From dvoth at shaw.ca Sat Jan 4 18:55:04 2003 From: dvoth at shaw.ca (Dennis Voth) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-7 sliding canopy Message-ID: <001401c2b465$d920d7a0$ab709344@warsteiner> We are having trouble fitting the rear skirts onto our sliding canopy and are wondering whether anyone else has had this problem. I am not sure whether the 6 has this same curve in the canopy, but the nine likely would. So, for any 7 or 9 builders: HELP! The problem is in the fact that the canopy does a concave curve at the rear. This has created quite a "ducktail" just at the rivet line where we have to rivet the rear skirt through the plexiglass into the rear tube of the canopy frame. This "ducktail" wants to throw the skirt up into the air (how indecent!), rather than it sitting nice and flat, so as to make connection with the rear fuselage skin when closed. How do we get the skirt to come down to make this contact? We have thought of putting a spacer along the forward edge of the skirt, from the rivet line forward, in order to bring up the front edge of the skirt, and thus lower the rear edge. But this leaves a rather large lip. We did try sanding off some of that "ducktail", but to get it all the way off would leave the rear edge of the plexi quite thin. Would we run the risk of cracks developing from the rivet holes to the rear? Any suggestions welcome! Dennis Voth, Calgary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030104/72736029/attachment.htm From Bob_Cutting at toyota.ca Mon Jan 6 08:43:56 2003 From: Bob_Cutting at toyota.ca (Bob_Cutting@toyota.ca) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-7 sliding canopy Message-ID: I had this problem on both my 6A and my recently completed 9A, tthe problem is you cannot form 2024T3 aliminium around a compound curve unless you use a metal roller or edge shrinker, I talked to the guys at Vans, they say the 3/16 gap just about everybody gets at the bottom rear corners, is "normal" . There is a solution ,however, and that is, to do as I did and make the skirt from glass cloth and epoxy. You mould it in place right onto the canopy and rear skin and the fit is pretty good..DONT use polyester or Vinylester resins, they will attack the acrylic of the canopy and destroy it. Bob Cutting C-FRVC From mdeg at shaw.ca Mon Jan 6 12:41:24 2003 From: mdeg at shaw.ca (Marc Degirolamo) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-7 sliding canopy References: <001401c2b465$d920d7a0$ab709344@warsteiner> Message-ID: <001b01c2b5c3$fb05b2a0$db874718@ss.shawcable.net> This is a problem area on all RV's as far as I know. The problem is the compound curve. the answer is that you will have to "shrink" the bottom edge to make it sit tight on the fuselage turtledeck. I made a skirt out of roof flashing (cheap stuff) and did what I needed to do to get it to sit tight on my -4. I then did the same to the real skirt. The advantage here is that if you mess it up just go and get another piece of cheap flashing and start again.......It can be done but does take a little....no, a lot of patience....or...I guess you could make it out of fi..fi..fiber...fiberglass, if you really want to stay away from metal forming..:-) happy building !! Marc DeGirolamo Rv-4, C-FRVE ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Voth To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 8:55 PM Subject: [Wing] RV-7 sliding canopy We are having trouble fitting the rear skirts onto our sliding canopy and are wondering whether anyone else has had this problem. I am not sure whether the 6 has this same curve in the canopy, but the nine likely would. So, for any 7 or 9 builders: HELP! The problem is in the fact that the canopy does a concave curve at the rear. This has created quite a "ducktail" just at the rivet line where we have to rivet the rear skirt through the plexiglass into the rear tube of the canopy frame. This "ducktail" wants to throw the skirt up into the air (how indecent!), rather than it sitting nice and flat, so as to make connection with the rear fuselage skin when closed. How do we get the skirt to come down to make this contact? We have thought of putting a spacer along the forward edge of the skirt, from the rivet line forward, in order to bring up the front edge of the skirt, and thus lower the rear edge. But this leaves a rather large lip. We did try sanding off some of that "ducktail", but to get it all the way off would leave the rear edge of the plexi quite thin. Would we run the risk of cracks developing from the rivet holes to the rear? Any suggestions welcome! Dennis Voth, Calgary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030106/70fd8f98/attachment.htm From brjaques at pris.ca Mon Jan 13 14:37:24 2003 From: brjaques at pris.ca (Bruce Jaques) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Gel cells References: Message-ID: <000901c2bb54$61e5eae0$14dcf4cc@brucejaques> The following is extracted from a letter from Brad Overhaulser of Pelican Aviation in Costa Mesa, Ca. "Gel cell batteries, for some reason, require higher charging voltage than "wet" batteries of the same rated voltage. Globe Union Gel-Cell Batteries specifies 14.6 volts plus or minus 0.2 volts. Since most automotive voltage regulators are set up for 13 to 13 1/2 volts, a regulator which is adjustable or pre-set at a higher level must be used. If not, the battery will weaken through under-charging. My Uap/Napa gel instructions state to adjust the regulator to 14.1 volts. Other useful information: always use a charger with a regulator because a cheap trickle charger will ruin a gel cell battery. I don't know how old the information is that I'm forwarding but it says adjustable regulators are available from Aircraft Spruce or Van's. Bruce Jaques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030113/bf5ce146/attachment.htm From tedd at vansairforce.org Sun Feb 2 22:41:47 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Jabiru 180 HP in Production Message-ID: <20030202221048.H58760-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Jabiru has announced that their 180 horsepower engine was released for production in January. There have been a few significant changes to the engine during the development phase. You can read more about it at http://www.jabiru.net.au/ I didn't see an announcement on the Candian distributor's web site, but if you wnt to contact them they're at http://www.jabirucanada.com/ Displacement is down from 6.0 litres to 5.1 litres. This was achieved by shortening the stroke. Reading between the lines, it appears that the rod:stroke ratio was a bit too small in the original design, which would give higher than ideal bearing loads. The horsepower is slightly down (presumably as a result of the lost displacement). It's now rated 180 HP @ 3,000 RPM and 170 HP @ 2,700 RPM. For what it's worth, I did some calculations on these numbers and came up with a few interesting results. For those concerned about wear, the shorter stroke of the Jabiru gives it a lower piston speed than a Lycoming, even at 3,000 RPM. The Jabiru at 3,000 RPM has a piston speed that is 15 percent lower than that of an O-360 at 2,700 RPM, and 4 percent lower than the O-320. However, the Jabiru does have a 5 percent higher BMEP (essentially equivalent to manifold pressure). One thing I noticed that's a bit odd is that the rating of 170 HP at 2,700 RPM requires a higher BMEP than the rating of 180 HP at 3,000 RPM. This suggests either that torque drops off significantly between 2,700 and 3,000 RPM, or that they're using different manifold pressures for the two ratings. Both explanations seem a bit odd, to me, and my calculations indicate that the power should be closer to 160 HP at 2,700 RPM, which would make sense for a 310 cubic-inch engine. The weight is up slightly, from a projected 231 pounds to 257 pounds. Nevertheless, for a complete engine with mags, carbs, exhaust, cooling ducts, and alternators, it's still very light. They are now developing a 50-amp alternator system, which they hope to release soon. This will be a dual 25-amp system, with both alternators directly on the crankshaft, so it should be very reliable. Jabiru is also working on installation kits for the RV-6, -7, and -9. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Sun Feb 2 22:55:13 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Jabiru 180 HP in Production In-Reply-To: <20030202221048.H58760-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <20030202225043.A63844-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> By the way, I've just noticed something interesting about the Jabiru engine I never noticed before. It has the camshaft mounted below the crankshaft, per Continental, but it doesn't have the Continental cross-flow heads (i.e. no intake manifold on the top). That seems to combine the best of both worlds--the Continental's superior camshaft lubrication but with air intake on the bottom like a Lycoming. I'm guessing they achieved this with angled rocker arms, which implies stud-mounted rockers instead of shaft-mounted. Anybody have any details on that? How is it done on the smaller Jabirus? If they have stud-mounted roller rockers they will have a very bulletproof top end. