Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:24 AM - Re: Carb Fittings? Primer fittings? (Russ & Marilyn)
2. 06:03 AM - Re: Re: Tires.. (Ron Brown)
3. 08:37 AM - Re: PAPSP - Pilot & Aircraft Proficiency & Safety Program (Was Safety) (bertrv6@highstream.net)
4. 08:55 AM - Safety, Risk Management & Pilots (Mark Sletten)
5. 09:41 AM - Re: Hello (bertrv6@highstream.net)
6. 11:26 AM - Exhaust Stacks (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
7. 11:26 AM - Exhaust Stacks (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
8. 12:11 PM - Re: Exhaust Stacks (RV6 Flyer)
9. 04:14 PM - Re: Exhaust Stacks (Richard Martin)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Carb Fittings? Primer fittings? |
Carb Fittings? Primer fittings?Bill,
The fitting assembly in the picture is made up from two adapters. The
first adapter has a crush gasket or O ring seal and is seated into the
carb. DON'T turn this fitting. The second fitting is a 45 degree NPT to
JIC adapter, this is the fitting that can be turned. Hold the first
fitting with one wrench and rotate the JIC portion to the correct
direction.
I think that I would opt for the pinhole fittings. When a primer line
brakes the small pinhole in the fitting will result in a small induction
leak. Also the small pinhole also sprays (injects) fuel into a cylinder
with an open valve. I don't think that this is possible with the
standard port fittings.
Russ Keith
RV9A 75% done 95% left to go
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Schlatterer
To: rv-list@matronics.com ; rv7-list@matronics.com ;
RV7A@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 5:50 PM
Subject: RV-List: Carb Fittings? Primer fittings?
I need to rotate this 45 degree AN fitting but it is a "little" snug!
See picture. Needs to face to the rear. Before I crank it into two
pieces, I thought I would ask and see if perhaps the Allen Screw just
above the fitting (red arrow) might be locking it in place. I am
thinking this is one of the usual carb fittings with an O-Ring that is
locked down with the large nut (banjo fitting?) and the 45 degree AN
fitting is just clocked 180 degrees from where I need it but it doesn't
feel like you can just rotate it an additional 180 without breaking
something?
<<...>>
This looks like one of those things that is easy if you know and hard
if you don't! Any help appreciated.
Also, I have primer port fittings from Wix with a small pinhole
(brass) and some from the Spruce that are basically 2d AN fittings
without any restriction. (Came in the primer solenoid kit) Seems like a
lot of difference between the two and one would pass a lot more fuel
than the other. Any reason to favor one over the other? See pix,
sorry for the quality.
<<...>>
Thanks
Bill Schlatterer
7a engine/cowl
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 |
|
Aviation Consumer ran extensive tests on tire brands as well as retreads.
See http://www.desser.com/epdf/ACJuneFinal04-dtr.pdf
We used the Wilkerson Retreads on our 172 - twice - got good results! As
better wear than the expensive Michelins we were running before.
Ron Brown
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: PAPSP - Pilot & Aircraft Proficiency & Safety Program (Was |
Safety)
Quoting Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>:
> Glen, I began a thread on the RV-10 list some while back on the same
> topic only aimed particularly @ RV-10's. I got a response from about 25
> listers who indicated interest in the idea/concept. I had planned to
> model it after the Bonanza Pilot proficiency programs. I'll attach a
> couple of messages to this e-mail that contain the gist of the program.
> I've held off on pushing/developing this as I'm trying to finish my
> RV-10 this year, and developing the program is a BIG time consumer. I
> had several offers from the RV community of very qualified people that
> were/are interested in participating in particular phases of developing
> the program.My intent was/is to pick this back up towards the end of the
> year when the -1o is flying, If there is enough interest in developing a
> program for the larger RV community perhaps the effort could be
> transitioned.
>
> Your comment about preaching to the choir has some merit to it. However,
> I don't believe that's a reason not to proceed. Additionally , My friend
> Rick Sked and his partner are attempting to form Aircraft Mutual
> http://www.aircraftmutual.com/ with the aim of taking the risk
> management/ property insurance issue away from the insurance carriers
> and into the hands of the RV pilots/owners. Rick would be whole
> heartedly in support of such a program.
