's the question the jury appeared to have wrestled with and what
much of the case was about.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-058#95058
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: | Duckworks Light Dimensions |
Now thats customer service! Don was also very flexible and helpful when I
was installing my Duckworks lights.
brian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of don wentz
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Duckworks Light Dimensions
Hi Kyle,
As the maker of the Duckworks Landing Lights, I just wanted to pass along
that I have and do make any portions of my kits available to those who need
an install for their own lamp/reflector.
I can provide the whole kit minus the light, which would give you
instructions, templates, lens, hardware, etc., or, any sub-parts.
I know that sometimes a guy just wants to use something else, so I do what
I can to minimize that effort for you.
In addition, Im happy to help you come-up with a mounting solution for your
lamp, or at least be a sounding board for your ideas, to assist you.
Finally, we do offer 3 versions of the kits, the 55w halogen original, a
100w Round PAR-36 Halogen, and the Round PAR-36 HID/Xenon.
Our HID uses the top of the line Phillips Bulb and Ballast in the D1S
format.
Each of the round lamps are available as upgrades to my (and other) kit
installations, and install very easily, using the original mounting holes,
in just a few minutes.
Just wanted to make sure you all knew about the options and that I am more
than happy to help in any way I can.
Keep building, its worth it!
Don The Duck Wentz
www.duckworksaviation.com <http://www.duckworksaviation.com/>
RV-6 N790DW 980hrs (completed in 94)
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kyle Boatright
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:03 PM
Subject: RV-List: Duckworks Light Dimensions
I'm looking for a couple of dimensions from the "standard" duckworks landing
light kit, and hope someone can help me out.
First, what is the overall width of the cutout in the leading edge?
Second, what is the overall height of the cutout in the leading edge? (Note,
I need the height of the opening in a wing, not the template dimension).
Third, I need the height of the aluminum backing plate for the light.
You ask why? I'm scouring the web for a cheap HID upgrade that'll fit
without too much work.
Thanks in advance...
Kyle Boatright
-- Release Date: 2/13/2007
--
2/13/2007
--
7:54 AM
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:
> True that they invited him, but they did not make him hurry or rish the
> pre-flight or taxi to the wrong end of the runway. Nor did they make him
> as a low time pilot make the decisions he did. End result is personal
> responsibility.
> But I know it is different in this case because he would likely say it
> was his fault, but it is his wife and her "outstanding lawyer" that made
> the assertion of who was to blame.
> Sad situation and hope the defense gets a better lawyer on appeal.
> Dan
> --
Well, you're right of course, Dan. If he hadn't flown in, he would not be dead.
But I think we have to approach this from a more legal perspective. It's a given
that he died because he crashed his plane.
But what if he COULD have lived had the fire department not taken so much time
getting their equipment on, hadn't screwed up while connecting the hoses, and
had used a foam suppressant instead of water on a fuel-fed fire.
Let's say he could have lived if any of those things testimony suggested the fire
department did hadn't been done. Then did he still die ONLY because he crashed
his plane?
I don't think so. I think he died for a couple of reasons. And that's what the
jury was asked to decide and, indeed, decided.
The "personal respnsibility" thing is a difficult proposition that sounds simple.
You're respnosible for 100% of your own actions but it doesn't take much, as
I said, to find the flaws in it because it's usually applied in a limited manner.
What would make it difficult in this case? What if there had been a passenger who
didn't rush his takeoff, who didn't stall the plane and yet did suffer the
same consequences of burning to death? Does he have the same liability as the
pilot?
Do not archive
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-069#95069
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
I guess this is my personal opinion, but the only way I could find fault
with the fire department is if by spraying the water they caused him to
die. My point in this whole thing is personal responsibility, and for
me, and only for me and my opinion, even if the fire department did not
show up, I chose to partake in an inherently risky adventure and if I
died while trying to do it then so be it. The only way I would find
fault with another in this situation is if they poured and lit the AVGAS
on me, other than that I chose to partake in the activity, and I
crashed, I killed myself, no different if I crash in front of a crowd,
or at a lonely, out of the way airfield that has no fire support. My
hobby, my responsibility, and yes, my wife and I have discussed this,
and unless someone sets me on fire, or runs me over in a TBM, it was my
fault and there is no way she should sue, I have the appropriate life
insurance and savings to take care of her and the children, so greed is
not there. The wife in this situation is also well taken care of in the
sense that he retired wealthy at 38 from Microsoft, so she/the lawyer is
just being greedy.
