Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:59 AM - Re: Re: Ram Air! (Steve Sampson)
2. 08:46 AM - Re: Re: Ram Air! (Steve Mullins)
3. 01:23 PM - [ Michael Kosta ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! (Email List Photo Shares)
4. 02:05 PM - Ruddder Skin (J H)
5. 05:22 PM - Re: Ruddder Skin (Charlie England)
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 |
|
--> RV4-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Rob - thanks for that. Yes I am moving increasingly to the standard
approach. I cant quite understand why VANS moved away from your ram air
design. Sounds good.
I am just left frustrated that it will be hard to balance the fuel to each
cyl.
Thanks, Steve.
----- Original Message -----
From: "rob ray" <smokyray@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 1:54 PM
Subject: RV4-List: Re: Ram Air!
> --> RV4-List message posted by: rob ray <smokyray@yahoo.com>
>
> Steve,
>
> I went with a carb on my RV4 for several reasons. Many moons ago I flew
> Scouts and Super Cubs up in Alaska. Reliability and simplicity was an
> issue and still is with me. Every fuel injected airplane on the ramp was
> hard to prop start in the backcountry, expensive to fix when it broke
> (injectors, throttle body) and had problems with auto gas. The Carbureted
> Lycoming is alot less suseptible to carb ice by design than Continentals,
> the carb air is routed through the sump full of hot oil. In all my hours
> over the tundra I rarely used carb heat except during visible moisture or
> when I saw indications of ice. In 1500 hours of RV4 operations, I have
> used carb neat twice, both times above 10,000 feet in Idaho flying through
> visible moisture below 45 degrees F. Even then, the engine was running
> fine, just a slight drop in RPM. Since the K&N filter has a metal chrome
> housing and sits 2" below the very warm sump (on top of the ram air
> intake), it is surrounded by warm air inside the
> cowling. I use it as an alternate air source along with filtering during
> ground operations. It cleared up my carb ice symptoms both times. For
> normal operations I take off with the flapper closed and open it when
> safely airborne, giving a nice "shot" of power on climbout.
> For the Carb air intake box I enlisted the help of my master craftsman
> friend Arvil Porter who constructed the airbox per my drawings. I simply
> read page 11-3 in the RV4 builders manual and from that drew up my design.
> It is a square-shaped tunnel with a flange welded on top to mate to the
> carb on the aft end and reaches within 1" of the cowl intake in front.
> Centered on top is a welded 2" scat duct where the K&N motorcycle filter
> attaches. In front it has a cockpit selectable trap door for closing
> during ground operations or in the rare case of carb ice. When closed a 1"
> drop in MP is noted at SL, 2" at 8500'. Van actually used to sell a very
> close match to my design but since everyone started flying "newer" RV's,
> the ram air intake has gone the route of the dodo bird. You might contact
> Van's and see if they still have one gathering dust on a shelf somewhere.
> For me and my "KISS" principle basics, the ram air, original cowling
> and carb are a simple, effective and very reliable setup. Good Luck..
>
> Rob Ray
>
> Steve Sampson <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu> wrote:
> --> RV4-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
>
> Rob - I am totally unfamiliar with the set up you have.Never heard of K&N
> but I have never understood why we need to filter the air once airborne.
>
> My plan was to go with the Silver Hawk injector, mostly because that is
> what
> everyone offered if FI. Reason for going FI was here in the UK carb ice is
> frequent and I presume the injected engine is smoother and more frugal on
> fuel. However the things stacking up the other way are:
> - I really prefer the look of the O-320 cowl
> - the air inlet is presumably matched to the engine
> - VANS can supply the brackets for the carb but not FI and the O-320 FAB
> will fit
> - there are not so many aircraft to copy how things are done near me. I
> have
> built a carb -9A before and feel more confident.
> - there was also an interesting old post at Vans Airforce "Carb vs Fuel
> Injection" by Stein Bruch which go me thinking that perhaps the money is
> better in my pocket.
