Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:27 AM - cracks (Wheeler North)
2. 09:54 AM - Re: cracks (Randy Lervold)
3. 10:22 AM - Re: cracks (Dean Pichon)
4. 10:49 AM - Re: cracks (Randy Lervold)
5. 11:32 AM - Re: cracks (Paul Besing)
6. 11:47 AM - Re: cracks (Paul Besing)
7. 12:07 PM - Re: cracks (Dean Pichon)
8. 12:48 PM - Spot PLB was: Cheaper 406mhz alternative (Larry James)
9. 02:12 PM - Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? (Rob Prior)
10. 02:52 PM - Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? (Scott)
11. 03:25 PM - Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? (Rob Prior)
12. 03:38 PM - Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? (Charlie England)
13. 03:52 PM - Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? (Scott)
14. 04:10 PM - Re: cracks (don wentz)
15. 04:10 PM - Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? ()
16. 04:22 PM - Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? (Charlie England)
17. 05:38 PM - Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? (Ron Lee)
18. 07:05 PM - Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? (Bill Boyd)
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 |
|
Well,
I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...
I've run a trailing edge bead of silicon.
I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across to each other.
I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to better distribute the load away
from the final rivets.
And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins, sans
any cracks.
The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffeners to be too long, and for the
taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6 inches in
the -6 plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of unviolated
aluminum to arrive.
Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight super-fast,
zoom-zoom, wheeeee
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 |
|
Further info on getting .016 skins to live without cracking here...
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empennage
My research among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if constructed
using the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flight surfaces could
have an indefinite life.
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:25 AM
Subject: RV-List: cracks
>
> Well,
>
> I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...
>
> I've run a trailing edge bead of silicon.
>
> I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across to each other.
>
> I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to better distribute the load
> away
> from the final rivets.
>
> And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins, sans
> any cracks.
>
> The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffeners to be too long, and for the
> taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6 inches
> in
> the -6 plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of unviolated
> aluminum to arrive.
>
> Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight super-fast,
> zoom-zoom, wheeeee
>
>
>
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 |
|
Some time ago, I called Van's on the issue and was told the cracking is (mo
stly) limited to those aircraft with larger engines (180HP and up). The cr
acking was attributed to buffeting on the tail - primarily while on the gro
und. Unfortunately, I have no data to support or refute this. It was just
an explanation (hypothesis?) given to me a coupe of years ago when my -4 d
eveloped a crack in the rudder skin.
Dean Pichon> From: randy@romeolima.com> To: rv-list@matronics.com> Subject:
Re: RV-List: cracks> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:51:58 -0800> > --> RV-List
message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@romeolima.com>> > Further info on
getting .016 skins to live without cracking here...> http://www.romeolima.
com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empennage> > My research among RV-4 and ear
ly RV-6 drivers showed that if constructed > using the techniques detailed
above that .016 skinned flight surfaces could > have an indefinite life.> >
Randy Lervold> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wheeler North" <w
north@sdccd.edu>> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>> Sent: Monday, January 14, 20
"Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.edu>> >> > Well,> >> > I am using the .016 sk
ins on the RV-3, but...> >> > I've run a trailing edge bead of silicon.> >>
> I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across to each other.> >>
> I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to better distribute the load
> > away> > from the final rivets.> >> > And this 'model' has 1200 hours of
flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins, sans> > any cracks.> >> > The RV-3 plan
s also called for the stiffeners to be too long, and for the> > taper to be
way too short, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6 inches > > in> > the
-6 plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of unviolated> >
aluminum to arrive.> >> > Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, ligh
===================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista=AE + Windows Live=99.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_TA
GLM_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008
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 |
|
Larger engines will indeed exacerbate and accelerate the problem, but
the fundamentals of proper elevator/rudder construction still apply.
Build it right and go light!
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Pichon
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: cracks
Some time ago, I called Van's on the issue and was told the cracking
is (mostly) limited to those aircraft with larger engines (180HP and
up). The cracking was attributed to buffeting on the tail - primarily
while on the ground. Unfortunately, I have no data to support or refute
this. It was just an explanation (hypothesis?) given to me a coupe of
years ago when my -4 developed a crack in the rudder skin.
Dean Pichon
> From: randy@romeolima.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: cracks
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:51:58 -0800
>
>
> Further info on getting .016 skins to live without cracking here...
> http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empennage
>
> My research among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if
constructed
> using the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flight
surfaces could
> have an indefinite life.