Once again, my opinion. Tort reform needs to be enacted to reduce these
types of scenario's
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:02 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:
> True that they invited him, but they did not make him hurry or rish
the
> pre-flight or taxi to the wrong end of the runway. Nor did they make
him
> as a low time pilot make the decisions he did. End result is personal
> responsibility.
> But I know it is different in this case because he would likely say it
> was his fault, but it is his wife and her "outstanding lawyer" that
made
> the assertion of who was to blame.
> Sad situation and hope the defense gets a better lawyer on appeal.
> Dan
> --
Well, you're right of course, Dan. If he hadn't flown in, he would not
be dead. But I think we have to approach this from a more legal
perspective. It's a given that he died because he crashed his plane.
But what if he COULD have lived had the fire department not taken so
much time getting their equipment on, hadn't screwed up while connecting
the hoses, and had used a foam suppressant instead of water on a
fuel-fed fire.
Let's say he could have lived if any of those things testimony suggested
the fire department did hadn't been done. Then did he still die ONLY
because he crashed his plane?
I don't think so. I think he died for a couple of reasons. And that's
what the jury was asked to decide and, indeed, decided.
The "personal respnsibility" thing is a difficult proposition that
sounds simple. You're respnosible for 100% of your own actions but it
doesn't take much, as I said, to find the flaws in it because it's
usually applied in a limited manner.
What would make it difficult in this case? What if there had been a
passenger who didn't rush his takeoff, who didn't stall the plane and
yet did suffer the same consequences of burning to death? Does he have
the same liability as the pilot?
Do not archive
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-069#95069
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
>True that they invited him, but they did not make him hurry or rish the
>pre-flight or taxi to the wrong end of the runway. Nor did they make him
>as a low time pilot make the decisions he did. End result is personal
>responsibility.
>But I know it is different in this case because he would likely say it
>was his fault, but it is his wife and her "outstanding lawyer" that made
>the assertion of who was to blame.
>Sad situation and hope the defense gets a better lawyer on appeal.\
>Dan
I will repeat my view that if I die doing something as suicidally bone-headed
as this person may have done, I do not want anyone to be sued for my
stupidity.
Add appropriate legalese crap being of sound mind and body and stuff.
Ron Lee
N54RL
RV-6A
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: | Why does my engine back-fire ? |
(Not just my engine - just about every RV I've ever come across.)
It does it when I pull the throttle to idle, even if I do it fairly slowly ...
and if I lean too far in flight ...
I was thinking that idle throttle, or lean mixture means less fuel - so what's
to burn in the exhaust ?
g
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: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:
> True that they invited him, but they did not make him hurry or rish th
e
> pre-flight or taxi to the wrong end of the runway. Nor did they make h
im
> as a low time pilot make the decisions he did. End result is personal
> responsibility.
> But I know it is different in this case because he would likely say it
> was his fault, but it is his wife and her "outstanding lawyer" that ma
de
> the assertion of who was to blame.
> Sad situation and hope the defense gets a better lawyer on appeal.
> Dan
> --
The fact that the lawyer determined that burning to death should be com
pensated at 1 million a minute is stupid. They claim it took 5 minuted t
o die so the family gets 5 million. I still contend that the pilot caus
ed his death because of poor piloting skills/ improper preflight/showing
off in front of the crowd. God only knows the real reason. What about t
he 10's 100's maybe thousands of human beings that witnessed a person bu
rn to death because of his own negligence. Those people should file suit
against the widow for mental anguish because "her" husband scarred the
thoughts of all those people for life..... So back to the 1 million a mi
nute theory. All spectators should be paid 5 million each for viewing th
is crash. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
:
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
<html><P>LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:<BR>> True that they invited h
im, but they did not make him hurry or rish the<BR>> pre-flight or ta
xi to the wrong end of the runway. Nor did they make him<BR>> as a lo
w time pilot make the decisions he did. End result is personal<BR>> r
esponsibility.<BR>> But I know it is different in this case because h
e would likely say it<BR>> was his fault, but it is his wife and her
"outstanding lawyer" that made<BR>> the assertion of who was to blame
.<BR>> Sad situation and hope the defense gets a better lawyer on app
eal.<BR>> Dan <BR>> --<BR> </P>
<P>The fact that the lawyer determined that burning to death shoul
d be compensated at 1 million a minute is stupid. They claim it took 5 m
inuted to die so the family gets 5 million. I still contend that t
he pilot caused his death because of poor piloting skills/ improper pref
light/showing off in front of the crowd. God only knows the real reason.
