Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:01 AM - Re: High Temp Brake Fluid (Ron Schreck)
2. 09:31 AM - Re: High Temp Brake Fluid (Vanremog@aol.com)
3. 10:53 AM - Re: High Temp Brake Fluid (Randy Lervold)
4. 02:37 PM - RV-7 vs Mustang II (Gordon or Marge)
5. 02:51 PM - Brake O-rings (Ron Lee)
6. 03:08 PM - Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II (David Burton)
7. 03:38 PM - Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II (Charlie England)
8. 04:14 PM - Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II (jan)
9. 04:57 PM - Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II (Charlie England)
10. 04:59 PM - Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II (Gordon or Marge)
11. 05:00 PM - Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II (Gordon or Marge)
12. 05:26 PM - Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II (Gordon or Marge)
13. 06:35 PM - RV-9A CG change (Dan Ross)
14. 08:33 PM - Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II (Rob Prior)
15. 08:54 PM - Re: RV-9A CG change (Ron Lee)
16. 10:09 PM - Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II (Brian Kraut)
17. 10:30 PM - Re: Re: Synthetic brake fluid and Viton O-rings (Michael D. Cencula)
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: High Temp Brake Fluid |
Thanks for the info. Do you have a part number or size specification
for the o-rings needed?
RS
_http://www.thunderbirdfield.org/author.htm_
(http://www.thunderbirdfield.org/author.htm)
_http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/maintenance/aarpe/HumanPerformance/Stu
dy4.h
tm_
(http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/maintenance/aarpe/HumanPerformance/Stu
dy4.htm)
_http://www.vansairforce.com/community/printthread.php?t=4737&pp=40_
(http://www.vansairforce.com/community/printthread.php?t=4737&pp=40)
_http://flying.karmy.com/?cat=4_
(http://flying.karmy.com/?cat=4)
_http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_178.htm_
(http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_178.htm)
But, please also consider that not all O-ring breaches resulting
in fluid
leaks develop into full fledged brake fires. They can be caught
during routine
inspections and preflights when they can be remedied.
I caught my original problem with the original Nitrile O-rings on
the tarmac
at Henderson Exec preparing to depart. It was an extremely
inconvenient
time to do a proper brake repair, so I elected to fly home and
restrained my use
of the brakes upon landing. There is no need for any of you to
repeat this
exercise.
If you wish to not avail yourself of the opportunity to upgrade
your brakes
using very simple available means then all I can't do anything
further but
wish you all a happy new year and blue skies.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: High Temp Brake Fluid |
In a message dated 12/30/2007 2:03:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ronschreck@windstream.net writes:
Thanks for the info. Do you have a part number or size specification for
the o-rings needed?
=============================================
It all in the archives and in one of the references I gave. Look for the
term V75 and you should get there.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
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: High Temp Brake Fluid |
Info here...
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Maintenance/maintenance.html#BrakeFluid
RL
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Schreck
To: RV List
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: High Temp Brake Fluid
Thanks for the info. Do you have a part number or size specification
for the o-rings needed?
RS
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: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
Several years ago Van wrote about a flight he made in his RV-6 against a
Mustang II flown by a gent who had shot off his mouth about the virtues
of
thin wings and the lack of virtue of thick wings. I seem to recall that
there was a side by side speed comparison but of that I'm not certain.
I
have looked back through my RVators to mid 1994 and not found it so far.
Does anyone know where and when that was published? Are there any data
comparing the RV-7 with the Mustang II? The reason for the questions is
a
friend is planning to build one or the other starting after SnF and
quite
naturally, I am trying to convince him to build the
RV. He has fallen prey to the "thin wing" idea and since Mustang
aviation
is slightly more than a hour's drive from here he is leaning that way.
Help, please in trying to prevent him from making a dreadful mistake.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
I'm actually mounting the Precision Eagle System components the -8
airframe.
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 |
|
Look here for the master cylinder parts list:
http://www.parker.com/ag/wbd/Cleveland/pdf/WB03c.pdf
Ron Lee
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: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
Hi Gordon,
January 1988 Kitplanes published an article:
Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6.
It's available for free if you are an EAA member. Just give them a call.
DaveB
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gordon or Marge
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:36 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
Several years ago Van wrote about a flight he made in his RV-6 against a
Mustang II flown by a gent who had shot off his mouth about the virtues of
thin wings and the lack of virtue of thick wings. I seem to recall that
there was a side by side speed comparison but of that I'm not certain. I
have looked back through my RVators to mid 1994 and not found it so far.
Does anyone know where and when that was published? Are there any data
comparing the RV-7 with the Mustang II? The reason for the questions is a
friend is planning to build one or the other starting after SnF and quite
naturally, I am trying to convince him to build the
RV. He has fallen prey to the "thin wing" idea and since Mustang aviation
is slightly more than a hour's drive from here he is leaning that way.