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Mon Feb 3 21:53:56 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing Message-ID: <20030203213542.T32144-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing has had steady membership growth since we went on the web three or four years ago. We're now up to 223 members in total, with 95 members on the Wing email list (this list). I'm pleased to see such great interest in RVs in western Canada, and I'm sure you are too. While the majority of our members are in western Canada, we have 45 members from outside that area (or whose location is unknown). Our furthest-afield members are in Oslo, Norway, Auckland, New Zeland, and Dublin, Ireland. We have members in every province from Quebec west, and a member in the Yukon, but none yet in Nunavut or the Nortwest Territories. Perhaps the best news of all is that, of those 223 members, 153 are either building or flying an RV or Rocket! That's a lot of RVs. You can see the full membership list at http://www.vansairforce.org/members/ You'll need your username and password to get in. Write to me if you've forgotten it. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Mon Feb 3 22:15:32 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing References: <20030203213542.T32144-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <009901c2cc14$d3061a80$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Where the hell is New Zeland? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: "Western Canada Wing List" Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:53 PM Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing > Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing has had steady membership growth since we > went on the web three or four years ago. We're now up to 223 members in total, > with 95 members on the Wing email list (this list). I'm pleased to see such > great interest in RVs in western Canada, and I'm sure you are too. > > While the majority of our members are in western Canada, we have 45 members > from outside that area (or whose location is unknown). Our furthest-afield > members are in Oslo, Norway, Auckland, New Zeland, and Dublin, Ireland. We > have members in every province from Quebec west, and a member in the Yukon, but > none yet in Nunavut or the Nortwest Territories. > > Perhaps the best news of all is that, of those 223 members, 153 are either > building or flying an RV or Rocket! That's a lot of RVs. > > You can see the full membership list at > > http://www.vansairforce.org/members/ > > You'll need your username and password to get in. Write to me if you've > forgotten it. > > --- > > Tedd McHenry > Van's Air Force > Western Canada Wing > tedd@vansairforce.org > www.vansairforce.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From rv7 at b4.ca Mon Feb 3 22:42:49 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing In-Reply-To: <009901c2cc14$d3061a80$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> References: <20030203213542.T32144-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> <009901c2cc14$d3061a80$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <3E3F60E9.4050304@b4.ca> Jaye and Scott Jackson wrote: > Where the hell is New Zeland? It's over by Austrlia, a few thousand miles west of us here in Britsh Colmbia. 8-P -RB4 -- --------- Rob Prior rv7 "at" b4.ca ----------------------------- Stop dreaming... Start flying -------------------------------------------------------------------------- perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From jjewell at telus.net Mon Feb 3 23:13:53 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing References: <20030203213542.T32144-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> <009901c2cc14$d3061a80$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <002b01c2cc1c$f9c84f00$05ddb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Right next to Astrailia I think! Geez some times I the temptation is just soooo strong, Sorry! Do not archive Jim in kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaye and Scott Jackson" To: Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing > Where the hell is New Zeland? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tedd McHenry" > To: "Western Canada Wing List" > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:53 PM > Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing > > > > Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing has had steady membership growth since > we > > went on the web three or four years ago. We're now up to 223 members in > total, > > with 95 members on the Wing email list (this list). I'm pleased to see > such > > great interest in RVs in western Canada, and I'm sure you are too. > > > > While the majority of our members are in western Canada, we have 45 > members > > from outside that area (or whose location is unknown). Our > furthest-afield > > members are in Oslo, Norway, Auckland, New Zeland, and Dublin, Ireland. > We > > have members in every province from Quebec west, and a member in the > Yukon, but > > none yet in Nunavut or the Nortwest Territories. > > > > Perhaps the best news of all is that, of those 223 members, 153 are either > > building or flying an RV or Rocket! That's a lot of RVs. > > > > You can see the full membership list at > > > > http://www.vansairforce.org/members/ > > > > You'll need your username and password to get in. Write to me if you've > > forgotten it. > > > > --- > > > > Tedd McHenry > > Van's Air Force > > Western Canada Wing > > tedd@vansairforce.org > > www.vansairforce.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wing mailing list > > Wing@vansairforce.org > > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Feb 4 07:16:03 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing In-Reply-To: <009901c2cc14$d3061a80$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <20030204071410.T96016-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Jaye and Scott Jackson wrote: > Where the hell is New Zeland? It's a few thousand miles east of Australlia and a long way south west of Kanada. Tedd From tedd at vansairforce.org Thu Feb 13 08:05:23 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in 2003 Message-ID: <20030213075212.E94755-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> The Langley Aero Club and Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing are holding the second annual Langley RV Fly-in on Saturday, June 7, 2003 at Langley airport (CYNJ). It'll will be essentially identical to last year's fly-in, only with better weather. Keep an eye on the Fly-in web page for details, http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ Perhaps you're already the proud owner of a flying RV. Lucky you! Then you'll surely want to fly in for a chance to win the People's Choice award for the best RV, and to show off your beautiful airplane. There's also a Furthest RV award, for the RV that flies the furthest distance to get there. There will be plenty of space on the field for parking. You can come for the day, camp on the field, or stay in one of the hotels near the airport. There are links to the local Travelodge on the web page. Currently building an RV? Then you'll enjoy our seminars. The seminar schedule isn't set yet, but you can expect sessions on building, safety, probably engines, and perhaps more. I'll be making more announcements as details are set. Are you an RV wannabe? Seriously thinking about building one, but unsure about what's involved, the cost, the time commitment? Worried that you don't have the skills? Then you may want to attend the seminar I'll be giving, "Introduction to RV Building." The seminar will cover those basic questions, and others, and will be a place where you can ask whatever's on your mind about the building process. We hope to have a representative from Van's there, as well. If you just like to look at RVs, this is probably going to be your best chance inside Canada this year. There are about 40 RVs registered in B.C., and we hope to have a sizeable portion of them at Langley. Last year we had 23 RVs, despite almost none from Canada being able to make it, due to weather. We hope to have all the great RVs we had last year, plus all those who wanted to come but couldn't due to weather, and maybe a few more. Naturally, we're encouraging anyone who wants to fly in, regardless of what type of airplane they have. If you plan to attend, and especially if you plan to fly in, please take the time to write me at tedd@vansairforce.org or, if you prefer, sign the Guest Book on the Fly-in web page. http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ/guestbook/lac_sign.html That will help us plan facilities such as food, washrooms, and customs for U.S. visitors. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Thu Feb 13 08:18:34 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] BC Calendar of Aviation Events Message-ID: <20030213081423.B7539-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Wing Members: Gary West (of the Penticton Flying Club, COPA Flight 50, etc.) has created an on-line calendar of aviation events in B.C. You can view it at http://ca.calendar.yahoo.com/flyingbc_ca/ This is a very handy resource, and I've created a link to it from the Wing web site. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From elgood at aebc.com Thu Feb 20 08:49:12 2003 From: elgood at aebc.com (T&M Elgood) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: [RAA-N]Fw: Maintenance schedule Message-ID: <005f01c2d900$12648480$d7cc35d1@AEBC> I'll try again, I only have one response from the RAA forum, maybe the RV guys will spend a moment and review the schedule. ----- Original Message ----- From: "T&M Elgood" To: Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:16 PM Subject: [RAA-N]Fw: Maintenance schedule > To all RAA Forum members; > > Subject: Maintenance schedule > > I am compiling a Maintenance Schedule for Amateur Built aircraft, (it is > similar to the one Adam Hunt produced in COPA, but more specific to amateur > built) to ensure that it is complete please review the attachment and > respond with any suggestions for content. > > This form is intended to be supplied to builders at the final inspection > stage, usually they haven't a clue what a maintenance schedule is. (CAR 625 > B&C shows WHAT work is required, the Maintenance Schedule shows WHEN the > work is required) > > What I need; > Information on any item I missed including reference to the applicable > regulation also reference to regulations to the items shown. > > How to contact me; email elgood@aebc.com (do not attach my draft, just note > your comments) or > Terry Elgood, > 4751 Tilton Rd., > Richmond BC, > V7C 1K6 > > Thanks, T. > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maintenance Schedule.doc Type: application/msword Size: 49152 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030220/4cdeafc4/MaintenanceSchedule.doc From garth at islandnet.com Thu Feb 20 11:17:24 2003 From: garth at islandnet.com (Garth Shearing) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Colin Walker Propellers Message-ID: <009701c2d914$bbcc58e0$d2718e8b@islandnet.com> Can someone give us the latest status of Colin Walker? Specifically, my partner and I are looking for a 72 x 85 wood propeller for the Lycoming O-360-A1A-equipped RV6A under construction. Thanks. Garth Shearing VariEze and 80% RV6A Victoria BC Canada From brjaques at pris.ca Thu Feb 20 18:02:16 2003 From: brjaques at pris.ca (Bruce Jaques) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Colin Walker Propellers References: <009701c2d914$bbcc58e0$d2718e8b@islandnet.com> Message-ID: <000501c2d94d$437bef20$2edcf4cc@brucejaques> The builders of my RV-4 150 horse said they ordered a 68 x 68 prop but Colin recommended a 68 x 66 and it worked out perfectly. After takeoff the rpm begins to climb at 140 mph and flat out it reaches 2700. I sent the prop to Colin for inspection after a rock hit and endured a stiff talking to because I had been cleaning the prop with a silicone based cleaner. Apparently it contaminated his shop when he sanded. I have great respect his craftsmanship, though, and I'm happy with the propeller. Bruce Jaques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030220/6e9829ad/attachment.htm From kiwirv6 at telus.net Sun Mar 2 20:40:43 2003 From: kiwirv6 at telus.net (Barry Tunzelmann) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Panel Builder Message-ID: <01C2E104.63C26C00.kiwirv6@telus.net> Does anyone know where one can find the panel builder program on the web? I had been linking to "www.sonexlinks.com/panelbuilder/ " but now get a bunch of non related garbage when that comes up - plus those annoying advertisements. Barry E Tunzelmann email: kiwirv6@telus.net From ltodd at telus.net Mon Mar 3 07:36:45 2003 From: ltodd at telus.net (Linda Todd) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Panel Builder References: <01C2E104.63C26C00.kiwirv6@telus.net> Message-ID: <3E63768D.000001.87305@oemcomputer> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 494 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030303/827aeeb2/attachment.gif From rv7 at b4.ca Mon Mar 3 08:39:29 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Panel Builder In-Reply-To: <3E63768D.000001.87305@oemcomputer> References: <01C2E104.63C26C00.kiwirv6@telus.net> <3E63768D.000001.87305@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <3E638541.5080600@b4.ca> Just remember that it doesn't work on anything but Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher. Netscape/Mozilla/Opera browsers need not apply (yes, the author has been notified/harassed/etc. about this and is working on a solution for those of us who refuse to patronize Microsoft). -Rob Prior Linda Todd wrote: > We use http://epanelbuilder.com/ > The instruments are a little off at the edges of the panel when you > print it but it has a great selection of instrument and avionics types > and sizes. > > Bob Baldock > RV6A (Wings in jigs) What, *another* RV, Bob? From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Mar 18 15:58:37 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in Message-ID: <20030318155213.E15884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> We've invited Van's to our Langley RV Fly-in again this year, and there's a good chance they'll be able to come, though they can't confirm it yet. I'd like to do a survey, as I did last year, to determine which airplane Wing members would most like Van's to bring. I'm sure the RV-10 is the top choice, but Gus Funnell of from Van's has said that the RV-10 probably won't be ready by June 7, the day of the fly-in. I believe Van's demo planes are the RV-7, RV-8, RV-9, and RV-9A. If you don't expect to attend, please don't reply. But if you do, and especially if you're still making up your mind which plane to build, please let me know which one you'd most like to see. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From guyb at shaw.ca Tue Mar 18 16:23:16 2003 From: guyb at shaw.ca (Guy Bourgeois) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in References: <20030318155213.E15884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <000601c2edad$bc8a98c0$8caf9044@guys> Hi, Their RV7 has now become an RV7A and that is the demo that I would like to see. Cheers, Guy From dvoth at shaw.ca Tue Mar 18 16:25:02 2003 From: dvoth at shaw.ca (Dennis Voth) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in References: <20030318155213.E15884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> <000601c2edad$bc8a98c0$8caf9044@guys> Message-ID: <001301c2edad$fb64d650$ab709344@warsteiner> yes, me also, Dennis, Calgary, RV-7A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Bourgeois" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in > Hi, > Their RV7 has now become an RV7A and that is the demo that I would like to > see. > Cheers, > Guy > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From fvalarm at rapidnet.net Tue Mar 18 21:45:11 2003 From: fvalarm at rapidnet.net (BTomm) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in Message-ID: <01C2ED98.59DA3600.fvalarm@rapidnet.net> Tedd, Most definitely the re-vamped RV7A gets my vote. Bevan From dvoth at shaw.ca Fri Mar 21 17:54:35 2003 From: dvoth at shaw.ca (Dennis Voth) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] park brake Message-ID: <003a01c2f015$fd59dea0$ab709344@warsteiner> Has anyone else installed the optional park brake system in their RV? We are building an RV 7A, purchased the park brake valve from Van's, but rec'd no instructions. Where does one install the valve? How do you hook up a cable to activate it? Any ideas would be welcome. We'd like to get the thing installed prior to covering the front top fuselage. Thanks, Dennis Voth, Calgary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030321/ee43e9d1/attachment.htm From acornyn at telusplanet.net Sun Mar 23 06:25:41 2003 From: acornyn at telusplanet.net (Al Cornyn) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:22 2005 Subject: [Wing] park brake References: <003a01c2f015$fd59dea0$ab709344@warsteiner> Message-ID: <001b01c2f148$160ec040$be1cb8a1@USER> I put the valve right between and above the pilot rudder pedals. I ran the cable through a piece of steel fuel line to get the correct angle to the activator lever. My brake valve leaks down, so don't trust it too long. It works plenty long enough to get out and fuel up or tie down. Used the same push pull cable as on carb heat. Al Pincher Creek rv6 CFADC---- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Voth To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: [Wing] park brake Has anyone else installed the optional park brake system in their RV? We are building an RV 7A, purchased the park brake valve from Van's, but rec'd no instructions. Where does one install the valve? How do you hook up a cable to activate it? Any ideas would be welcome. We'd like to get the thing installed prior to covering the front top fuselage. Thanks, Dennis Voth, Calgary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030323/40d25b4e/attachment.htm From ltodd at telus.net Sun Mar 23 06:38:35 2003 From: ltodd at telus.net (Linda Todd) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in References: <20030318155213.E15884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <3E7DC6EB.000010.33149@oemcomputer> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 494 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030323/f0b1baca/attachment.gif