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
> Some prior e-mails on subject follow
>
>
> I'd like to float an idea to the group with the community zeroing in on
> 700 builders, and that is: Why don't we organize an RV-10 Pilot &
> Aircraft Proficiency Safety Program - PAPSP- ? I believe that several of
> the certificated type's have similar programs ( I know that
> Bonanza's/Barons do) so there are models out there that can be
> adopted/examined. With the strength of the building community evidenced
> on this list, and some prior posts aimed at organizing -10 type flyins.
> Why couldn't we combine those objectives? Loosely speaking the idea
> would be to periodically (annually initially?) meet at a fly-in (what
> about Doug Reeves Land Of Enchantment?). In between the hangar talk and
> comeraderie. there could be a pilot skills clinic established to talk
> specifically to -10 issues, as well as an aircraft safety/performance
> clinic (might even couple it with a formation flying clinic) . The
> clinics could be classroom based, cockpit/airframe based, or both. A
> ciriculum/s would have to be developed, guidelines established,
> volunteerism would have to be significant, but the benefits in
> Insurance, Safety, and potential performance improvements could be
> enormous, a 'self-regulating' group would likely draw the favor of
> insurance companies and underwriters. It also could just be a "Lot of
> Fun" (and could redirect some of the energy that goes into the building
> process into the 'flying' process and potentially delay the starting of
> another project to satisfy the 'need')
>
> Anyway just an idea,
>
> Anybody listening?
>
> Deems Davis # 406 /
>
> /
>
>
> f I'm taking up too much bandwidth with this let me know, But I felt
> the need to get something short concise and written that would serve to
> guide efforts as we go down this path. Some call these Mission
> statements, I took a crack at drafting an Objective statement the
> intent is the same. If this program is built to meet/suit the needs of
> the RV10 community, the communities feedback and input in crafting this
> is essential. Please review and critique it, rip it apart, modify it,
> and improve it in any way you think will add value or clarify what we
> are attempting to do, I'm pretty thick skinned and won't take offense at
> any input. I'll digest everything I receive and publish an update when
> the input dries up. If we have conflicting input we'll put it back to
> the group for a tie breaker. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying
> to take ownership of this or to stake out any turf, I'm probably the
> least qualified person to tackle something like this, based upon
> information that I've seen/received from several, there are many who
> have impressive credentials in the area of aviation and safety arena and
> are more qualified. So the floor is open for nominations.
>
> I included a VERY high level outline of how we might go about some of
> the next steps. Please note there are no time frames on anything at
> this point (contradicts my background, but suits my present reality,
> which is to make it Fun and not Work) My expectation is that building
> this could take months/years. If we can get a community consensus on
> Objective, Program Components/Elements and Priorities, we can break
> the development and implementation into incremental steps.
>
> Thanks for the interest expressed thus far and any suggestions going forward
>
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
> http://deemsrv10.com/
> /
>
> /To all who've responded to this thread so far:
>
> Thank you for your responses. As Patrick, John and others have pointed
> out, accomplishing something like this is NOT a minor undertaking. I
> don't doubt for a moment, the amount of work that would be required to
> put something like this together, with 40% (+/- 90%) more to go on my
> own project, I'm also not misleading myself into thinking this is
> something I could/would do alone or in my own spare time. However, I am
> willing to put some of the evening time that I spend (along with others
> time) browsing the boards/lists/websites into developing something that
> could be of significant value to our community. There is enough
> anecdotal evidence so far to suggest that the REAL value is there. As
> Patrick pointed out the biggest value, is a fleet of safety conscious
> pilots and aircraft. And while this is _First and Foremost_ a Safety and
> Proficiency idea, It doesn't rule out having some fun and enjoyment. It
> also doesn't have to be built and implemented in a way that requires us
> to build and eat the whole elephant at once, perhaps a phased approach
> is possible?
>
> In order for this idea/concept to work, it will have to have a LOT of
> support from the RV-10 community, as it would be entirely voluntary,
> there are no compulsory 'enforcement' actions that can be taken other
> than to withhold some type of certification. It would also require
> availability and commitment of some particular skills (CFI/CFII), that I
> for one don't have. (may encourage me to get another rating! :-) ) So
> with all of that said, the 1st item is to determine what , how much of
> an interest there is in a program like this, its easy to respond to an
> e-mail, and although I've received 10 + positive responses to the idea,
> that's not yet enough (1.5%) in my opinion to make a GO commitment.