>
> Randy Lervold
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.edu>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:25 AM
> Subject: RV-List: cracks
>
>
> >
> > Well,
> >
> > I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...
> >
> > I've run a trailing edge bead of silicon.
> >
> > I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across to each
other.
> >
> > I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to better distribute the
load
> > away
> > from the final rivets.
> >
> > And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016
skins, sans
> > any cracks.
> >
> > The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffeners to be too long, and
for the
> > taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6
inches
> > in
> > the -6 plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of
unviolated
> > aluminum to arrive.
> >
> > Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight
super-fast,
> > zoom-zoom, wheeeee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
=============
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista=AE + Windows
Live=99. Start now!
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 |
|
I heard that, too....when I talked with Ken, and asked him a question about
the .020 or .016 skin, he asked what engine I had...I told him 200HP IO-36
0, and he chuckled and said, "Well, there you go." I have finished the rud
der now, with the RTV on the stiffeners...I like the idea about proseal..di
dn't think of it. Also like the idea of adding a stiffener...but I have th
e .020 skin, so we'll see what happens. I have about 900 hours on the airf
rame, and it was cracked well before that when I bought it 2 years ago. St
op drilled, but then the cracks started continuing, so I grounded it and bu
ilt the new one.=0A=0APaul Besing=0ARV-4 N73DD=0AArizona =0A=0A=0A----- Ori
ginal Message ----=0AFrom: Dean Pichon <deanpichon@msn.com>=0ATo: rv-list@m
atronics.com=0ASent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:22:01 AM=0ASubject: RE: RV
-List: cracks=0A=0ASome time ago, I called Van's on the issue and was told
the cracking is (mostly) limited to those aircraft with larger engines (180
HP and up). The cracking was attributed to buffeting on the tail - primari
ly while on the ground. Unfortunately, I have no data to support or refute
this. It was just an explanation (hypothesis?) given to me a coupe of yea
rs ago when my -4 developed a crack in the rudder skin.=0A =0ADean Pichon
=0A=0A> From: randy@romeolima.com=0A> To: rv-list@matronics.com=0A> Subject
: Re: RV-List: cracks=0A> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:51:58 -0800=0A> =0A> --
Further info on getting .016 skins to live without cracking here...=0A> ht
tp://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empennage=0A> =0A> My re
search among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if constructed =0A> us
ing the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flight surfaces could
=0A> have an indefinite life.=0A> =0A> Randy Lervold=0A> =0A> =0A> ----- Or
iginal Message ----- =0A> From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.edu>=0A> To:
<rv-list@matronics.com>=0A> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:25 AM=0A> Subj
r North" <wnorth@sdccd.edu>=0A> >=0A> > Well,=0A> >=0A> > I am using the .0
16 skins on the RV-3, but...=0A> >=0A> > I've run a trailing edge bead of s
ilicon.=0A> >=0A> > I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across t
o each other.=0A> >=0A> > I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to bett
er distribute the load =0A> > away=0A> > from the final rivets.=0A> >=0A> >
And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins, sans
=0A> > any cracks.=0A> >=0A> > The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffener
s to be too long, and for the=0A> > taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 in
ches where it called for 6 inches =0A> > in=0A> > the -6 plans, all of whic
h was cause for yet another new box of unviolated=0A> > aluminum to arrive.
