---------------------------------------------------------- RV9-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 05/15/04: 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:40 AM - Re: Dynon Pitot (Steve Sampson) 2. 05:02 AM - Re: Dynon Pitot (Mike Hoover) 3. 06:11 AM - Power Plant Models (Randy) 4. 08:01 AM - RV9A-Turbulence (Nigel Goad) 5. 08:41 AM - Re: Power Plant Models (Glenn Brasch) 6. 08:42 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Glenn Brasch) 7. 09:11 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Harold Kovac) 8. 09:12 AM - Re: Dynon Pitot (Harold Kovac) 9. 09:15 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Harold Kovac) 10. 09:34 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Tim Coldenhoff) 11. 11:11 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Leon Noodle) 12. 12:15 PM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Dean) 13. 01:18 PM - Turbulence (Nigel Goad) 14. 04:02 PM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Richard Scott) 15. 04:35 PM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Bill Repucci) 16. 04:58 PM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Mike Hoover) 17. 07:43 PM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Charlie England) 18. 11:09 PM - Organisational advice to our new builder. (Rob W M Shipley) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:40:45 AM PST US From: "Steve Sampson" Subject: RE: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot --> RV9-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" Harold, is that just the place you chose or did Dynon VANS suggest it? Also what fitting doiid yiou use to connect onto the Dynon provided ally tubes? Thaks, Steve. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Harold Kovac Subject: Re: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot --> RV9-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" Hi, I have a Dynon non heated Pitot with a Gretz Aero mount. It's located just outboard of the 4th rib from the wingtip, probably less than a foot from the Van location. Harold Kovac, finishing up the wings so I can begin the fuselage Subject: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot --- ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:02:47 AM PST US From: "Mike Hoover" Subject: RE: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot --> RV9-List message posted by: "Mike Hoover" Hey Ken, I just finished positioning my GretzAero pitot mount kit. I am using Dynon's heated pitot as well. I placed mine on the inboard side of the third from outboard end rib. I first wanted to place it on the fourth rib from outboard, but that is very close to the tie down ring and the bellcrank bracket. Mike SC 90709 wings -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hill Subject: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot --> RV9-List message posted by: "Ken Hill" Has anyone mounted the Dynon Pitot tube? Did you mount it in the location specified by Van's? Is there another mounting bracket other than the Gretz that is recommended? I plan to use the Dynon heated unit, and would like to have the mounting bracket ready when they begin to ship them. Ken Hill Plainfield, IN Canopy, and much more to go. N470JK (reserved) advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:11:09 AM PST US From: "Randy" Subject: RV9-List: Power Plant Models --> RV9-List message posted by: "Randy" I am building a -9a What are best model numbers of 0-320 & 0-290 for installation as per cowling, nosewheel and other necessary clearances. I guess what I am looking for, is the least amount of modifications. Randy ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:01:09 AM PST US From: Nigel Goad Subject: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any thoughts on this before I start writing checks. Thanks ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:41:48 AM PST US From: "Glenn Brasch" Subject: Re: RV9-List: Power Plant Models --> RV9-List message posted by: "Glenn Brasch" I think you will find all that info in your builders manual. Glenn in Arizona ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy" Subject: RV9-List: Power Plant Models > --> RV9-List message posted by: "Randy" > > I am building a -9a What are best model numbers of 0-320 & 0-290 for installation as per cowling, nosewheel and other necessary clearances. I guess what I am looking for, is the least amount of modifications. Randy > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:42:49 AM PST US From: "Glenn Brasch" Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: "Glenn Brasch" I would like to know who told you that and what he based his information on. Glenn in Arizona -9A wings. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Goad" Subject: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence > --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad > > I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any thoughts on this before I start writing checks. > Thanks > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:11:12 AM PST US From: "Harold Kovac" Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" What do you want to do, aerobatics, or a lot of reasonably fast flying from point A to B . Stall speed is another consideration, compare the #'s on the Van site, then you are more likely make an informed decision. Harold Kovac, 9, wings nearly complete -- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Goad" Subject: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence > --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad > > I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any thoughts on this before I start writing checks. > Thanks > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:12:49 AM PST US From: "Harold Kovac" Subject: Re: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot --> RV9-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" Hi Steve, I just picked the place closest to the original Vans positios so as not to interfere with the aileron controls. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Sampson" Subject: RE: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot > --> RV9-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" > > Harold, is that just the place you chose or did Dynon VANS suggest it? Also > what fitting doiid yiou use to connect onto the Dynon provided ally tubes? > > Thaks, Steve. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Harold Kovac > To: rv9-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot > > > --> RV9-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" > > Hi, > I have a Dynon non heated Pitot with a Gretz Aero mount. > It's located just outboard of the 4th rib from the wingtip, probably less > than a foot from the Van location. > Harold Kovac, > finishing up the wings so I can begin the fuselage > Subject: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot > > > --- > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:15:18 AM PST US From: "Harold Kovac" Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" An addendum, if you check, the RV9 is rated utility category, which is as best I can determine, better than Pipers or Cessnas Harold Kovac ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Goad" Subject: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence > --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad > > I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any thoughts on this before I start writing checks. > Thanks > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:34:09 AM PST US From: Tim Coldenhoff Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: Tim Coldenhoff Nigel Goad wrote: > I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence forces. Obviously a 6/7 builder must have told you this. Trust Van's instead. > There also seems to be alot of bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. And I am biased against the 3/4/6/7/8 which is why I am building a 9a. -- Tim Coldenhoff #90338 - Finishing! http://rv9a.deru.com ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:11:10 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence From: Leon Noodle --> RV9-List message posted by: Leon Noodle Nigel, Maybe "they" are referring to the maneuvering speed (speed to not exceed in turbulent air) of the VA which is about 112Kts and much lower than that of other RV's, about 130kts. Also the Vne speed ( never exceed speed) of the RV9 is lower than that of other RV's. While other RV's are build for acrobatics the RV9 is not and has a lower positive and negative G force rating. No problem. That's why I am also building the RV9A. Victor (#90317) Daytona Beach, FL ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 12:15:16 PM PST US From: "Dean" Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: "Dean" Nigel Quite some time ago, Van published the RV-9A V-N diagram in the RVator. It shows the aircraft to be a 3.8 g Normal Category design at the 1750 pound gross weight. Above the 3.8 g Limit Load and below the 5.7 g Design Load there can be structural deformation but no catastrophic failure. Also this aircraft was designed under the Part 23, 50 foot per second sharp-edged gust criteria as opposed to the 30 fps criteria that most of the single engine Cessnas and Pipers were designed to. The 50 fps gust does not impose 3.8 g until airspeed reaches 180 mph IAS Design Cruise Speed and approx 4.2 g at the 210 mph IAS Vne ( Redline ). I consider the 9A to be a very sound design and readily accept that it does not meet the 6 g Limit and 9 g Design loads of the Aerobatic Category. I don't have the numbers on the RV-7 and RV-8, but the RV-6 only meets the Aerobatic Category at a reduced weight. In addition, the 7 mph reduction in landing speed of the 9/9A is all goodness in my book. I admit that my primary interest is in a good cross-country airplane and I consider that the RV-9A is the best bang for the buck in that category. I hope this information will help you make the same decision that I did. Dean Van Winkle Retired Aero Engineer RV-9A Fuselage/Finish ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Goad" Subject: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence > --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad > > I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any thoughts on this before I start writing checks. > Thanks > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:18:41 PM PST US From: Nigel Goad Subject: RV9-List: Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad Thanks for all the responses. I guess shock value should be left to the like's of Mr Stern. I look forward to starting the 9A soon. ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 04:02:42 PM PST US From: Richard Scott Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: Richard Scott Personnel at Van's have told me that when going cross country, if they have a choice, the ALL take the RV-9A. That tells me something. The only reason for choosing a -7 over a -9 is to do aerobatics or to look macho as one who does aerobatics. The -8 is the choice for those who want tandem seating, the -3 for people who want a single place plane. I have ridden in a 4 and a few 6's, but not 7's or 8's. In the 6 the plane rolls so nicely that you just don't want to fly straight & level. Really fun, but you have to stay on it or you can easily start climbing or diving 300 fpm without realizing it. Pitch feel is really light and takes some getting used to. A friend with close to 300 hrs in his -6 still drifts off altitude without feeling it. The 9, although it doesn't roll as nicely, is less work to fly. Why people buy the -4 is a mystery as it is only suitable for those who want a 2 place with tandem seating but have no friends other than kids, midgets or small dogs. Richard Scott At 07:57 AM 5/15/2004, you wrote: >--> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad > >I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a >recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence >forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not >much activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of >bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear >any thoughts on this before I start writing checks. >Thanks > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 04:35:25 PM PST US From: "Bill Repucci" Subject: RE: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: "Bill Repucci" I just checked Van's web site, there are now 88 RV-9/9A's flying. If the wings "would break in 3-4 g turbulence forces." then there would be -9/9A parts all over the country and we would have all heard about the wing failures. Do you remember when the -8/8A first came out and there was a wing failure on a demo flight? Killed in the crash was Van's demo pilot, who's name I can't remember, and a potential customer. There was a LOT of talk that the new spar design wasn't as good as the laminated design used in the 3/4/6, bla, bla, bla. Well Van's tested a set of wings built by a customer because they felt that customer built wings wouldn't be as good as a set built by Van's staff. The wings held up to a load greater than the design limit and 8/8A sales continues to climb and the critics stopped being so critical. No one knows for sure what happened but the "rumor" is that the customer just yanked on the stick and pulled the wings off. The same thing could happen to any of the Van's designs, if enough G's are pulled. I also remember talking to a USAF friend of mine who said if you pulse the stick back and forth, you can over load it very quickly w/o deviating from your altitude and pull snap the wings very quickly. Who knows if that happened but it is a possibility. Note: I'm not passing judgment on either of the two people who perished in the tragic accident, just trying to make a point. I wasn't there and don't know what happened and the only two who do know can't say. The short of it is, build the airplane you like and build it well. Bill R. RV-9 SN: 90737 Ailerons PS. Just returned from the first Mid Atlantic Fly in in Lumberton, NC. A friend invited me to join him in his Europa, a very nice plane but a little to small for me. For a first event, it was fantastic! I saw a bunch of RV's there including a very nice -9A, I didn't get the N-number but it was nice. Spoke briefly to the owner/builder but we never exchanged names, dumb move on my part. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Scott Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: Richard Scott Personnel at Van's have told me that when going cross country, if they have a choice, the ALL take the RV-9A. That tells me something. The only reason for choosing a -7 over a -9 is to do aerobatics or to look macho as one who does aerobatics. The -8 is the choice for those who want tandem seating, the -3 for people who want a single place plane. I have ridden in a 4 and a few 6's, but not 7's or 8's. In the 6 the plane rolls so nicely that you just don't want to fly straight & level. Really fun, but you have to stay on it or you can easily start climbing or diving 300 fpm without realizing it. Pitch feel is really light and takes some getting used to. A friend with close to 300 hrs in his -6 still drifts off altitude without feeling it. The 9, although it doesn't roll as nicely, is less work to fly. Why people buy the -4 is a mystery as it is only suitable for those who want a 2 place with tandem seating but have no friends other than kids, midgets or small dogs. Richard Scott At 07:57 AM 5/15/2004, you wrote: >--> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad > >I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At >a >recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence >forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not >much activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of >bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear >any thoughts on this before I start writing checks. >Thanks > > == direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. == == == ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 04:58:30 PM PST US From: "Mike Hoover" Subject: RE: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: "Mike Hoover" Good to hear reinforcing info from professionals. It's easy to let the mind wander off track and start worrying about stuff like this when you are up to your elbows in ProSeal and producing more great four letter words than bucked fuel tank rivets. I was just a sideline listener to this topic, but thanks for the reality check. There is an article in the June 2004 Flying magazine on page 