> However it is encouraging enough to continue with the step of
> determining what kind of an interest there might be in such an event.
>
> Apart from this mail list, does anyone else have any additional ideas on
> how to survey the RV-10 group? I see that Rick S. and Bob K. have
> received. (If I can figure out how to do it I might put up a survey page
> on my web site, for those bashful folks who aren't as vocal on the mail
> list)
>
> IF, (big IF) there is enough interest, I'm thinking the next step would
> be to form an advisory group that would help to specify the mission,
> establish the scope, set priorities, outline a curriculum, establish
> governance, etc. Some of you have indicated an willingness.desire to
> contribute, I'll assemble a list of potential contributors and the skill
> set/expertise that may be available. If you don't want to respond
> on-line send me a not offline to register your interest.
>
> One of the suggestions was to broaden the concept to the whole RV
> community. My prior life experience taught me that as the
> size/complexity of the effort increases, the risk of failure increases
> exponentially. So I'm inclined to focus on this group (RV-10) for
> starters. If we can make a go of it, then it could be exported to a
> wider community.
> Please keep the suggestions/alternatives/input coming I have learned
> that the electronic/distributed community is indeed a synergistic
> organism and there is much more knowledge and expertise out here than I
> could ever hope to acquire in my lifetime.
>
> /
> >Hi:
Yes is a good Idea, not new, it is called self Insured, or something
similar no?
I think, that one way would be, that an Organization like, the
EAA, COULD MANAGE THE PROGRAM FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN SUCH.
I WOULD SAY AOPA, BUT, THEY HAVE SOME MANY THINGS TO DO, BESIDES
THEIR PAYINBG ADVERTISING, COMES FROM INSURANCE COMPANIES ETC..
BUT MAYBE NOT... CERTAINLY, AOPA, IS PERHAPS THE ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT
GET RESULTS, FOR OUR BENEFIT, EAA, DOES NOT HAVE THE CLOUT...
I WILL BET THAT IF THIS IDEA MATERIALIZED....SOME DAY... MOST
INSURERS, WILL COME WITH SOMETHING SIMILAR AT A VERY LOW COST..
NOW THEY SAY, IMPOSSIBLE, WE ARE GIVEN THIS AWAY... IS ALWYAS THE SAME
BERT
RV6A
>
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: | Safety, Risk Management & Pilots |
Listers,
BEWARE! LONG-WINDED POST!
The problem with developing a "training" program to teach safety to pilots
is exactly that which has been voiced by a number of readers -- you're
preaching to the choir. Additionally, because safety means different things
to different pilots, a message that has import to everyone becomes difficult
-- if not impossible -- to craft.
Even the best trainers struggle with the issue. John and Martha King have
even gone so far as to avoid the use of the word safety. The idea is it's
been used so much pilots are becoming immune to its ability to get our
attention. Instead, the King's now tout "risk management" as a way to focus
our attention on the more important factors that should guide our decision
making -- an idea that has much merit IMHO.
Adding further to the problem is the difficulty faced in teaching and
learning safety. Understanding safety isn't a matter of regurgitating a list
of relevant facts or demonstrating unique skills -- it's an attitude, a
belief. Like religion, safety deals with a personal value system, and as
such resides in a particular learning domain that is difficult (but not
impossible) to teach.
Adult education experts classify learning into three domains: Cognitive,
Psychomotor & Affective. The cognitive domain deals mainly with knowledge
and can be equated to ground school for the purposes of our discussion. The
psychomotor domain is where you learn skills; eye-hand coordination,
manipulating the stick and rudder, accomplishing tasks in the proper order,
etc. Flight training is learning in the psychomotor domain. Most of us are
familiar with cognitive and psychomotor learning.
The affective domain encompasses feelings, attitude, values, etc. A good
flight school and/or instructor will imbue his/her syllabus with lessons
addressing attitudes and values throughout the training program. For a much
more in-depth review of affective learning click on this link:
http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/affective.htm
If you don't want to read the entire webpage let me cover some highlights.