=0A> >=0A> > Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight super
-fast,=0A> > zoom-zoom, wheeeee=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> > =0A>
==================0A> =0A> =0A> =0A=0A=0A
=0A=0AMake distant family not so distant with Windows Vista=AE + Windows Li
===========0A=0A=0A ______________________________
______________________________________________________=0ANever miss a thing
. Make Yahoo your home page. =0Ahttp://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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 |
|
Well, it's done now with .020...so guess I'll deal with the extra pound..ca
n use the aft CG anyway due to a light prop/starter combination. The eleva
tors, however are fine after 18 years and 900 hours of flying.=0A=0APaul Be
sing=0ARV-4 N73DD=0AArizona=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Ran
dy Lervold <randy@romeolima.com>=0ATo: rv-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Monday
, January 14, 2008 11:48:11 AM=0ASubject: Re: RV-List: cracks=0A=0A=0ALarge
r engines will indeed exacerbate and accelerate the problem, but the fundam
entals of proper elevator/rudder construction still apply. Build it right a
nd go light!=0A =0ARandy=0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom: Dean Picho
n =0ATo: rv-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:22 AM
=0ASubject: RE: RV-List: cracks=0A=0A=0ASome time ago, I called Van's on th
e issue and was told the cracking is (mostly) limited to those aircraft wit
h larger engines (180HP and up). The cracking was attributed to buffeting
on the tail - primarily while on the ground. Unfortunately, I have no data
to support or refute this. It was just an explanation (hypothesis?) given
to me a coupe of years ago when my -4 developed a crack in the rudder skin
.=0A =0ADean Pichon=0A=0A> From: randy@romeolima.com=0A> To: rv-list@matron
ics.com=0A> Subject: Re: RV-List: cracks=0A> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:51:5
olima.com>=0A> =0A> Further info on getting .016 skins to live without crac
king here...=0A> http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empen
nage=0A> =0A> My research among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if
constructed =0A> using the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flig
ht surfaces could =0A> have an indefinite life.=0A> =0A> Randy Lervold=0A>
=0A> =0A> ----- Original Message ----- =0A> From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@s
dccd.edu>=0A> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>=0A> Sent: Monday, January 14, 200
8 8:25 AM=0A> Subject: RV-List: cracks=0A> =0A> =0A> > --> RV-List message
posted by: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.edu>=0A> >=0A> > Well,=0A> >=0A> >
I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...=0A> >=0A> > I've run a trail
ing edge bead of silicon.=0A> >=0A> > I've silicon glued the stiffener trai
ling tips across to each other.=0A> >=0A> > I've prosealed the stiffeners t
o the skin to better distribute the load =0A> > away=0A> > from the final r
ivets.=0A> >=0A> > And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6
w/.016 skins, sans=0A> > any cracks.=0A> >=0A> > The RV-3 plans also called
for the stiffeners to be too long, and for the=0A> > taper to be way too s
hort, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6 inches =0A> > in=0A> > the -6
plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of unviolated=0A> > a
luminum to arrive.=0A> >=0A> > Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko,
lightweight super-fast,=0A> > zoom-zoom, wheeeee=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >
=0A> >=0A> > =0A> =0A> =0A> ===============0A>
=0A> =0A> =0A=0A=0A=0A=0AMake distant family not so distant with Windows Vi
sta=AE + Windows Live=99. Start now! =0A=0A=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List=0Ahref=
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com=0Ahref="http://
=========================0A
=0A=0A _______________________________________________________________
_____________________=0ANever miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. =0A
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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 |
|
When I built my rudder (with the 0.016 skin) the use of RTV was just becomi
ng "in vogue" and I built mine that way. So far, I have 5 cracks, all 2-3
years old. None have crack beyond the stop drill holes... yet. I have com
pleted a new rudder with an 0.020 skin and used Proseal, in addition to riv
ets, to attach the stiffeners and the spar. As soon as I complete the swit
chover from hinges to Skybolt fasteners, I will have both the cowl and the
rudder painted and test-out the thicker skin.
Dean Pichon
Bolton, MA
-List: cracksTo: rv-list@matronics.com
I heard that, too....when I talked with Ken, and asked him a question about
the .020 or .016 skin, he asked what engine I had...I told him 200HP IO-36
0, and he chuckled and said, "Well, there you go." I have finished the rud
der now, with the RTV on the stiffeners...I like the idea about proseal..di
dn't think of it. Also like the idea of adding a stiffener...but I have th
e .020 skin, so we'll see what happens. I have about 900 hours on the airf
rame, and it was cracked well before that when I bought it 2 years ago. St
op drilled, but then the cracks started continuing, so I grounded it and bu
ilt the new one.