Help, please in trying to prevent him from making a dreadful mistake.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
I'm actually mounting the Precision Eagle System components the -8 airframe.
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: RV-7 vs Mustang II |
Try not to refer to the decision as a 'dreadful mistake'. Hopefully,
you're joking about that. I agree that for most people, the -7 is a
better choice, but the M-II is a good airplane & if he feels like he can
get 'local support' it might not be that bad a choice. I owned a M-II
project for a while & I've flown several examples. If they are built
correctly (much easier with the newer kits of pre-formed parts) they fly
a lot like an RV. And you gotta admit, there are so many RVs flying now
that building one almost looks like buying a Cessna to real he-man
homebuilders. :-)
Charlie
David Burton wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
>
>
>
> January 1988 Kitplanes published an article:
>
> Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6.
>
> Its available for free if you are an EAA member. Just give them a call.
>
> DaveB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Gordon or Marge
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:36 PM
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
>
>
>
> Several years ago Van wrote about a flight he made in his RV-6 against a
> Mustang II flown by a gent who had shot off his mouth about the virtues
> of thin wings and the lack of virtue of thick wings. I seem to recall
> that there was a side by side speed comparison but of that I'm not
> certain. I have looked back through my RVators to mid 1994 and not
> found it so far. Does anyone know where and when that was published?
> Are there any data comparing the RV-7 with the Mustang II? The reason
> for the questions is a friend is planning to build one or the other
> starting after SnF and quite naturally, I am trying to convince him to
> build the
>
> RV. He has fallen prey to the "thin wing" idea and since Mustang
> aviation is slightly more than a hour's drive from here he is leaning
> that way. Help, please in trying to prevent him from making a dreadful
> mistake.
>
>
>
> Gordon Comfort
>
> N363GC
>
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: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
If my memory serves me right was it not a "thin" wing T18 that was the first
"homebuilt" that flew around the world ??
Does anyone build any T18 today ????
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: 30 December 2007 23:36
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
Try not to refer to the decision as a 'dreadful mistake'. Hopefully,
you're joking about that. I agree that for most people, the -7 is a
better choice, but the M-II is a good airplane & if he feels like he can
get 'local support' it might not be that bad a choice. I owned a M-II
project for a while & I've flown several examples. If they are built
correctly (much easier with the newer kits of pre-formed parts) they fly
a lot like an RV. And you gotta admit, there are so many RVs flying now
that building one almost looks like buying a Cessna to real he-man
homebuilders. :-)
Charlie
David Burton wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
>
>
>
> January 1988 Kitplanes published an article:
>
> Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6.
>
> It's available for free if you are an EAA member. Just give them a call.
>
> DaveB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Gordon or Marge
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:36 PM
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
>
>
>
> Several years ago Van wrote about a flight he made in his RV-6 against a
> Mustang II flown by a gent who had shot off his mouth about the virtues
> of thin wings and the lack of virtue of thick wings. I seem to recall
> that there was a side by side speed comparison but of that I'm not
> certain. I have looked back through my RVators to mid 1994 and not
> found it so far. Does anyone know where and when that was published?
> Are there any data comparing the RV-7 with the Mustang II? The reason
> for the questions is a friend is planning to build one or the other
> starting after SnF and quite naturally, I am trying to convince him to
> build the
>
> RV. He has fallen prey to the "thin wing" idea and since Mustang
> aviation is slightly more than a hour's drive from here he is leaning
> that way. Help, please in trying to prevent him from making a dreadful
> mistake.
>
>
>
> Gordon Comfort
>
> N363GC
>
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: RV-7 vs Mustang II |
Yes and yes.
There's a very active Thorplist on Yahoo, & there are actually *2* kit
suppliers for the T & the wider bodied, modified airfoil S model. (Also
a good flying plane; 90% of RV performance for ~1/2 the price in the
already flying homebuilt market.)
Charlie
jan wrote:
>
> If my memory serves me right was it not a "thin" wing T18 that was the first
> "homebuilt" that flew around the world ??
>
> Does anyone build any T18 today ????
>
> Jan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
> Sent: 30 December 2007 23:36
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
>
>
> Try not to refer to the decision as a 'dreadful mistake'. Hopefully,
> you're joking about that. I agree that for most people, the -7 is a
> better choice, but the M-II is a good airplane & if he feels like he can
> get 'local support' it might not be that bad a choice. I owned a M-II
> project for a while & I've flown several examples. If they are built
> correctly (much easier with the newer kits of pre-formed parts) they fly
> a lot like an RV. And you gotta admit, there are so many RVs flying now
> that building one almost looks like buying a Cessna to real he-man
> homebuilders. :-)
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> David Burton wrote:
>> Hi Gordon,
>>
>>
>>
>> January 1988 Kitplanes published an article:
>>
>> Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6.
