Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:17 AM - Re: glide ratio again, flight characteristics, and riteangle (Andy Karmy)
2. 08:35 PM - Fuselage Bag 1973 (DLOMHEIM@aol.com)
3. 09:24 PM - Fuel Lines (JVonDolen@aol.com)
4. 10:46 PM - Re: Fuel Lines (Gary)
5. 10:46 PM - Re: Fuselage Bag 1973 (Gary)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: glide ratio again, flight characteristics, and riteangle |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Andy Karmy" <andy@karmy.com>
>--> RV9-List message posted by: "Welch, Ivo" <ivo.welch@yale.edu>
>At 65mph, my plane seems to be in slow flight already
>but when I flew yesterday at 80mph, my sink rate seemed to be
>only about 200fpm.
I think 200fpm is a bit low... I seem to remember Kevin originally posting about
500fpm was min on that plane.
>Q: So, what is the best glide speed and glide ratio?
In mine min FPM sink is about 600fpm at 70mph. I have verified my ASI at both low
and high speed with GPS and another plane.
>There is absolutely no way that you would not notice a stall
>coming way, way, way ahead of time.
I tend to agree. This is why I also did not think it necessary to put in the right
angle. I think the place where it would be neat is to determine best LD for
glide. At any weight and density altitude you can fly the best glide with an
AOA instrument.
As for stalls, if you want to have some fun with them. Roll over into a 80 degree
4G level turn, then pull back until it stalls. It happens at about 90mph and
throws you to level. Or another fun one is fully cross controlled rudder & aileron,
pull into a stall and bam you're inverted! Nice... Don't try this on the
base to final turn that's for sure. But like Ivo said you have to really try
to get this type of behaviour out of the RV9, it's not in the standard flight
conditions that you will find it.
>Q: Are any aerobatic maneuvers permitted in the 9A?
>Has anyone tried some?
Define permitted... Remember these are homebuilts, they have limits that must be
obeyed, they don't have "restrictions" per say... :)
Lots of sky turning can be had within +4.4G -1.7G Utility category limits that
the RV9 is built to.
- Andy
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: | Fuselage Bag 1973 |
--> RV9-List message posted by: DLOMHEIM@aol.com
Did any of you by chance receive bag 1973 with your fuselage kits? Under the
bag descriptions it lists bag 1973 as having a few washers (5702-75-60) that
I need for the control stick hook up, but my pick list only shows bag 1973-1
(which only contains rubber washers). Thanks for any info.
Doug Lomheim
90116 Fuselage
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: JVonDolen@aol.com
Well after mangling some perfectly good 3/8ths tubing I am starting to
believe that it may actually be possible to make and install these lines. I
have reversed the brake and fuel lines (or plan to) and am thinking the most
difficult part are the little offsets
you have to make as the two fuel lines twist around each other going to the
opposite ports on the fuel valve. Of course this arrangement gives a pretty
intuitive fuel valve handle interpetation, but if it was reversed (especially
if I hadn't already ground off the little pointer) with some sort of pointer
added or maybe a red arrow painted on the top of the handle directed at "left
tank/right tank" decals positioned in the lower left and right quadrants of
the fuel valve plate, that should be pretty brain dead too. And the two fuel
lines would be way easier to do if the cross over was avoided.
I can't help but believe that those ends are subjected to some trama as the
offsets are put in.
Is this heresy or has anyone actually done it reversed, ie, straight fuel
line runs, and what is your opinion about this?
Thanks,
John Von Dohlen
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Gary" <rv9er@3rivers.net>
I didn't have too much trouble making mine cross over so the valve is intuitive.
I thought that crossing them over actually gave more room for the bends.
I ground off the little pointer and use the handle for the pointer. I did switch
the lines where they go through the little brackets and gear webs, as you
say.
I could send a photo off list if you want.
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: JVonDolen@aol.com
To: rv9-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 10:23 PM
Subject: RV9-List: Fuel Lines
--> RV9-List message posted by: JVonDolen@aol.com
Well after mangling some perfectly good 3/8ths tubing I am starting to
believe that it may actually be possible to make and install these lines. I
have reversed the brake and fuel lines (or plan to) and am thinking the most
difficult part are the little offsets
you have to make as the two fuel lines twist around each other going to the
opposite ports on the fuel valve. Of course this arrangement gives a pretty
intuitive fuel valve handle interpetation, but if it was reversed (especially
if I hadn't already ground off the little pointer) with some sort of pointer
added or maybe a red arrow painted on the top of the handle directed at "left
tank/right tank" decals positioned in the lower left and right quadrants of
the fuel valve plate, that should be pretty brain dead too. And the two fuel
lines would be way easier to do if the cross over was avoided.
I can't help but believe that those ends are subjected to some trama as the
offsets are put in.
Is this heresy or has anyone actually done it reversed, ie, straight fuel
line runs, and what is your opinion about this?
Thanks,
John Von Dohlen
---
Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/11/03
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: Fuselage Bag 1973 |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Gary" <rv9er@3rivers.net>
I got 'em with mine, #90263. I also ordered some extras later for places where
the regular washers won't fit.
Gary
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: DLOMHEIM@aol.com
To: rv9-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:34 PM
Subject: RV9-List: Fuselage Bag 1973
--> RV9-List message posted by: DLOMHEIM@aol.com
Did any of you by chance receive bag 1973 with your fuselage kits? Under the
bag descriptions it lists bag 1973 as having a few washers (5702-75-60) that
I need for the control stick hook up, but my pick list only shows bag 1973-1
(which only contains rubber washers). Thanks for any info.
Doug Lomheim
90116 Fuselage
---
Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/11/03
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! --
|