Paul Besing
RV-4 N73DD
Arizona
----- Original Message ----From: Dean Pichon <deanpichon@msn.com>To: rv-lis
t@matronics.comSent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:22:01 AMSubject: RE: RV-Li
st: cracks
Some time ago, I called Van's on the issue and was told the cracking is (mo
stly) limited to those aircraft with larger engines (180HP and up). The cr
acking was attributed to buffeting on the tail - primarily while on the gro
und. Unfortunately, I have no data to support or refute this. It was just
an explanation (hypothesis?) given to me a coupe of years ago when my -4 d
eveloped a crack in the rudder skin. Dean Pichon> From: randy@romeolima.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: cracks> Date: Mon, 14 Ja
ndy@romeolima.com>> > Further info on getting .016 skins to live without cr
acking here...> http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empenn
age> > My research among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if constru
cted > using the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flight surface
s could > have an indefinite life.> > Randy Lervold> > > ----- Original Mes
sage ----- > From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.edu>> To: <rv-list@matroni
cs.com>> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:25 AM> Subject: RV-List: cracks>
> Well,> >> > I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...> >> > I've run
a trailing edge bead of silicon.> >> > I've silicon glued the stiffener tr
ailing tips across to each other.> >> > I've prosealed the stiffeners to th
e skin to better distribute the load > > away> > from the final rivets.> >>
> And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins, sa
ns> > any cracks.> >> > The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffeners to be
too long, and for the> > taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 inches where
it called for 6 inches > > in> > the -6 plans, all of which was cause for
yet another new box of unviolated> > aluminum to arrive.> >> > Do archive,
subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight super-fast,> > zoom-zoom, whee
eee> >> >> >> >> >> > &=================
====> > > Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista=AE
+ Windows Live=99. Start now! http://www.matronics.com/Navigics.com/contrib
ution" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.c=====
============
Looking for
_________________________________________________________________
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_0120
08
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: | Spot PLB was: Cheaper 406mhz alternative |
We have the Spot and used it this weekend. We had the first non-raining day
in quite some time and so took advantage of the situation and went flying.
My wife was in the backseat; initiated some alerts from the Spot; and
received email notices on her Blackberry with time, location and the
message. Everything worked as it is supposed to.
Our intent has nothing to do with meeting FAA regs; it is simply a tool that
lets me (or us) let loved ones know where we are and that we are safe; and
has the likelihood of being more useful than currently available ELT and PLB
devices in an emergency. Our Super D has the FAA legal ELT in it to meet
regs.
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Super Decathlon
Rocket (under construction)
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: | Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
On 12:46 2008-01-14 "Larry James" <larry@ncproto.com> wrote:
> Our intent has nothing to do with meeting FAA regs; it is simply a
> tool that lets me (or us) let loved ones know where we are and that
> we are safe; and has the likelihood of being more useful than
> currently available ELT and PLB devices in an emergency. Our Super D
> has the FAA legal ELT in it to meet regs.
Someone else brought up the point that the Spot doesn't meet FAA
requirements for a locating device... Your email prompted me to reply, and
create a new thread on this, as it's something i've been wondering for a
long time...
The Spot doesn't meet FAA requirements for a locating device, but is there
any reason that a similar, home-made, device couldn't meet the
requirements? We're flying around in airplanes that we're frequently told
"do not meet standards for factory built aircraft". At least, in Canada we
have to have a sticker prominently visible to the passenger telling them
that (in both English *and* French, no less!). So why can't our location
device also "not meet standards"? Why couldn't we start with a (cheap)
406Mhz PLB, rig up our own GPS interface, and our own inertial or manual
trigger?
Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from doing this, it's
really not rocket science. The question is, why isn't it acceptable, if
the plane is experimental in the first place?
Discuss... :)
-Rob
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: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around
called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any
and all transmitters. Most must be type certified by the FCC. One
exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406
MHz is not in a ham band...
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Rob Prior wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from doing this, it's
>really not rocket science. The question is, why isn't it acceptable, if
>the plane is experimental in the first place?
>
>Discuss... :)
>
>-Rob
>
>
>
>
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: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
On 14:52 2008-01-14 Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net> wrote:
> Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around
> called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any
> and all transmitters. Most must be type certified by the FCC. One
> exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406
> MHz is not in a ham band...
True, but that's a regulatory issue too, not a technical one. And i'm not
advocating designing your own transmitter, far from it. I'd like to see
someone rig up a "hack" to an existing 406 MHz PLB, that would make it do
all the things an aircraft-certified one would, at 1/10th the cost.
I'm just continually amazed that it costs so much to get a certified
aviation-quality 406MHz ELT into an airplane, when you can buy a
technically superior unit (the Spot) for so little. All it's missing is a
G-switch.
-Rob
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: | Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
Rob Prior wrote:
>
> On 12:46 2008-01-14 "Larry James" <larry@ncproto.com> wrote:
>> Our intent has nothing to do with meeting FAA regs; it is simply a
>> tool that lets me (or us) let loved ones know where we are and that
>> we are safe; and has the likelihood of being more useful than
>> currently available ELT and PLB devices in an emergency. Our Super D
>> has the FAA legal ELT in it to meet regs.