From tedd at vansairforce.org Mon Apr 7 19:07:31 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Web-based Builder's Logs Message-ID: <20030407190519.N78884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Wing Members: I'm considering setting up web-based builder's logs on the Wing web site that would allow you to keep a chronological record of your project, complete with pictures. You would be able to post your own photos and text through a web browser. If there's enough interest in this idea I'll install the software for it and publish instructions on how to use it. Please write to me if you would use such a service. Tedd --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From guyb at shaw.ca Tue Apr 8 06:04:21 2003 From: guyb at shaw.ca (Guy Bourgeois) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Web-based Builder's Logs References: <20030407190519.N78884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <000f01c2fdcf$5f1e6400$8caf9044@guys> Hi Tedd, As I hate keeping a log, I would give it a try and if it was really user friendly then I would be a user. Cheers, Guy From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Apr 8 09:57:43 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: Web-based Builder's Logs In-Reply-To: <20030407190519.N78884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <20030408095442.I12862-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> I may have inadvertently mis-represented the weblog idea. This is not a builder's log, as such, like Kitlog Pro. It isn't meant to be a replacement for your official builder's log. It's simply a web publishing system that allows you to put pictures and text up on your own web page fairly easily. It's a "blog," in web terminology. Tedd From carpenter at globalserve.net Tue Apr 8 15:18:38 2003 From: carpenter at globalserve.net (Chris Carpenter) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Blog Message-ID: Tedd, I would be interested, but I would have to buy a digital camera first, something that could take some time. It would be neat to see some local construction photos. Chris RV-8 w From mdeg at shaw.ca Tue Apr 8 15:11:42 2003 From: mdeg at shaw.ca (Marc Degirolamo) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: Web-based Builder's Logs References: <20030408095442.I12862-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <003001c2fe1b$d6696a40$db874718@ss.shawcable.net> Yes...I would be interested Ted. Marc ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: "Western Canada Wing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:57 AM Subject: [Wing] Re: Web-based Builder's Logs > I may have inadvertently mis-represented the weblog idea. This is not a > builder's log, as such, like Kitlog Pro. It isn't meant to be a replacement > for your official builder's log. It's simply a web publishing system that > allows you to put pictures and text up on your own web page fairly easily. > It's a "blog," in web terminology. > > Tedd > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Apr 8 15:20:31 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV Formation Message-ID: <20030408152006.N41841-101000@strongbad.retrix.com> Great photo, just had to pass it on. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: aw0708d.jpg.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 30284 bytes Desc: Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030408/6c7fd8c6/aw0708d.jpg.obj From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Tue Apr 8 16:04:13 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV Formation References: <20030408152006.N41841-101000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <008401c2fe23$2c4009e0$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Say, Tedd, isn't that your -6 in Lead? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: "Western Canada Wing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:20 PM Subject: [Wing] RV Formation > Great photo, just had to pass it on. > From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Apr 8 16:11:26 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV Formation In-Reply-To: <008401c2fe23$2c4009e0$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <20030408161022.V56840-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> > Say, Tedd, isn't that your -6 in Lead? Yeah... Lead... yeah, that's the ticket: me in Lead. Yeah. From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Tue Apr 8 16:19:25 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV Formation References: <20030408161022.V56840-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <00a801c2fe25$4c077f40$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Only if I get to be Tail-end Charlie. Wonder how much a tail turret weighs? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [Wing] RV Formation > > Say, Tedd, isn't that your -6 in Lead? > > Yeah... Lead... yeah, that's the ticket: me in Lead. Yeah. > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From acornyn at telusplanet.net Wed Apr 9 07:40:08 2003 From: acornyn at telusplanet.net (Al Cornyn) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] (no subject) Message-ID: <000a01c2fea5$ec352500$a11ab8a1@USER> Does anyone have or know one who might have hangar space for an RV6 in Prince George BC in the next couple of months for a few days at a time so I can visit my wife while she takes care of her father's estate. Al Cornyn acornyn@telusplanet.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030409/92974775/attachment.htm From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Wed Apr 9 22:32:43 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Blog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Tedd, I would be definitely interessted, I am finishing the empennage as we speak and am starting on the fuselage, Franz Fux -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Chris Carpenter Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:19 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] Blog Tedd, I would be interested, but I would have to buy a digital camera first, something that could take some time. It would be neat to see some local construction photos. Chris RV-8 w _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.458 / Virus Database: 257 - Release Date: 2/24/2003 From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Wed Apr 9 22:32:47 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV Formation In-Reply-To: <20030408152006.N41841-101000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: Thanks Franz -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Tedd McHenry Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:21 PM To: Western Canada Wing List Subject: [Wing] RV Formation Great photo, just had to pass it on. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.458 / Virus Database: 257 - Release Date: 2/24/2003 From gordjack at telus.net Sat Apr 12 19:24:18 2003 From: gordjack at telus.net (Gordon Jack) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] (no subject) References: <000a01c2fea5$ec352500$a11ab8a1@USER> Message-ID: <3E98CA52.5060906@telus.net> Al I checked at the airport while at ground school ( recurrence training) on Thursday night , could not get a definite solution. I will ask at the home builders meeting on tuesday night to see if any of the RV and others who have hangers will know of any space. I am sure we can find something. Ol Ed was a very nice guy who used to come out to the model airplane field as far back as the early seventies to watch us practice aerobatics for upcoming contests for hours at a time. When I was talking to him last fall at Spruceland Shopping Center he was really happy to hear I was building a RV. When he talked about riding in your RV his faced beamed. The world needs more guys like him. I will let you know when I find anything. Sincerely Gordon Jack 250-561-2223 Prince George B.C. RV-7A 70011 (fuselage) C-FRVN (res) Al wrote: > Does anyone have or know one who might have hangar space for an RV6 in > Prince George BC in the next couple of months for a few days at a time > so I can visit my wife while she takes care of her father's estate. > > Al Cornyn acornyn@telusplanet.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030412/c4a8151c/attachment.htm From elgood at aebc.com Fri Apr 18 09:57:05 2003 From: elgood at aebc.com (T&M Elgood) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Fw: Carb Heat Message-ID: <001301c305cb$a020a5e0$33cc35d1@AEBC> Does anyone have any temperature rise information on the 2" tube type carb heat (see below) Is this type of reply typical of Ken Scott? The implication being the manufacturer supply the specs, not the builders. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Scott" To: "T&M Elgood" Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 8:03 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Carb Heat > Perhaps a carb heat probe? > > Forwarded by: "Support" > Forwarded to: KENS > Date forwarded: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 07:26:01 -0700 > From: "T&M Elgood" > To: > Subject: Fw: Carb Heat > Date sent: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:27:23 -0700 > > Do you have any suggestions on how to determine the heating > ability of > this assembly? Terry > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "T&M Elgood" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 6:03 PM > Subject: Fw: Carb Heat > > > > Ken, thanks for the reply, > > > > There is a requirement for Amateur Built aircraft in Canada to show > > that > the > > carb heat system is capable of providing a temperature rise of 90 > > degrees > F. > > ( shown on AMA:549.13/2 15 April 1987 ) My concern is, is this > > system capable of providing that much heat, I really doubt it. > > > > My reason for asking about this carb heat system is because I am an > (MD-RA) > > inspector for amateur built aircraft in BC and I want to be sure > > that the system works properly. Last weekend I inspected an RV4 > > built by ***** *******, it was the first time I had seen this type > > of carb heat assembly. > > > > Terry Elgood > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ken Scott" > > To: "T&M Elgood" > > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:27 AM > > Subject: Re: Carb Heat > > > > > > > It seems to work under most circumstances, but we have never > > > done formal tests on it. > > > > > > Forwarded by: "Support" > > > Forwarded to: kens > > > Date forwarded: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 06:25:56 -0800 > > > From: "T&M Elgood" > > > To: > > > Subject: Carb Heat > > > Date sent: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:54:13 -0800 > > > > > > In your catalogue a carb heat muff is listed, it is a simple > > > assembly with what appears to be a 2" aluminum tube with a cut out > > > to fit over the exhaust pipe. Considering the small surface area > > > against the exhaust does this assembly provide enough heat, do you > > > have any test information showing the temperature rise above > > > ambient. > > > > > > Terry Elgood > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From wjoke at shaw.ca Fri Apr 18 10:49:48 2003 From: wjoke at shaw.ca (Jim Oke) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Fw: Carb Heat References: <001301c305cb$a020a5e0$33cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: <010101c305d2$e7d9fd80$6401a8c0@wp.shawcable.net> Terry; I have no engineering data on this assembly although such would be of interest to me as I have the identical assembly on my RV-6A. Some years ago I used to fly Beech Musketeers (Beech Model 23) for the Air force and also taught aircraft systems for student pilots at PFS. To my recollection, the Musketeers I flew had a very similar or identical carb heat induction system. That is a piece of scat tube was held close to the exhaust manifold and drew unfiltered air past the manifold into the carb heat box. There was no form of muff that would circulate the air for an extended distance past the manifold. If you are able to examine the engine installation on a Musketeer and determine the mechanics of the carb heat system were practically similar, then approval by way of similar design and installation might be an appropriate rationale. Another approach would be to check the operational effectiveness of the carb heat. If a similarly powered certified aircraft was run up and provided say 120 rpm drop when carb heat was selected under certain conditions and the RV-4 was run-up and provided the same or greater rpm drop then this would imply the RV-4 system was at least equally effective in providing heated air to the engine regardless of the mechanics of how this was done. IOW, it was the drop good enough for a certified aircraft then it ought to be OK for an amateur. From d2w at telus.net Fri Apr 18 13:59:39 2003 From: d2w at telus.net (William Robson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Carb Heat Message-ID: <001a01c305ed$6d22efa0$6683cecd@ab.hsia.telus.net> Hello Terry Osgood I was just wondering Terry, when you would be taking over for Joel Schoenberger, District Superintendent, Aircraft Maintenance and Manufacturing, with Transport Canada? Bill Robson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030418/486e055f/attachment.htm From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Fri Apr 18 17:42:22 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Fw: Carb Heat In-Reply-To: <001301c305cb$a020a5e0$33cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: Does anyone have any temperature rise information on the 2" tube type carb heat (see below) Is this type of reply typical of Ken Scott? The implication being the manufacturer supply the specs, not the builders. ----------------snip There is a requirement for Amateur Built aircraft in Canada to show that the carb heat system is capable of providing a temperature rise of 90 degrees F. shown on AMA:549.13/2 15 April 1987, My concern is, is this system capable of providing that much heat, I really doubt it. My reason for asking about this carb heat system is because I am an (MD-RA)inspector for amateur built aircraft in BC and I want to be sure that the system works properly. Last weekend I inspected an RV4 built by ***** *******, it was the first time I had seen this type of carb heat assembly. Terry Elgood > > From: "Ken Scott" > > To: "T&M Elgood" > > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:27 AM > > Subject: Re: Carb Heat > > > > > > > It seems to work under most circumstances, but we have never > > > done formal tests on it. ----------------------snip > > > Subject: Carb Heat > > > Date sent: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:54:13 -0800 > > > > > > In your catalogue a carb heat muff is listed, it is a simple > > > assembly with what appears to be a 2" aluminum tube with a cut out > > > to fit over the exhaust pipe. Considering the small surface area > > > against the exhaust does this assembly provide enough heat, do you > > > have any test information showing the temperature rise above > > > ambient. > > > > > > Terry Elgood --------------------------------------------------- HI Terry & RV Builders I will chime in with my opinions because I think the carb heat issue is very important to those of us flying here in the Pacific Northwest. In the past I have posted questions on this subject on the RV-list with very little response. (I am a old guy so temperatures below are farenheit!) (1) Regulations The AMA Terry quotes provides guidance for acceptable means, but not the only means, of showing compliance with the requirements of preventing ice build-up in carburettors of amateur-built aircraft. The AMA is based on regulations for certified aircraft such as, FAR 23.1093 (1983) paragraph (1) states that a carb preheater should provide a heat rise of 90 deg F with the engine at 75 % power and OAT 30 deg. (for conventional venturi carburetors). Also 23.1105 calls for a 100 degree rise where the heated air passes through a filter. Note these regulations calls for a heat muff rise and this temperature would be read at the outlet of the heat muff or in the carb air box, not in the carb venturi where the temperature has dropped again due to the latent heat of vaporization of fuel, etc. Therefore a CAT gauge normally cannot tell you if you meet the regulation, only that you have a safe temp in the carb venturi. I would assume that a safe venturi temperature at 75% power on a 30 deg day meets the heat muff requirements. (2) Underdog's Carb Heat. I did not like the looks of the small Van's heat muff and returned it for credit. I had a larger heat muff made up, looks much like the cabin heater muffs but slightly shorter, 9" long and encasing the forward exhaust crossover pipe. Because I fly IFR I am still not satisfied with the indicated carb heat rise and plan on making a larger heat muff that wraps around both crossover pipes. On runup @ 1700 RPM I show a 15 degree rise on the CAT gauge and a 30 RPM drop. In cruise @ 2200 - 2400 RPM the temp rise is 15 - 20 deg and a 50 RPM drop. On approach at 1400 RPM (less airflow through muff) I get a 40+ degree CAT rise. I have flown my RV6A in cloud at near freezing temperatures (carb heat on) for a 30 minute period with no sign of carb ice, so I assume I am getting enough heat but would like more as a comfort factor. The only actual carb ice I have experienced was when taxiing out in rain. Fly safely. George McNutt From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Fri Apr 18 17:55:29 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Fw: Carb Heat References: Message-ID: <011801c3060e$5fc412a0$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> My RV-6 is fitted with an Iceman optical carb-ice detector and the short, Van's heat pipe mounted on the crossover exhaust pipe directly above the FAB alternate-air inlet. Several times the ice detector warning has activated and been silenced using this arrangement for carb heat. I get virtually no RPM drop at any speed when selecting hot air. Initially thought the smaller stove would be alright as, unlike the traditional muffs, it's drawing in air that's already been heated a bit by passing over the cylinders to get into the lower cowl area. Plan to instrument my installation this summer to test the temp rise with a computer motherboard temp sensor. Worried about a couple of RV crashes from carb ice that were using this system.. Scott in Vancouver From d2w at telus.net Fri Apr 18 