Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:45 AM - Re: RV-8 Nylon Flap Bolt Interference... (Charles Kuss)
2. 04:58 AM - Re: Nosewheel Breakout Force (Carl Froehlich)
3. 02:52 PM - FAA Proposed Rule Changes (Jack Sparling)
4. 03:06 PM - Re: Fly above 8000 ft ? (K Klewin)
5. 04:57 PM - Re: FAA Proposed Rule Changes (Ralph Finch)
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: RV-8 Nylon Flap Bolt Interference... |
Matt,
My nylon blocks were so poorly made, that I decided to make a proper set of replacement
pieces myself. I noted the same problem you did. I counter-bored the
tops of my parts to allow the use of SHCS (socket head cap screws aka Allen head
bolts) to retain the flap weldment. This eliminated the interference issue
you have noted. Using the SHCSs also eases future maintenance of this assembly.
Charlie Kuss
PS Sorry, but I never took any photos of this mod. If needed, I suppose I could
take a few.
--- On Sat, 9/13/08, Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com> wrote:
> From: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: RV-8 Nylon Flap Bolt Interference...
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 7:39 PM
> Dear Listers,
>
> Have a look at the attached photo. The rear predrilled
> holes for
> mounting the flap weldment nylon blocks seems to interfere
> with the
> seatbelt attachment. Am I missing something here? The
> blocks are
> drilled according to the plans and the rear holes are
> already drilled
> and have the platenut installed. Do I just added some
> washers above
> and below and call it good? Seems hokey. Notching the
> belt attach
> also seems like a poor idea.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N844RV
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: | Nosewheel Breakout Force |
Keep in mind you will need to tighten the nut again after the first few
landings and takeoffs. Make sure you get grease throughout the nose fork.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (450 hrs)
RV-10 (wings)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Meyette
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 7:12 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Nosewheel Breakout Force
IIRC, mine squished down quite a bit, but not completely flattened.
Once you get the breakout force set, you drill the leg for a cotter pin
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard E. Tasker
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:12 PM
Subject: RV-List: Nosewheel Breakout Force
--> <retasker@optonline.net>
I am installing my nosewheel (RV9A) and attempting to set the breakout force
as specified in the construction manual.
It seems that to get to the 14 ft-lbs (22 lbs side force) I have to crank
the nut down so the two belleville washers are totally compressed! Is this
correct?
Second, the instructions say to temporarily safety the nut and move the fork
back and forth to the stops. How are you supposed to safety the nut?? Is
the fork leg supposed to be already drilled for a cotter pin?
I have a reworked leg and it isn't.
Thanks for your advice!
Dick Tasker
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede,
however, that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily
inconvenienced.
--
Checked by AVG.
2:18 PM
Checked by AVG.
2:18 PM
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: | FAA Proposed Rule Changes |
Just my thoughts, hope it helps others who might be in the process of
writing.
_____
4002 Oakridge Drive
Crestwood, KY 40014
September 14, 2008
Miguel L. Vasconcelos
Production and Airworthiness Division
AIR-200, Room 815
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20591
Reference: Proposed Policy changes regarding Certification of Amateur Built
Aircraft.
Dear Mr. Vasconcelos;
I am a recreational aviation pilot who has built a Van's Aircraft RV-10
metal airplane, which was an educational experience for my whole family.
Building this aircraft took 13 months and 9 days with the help of my wife
and teenage daughters building with me full time. It was certificated in
2006 and we have flown it together all over the U.S. I will be purchasing
another kit and building an airplane in the near future and am very
concerned about the changes to the future 51% construction rules.
I do not see a need to change the rules as they stand. This proposal is the
typical response that takes place when a small percentage of individuals
blatantly disregard the rules. Those types of individuals will always exist
and the new rules will not prohibit their disregard. In any society, there
will always be those who cross the line and the new rules will not be an
exception. Those individuals who tempt fate will ultimately sponsor new and
more stringent rules. The result of which, typifies treatment of the
symptom and not the disease. Enforcement is the real solution, as without
it, those who suffer are the ones adhering to the rules.
My primary concern is that the complexities of this new policy will place
significant new burdens on amateur aircraft builders and make them reluctant
to participate in a market that has become an industry phenomenon. Those of
us who have followed the regulations as they stand today are concerned that
the daunting task of producing an airworthy craft will become secondary to a
bureaucratic nightmare. This would not be in the best interest of the
overall experimental market.