>>
>> It's available for free if you are an EAA member. Just give them a call.
>>
>> DaveB
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Gordon or Marge
>> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:36 PM
>> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
>>
>>
>>
>> Several years ago Van wrote about a flight he made in his RV-6 against a
>> Mustang II flown by a gent who had shot off his mouth about the virtues
>> of thin wings and the lack of virtue of thick wings. I seem to recall
>> that there was a side by side speed comparison but of that I'm not
>> certain. I have looked back through my RVators to mid 1994 and not
>> found it so far. Does anyone know where and when that was published?
>> Are there any data comparing the RV-7 with the Mustang II? The reason
>> for the questions is a friend is planning to build one or the other
>> starting after SnF and quite naturally, I am trying to convince him to
>> build the
>>
>> RV. He has fallen prey to the "thin wing" idea and since Mustang
>> aviation is slightly more than a hour's drive from here he is leaning
>> that way. Help, please in trying to prevent him from making a dreadful
>> mistake.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gordon Comfort
>>
>> N363GC
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: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
Try not to refer to the decision as a 'dreadful mistake'. Hopefully,
you're joking about that. I agree that for most people, the -7 is a
better choice, but the M-II is a good airplane & if he feels like he can
get 'local support' it might not be that bad a choice. I owned a M-II
project for a while & I've flown several examples. If they are built
correctly (much easier with the newer kits of pre-formed parts) they fly
a lot like an RV. And you gotta admit, there are so many RVs flying now
that building one almost looks like buying a Cessna to real he-man
homebuilders. :-)
Charlie
Charlie: That was a bit of hyperbole there at the end. I recognize that
for many people the MustangII is a good choice. I don't know what their
status is but my friend and I will visit them soon and find out. It should
help to clarify what is actually involved in building one. I made several
flights with another friend who had built a II using a Buick engine and with
his first powerplant installation I could literally fly circles around him
with my 160hp RV-4. He improved his performance with a different prop and a
new build on the engine but the installation was fairly draggy. He lost
that airplane but has since built another with a 160hp CS setup but I have
not been able to fly with him yet. It will likely be spring before that
happens. Thank you for your input.
Gordon
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: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Burton
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:07 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
Hi Gordon,
January 1988 Kitplanes published an article:
Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6.
It's available for free if you are an EAA member. Just give them a call.
DaveB
Dave: Thank you for your response. Man, that has been a while ago. Time
flies.
Gordon
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: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jan
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:14 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
If my memory serves me right was it not a "thin" wing T18 that was the first
"homebuilt" that flew around the world ??
Does anyone build any T18 today ????
Jan
Jan: You are probably right, though I don't know what airfoil the T-18
uses. The -18 was likely the best available at the time, although the
Mustang II has been around for a while. It would be interesting to know
about new construction and whether or not they are using the Riblett
airfoil. Thanks for the reply.
Gordon
P.S. Since writing the above I looked through my file cabinet and found a
T-18 info pack that included a pretty good 3-view drawing. Scaling the
drawing (admittedly risky) it looks like the airfoil is about a 12% section.
Van's are 13.5%, quite a bit more. The span is given as 20' 10", the wing
chord as 4' 2" and the wing area as 86 square feet. If the wing is 12% thick
then max thickness is in the order of 6". The cover letter with the info was
dated 4 Mar 75 and the drawing was revised 2 Feb 66, so I must have
considered it when I was thinking about building. The RV-4 was started in
1982.
GC
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 |
|
Guys: Today I begin the ugly task of moving my 10 pound battery from the
firewall to behind the baggage compartment. I have an 0-360A4M with a Van's
fixed pitched Sensenich prop and a nose wheel empty weight of 288 pounds.
After reading Van's info indicating 315 is the maximum allowable, I decided
to bite the bullet and move the battery aft. My figuring indicates that the
battery movement will take 25 pounds off the nose wheel and move the empty
CG aft 11/2 inches. My empty CG now is 76.05 at 1146 pounds and my most aft
min fuel CG is 82.04 at max gross of 1750. Anyone see something I don't
see. Dan, N65XX with 130 hours.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II |
On 14:35 2007-12-30 "Gordon or Marge" <gcomfo@tc3net.com> wrote:
> Help, please in trying
> to prevent him from making a dreadful mistake.