>
> Someone else brought up the point that the Spot doesn't meet FAA
> requirements for a locating device... Your email prompted me to reply, and
> create a new thread on this, as it's something i've been wondering for a
> long time...
>
> The Spot doesn't meet FAA requirements for a locating device, but is there
> any reason that a similar, home-made, device couldn't meet the
> requirements? We're flying around in airplanes that we're frequently told
> "do not meet standards for factory built aircraft". At least, in Canada we
> have to have a sticker prominently visible to the passenger telling them
> that (in both English *and* French, no less!). So why can't our location
> device also "not meet standards"? Why couldn't we start with a (cheap)
> 406Mhz PLB, rig up our own GPS interface, and our own inertial or manual
> trigger?
>
> Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from doing this, it's
> really not rocket science. The question is, why isn't it acceptable, if
> the plane is experimental in the first place?
>
> Discuss... :)
>
> -Rob
I think I suggested this earlier, but it might have been on another
list; this topic is hot on 3 different lists right now. You'd still be
legally required to carry at least the 121.5 unit (that requirement is
outside the homebuilt rules) but there's no reason not to rig a G-switch
on a PLB. (They've already got the manual trigger.)
Charlie
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: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
Well, I won't split hairs too much, but by "hacking" an existing
transmitter that I presume is type certified, it WON'T be type certified
after the hack and the operator would be subject to FCC enforcement on
this side of the border. That said, a regular ELT is STILL required over
here so adding a 406 transmitter is just additional cost. The FCC does
allow the use of "any means possible" to communicate in an emergency,
but, assuming you survive the wreck, they may send you (sorry, us U.S.
citizens) an offical invitation to respond in writing to their questions
as to the nature of the emergency...do not archive
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Rob Prior wrote:
>
>On 14:52 2008-01-14 Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around
>>called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any
>>and all transmitters. Most must be type certified by the FCC. One
>>exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406
>>MHz is not in a ham band...
>>
>>
>
>True, but that's a regulatory issue too, not a technical one. And i'm not
>advocating designing your own transmitter, far from it. I'd like to see
>someone rig up a "hack" to an existing 406 MHz PLB, that would make it do
>all the things an aircraft-certified one would, at 1/10th the cost.
>
>I'm just continually amazed that it costs so much to get a certified
>aviation-quality 406MHz ELT into an airplane, when you can buy a
>technically superior unit (the Spot) for so little. All it's missing is a
>G-switch.
>
>-Rob
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Randy is right, built right they will last.
I finished my RV-6 in 94 and I paid special attention to making sure the
trailing edges of the tail surfaces were bent enought that it didn't take
any pressure to 'close' them on the spars. This required some extra
trimming of the siffeners so you could squeeze far enough.
I didn't use ANY type of goop anywhere, just built them carefully, and after
1050 hrs with a 180 and props ranging from wood to Hartzell and back to
fixed composite, I don't have a single crack in the .016 skins.
In every case where I've seen cracks at the ends of the stiffeners, you
could look down the trailing edge and it was obvious by the tension and bend
at the stiffeners that the builder didn't squeeze the trailing edge enough.
Don
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Lervold
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: cracks
Larger engines will indeed exacerbate and accelerate the problem, but the
fundamentals of proper elevator/rudder construction still apply. Build it
right and go light!
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Pichon <mailto:deanpichon@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: cracks
Some time ago, I called Van's on the issue and was told the cracking is
(mostly) limited to those aircraft with larger engines (180HP and up). The
cracking was attributed to buffeting on the tail - primarily while on the
ground. Unfortunately, I have no data to support or refute this. It was
just an explanation (hypothesis?) given to me a coupe of years ago when my
-4 developed a crack in the rudder skin.
Dean Pichon
> From: randy@romeolima.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: cracks
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:51:58 -0800
>
>
> Further info on getting .016 skins to live without cracking here...
> http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empennage
>
> My research among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if constructed
> using the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flight surfaces
could
> have an indefinite life.
>
> Randy Lervold
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.edu>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:25 AM
> Subject: RV-List: cracks
>
>
> >
> > Well,
> >
> > I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...
> >
> > I've run a trailing edge bead of silicon.
> >
> > I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across to each other.
> >
> > I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to better distribute the load
> > away
> > from the final rivets.
> >
> > And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins,
sans
> > any cracks.