The best way to teach an attitude is to foster a need for one within your
student during ground school (cognitive) and flight training (psychomotor),
then teach by example. Students will best learn from their primary
instructor -- either thru discussion or direct observation/imitation -- the
importance of safety. Research shows that aside from personal experience,
role modeling and social acceptance are the most powerful attitudinal
developers. Think about the implications of that for a moment. Unless you
survive a life-threatening experience from which to learn, your instructor
and the rest of the flying community will likely form the basis of your
attitude toward flight safety when faced with a "life or death" decision.
Experts have further categorized levels of learning within the affective
domain (see below). It's generally accepted that one must progress up this
scale. For example, before one can value an attitude one must have learned
of it, etc.
1. RECEIVING PHENOMENA -- an awareness; willingness to listen
2. RESPONDING TO PHENOMENA -- taking an active part in learning;
participating
3. VALUING -- the value a person attaches to something
4. ORGANIZATION -- organizing values into order of priority
5. INTERNALIZING VALUES -- behavior which is controlled by a value system
I think if asked, everyone of us would SAY we believe that flight safety is
paramount; when faced with dire straights, getting the plane on the ground
without injury to people or damage to the aircraft is the primary goal -- we
are beyond the first three levels as regards our awareness and acceptance of
safety in the affective domain. The problem seems to come when we're asked
to PRIORITIZE. Even though we believe flight safety is paramount, our
behavior often reflects conflicting values. We make silly decisions that
lead to injury/death -- low-level aerobatics or trying to stretch a few more
miles out that last top off -- and seem to make no sense. They seem to make
no sense until we discern the controlling value. In the two above examples
having fun or saving time is perceived as the priority.
In my opinion, our problem isn't teaching new attitudes (values). Everyone
understands flying airplanes is dangerous and can result in our death, or
the deaths of others. Our problem is how to ORGANIZE and INTERNALIZE our
values so that we may properly prioritize. Our behavior should (and most
likely will) reflect our beliefs. Obviously there needs to be some balance;
we build our planes to enjoy them and get us places in less time. But no one
would argue that walking away from the aircraft following our return to
earth should be the most important priority.
I spent twenty years as a member of the USAF (Boom Operator on KC-135
aircraft). Any USAF flight crewmember will tell you that the Air Force has a
lock on safety. That's not to say it doesn't deal with its share of
accidents; after all, its pilots engage in some of the most hazardous flying
activities imaginable. But no organization is better at instilling safety
into its culture. Some of the things it does:
SAFETY AS A CORPORATE VALUE -- Safety is mentioned at least once a day by
"someone in charge." No aspect of your life is considered sacrosanct from
safety review. Commanders are required to individually brief members who
engage in high-risk activities off duty (skydiving, scuba diving, even
flying light aircraft). Every season brings new hazards and results in a
mass safety briefing to discuss them; 101 Critical Days of Summer, Winter
Driving Tips, etc. Everyone from the top down is continually observed and
critiqued on their attitude towards safety. You can see how this falls right
into the "social acceptance" aspect of attitude change.
MONTHLY FLYING SAFETY MEETINGS -- Every month crewmembers are required to
attend a safety meeting. An officer is assigned specifically to organize and
present pertinent safety topics. Accidents are mercilessly reviewed as
regards the actions of the crew. All aspects of the accident are pored over
(ever read an NTSB report on a major airline accident?) with the intention
of showing how the crew's action (or inaction) contributed. All the data is
presented coldly, emotionlessly, accurately and concisely; no punches are
pulled out of respect for the living or dead crewmembers involved. More
"social acceptance."
POST-FLIGHT CRITIQUES -- After every mission, the crew (or crews in the
event of a multi-aircraft flight) review the entire mission as regards
flight safety and mission effectiveness. For training missions, flight
safety rules; operational missions might require more emphasis on mission
effectiveness. Crews discuss safety issues without prejudice or passion
(hopefully) -- leave your ego at the door. All comments by everyone involved
are taken at their face not as a personal attack, but as one person trying
to help another avoid death or injury. No opinion is suppressed. Sometimes
the discussion involves how safety relates to mission effectiveness, and
these are the most beneficial because they help clarify one's system of
value organization. It's not uncommon for these discussions to occur openly
in view of other crewmembers that weren't on the flight. Comments from the
peanut gallery are encouraged -- all actions are open for scrutiny. Can you
say "social acceptance?"