What about the 10's 100's maybe thousands of human beings that witnesse
d a person burn to death because of his own negligence. Those people sho
uld file suit against the widow for mental anguish because "he
r" husband scarred the thoughts of all those people for life..... So bac
k to the 1 million a minute theory. All spectators should be paid 5 mill
ion each for viewing this crash. What's good for the goose is good for t
he gander.</P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair
========================
========================
sp; - The RV-List Email Forum -<BR>_
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navig
nbsp;Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Brows
========================
= &nb
sp; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -<BR>
========================
========================
=<BR></P>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Why does my engine back-fire ? |
We had same problem. Potential cause is too lean mixture, which could
indicate an air leak in carb. In our case, there were some burrs in the
throttle body of the carb. We had to send away to get corrected. It
is much, much better now and only cracks or pops only occasionally.
RV-6, Lycoming O-360-A1A.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gerry Filby
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:46 PM
Subject: RV-List: Why does my engine back-fire ?
(Not just my engine - just about every RV I've ever come across.)
It does it when I pull the throttle to idle, even if I do it fairly
slowly ... and if I lean too far in flight ...
I was thinking that idle throttle, or lean mixture means less fuel -
so what's to burn in the exhaust ?
g
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: Why does my engine back-fire ? |
At 02:46 PM 2/14/2007, you wrote:
>(Not just my engine - just about every RV I've ever come across.)
>
>It does it when I pull the throttle to idle, even if I do it fairly slowly
>... and if I lean too far in flight ...
>
>I was thinking that idle throttle, or lean mixture means less fuel - so
>what's to burn in the exhaust ?
>
>g
Mine does not
Ron Lee
Do not archive
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: Why does my engine back-fire ? |
Mine did too, until I started using TCP in the fuel.
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Why does my engine back-fire ?
>
> At 02:46 PM 2/14/2007, you wrote:
>>(Not just my engine - just about every RV I've ever come across.)
>>
>>It does it when I pull the throttle to idle, even if I do it fairly slowly
>>... and if I lean too far in flight ...
>>
>>I was thinking that idle throttle, or lean mixture means less fuel - so
>>what's to burn in the exhaust ?
>>
>>g
>
> Mine does not
>
> Ron Lee
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
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: Why does my engine back-fire ? |
If I'm not mistaken, an intake tube sucking air will
also cause this problem.
Darrell
--- dwhite17@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> We had same problem. Potential cause is too lean
> mixture, which could indicate an air leak in carb.
> In our case, there were some burrs in the throttle
> body of the carb. We had to send away to get
> corrected. It is much, much better now and only
> cracks or pops only occasionally.
>
> RV-6, Lycoming O-360-A1A.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerry Filby
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:46 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Why does my engine back-fire ?
>
>
> (Not just my engine - just about every RV I've
> ever come across.)
>
> It does it when I pull the throttle to idle, even
> if I do it fairly slowly ... and if I lean too far
> in flight ...
>
> I was thinking that idle throttle, or lean mixture
> means less fuel - so what's to burn in the exhaust ?
>
> g
>
>
>
>
>
>
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.
Message 33
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
> LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:
> The fact that the lawyer determined that burning to death should be compensated
at 1 million a minute is stupid. They claim it took 5 minuted to die so the
family gets 5 million. I still contend that the pilot caused his death because
of poor piloting skills/ improper preflight/showing off in front of the crowd.
God only knows the real reason. What about the 10's 100's maybe thousands
of human beings that witnessed a person burn to death because of his own negligence.
I didn't see anything in the testimony that made any claim that the pilot was showing
off at the time. Nor do I believe the calculation of the money had anything
to do with how long it took him to die. I believe it was calculated based
on the lost earnings potential.
The theory about "he was flying, it's his fault" is an interesting one. But when
we get in trouble, a fire, a crash, a mugging... we EXPECT the people we call
to respond. Why? When the cops don't show up, we get upset. Why? Maybe we shouldn't
have been walking down that street. Or maybe we shouldn't have bought
a house that could catch fire.
Silly? Of course it is. The fact is that personal responsibility or no personal
responsibility, we all have our OWN responsibilities that aren't waived because
of someone else's. If your responsibility is to be on a fire crew, you have
a responsibility to perform your tasks dutifully.
Now maybe they did and maybe they didn't. But that question isn't irrelevant.
Beyond that, I think a lot of folks have missed the real point of the litigation.