In my lifetime, I have never witnessed a government agency's intervention
actually promote the advancement of the free enterprise system. In fact,
there is a basic premise that I have observed in terms of absolutes and that
is; regulation is not the friend of free enterprise. Has the FAA considered
the negative economic impact that these regulations could induce? It
wouldn't be the first time that regulation killed or crippled an entire
industry. It should be self evident that the overregulated commercial side
of this industry has experienced this crippling effect. This is the primary
reason the experimental market has had so much success. I fear that your
proposed rule changes could have a far reaching and devastating effect on
this market segment, i.e. the vendors, suppliers, and their employees and
families. Please give this point of view the consideration it deserves and
don't fix it if it's not broken. The rules worked well when the industry
was in its infancy, they should work just as well now that it has matured.
You will no doubt receive hundreds if not thousands of letters voicing
concerns about this issue. Many will attempt to espouse the virtues of
their changes to your proposed rules as they have already conceded that
these changes are coming whether we speak out or not. I am of the belief
that you are of an open mind, otherwise you would not have solicited our
input.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to submit my comments on this
proposed policy change.
Very Truly Yours,
Jack H Sparling, Jr.
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fly above 8000 ft ? |
I would guess there are some cheaper models out there.- I would also surm
ise that larger distributerships probably get a better price than I current
ly receive.- If you can find them cheaper (with case) I say buy it...I'm
an RV'r.....I know how we all shop around for the best deal.....avgas is ex
pensive...I sure don't blame anyone at all.--
-
Thanks to those who have visited our site.- We have had a great year with
our RV Flight Bags and will have a few more new bags online in the next fe
w months.- Thanks for passing the word.
-
Happy Building/Flying...
-
Cheers,
-
Kurt
www.bisonmountainbags.com
bisonmountain@gmail.com
--- On Sat, 9/13/08, Henry <aeroncadoc@comcast.net> wrote:
From: Henry <aeroncadoc@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fly above 8000 ft ?
On another aviation list they have been discussing cheap pulse
oximeters. Here's a link to two of them. One is $58 and one is $69. I
haven't tried either of them so I can't say they're better than the
deal
you can get from Kurt. But you can't beat the price.
http://www.portablenebs.com/ascent.htm
http://sedationresource.com/pilot.pdf
Henry H.
RV-7 N79994 (borrowed from time to time)
K Klewin wrote:
> If you do and are interested in flying at higher altitudes safely I
> have been offered a great discount from our supplier on Checkmate
> Pulse Oximeters. If enough folks (5-10) are interested we can get
> these for $119.95. Sportys sells these for $169 so its a great price.
>
> I had my 6A up to 19,000 ft a few weeks ago and these Pulse Oximeters
> are a great safety tool.
>
> Email me at: bisonmountain@gmail.com
> <mailto:bisonmountain@gmail.com> to get on the list. Link to our
> pulse oximeter webpage:
> http://www.bisonmountainbags.com/checkmate.html We have lots of
> other cool RV stuff if you have time to visit. Thanks.
>
> Kurt
> www.bisonmountainbags.com <http://www.bisonmountainbags.com>
> bisonmountain@gmail.com <mailto:bisonmountain@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> *
>
> *
=0A=0A=0A
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | FAA Proposed Rule Changes |
>From VAF.
I read the postings by Van and the EAA about the NPRM. Vans shows why he's
the man and most of us just gawkers:
"As always, name-calling and vague gripes serve no purpose other than to
help convince the FAA that we are a bunch of idiots."
* The proposed rule has nothing to do with accommodating pro-built
planes, even though some of us, maybe including me, think that should be
allowed. Probably the FAA would need a directive from Congress to address
that. So no point in mentioning such potential accommodation in a response.
* Van again: "Unless the FAA sees a serious safety reason, they will
not re-evaluate existing kits that have previously been found to meet the
major portion rule." So most of us are good now. Of course we can still
comment for the sake of future kit designs, but I see no problem for future
builders of today's kits.
* Aside from some relatively minor changes for clarity, the only
change I'd like to see is a further definition of "fabrication" and
percentage: by time? by task? Unlike the EAA and others, I think the further
refinement of what constitutes an amateur built aircraft is welcome, or at
the very least, simply not a big deal. I find it very unlikely that a
legitimate amateur builder now will not be legit with these new rules. It
might be a little more onerous documenting one's work, but I think better
logging of work is to the good.
* My guess is that in addition to wanting to halt the blatant
pro-building, the FAA wants to head off a potential future problem:
well-meaning amateur builders getting more and more pre-fabbed parts until
only assembly, not fabrication, is done. I think such concern is fair and
even forward-thinking, contrary to some stereotyped responses here.
<http://www.vansairforce.com/community/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=255316>
Reply With Quote
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! --
|