98 that has a lot of interesting info on this very subject. Regards, Mike SC 90709 wings -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dean Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: "Dean" Nigel Quite some time ago, Van published the RV-9A V-N diagram in the RVator. It shows the aircraft to be a 3.8 g Normal Category design at the 1750 pound gross weight. Above the 3.8 g Limit Load and below the 5.7 g Design Load there can be structural deformation but no catastrophic failure. Also this aircraft was designed under the Part 23, 50 foot per second sharp-edged gust criteria as opposed to the 30 fps criteria that most of the single engine Cessnas and Pipers were designed to. The 50 fps gust does not impose 3.8 g until airspeed reaches 180 mph IAS Design Cruise Speed and approx 4.2 g at the 210 mph IAS Vne ( Redline ). I consider the 9A to be a very sound design and readily accept that it does not meet the 6 g Limit and 9 g Design loads of the Aerobatic Category. I don't have the numbers on the RV-7 and RV-8, but the RV-6 only meets the Aerobatic Category at a reduced weight. In addition, the 7 mph reduction in landing speed of the 9/9A is all goodness in my book. I admit that my primary interest is in a good cross-country airplane and I consider that the RV-9A is the best bang for the buck in that category. I hope this information will help you make the same decision that I did. Dean Van Winkle Retired Aero Engineer RV-9A Fuselage/Finish ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Goad" Subject: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence > --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad > > I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. > At a recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any thoughts on this before I start writing checks. > Thanks > > advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:25 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence --> RV9-List message posted by: Charlie England Richard Scott wrote: >--> RV9-List message posted by: Richard Scott > >Personnel at Van's have told me that when going cross country, if they have >a choice, the ALL take the RV-9A. That tells me something. > >The only reason for choosing a -7 over a -9 is to do aerobatics or to look >macho as one who does aerobatics. The -8 is the choice for those who want >tandem seating, the -3 for people who want a single place plane. > >I have ridden in a 4 and a few 6's, but not 7's or 8's. In the 6 the plane >rolls so nicely that you just don't want to fly straight & level. Really >fun, but you have to stay on it or you can easily start climbing or diving >300 fpm without realizing it. Pitch feel is really light and takes some >getting used to. A friend with close to 300 hrs in his -6 still drifts off >altitude without feeling it. The 9, although it doesn't roll as nicely, is >less work to fly. > >Why people buy the -4 is a mystery as it is only suitable for those who >want a 2 place with tandem seating but have no friends other than kids, >midgets or small dogs. > >Richard Scott > A couple of good reasons are: 1. MONEY (my reason for both I've owned). -4's are much cheaper than -6's if you are buying one already flying. 2. Handling. Boy, do they fly nice; noticably better than -6's. If they are built light, you can still carry normal sized humans + luggage in the back; you just have to watch GW if you have a back-seater & you want to do acro. Charlie Slobovia Outernational Airport (Those of you in striking distance of central Mississippi, please come on down for some BBQ June 5.) ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 11:09:58 PM PST US From: "Rob W M Shipley" Subject: RV9-List: Organisational advice to our new builder. --> RV9-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" Tad wrote:- For hand tools etc. The Yard Store. And for specility tools Cleveland or Aircraft supply. The best is a fellow finished I second this and it's worth noting that if you call them by phone and ask about used tolls you may be able to get good quality serviceable tools even cheaper. I got a US Tools 3X rivet gun for $89. Excellent buy. Regarding the organisation of the small parts. I'd finished my empennage and started the wings before I finally decided that it was far more efficient to empty the bags of rivets and nut plates and organise them in the small parts boxes you can get from places like Home Depot, Sears or Dixieline. They come in different sizes and the StackOn ones were the best I found. Put all your 470 rivets in one box and all the 426s in another. Spares can be left in the bags until needed. Unlike the parts bins these can be closed securely when you aren't taking rivets out. This also keeps dust, metal filings and dirt out. They work well for nut plates, #6 and #8 screws, rod ends, grommets, bearings, AN pipe fittings and also the smaller nuts bolts and washers. I suggest a separate box for each kind of fastener. Label each partition with a printed label or a Sharpie. I assume you've cut up the packing crate and used it to make a shelf under your work bench - if so this is the perfect place to stack your parts trays. The rivets are far easier to use like this since the entire tray can be taken to the part of the plane you are working on. You will also find it necessary to place several different sizes when filling a line across the skins. The box will put them in easy reach while you are working. Just my .02. Good luck everyone. Rob Rob W M Shipley N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!