IF the fire crews themselves were deemed NOT liable in this case -- because
Washington state law gives the city of Arlington immunity -- then how on earth
can that liability then be transferred to the EAA?
THAT is the question.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-112#95112
Message 34
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: Why does my engine back-fire ? |
Check this link out and see if it helps.
Dave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-fire
--- dwhite17@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> We had same problem. Potential cause is too lean
> mixture, which could indicate an air leak in carb.
> In our case, there were some burrs in the throttle
> body of the carb. We had to send away to get
> corrected. It is much, much better now and only
> cracks or pops only occasionally.
>
> RV-6, Lycoming O-360-A1A.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerry Filby
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:46 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Why does my engine back-fire ?
>
>
> (Not just my engine - just about every RV I've
> ever come across.)
>
> It does it when I pull the throttle to idle, even
> if I do it fairly slowly ... and if I lean too far
> in flight ...
>
> I was thinking that idle throttle, or lean mixture
> means less fuel - so what's to burn in the exhaust ?
>
> g
>
>
>
>
>
>
Cheap talk?
Message 35
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: Why does my engine back-fire ? |
I had a leak in the induction system of my FI system. Extra air means
extra lean.
Leak fixed, backfires stopped.
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Gerry Filby
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: RV-List: Why does my engine back-fire ?
(Not just my engine - just about every RV I've ever come across.)
It does it when I pull the throttle to idle, even if I do it fairly
slowly ... and if I lean too far in flight ...
I was thinking that idle throttle, or lean mixture means less fuel -
so what's to burn in the exhaust ?
g
Message 36
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: | A&P Recomendation at KRIC |
A friend is looking at buying a spam can in Richmond, VA (don't ask why!
;-) ). Does anyone have a recommendation for a good A&P that can do a
pre-buy inspection in the area? Please email me off line.
Thank you,
David W. Schaefer
RV6-A N142DS
www.n142ds.com <http://www.n142ds.com/>
Message 37
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
You need to re-read the article it states the lawyer determined a
million a minute was fair, and that was how they determined the amount.
No matter how we dice it, and regardless of what the suite was about, I
think the amount of the finding was ridiculous.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 7:01 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
> LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:
> The fact that the lawyer determined that burning to death should be
compensated at 1 million a minute is stupid. They claim it took 5
minuted to die so the family gets 5 million. I still contend that the
pilot caused his death because of poor piloting skills/ improper
preflight/showing off in front of the crowd. God only knows the real
reason. What about the 10's 100's maybe thousands of human beings that
witnessed a person burn to death because of his own negligence.
I didn't see anything in the testimony that made any claim that the
pilot was showing off at the time. Nor do I believe the calculation of
the money had anything to do with how long it took him to die. I believe
it was calculated based on the lost earnings potential.
The theory about "he was flying, it's his fault" is an interesting one.
But when we get in trouble, a fire, a crash, a mugging... we EXPECT the
people we call to respond. Why? When the cops don't show up, we get
upset. Why? Maybe we shouldn't have been walking down that street. Or
maybe we shouldn't have bought a house that could catch fire.
Silly? Of course it is. The fact is that personal responsibility or no
personal responsibility, we all have our OWN responsibilities that
aren't waived because of someone else's. If your responsibility is to be
on a fire crew, you have a responsibility to perform your tasks
dutifully.
Now maybe they did and maybe they didn't. But that question isn't
irrelevant.
Beyond that, I think a lot of folks have missed the real point of the
litigation. IF the fire crews themselves were deemed NOT liable in this
case -- because Washington state law gives the city of Arlington
immunity -- then how on earth can that liability then be transferred to
the EAA?
THAT is the question.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-112#95112
Message 38
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: A&P Recomendation at KRIC |
"A friend is looking at buying a spam can"=0A=0AIm sorry..........Oh, you w
anted a helpful response..........=0A=0ADo not archive=0A =0AScott=0A=0A=0A
=0A_______________________________________________________________________
_____________=0AFinding fabulous fares is fun. =0ALet Yahoo! FareChase sea
rch your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.=0Ahttp://
farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Message 39
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Haven't we beat this one to death yet? How about moving this conversation
to the lawyers and legal forum and let's talk about building airplanes
(Smile).
DD
On 2/14/07, Bob Collins <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:
> > True that they invited him, but they did not make him hurry or rish the
> > pre-flight or taxi to the wrong end of the runway. Nor did they make him
> > as a low time pilot make the decisions he did. End result is personal
> > responsibility.