Having flown in both an RV-6 and a Mustang II, I have to say that building
a M-II would certainly not be a "dreadful mistake". I recall that it flew
a lot like an RV-6. The cockpit felt tighter on the M-II... Couldn't say
whether it was the overall width or the shape of the canopy, it was a few
years ago that I flew in it. I'm 190 lbs and the owner was somewhere near
200. We were cozy, but not uncomfortable. Performance numbers were
comparable, and the control feel was almost identical.
I considered the M-II quite seriously before starting my -7. At the end of
the day, I chose the -7 because there were a lot of people locally building
RV's, and thought it would be more important to have that pool of knowledge
to draw from on my first project. Also, my plan is to fly formation with
other RV's, so it's better to have a plane that matches.
Personally I like the tapered wing on the M-II better than the Hershey bar
on the RV's, but it wasn't a large enough factor in my decision I guess.
-Rob
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: RV-9A CG change |
First...you are already 27 pounds under the max. Are you certain that
you have a problem
that requires moving the battery aft?
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Ross
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-9A CG change
Guys: Today I begin the ugly task of moving my 10 pound battery from
the firewall to behind the baggage compartment. I have an 0-360A4M with
a Van's fixed pitched Sensenich prop and a nose wheel empty weight of
288 pounds. After reading Van's info indicating 315 is the maximum
allowable, I decided to bite the bullet and move the battery aft. My
figuring indicates that the battery movement will take 25 pounds off the
nose wheel and move the empty CG aft 11/2 inches. My empty CG now is
76.05 at 1146 pounds and my most aft min fuel CG is 82.04 at max gross
of 1750. Anyone see something I don't see. Dan, N65XX with 130 hours.
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: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
I forwarded to the Mustang group to get an opinion. The question on the
Mustang group comes up often and the general consenses is usually that the
Mustang has better performance with the same engine, but is more work to
build. One Mustangers opinion follows.
-----Original Message-----
From: mustangaero@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mustangaero@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Kirk Harrell
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: M.Aero: FW: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
First of all, the "Checkpoint Charley" article was a
comparison of a new, factory prepped, kit bird and a
more used scratch built MII. There was no evaluation
between relative aerodynamic cleanup or other
variables that would add value to the comparison.
My Mustang II is scratch built, and the leading edges
of the wing are not properly formed, and it stalls
hot, about 70 mph. The stall is not scary, it is just
a stall that feels like the stall in a Cherokee 140.
Yes, I land it faster,... so? Thousands upon
thousands of people land on runways all over the world
at much faster speeds every day, and never give it a
thought. Get over the fact that your RV can land
slower. The MII is great in a crosswind and I would
rather have that capability than be able to land 10 -
15 mph slower.
I raced the first leg of the 2002 Air Venture Cup
(engine problems resulted in a DNF for the second
leg). There were three RV-8's, one RV-6, one RV-6A
and an RV-4 in my class, Formula FX which is fixed
gear up to 360 cu. in. engines. Mine, a stock
IO360-B1E 180 hp, with Hartzell prop.
I finished the first leg fifth, behind two Glasair I's
with same engine as mine, a turbocharged Glasair II
with same engine as mine, and was just barely nipped
by a Longeze for fourth... No RV's in front of me. I
think that is more conclusive than the "Checkpoint
Charlie" article.
The RV is a fine plane, I've flown the 4, 6A, and 8.
compared to my MII I think they are somewhat lighter
on the ailerons, but they don't fly that much
different (except for going fighteningly slow in the
pattern! :-) ).
The Mustang II is a fine bird as well, and does not
deserve the reputation the RV crowd is trying to give
it. Many Mustang builders have flown their birds for
20+ years, and put thousands of hours on them. They
will tell you they love it more every time they fly
it. I've only flown mine since 1998, and I love
flying it, and love the way it flies.
I've flown a lot of mile cross country in formation
with RV's. It's a lot of fun, especially when we
compare fuel tickets when we stop for gas.
Kirk Harrell
MII N22YR
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Synthetic brake fluid and Viton O-rings |
For a *very* thorough writeup of DOT brake fluid and it's corrosive
properties, please reference a NIST document:
http://www.brakestrips.net/docs/nistir6233_absrpt.pdf
The short answer seems to be that plain DOT fluid exceeds the corrosion
resistance spec for aluminum by a factor of 10.
Additionally, all automotive ABS modules that I'm aware of are made from
aluminum which would further indicate that there's no problem with DOT
brake fluid and aluminum compatibility.
Mike Cencula
RV-7A fuse
Scott wrote:
>
> I was always under the impression that 5606 hydraulic was the way to
> go. I thought DOT was corrosive to aluminum??? Might be FOS (full of
> sh**) on this one, but I do seem to recall 5606 was the way to go
>
>
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! --
|