QUALIFICATION TRAINING -- This may seem silly to even mention, but the
importance of ensuring one is qualified to engage in a particular activity
before attempting to do so cannot be overstated. In the USAF, NO ONE is
allowed to engage in a flight-related activity until they've been trained
and their skills and knowledge evaluated and compared to a standard. Flight
examiners also evaluate an individual's decision-making since how we react
to a particular situation holds clues to our attitudes and values.
CURRENCY TRAINING -- Effective, recurrent emergency procedures training
conducted in as realistic a method as possible (simulators). No one can
argue that a behavior repeated time and again becomes second nature.
Research has proven that repetitive training such as this can even change
attitudes. Hmmm...
As you can see, the USAF incorporates and internalizes training in the
affective domain throughout its entire culture. They utilize three key
devices experts tell us are most effective in changing attitudes:
-- Demonstration of the desired behavior by a respected role model (primary
training)
-- Practice of the desired behavior, often through role playing (simulator
training)
-- Reinforcement of the desired behavior (safety meetings, post-flight
critiques, etc.)
As has been mentioned, the alphabet groups have resisted getting the
insurance companies involved... because they fear the "power" one might then
wield within the community it has been suggested. While I don't know about
that, I do know the Cirrus Owner's and Pilots Organization has resisted just
such an initiative within its own group; the reason might surprise you.
COPA has a remarkable record. You may have read of a number of high-profile
accidents involving Cirrus aircraft; more than would seem the norm
considering the number of aircraft in the fleet. What you probably didn't
know is that nearly 90% of those accidents involved Cirrus pilots who are
not members of COPA. Hmmmm....
COPA (www.cirruspilots.org) has incorporated safety awareness in every
aspect of its activities. They organize and sponsor (or find someone to
sponsor) type-specific training seminars. Almost all of the many fly-ins its
members attend include some type of (voluntary, but almost universally
attended) training seminar. If you want to know how COPA values safety, go
to its website and click the link for the organization's "Code of Conduct."
I submit you will likely never find a more cogent, concise and pertinent
document from which to base your actions as a pilot.
COPA also runs an extremely active message forum on which members regularly
dissect recent flights (much like the USAF post-flight critique). There is
also a move afoot among members to establish a "mentor" program. Each member
will have contact information for an experienced Cirrus pilot whom they may
consult to help with preflight decision-making. Ever looked over a preflight
situation and agonized over what to do? What if you had someone you trust
implicitly (other than the Flight Service Station) to help you focus on the
important factors and make a good decision? I believe this single program
has more potential to prevent accidents than almost anything else COPA
does...
So why did COPA resist seeking an insurance discount for COPA membership?
Simply because its members fear pilots will then join just for the discount
rather than to be involved and active in the safety programs. It attributes
the remarkable safety statistic mentioned above to the fact that all its
members are focused on safely flying the aircraft above all else -- and they
want to keep it that way.
One might ask the question: Is COPA's safety record due to its programs,
because it attracts the kind of pilot who is naturally cautious or some
other reason? That's a good question -- the kind where contemplating an
answer may hold value for us all...
I would suggest those of us who feel we should "DO" something about
improving our safety record as a community might consider doing some of the
things COPA does. The braver among us might consider posting about a recent
flight where something unusual happened and open a discussion. Even posting
about a flight were the pilot decided not to go can be instructive; on what
factors did he or she base the no-go decision?
Post-flight discussions are invaluable for reviewing tragedies and triumphs,
but some posters are better than others at leaving out personal attacks and
avoiding contempt when discussing another's actions. Because email isn't the
most effective method of conveying meaning, we should endeavor as both a
"sender" and "receiver" of data to avoid the distractions of rancor and
contempt thereby limiting our emotional reactions -- that only leads to
flame wars. And to ensure a rich supply of material for discussion, we
should remember that those not familiar with a system like this will be much
more amenable to posting their experiences for dissection if they don't feel
like they're opening themselves up for cheap shots and personal attacks.