>
> Feel free to tell me I am making a mistake if you feel strongly.
>
> If I go back to a carb I guess I have to understand if I want a Marvel or
> someting else. Is there any other carb I should consider? If so what does
> it
> offer?
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rob ray"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:38 PM
> Subject: RV4-List: Re: RV4-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 01/24/06
>
>
>> --> RV4-List message posted by: rob ray
>>
>> Steve, I didn't use the FAB on my RV4 as I built my own tunnel ram
>> equipped with Ram air for normal flight and a K&N filter by-pass for
>> ground operations. Hasn't let me down in 10 years. This allowed me to run
>> the early stock cowl and scoop with a carb. My cowl was from pre-FAB days
>> when the plans called for a setup similar to mine. In 95' the FAB came
>> out
>> and they enlarged the scoop to handle it, although the carb intake
>> location isn't the same on all 320 sumps and the FAB won't work on every
>> engine without some serious cutting. Van's sells the larger scoop you can
>> attach to the cowl, I bought one and it is still sitting in my attic,
>> never used. Which injector throttle body are you going with?
>>
>> I too like the looks of the 320 cowl and scoop and haven't changed it
>> one bit...
>>
>> RR
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
> on behalf of the London Business School community.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> --
> 26/01/2006
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV4-List message posted by: "Steve Mullins" <smullins@drury.edu>
Hey Rob,
Do you have any drawings or photos of your ram air/KN setup that you would
share??
Steven D. Mullins
Associate Professor of Economics
Co-director 06-07 Convocation Series: http://www.drury.edu/post911
The Breech School of Business Administration
Drury University
417.889.5609 (Home)
417.873.7299 (Office)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv4-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv4-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve Sampson
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV4-List: Re: Ram Air!
--> RV4-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
--> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Rob - thanks for that. Yes I am moving increasingly to the standard
approach. I cant quite understand why VANS moved away from your ram air
design. Sounds good.
I am just left frustrated that it will be hard to balance the fuel to each
cyl.
Thanks, Steve.
----- Original Message -----
From: "rob ray" <smokyray@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 1:54 PM
Subject: RV4-List: Re: Ram Air!
> --> RV4-List message posted by: rob ray <smokyray@yahoo.com>
>
> Steve,
>
> I went with a carb on my RV4 for several reasons. Many moons ago I flew
> Scouts and Super Cubs up in Alaska. Reliability and simplicity was an
> issue and still is with me. Every fuel injected airplane on the ramp was
> hard to prop start in the backcountry, expensive to fix when it broke
> (injectors, throttle body) and had problems with auto gas. The Carbureted
> Lycoming is alot less suseptible to carb ice by design than Continentals,
> the carb air is routed through the sump full of hot oil. In all my hours
> over the tundra I rarely used carb heat except during visible moisture or
> when I saw indications of ice. In 1500 hours of RV4 operations, I have
> used carb neat twice, both times above 10,000 feet in Idaho flying through
> visible moisture below 45 degrees F. Even then, the engine was running
> fine, just a slight drop in RPM. Since the K&N filter has a metal chrome
> housing and sits 2" below the very warm sump (on top of the ram air
> intake), it is surrounded by warm air inside the
> cowling. I use it as an alternate air source along with filtering during
> ground operations. It cleared up my carb ice symptoms both times. For
> normal operations I take off with the flapper closed and open it when
> safely airborne, giving a nice "shot" of power on climbout.
> For the Carb air intake box I enlisted the help of my master craftsman
> friend Arvil Porter who constructed the airbox per my drawings. I simply
> read page 11-3 in the RV4 builders manual and from that drew up my design.
> It is a square-shaped tunnel with a flange welded on top to mate to the
> carb on the aft end and reaches within 1" of the cowl intake in front.