> >
> > The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffeners to be too long, and for
the
> > taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6 inches
> > in
> > the -6 plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of
unviolated
> > aluminum to arrive.
> >
> > Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight super-fast,
> > zoom-zoom, wheeeee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> =============
>
>
>
_____
Make distant family not so distant with Windows VistaR + Windows LiveT.
Start now!
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGL
M_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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: | Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
Unless you live in New Orleans
John Morrissey
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2008 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?
Well, I won't split hairs too much, but by "hacking" an existing
transmitter that I presume is type certified, it WON'T be type certified
after the hack and the operator would be subject to FCC enforcement on
this side of the border. That said, a regular ELT is STILL required over
here so adding a 406 transmitter is just additional cost. The FCC does
allow the use of "any means possible" to communicate in an emergency,
but, assuming you survive the wreck, they may send you (sorry, us U.S.
citizens) an offical invitation to respond in writing to their questions
as to the nature of the emergency...do not archive
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Rob Prior wrote:
>
>On 14:52 2008-01-14 Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around
>>called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any
>>and all transmitters. Most must be type certified by the FCC. One
>>exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406
>>MHz is not in a ham band...
>>
>>
>
>True, but that's a regulatory issue too, not a technical one. And i'm
not
>advocating designing your own transmitter, far from it. I'd like to
see
>someone rig up a "hack" to an existing 406 MHz PLB, that would make it
do
>all the things an aircraft-certified one would, at 1/10th the cost.
>
>I'm just continually amazed that it costs so much to get a certified
>aviation-quality 406MHz ELT into an airplane, when you can buy a
>technically superior unit (the Spot) for so little. All it's missing
is a
>G-switch.
>
>-Rob
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
Remember, the 'hack' doesn't have to be internal. Take a look at some of
the older 121 ELTs. The G switch is just a hinged weight next to an off
the shelf miniature toggle switch. All you need is the right amount of
weight hanging behind the activation switch, & a mount for the PLB in
the correct orientation so a crash swings the weight into the switch.
Charlie
Scott wrote:
>
> Well, I won't split hairs too much, but by "hacking" an existing
> transmitter that I presume is type certified, it WON'T be type certified
> after the hack and the operator would be subject to FCC enforcement on
> this side of the border. That said, a regular ELT is STILL required over
> here so adding a 406 transmitter is just additional cost. The FCC does
> allow the use of "any means possible" to communicate in an emergency,
> but, assuming you survive the wreck, they may send you (sorry, us U.S.
> citizens) an offical invitation to respond in writing to their questions
> as to the nature of the emergency...do not archive
>
> Scott
> http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
> Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
> Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
>
>
>
> Rob Prior wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14:52 2008-01-14 Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around
>>> called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any
>>> and all transmitters. Most must be type certified by the FCC. One
>>> exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406
>>> MHz is not in a ham band...
>>>
>>
>> True, but that's a regulatory issue too, not a technical one. And i'm
>> not
>> advocating designing your own transmitter, far from it. I'd like to see
>> someone rig up a "hack" to an existing 406 MHz PLB, that would make it do
>> all the things an aircraft-certified one would, at 1/10th the cost.
>>
>> I'm just continually amazed that it costs so much to get a certified
>> aviation-quality 406MHz ELT into an airplane, when you can buy a
>> technically superior unit (the Spot) for so little. All it's missing
>> is a
>> G-switch.
>>
>> -Rob
>
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: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
Why the problem. If you need a G-switch to activate it then you may
be dead. Mount it where you can push the one 911 button when you need it.
Ron Lee
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: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
On Jan 14, 2008 6:52 PM, Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca> wrote:
>
> On 14:52 2008-01-14 Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net> wrote:
> > Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around
> > called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any
> > and all transmitters. Most must be type certified by the FCC. One
> > exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406
> > MHz is not in a ham band...
>
> True, but that's a regulatory issue too, not a technical one. And i'm not
> advocating designing your own transmitter, far from it. I'd like to see
> someone rig up a "hack" to an existing 406 MHz PLB, that would make it do
> all the things an aircraft-certified one would, at 1/10th the cost.
>
> I'm just continually amazed that it costs so much to get a certified
> aviation-quality 406MHz ELT into an airplane, when you can buy a
> technically superior unit (the Spot) for so little. All it's missing is a
> G-switch.
>
> -Rob
>
C'mon, somebody... make the G-Spot joke that Rob is begging for...
-Stormy
>
>
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! --
|