18:00:22 2003 From: d2w at telus.net (William Robson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Carb Heat Message-ID: <001101c3060f$0e40a6e0$6683cecd@ab.hsia.telus.net> Hello George Thank you for your logical, intelligent and informative reponse to the Carb Heat question. Best Regards Bill Robson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030418/d58ef840/attachment.htm From elgood at aebc.com Sat Apr 19 14:01:47 2003 From: elgood at aebc.com (T&M Elgood) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Carb Heat Message-ID: <001101c306b6$e7700a80$accc35d1@AEBC> To all who replied about the Vans carb heat, thank you; Bill, it's not clear what you are implying here. As an MDRA inspector my objective is to assist airplane builders through a complicated inspection process and to ensure their aircraft are safe to operate, which results in my concern for this particular carb heat assembly. > Hello Terry Osgood (Terry Elgood ) > I was just wondering Terry, when you would be taking over for Joel = > Schoenberger, District Superintendent, Aircraft Maintenance and = > Manufacturing, with Transport Canada? > Bill Robson George, thanks this is what I need to know, if this is the temperature rise from a bigger shroud type heater I'm even more concerned about the 2" tube type, I can't see how such a small surface area can produce enough heat to operate safely. > On runup @ 1700 RPM I show a 15 degree rise on the CAT gauge and a 30 RPM > drop. In cruise @ 2200 - 2400 RPM the temp rise is 15 - 20 deg and a 50 RPM > drop. On approach at 1400 RPM (less airflow through muff) I get a 40+ degree > CAT rise. > Fly safely. George McNutt As a suggestion to anyone using the 2" tube carb heater, be careful. Just because it is supplied by Vans does not imply they have tested it, Ken Scott said they have not done formal tests on it. Terry From del at deltech.ca Mon Apr 21 08:14:40 2003 From: del at deltech.ca (Del Schneider) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Carb Heat In-Reply-To: <001101c306b6$e7700a80$accc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: Thank you. A couple of us in Prince George who fly RV's have been wondering about this for some time and looking at what to consider. Keep the info flowing on this subject. Del Schneider, RV-6A -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of T&M Elgood Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 2:02 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] Carb Heat To all who replied about the Vans carb heat, thank you; Bill, it's not clear what you are implying here. As an MDRA inspector my objective is to assist airplane builders through a complicated inspection process and to ensure their aircraft are safe to operate, which results in my concern for this particular carb heat assembly. > Hello Terry Osgood (Terry Elgood ) > I was just wondering Terry, when you would be taking over for Joel = > Schoenberger, District Superintendent, Aircraft Maintenance and = > Manufacturing, with Transport Canada? > Bill Robson George, thanks this is what I need to know, if this is the temperature rise from a bigger shroud type heater I'm even more concerned about the 2" tube type, I can't see how such a small surface area can produce enough heat to operate safely. > On runup @ 1700 RPM I show a 15 degree rise on the CAT gauge and a 30 RPM > drop. In cruise @ 2200 - 2400 RPM the temp rise is 15 - 20 deg and a 50 RPM > drop. On approach at 1400 RPM (less airflow through muff) I get a 40+ degree > CAT rise. > Fly safely. George McNutt As a suggestion to anyone using the 2" tube carb heater, be careful. Just because it is supplied by Vans does not imply they have tested it, Ken Scott said they have not done formal tests on it. Terry _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Thu Apr 24 17:13:20 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Empennage Message-ID: Hi Everybody, I am just finishing the empennage and am needing help with the products used to filler, prime the gaps between the alu and the plastic tips of the empennage. Can anybody provide me with the product names and the place to purchase that stuff Thanks, happy building Franz Fux Director of Operations Last Frontier Heliskiing & Bell 2 Lodge E: franz@lastfrontierheli.com Web: www.lastfrontierheli.com Lodge Phone: 1-604-881-8530 Lodge Fax: 1-604-881-8330 Lodge Reservations: 1-877-617-2288 Heliski Reservations: 1-888-655-5566 Mailing Address: Box 49, Meziadin, BC, V0J 3S0 Head Office: Box 1118, Vernon, BC, V1T 6N4 Also see: www:bell2lodge.com www:steelhead-fishing.net www:heliskiing.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 1968 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030424/baad95f3/winmail.bin From ve7fp at jetstream.net Thu Apr 24 18:37:30 2003 From: ve7fp at jetstream.net (Ken Hoshowski) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Empennage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001301c30acb$3d1522a0$3d897240@cs> Franz, When I built my RV6 I filled in the little spaces between the fiberglass tips and the aluminum with a light body type filler. If I were doing it again I would not do this. Over time there is a tendency for this space to show a crack line. The time and effort spent to make it look like a composite just isn't worth it. For those with in driving or flying range of Salmon Arm we are hosting a Rust Remover (recurrency training) this Saturday April 26 at the Salmon Arm airport starting at 10:00 am. No charge for the seminar. Lunch will be available for a nominal charge. Transport Canada will be in attendance and will issue a certificate of recurrency. Ken Hoshowski RV6 C-FKEH Salmon Arm B.C. Also helping two local builder with 9A quickbuilds. Hi Everybody, I am just finishing the empennage and am needing help with the products used to filler, prime the gaps between the alu and the plastic tips of the empennage. Can anybody provide me with the product names and the place to purchase that stuff Thanks, happy building Franz Fux Director of Operations Last Frontier Heliskiing & Bell 2 Lodge -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 7684 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030424/727cd9a7/winmail.bin From ross-cm at shaw.ca Thu Apr 24 18:40:57 2003 From: ross-cm at shaw.ca (Chuck & Marion Ross) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Empennage References: Message-ID: <000b01c30acb$b85198e0$0a9a4d18@ok.shawcable.net> Hi Franz, I used a Poly-Fiber product called Superlite epoxy filler (from Aircraft Spruce, I think- it's been a long time). I found it very good but there are many fillers you could use, I would not recommend bondo. Any epoxy resin can be mixed with tiny foam spheres to make it sandable and that will work. The shperes are called micro-balloons, I have some if you need them. I prefer epoxy resin over poly-ester resin (that's what boat-builders use), because the epoxy does not shrink. Keep the filler to a minimum and remember that composites and aluminium expand at different rates with temp. changes so it may crack along the joint. I chose to cut a thin kerf with a narrow fine saw along the joint about 1mm deep. If it cracked, it's inside this cut and I can't see it. You might drop by Larry William's hanger to see what he used if you're in Vernon. Chuck Ross 542-1740 From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Thu Apr 24 19:09:37 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Empennage In-Reply-To: <001301c30acb$3d1522a0$3d897240@cs> Message-ID: thanks for the reply, unfortunately I will be still working up North, otherwise I would love to come by, especially to see some other projects Franz > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org > [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 6:38 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: RE: [Wing] Empennage > > Franz, > > When I built my RV6 I filled in the little spaces between the fiberglass > tips and the aluminum with a light body type filler. If I were doing it > again I would not do this. Over time there is a tendency for this space > to show a crack line. The time and effort spent to make it look like a > composite just isn't worth it. > > For those with in driving or flying range of Salmon Arm we are hosting a > Rust Remover (recurrency training) this Saturday April 26 at the Salmon > Arm airport starting at 10:00 am. No charge for the seminar. Lunch will > be available for a nominal charge. Transport Canada will be in attendance > and will issue a certificate of recurrency. > > Ken Hoshowski RV6 C-FKEH > Salmon Arm B.C. > > Also helping two local builder with 9A quickbuilds. > > > > Hi Everybody, > I am just finishing the empennage and am needing help with > the products used to filler, prime the gaps between the alu and the > plastic tips of the empennage. Can anybody provide me with the product > names and the place to purchase that stuff > Thanks, happy building > Franz Fux > Director of Operations > Last Frontier Heliskiing & Bell 2 Lodge > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2760 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030424/b87a57f4/winmail.bin From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Thu Apr 24 19:11:39 