Conversely, be open-minded if someone questions your activities. There isn't
one among us who couldn't improve when it comes to safety, but unless you
are aware of a shortcoming you can't eliminate it. Try to view criticism as
an effort on the part of another to help you. Try to accept any and all
comments on their face as an attempt to help foster a "safety culture" here
on the list. For my own part, I try to beware my individualism. I try to
remind myself the same attitude that led me away from certified aircraft and
to build and fly a high-performance kit can lead to my unwillingness to
listen to other's opinions.
Those more experienced among us might also consider mentoring. I don't mean
publicly flaming someone you believe made a stupid decision, but taking the
time to thoughtfully review a situation after getting ALL THE FACTS and
having a civilized discussion -- one on one -- with a wayward pilot. Discuss
the importance of getting the proper training before engaging in a
particular type of flight activity (formation, aerobatic, etc). Talk about
the importance of staying current. Offer to be available to help with
preflight decision making.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. BTW, please feel free to comment in any
fashion you like about this post -- after 20 years of post-flight critiques
I'm pretty thick skinned!
Regards,
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
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 |
|
Quoting Tim Bryan <n616tb@btsapps.com>:
>
> Hi Bert,
>
> I had this same problem and no intercom. Have you checked your intercom?
> For me the problem came down to the wiring for the mic jacks. There were
> two wires that could be swapped and still allow the ptt to work. If they
> were backwards there was no sidetone and no intercom.
>
> Just my experience.
> Tim
> Thanks Tim: I will check on that again..
I am sure is my wiring, I am not the best on electrical... If I had
to do it again, I will buy the bullett and pay to have the pannel done
by a professional... it was the hardest for me...
Bert rv6a
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bertrv6@highstream.net
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:27 AM
> > To: Rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RV-List: Hello
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi:
> >
> > For those experts on avionics... I am having problem with my Radio.
> >
> > I do not have a side tone, on the head sets...Every one can hear me
> > well, and I can hear, but no side tone..
> > I have checked for loose wires,, that is all...
> >
> >
> > Suggestions, next step..
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Bert
> >
> > rv6a
> >
> > Completing my 40 hrs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
Anyone here have opinion/facts on effect of exhaust stack length on power
and/or aerodynamics of stacks hanging out in the airstream? I have standard
Vetterman stacks and as they come extend from the bottom of cowling about 9".
Anyone shorten them up with positive results? Just noodling as usual..
Jerry Cochran
RV-6a Phase One
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
Anyone here have opinion/facts on effect of exhaust stack length on power
and/or aerodynamics of stacks hanging out in the airstream? I have standard
Vetterman stacks and as they come extend from the bottom of cowling about 9".
Anyone shorten them up with positive results? Just noodling as usual..
Jerry Cochran
RV-6a Phase One
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
Jerry:
I shorten mine 10 years ago. It makes more noise in the cockpit and more
vibration on the floor. After about a year of that, I installed 22 degree
turn downs (purchased from Vetterman) to get the exhaust away from the
airplane. Less floor vibration and appears to be less noise.
I did not see any speed difference. I will let others that have done more
flight testing with and without make claims to speed increases.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,988 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
----Original Message Follows----
From: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Subject: RV-List: Exhaust Stacks
Anyone here have opinion/facts on effect of exhaust stack length on power
and/or aerodynamics of stacks hanging out in the airstream? I have standard
Vetterman stacks and as they come extend from the bottom of cowling about
9".
Anyone shorten them up with positive results? Just noodling as usual..
Jerry Cochran
RV-6a Phase One
************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07
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: Exhaust Stacks |
Jerry,
I have tested both the longer stacks from Larry and the earlier versions
that were approx 4 -6 inches longer. The longer stacks will give you a
1 to 2knot speed gain, however, they will also slightly increase the
noise level within the fuselage. The stacks with a down facing elbow are
quieter and also slower than both of the above. These tests were done
in my RV8. I do not know if the above will apply to the RV6 & RV7,
however, I would think that the same results would apply also.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry2DT@aol.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 1:25 PM
Subject: RV-List: Exhaust Stacks
Anyone here have opinion/facts on effect of exhaust stack length on
power and/or aerodynamics of stacks hanging out in the airstream? I have
standard Vetterman stacks and as they come extend from the bottom of
cowling about 9". Anyone shorten them up with positive results? Just
noodling as usual..
Jerry Cochran
RV-6a Phase One
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
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! --
|