> Centered on top is a welded 2" scat duct where the K&N motorcycle filter
> attaches. In front it has a cockpit selectable trap door for closing
> during ground operations or in the rare case of carb ice. When closed a 1"
> drop in MP is noted at SL, 2" at 8500'. Van actually used to sell a very
> close match to my design but since everyone started flying "newer" RV's,
> the ram air intake has gone the route of the dodo bird. You might contact
> Van's and see if they still have one gathering dust on a shelf somewhere.
> For me and my "KISS" principle basics, the ram air, original cowling
> and carb are a simple, effective and very reliable setup. Good Luck..
>
> Rob Ray
>
> Steve Sampson <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu> wrote:
> --> RV4-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
>
> Rob - I am totally unfamiliar with the set up you have.Never heard of K&N
> but I have never understood why we need to filter the air once airborne.
>
> My plan was to go with the Silver Hawk injector, mostly because that is
> what
> everyone offered if FI. Reason for going FI was here in the UK carb ice is
> frequent and I presume the injected engine is smoother and more frugal on
> fuel. However the things stacking up the other way are:
> - I really prefer the look of the O-320 cowl
> - the air inlet is presumably matched to the engine
> - VANS can supply the brackets for the carb but not FI and the O-320 FAB
> will fit
> - there are not so many aircraft to copy how things are done near me. I
> have
> built a carb -9A before and feel more confident.
> - there was also an interesting old post at Vans Airforce "Carb vs Fuel
> Injection" by Stein Bruch which go me thinking that perhaps the money is
> better in my pocket.
>
> Feel free to tell me I am making a mistake if you feel strongly.
>
> If I go back to a carb I guess I have to understand if I want a Marvel or
> someting else. Is there any other carb I should consider? If so what does
> it
> offer?
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rob ray"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:38 PM
> Subject: RV4-List: Re: RV4-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 01/24/06
>
>
>> --> RV4-List message posted by: rob ray
>>
>> Steve, I didn't use the FAB on my RV4 as I built my own tunnel ram
>> equipped with Ram air for normal flight and a K&N filter by-pass for
>> ground operations. Hasn't let me down in 10 years. This allowed me to run
>> the early stock cowl and scoop with a carb. My cowl was from pre-FAB days
>> when the plans called for a setup similar to mine. In 95' the FAB came
>> out
>> and they enlarged the scoop to handle it, although the carb intake
>> location isn't the same on all 320 sumps and the FAB won't work on every
>> engine without some serious cutting. Van's sells the larger scoop you can
>> attach to the cowl, I bought one and it is still sitting in my attic,
>> never used. Which injector throttle body are you going with?
>>
>> I too like the looks of the 320 cowl and scoop and haven't changed it
>> one bit...
>>
>> RR
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
> on behalf of the London Business School community.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> --
> 26/01/2006
>
>
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: | [ Michael Kosta ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
--> RV4-List message posted by: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Michael Kosta <mikel@dimensional.com>
Lists: RV-List,RV4-List,RV8-List
Subject: RV-4 panel and radio console
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/mikel@dimensional.com.01.28.2006/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures@matronics.com
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 |
|
--> RV4-List message posted by: J H <rv74jl@yahoo.com>
I have a crack in the right rudder skin. Is there a way to repair this, or does
the entire rudder need to be reskinned? Is it better to just build a new rudder?
If reskin or build new, what is the best skin thickness to use? Thanks in
advance.
---------------------------------
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: | Re: Ruddder Skin |
--> RV4-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
J H wrote:
>--> RV4-List message posted by: J H <rv74jl@yahoo.com>
>
>I have a crack in the right rudder skin. Is there a way to repair this, or does
the entire rudder need to be reskinned? Is it better to just build a new rudder?
If reskin or build new, what is the best skin thickness to use? Thanks in
advance.
>
Yours must be fairly new. :-)
Stop drill it (be sure that you drill at the very end of the crack) &
force some RTV caulk (the kind that doesn't stink, to avoid corrosion)
into the hole to act as a damper in the future.
Go fly tomorrow.
Most -4's with any time at all on them have cracks, unless the RTV was
put in the trailing edge when the rudder was built.
Charlie
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! --
|