> > But I know it is different in this case because he would likely say it
> > was his fault, but it is his wife and her "outstanding lawyer" that made
> > the assertion of who was to blame.
> > Sad situation and hope the defense gets a better lawyer on appeal.
> > Dan
> > --
>
>
> Well, you're right of course, Dan. If he hadn't flown in, he would not be
> dead. But I think we have to approach this from a more legal perspective.
> It's a given that he died because he crashed his plane.
>
> But what if he COULD have lived had the fire department not taken so much
> time getting their equipment on, hadn't screwed up while connecting the
> hoses, and had used a foam suppressant instead of water on a fuel-fed fire.
>
> Let's say he could have lived if any of those things testimony
> suggested the fire department did hadn't been done. Then did he still die
> ONLY because he crashed his plane?
>
> I don't think so. I think he died for a couple of reasons. And that's what
> the jury was asked to decide and, indeed, decided.
>
> The "personal respnsibility" thing is a difficult proposition that sounds
> simple. You're respnosible for 100% of your own actions but it doesn't take
> much, as I said, to find the flaws in it because it's usually applied in a
> limited manner.
>
> What would make it difficult in this case? What if there had been a
> passenger who didn't rush his takeoff, who didn't stall the plane and yet
> did suffer the same consequences of burning to death? Does he have the same
> liability as the pilot?
>
> Do not archive
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-069#95069
>
>
Message 40
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: Why does my engine back-fire ? |
Backfire? Or afterfire? Two different problems, if I understand
correctly. Is the fire coming out the exhaust, or the air intake?
When I close the throttle quickly, I get some popping, but always
assumed it was after-firing, from mixture going rich. Never seen any
evidence that the air filter was being hit with a flame front, but I'm
out of my expertise here.
Anyone?
-Stormy
On 2/14/07, Tom Gummo <T.gummo@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> I had a leak in the induction system of my FI system. Extra air means extra
> lean.
> Leak fixed, backfires stopped.
>
> Tom Gummo
> Apple Valley, CA
> Harmon Rocket-II
>
> do not archive
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerry Filby
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:46 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Why does my engine back-fire ?
>
> (Not just my engine - just about every RV I've ever come across.)
>
> It does it when I pull the throttle to idle, even if I do it fairly slowly
> ... and if I lean too far in flight ...
>
> I was thinking that idle throttle, or lean mixture means less fuel - so
> what's to burn in the exhaust ?
>
> g
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
Message 41
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:
> You need to re-read the article it states the lawyer determined a
> million a minute was fair, and that was how they determined the amount.
>
I did better. I read the court documents. The time it took for the man to die
had nothing to do with how the how the amount was determined. The documents are
posted online if you'd like to read them.
And while I'm sure the work of the writer in the article mention tried, nothing compares to the piece RVator John Wiegenstein wrote. (http://rvhotline.expercraft.com/articles/2007/eaa_court_motion_result.html)
Beyond that, I'm still anxious to find out what changes the EAA has made since
the accident at this particular fly-in.
Even better, I'll be anxious to hear if anything noticeable changes at Sun n' Fun.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-174#95174
Message 42
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
In the process of putting together this week's Hotline, I always check to see if
any NTSB investigations have been completed on RV-related incidents.
Tonight I found this one (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 041110X01799&key=1).
It's interesting -- to me -- for a number of reasons:
(1) The NTSB report delves deeply into the construction of the nosegear on this
particular RV-6A
(2) It reinforces why you should pay attention to edge distance
(3) It raises some question about the advice Van's gave to a builder who called
seeking advice.
Apparently the builder has questions about the edge distance on a nose gear component,
called Van's, and then -- according to the NTSB -- followed the instructions
he was given. The nose gear collapsed, the bird flipped, the pilot died
and the NTSB said he was responsible because he flew with a known deficiency.
Van's told the NTSB they don't keep a record of what advice they give to an individual
builder.
It apparently is in the hands of an attorney.
Reinforces, though, that when you're building these things, LISTEN to the voice
in your head and don't automatically listen to the people who just say "build
on" without knowing for sure whether that part really is compromised.
Throw the part away. Make it right.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-189#95189
Message 43
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see no discussion
in the NTSB report discussing edge distance of the
nose gear assembly. All of the edge distance
discussion refers to the canopy support structure/roll
over structure that apparently failed when the plane
ended up on its back.
I wonder if this accident is the reason that Van's
came out with a redesign of the roll over structure
for the -7's (and 6's, I think) last year.
Skylor
RV-8 QB
Under Construction
--- Bob Collins <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net> wrote:
> <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
>
> In the process of putting together this week's
> Hotline, I always check to see if any NTSB
> investigations have been completed on RV-related
> incidents.
>
> Tonight I found this one
>
(http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 041110X01799&key=1).
>
>
> It's interesting -- to me -- for a number of
> reasons:
>
> (1) The NTSB report delves deeply into the
> construction of the nosegear on this particular
> RV-6A
> (2) It reinforces why you should pay attention to
> edge distance
> (3) It raises some question about the advice Van's
> gave to a builder who called seeking advice.
>
> Apparently the builder has questions about the edge
> distance on a nose gear component, called Van's, and
> then -- according to the NTSB -- followed the
> instructions he was given. The nose gear collapsed,
> the bird flipped, the pilot died and the NTSB said
> he was responsible because he flew with a known
> deficiency.
>
> Van's told the NTSB they don't keep a record of what
> advice they give to an individual builder.
>
> It apparently is in the hands of an attorney.
>
> Reinforces, though, that when you're building these
> things, LISTEN to the voice in your head and don't
> automatically listen to the people who just say
> "build on" without knowing for sure whether that
> part really is compromised.
>
> Throw the part away. Make it right.
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-189#95189
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Message 44
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: Why does my engine back-fire ? |
Hard to say where its happening - I'm usually in the cockpit :D
You description of "close the throttle quickly" and "popping" sounds like
what I'm experiencing. The same thing happened when I was flying the fac
tory 7 with Mike Seager. Dan C's did it as he swooped down into the patte
rn at HAF when he came to seem my project. I'm not worried about it, seem
s to be common - just curious why it does it.
g
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Boyd [mailto:sportav8r@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 06:50 PM
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Why does my engine back-fire ?
>
>
>Backfire? Or afterfire? Two different problems, if I understand
>correctly. Is the fire coming out the exhaust, or the air intake?
>
>When I close the throttle quickly, I get some popping, but always
>assumed it was after-firing, from mixture going rich. Never seen any
>evidence that the air filter was being hit with a flame front, but I'm
>out of my expertise here.
>
>Anyone?
>
>-Stormy
>
>On 2/14/07, Tom Gummo <T.gummo@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I had a leak in the induction system of my FI system. Extra air means
extra
>> lean.
>> Leak fixed, backfires stopped.
>>
>> Tom Gummo
>> Apple Valley, CA
>> Harmon Rocket-II
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Gerry Filby
>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:46 PM
>> Subject: RV-List: Why does my engine back-fire ?
>>
>> (Not just my engine - just about every RV I've ever come across.)
>>
>> It does it when I pull the throttle to idle, even if I do it fairly sl
owly
>> ... and if I lean too far in flight ...
>>
>> I was thinking that idle throttle, or lean mixture means less fuel - s
o
>> what's to burn in the exhaust ?
>>
>> g
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?RV-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 45
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
When did this become rv-legal-list@matronics.com?
Can we get back to RV's?
-Rob
do not archive
Message 46
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Bob Collins wrote:
>
>In the process of putting together this week's Hotline, I always check to see
if any NTSB investigations have been completed on RV-related incidents.
>
>Tonight I found this one (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 041110X01799&key=1).
>
>It's interesting -- to me -- for a number of reasons:
>
>(1) The NTSB report delves deeply into the construction of the nosegear on this
particular RV-6A
>(2) It reinforces why you should pay attention to edge distance
>(3) It raises some question about the advice Van's gave to a builder who called
seeking advice.
>
>Apparently the builder has questions about the edge distance on a nose gear component,
called Van's, and then -- according to the NTSB -- followed the instructions
he was given. The nose gear collapsed, the bird flipped, the pilot died
and the NTSB said he was responsible because he flew with a known deficiency.
>
>
>
I think there is some misinformation being given here. The pilot was
questioning the roll over structure rivet edge distance. The report say
the nose gear gave way for undetermined resons.
Lets see, reported roughness on previous landings, a botched landing on
the landing prior to the accident, gee wonder if that could have
anything to do with the nose gear failure? Nose gears
do not just bend back for no reason.
BTW Bob I may have missed you saying so but are you an attorney?
Jerry
do not archive
Message 47
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: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Rob Prior wrote:
>
>When did this become rv-legal-list@matronics.com?
>
>Can we get back to RV's?
>
>-Rob
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
I agree Rob, but at the same time you cannot let stand any
misinformation being posted.
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! --
|