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Empennage In-Reply-To: <000b01c30acb$b85198e0$0a9a4d18@ok.shawcable.net> Message-ID: Thanks Ross, I am still up North until for ten more days, maybe I will track you guys down later, Franz -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Chuck & Marion Ross Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 6:41 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Empennage Hi Franz, I used a Poly-Fiber product called Superlite epoxy filler (from Aircraft Spruce, I think- it's been a long time). I found it very good but there are many fillers you could use, I would not recommend bondo. Any epoxy resin can be mixed with tiny foam spheres to make it sandable and that will work. The shperes are called micro-balloons, I have some if you need them. I prefer epoxy resin over poly-ester resin (that's what boat-builders use), because the epoxy does not shrink. Keep the filler to a minimum and remember that composites and aluminium expand at different rates with temp. changes so it may crack along the joint. I chose to cut a thin kerf with a narrow fine saw along the joint about 1mm deep. If it cracked, it's inside this cut and I can't see it. You might drop by Larry William's hanger to see what he used if you're in Vernon. Chuck Ross 542-1740 _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.458 / Virus Database: 257 - Release Date: 2/24/2003 From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Apr 29 22:07:08 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in 2003 Message-ID: <20030429220240.H10373-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> The Langley Aero Club and Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing are holding the second annual Langley RV Fly-in on Saturday, June 7, 2003 at Langley airport (CYNJ). It'll will be essentially identical to last year's fly-in, only with better weather. Keep an eye on the Fly-in web page for details, http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ Perhaps you're already the proud owner of a flying RV. Lucky you! Then you'll surely want to fly in for a chance to win the People's Choice award for the best RV, and to show off your beautiful airplane. There's also a Furthest RV award, for the RV that flies the furthest distance to get there. There will be plenty of space on the field for parking. You can come for the day, camp on the field, or stay in one of the hotels near the airport. There are links to the local Travelodge on the web page. Currently building, or thinking of building an RV? Then you'll enjoy our seminars. Eustace Bowhay will be repeating his highly popular discussion on RV building and flying. And I'll be giving an introductory seminar on RV building, ideal for those who are making the decision to build or have just started their project. If you just like to look at RVs, this is probably going to be your best chance inside Canada this year. There are about 40 RVs registered in B.C., and we hope to have a sizeable portion of them at Langley. Last year we had 23 RVs, despite almost none from Canada being able to make it, due to weather. We hope to have all the great RVs we had last year, plus all those who wanted to come but couldn't due to weather, and maybe a few more. Naturally, we're encouraging anyone who wants to fly in, regardless of what type of airplane they have. If you plan to attend, and especially if you plan to fly in, please take the time to write me at tedd@vansairforce.org or, if you prefer, sign the Guest Book on the Fly-in web page. http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ/guestbook/lac_sign.html That will help us plan facilities such as food, washrooms, and customs for U.S. visitors. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Wed Apr 30 09:31:54 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in Activities Message-ID: <20030430092918.N93460-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Below are some comments from George McNutt on activities in the Langley area that you might want to consider when planning a trip to the RV Fly-in on June 7. Thank you for the information, George. Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:11:09 -0700 From: George McNutt To: tedd@vansairforce.org Subject: Five Corners Hi Ted Just read your message on RV-list about fly-in and looked at our web page. Not sure if you know about these other Langley attractions. Some visitors to the RV fly-in may be interested in some of the "theme" sites at the five corners (216 st & 48th ave) it's a long walk from the RV parking area but only about 15-20 minute stroll from the flight museum area. About 1/2 block east of five corners on the old Yale highway is a new chocolate factory that started up about a year ago, expensive, but they have a nice tea house type restaurant. Also there is the Travelers Rest bed & breakfast and a coffee house. A little far but might be nice for some visitors with wives who might want to stay for the whole weekend, maybe those businesses would be willing to run a shuttle ?? Also the new coffee shop at the flight museum is very nice, Sam, the new owner is very congenial. He has two three wheel bicycles plus a tandem bike at the coffee shop, he may be willing to allow visitors to use same that day to go back & forth. George McNutt From mdeg at shaw.ca Fri May 2 16:10:55 2003 From: mdeg at shaw.ca (Marc Degirolamo) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in Activities References: <20030430092918.N93460-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <006c01c31100$1590f700$db874718@ss.shawcable.net> tedd....sorry I missed your call the other night.....You want contacts in this area is that right...? If so here are a few: Tom Makinson.....374-5807 ...RV-6A Don Francis..........967-2831....RV-6 Dennis Bourgeois....648-2758 Jeff Leach..... jsleach@cableregina.com Hope this helps...... Marc ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: "Western Canada Wing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:31 AM Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in Activities > Below are some comments from George McNutt on activities in the Langley area > that you might want to consider when planning a trip to the RV Fly-in on June > 7. Thank you for the information, George. > > Tedd McHenry > Van's Air Force > Western Canada Wing > tedd@vansairforce.org > www.vansairforce.org > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:11:09 -0700 > From: George McNutt > To: tedd@vansairforce.org > Subject: Five Corners > > > Hi Ted > > Just read your message on RV-list about fly-in and looked at our web page. > Not sure if you know about these other Langley attractions. > > Some visitors to the RV fly-in may be interested in some of the "theme" > sites at the five corners (216 st & 48th ave) it's a long walk from the RV > parking area but only about 15-20 minute stroll from the flight museum area. > > About 1/2 block east of five corners on the old Yale highway is a new > chocolate factory that started up about a year ago, expensive, but they have > a nice tea house type restaurant. > Also there is the Travelers Rest bed & breakfast and a coffee house. > > A little far but might be nice for some visitors with wives who might want > to stay for the whole weekend, maybe those businesses would be willing to > run a shuttle ?? > > Also the new coffee shop at the flight museum is very nice, Sam, the new > owner is very congenial. He has two three wheel bicycles plus a tandem bike > at the coffee shop, he may be willing to allow visitors to use same that day > to go back & forth. > > George McNutt > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From mdeg at shaw.ca Fri May 2 16:02:05 2003 From: mdeg at shaw.ca (Marc Degirolamo) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: [RAA-N]Fw: Maintenance schedule References: <005f01c2d900$12648480$d7cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: <005a01c310fe$d9e05080$db874718@ss.shawcable.net> Terry, I used the maintenance schedule that you made up. I changed a few things to suit, and added a few.... Here is the one we are going to use. ttyl Marc DeGirolamo ----- Original Message ----- From: "T&M Elgood" To: Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:49 AM Subject: [Wing] Fw: [RAA-N]Fw: Maintenance schedule > I'll try again, I only have one response from the RAA forum, maybe the RV > guys will spend a moment and review the schedule. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "T&M Elgood" > To: > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:16 PM > Subject: [RAA-N]Fw: Maintenance schedule > > > > To all RAA Forum members; > > > > Subject: Maintenance schedule > > > > I am compiling a Maintenance Schedule for Amateur Built aircraft, (it is > > similar to the one Adam Hunt produced in COPA, but more specific to > amateur > > built) to ensure that it is complete please review the attachment and > > respond with any suggestions for content. > > > > This form is intended to be supplied to builders at the final inspection > > stage, usually they haven't a clue what a maintenance schedule is. (CAR > 625 > > B&C shows WHAT work is required, the Maintenance Schedule shows WHEN the > > work is required) > > > > What I need; > > Information on any item I missed including reference to the applicable > > regulation also reference to regulations to the items shown. > > > > How to contact me; email elgood@aebc.com (do not attach my draft, just > note > > your comments) or > > Terry Elgood, > > 4751 Tilton Rd., > > Richmond BC, > > V7C 1K6 > > > > Thanks, T. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maintenance Schedule.doc Type: application/msword Size: 65536 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030502/3602ae1c/MaintenanceSchedule.doc From tedd at vansairforce.org Wed May 7 21:33:01 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV BBQ at Smiths Falls, Ontario - May 31st (fwd) Message-ID: <20030507212932.Y67232-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Wing Members: Below is a message I received from the Ontario RVators group about their annual BBQ, in Smith's Falls, ON. Those of you who are withing a reasonable flying distance of Smith's Falls might want to go to this. Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 16:36:14 -0400 From: The Lamport Household To: Tedd McHenry Subject: RV BBQ at Smiths Falls, Ontario - May 31st Hi Tedd: Our 5th annual RV BBQ is being held at the Smith's Falls airport (CYSH) on May 31st in case anyone from the West would like to join us. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you require any further information. Dale Cathy Lamport Van's Airforce - Ontario Wing RV6A - C-GLRV From rv7 at b4.ca Thu May 8 22:07:30 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Save Nelson Airport In-Reply-To: <3EBB2F49.422313E6@telus.net> References: <3EBB2F49.422313E6@telus.net> Message-ID: <3EBB3792.3080501@b4.ca> If anyone on these two lists has flown or would like to fly into the airport at Nelson, BC, it might be a good time to voice an objection to the airport's closure. -Rob Prior > ----- Original Message ----- > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:50 PM > *Subject:* Fw: Save Nelson Airport > > We need your help! > > Nelson Airport is under absolute threat of closure. Apparently some real > estate deal has gone through for nearby property with the promise that > the airport is part of the deal. Current City Council does not see the > value of the airport and is under the impression that it is not used and > does not have any local economic value. Please help us convince them > that this is not true. > > Help us by emailing or writing to the Mayor and Council about your > positive experiences at the Nelson Airport and your intention of > visiting Nelson with your plane again. Mention of how many nights you > have spent in local hotels and meals in local restaurants would be > helpful. All contact information can be found at: > http://flynorth.com/nelson.html > > Please bcc. Flynorth.com with your email so that we can keep a file of > these letters of support. There is some urgency to this matter as the > vote will be held soon and all information must be given to council by > May 16th! > > Diana Haschke > dhca@flynorth.com > http://www.flynorth.com -- --------- Rob Prior rv7 "at" b4.ca ----------------------------- Stop dreaming... Start flying -------------------------------------------------------------------------- perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From del at deltech.ca Thu May 15 15:37:47 2003 From: del at deltech.ca (Del Schneider) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] efis Message-ID: Has anyone installed a EFIS (like Blue Mountain) and how do you like it? Comments please. Del Schneider Prince George, BC RV-6A C-GZVD From rv7 at b4.ca Sun May 18 21:26:26 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] Message-ID: <3EC85CF2.2080104@b4.ca> Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't seen it elsewhere yet. If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there will be a few RV's there... 8-) -RB4 -------- Original Message -------- /Hey Gang....anyone interested in a flight to Nelson for lunch on Monday? This/ /will accomplish two goals, the main one being to support the Nelson Airport as a/ /very important part of the BC airport infrastructure, and help to keep it from being / /foolishly closed (don't forget what has just happened to Meigs Filed in Chicago), / /and the second to make up for today's BCBC cancelled trip to Anacortes. / // /I also think it would be great if you each of us took a few minutes to write up our / /own letters of support for CZNL and take them with us. We can slip them in the / /mail box at city hall, or I can get them to John Dale for forwarding to the mayor. / /I'm pretty sure John would take a great deal of pleasure in making a quick trip / /next week to visit the mayor personally and give him our thoughts...en masse. / // /Don't let Nelson down, guys! We all enjoy at least one trip each year over there / /for a day or even a weekend, and to lose it would be tragic for us all./ // /Plan on a 10:00 arrival with your letters in hand. We'll take a walk into town to find/ /city hall, and if not I hope John Dale will meet us and take charge of the letters for/ /delivery to the Mayor. After that we can stroll over somewhere for lunch and some / /AVBS./ // /*COME ON AND JOIN US IN NELSON! DO YOUR PART TO HELP SAVE A */ /*GREAT *//*LITTLE AIRPORT, IN A GREAT LITTLE TOWN, FOR A GREAT BUNCH*/ /*OF AVIATORS....THE AVIATORS OF NELSON AND BC!* / // /Please make the effort to be there, and let me know your intentions. Pass this / /message to everyone you know, and let's see if we can have the biggest one day/ /air arrival parade in the history of the Nelson Airport./ // /*We can stop the intended closing of this airport with your help.....let's do it!*/ /**/ Take care and Fly Safe! */Breakfast Club of British Columbia (BCBC)/* *//* Gary Tel/Fax: (250) 497-6466 FLYING BC 2003 Events Calendar: http://ca.calendar.yahoo.com/flyingbc_ca/ From ham at hammcc.com Sun May 18 21:29:35 2003 From: ham at hammcc.com (Hamilton McClymont) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] In-Reply-To: <3EC85CF2.2080104@b4.ca> Message-ID: I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to Cranbrook) and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. Hammy -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Rob Prior Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't seen it elsewhere yet. If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there will be a few RV's there... 8-) -RB4 -------- Original Message -------- From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Sun May 18 23:03:43 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] In-Reply-To: <3EC85CF2.2080104@b4.ca> Message-ID: 10 AM in CZNL, lets see, I have to be airborne out of Langley in the RV-6A at 8:25 - need to fuel first, 11 PM now, not normally an early riser. Any other acft from lower mainland going - if so send a e-mail and I will make the effort. George McNutt Langley B.C. (my letter in the mail) - If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there will be a few RV's there... 8-) -RB4 -------- Original Message -------- /Hey Gang....anyone interested in a flight to Nelson for lunch on Monday? This will accomplish two goals, the main one being to support the Nelson Airport as a very important part of the BC airport infrastructure, and help to keep it from being foolishly closed (don't forget what has just happened to Meigs Filed in Chicago), and the second to make up for today's BCBC cancelled trip to Anacortes. I also think it would be great if you each of us took a few minutes to write up our own letters of support for CZNL and take them with us. We can slip them in the mail box at city hall, or I can get them to John Dale for forwarding to the mayor. I'm pretty sure John would take a great deal of pleasure in making a quick trip next week to visit the mayor personally and give him our thoughts...en masse. Don't let Nelson down, guys! We all enjoy at least one trip each year over there for a day or even a weekend, and to lose it would be tragic for us all. Plan on a 10:00 arrival with your letters in hand. We'll take a walk into town to find city hall, and if not I hope John Dale will meet us and take charge of the letters for delivery to the Mayor. After that we can stroll over somewhere for lunch and some AVBS. *COME ON AND JOIN US IN NELSON! DO YOUR PART TO HELP SAVE A */ *GREAT *//*LITTLE AIRPORT, IN A GREAT LITTLE TOWN, FOR A GREAT BUNCH*/ *OF AVIATORS....THE AVIATORS OF NELSON AND BC!* / Please make the effort to be there, and let me know your intentions. Pass this message to everyone you know, and let's see if we can have the biggest one day air arrival parade in the history of the Nelson Airport. *We can stop the intended closing of this airport with your help.....let's do it!* Take care and Fly Safe! */Breakfast Club of British Columbia (BCBC)/* *//* Gary Tel/Fax: (250) 497-6466 From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Sun May 18 23:00:35 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] References: <3EC85CF2.2080104@b4.ca> Message-ID: <002701c31dcb$f71019e0$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Just got in from a Tofino-Qualicum Beach-Victoria-Cranfield-BB cross-country. Who's going, and what's the weather supposed to be like? Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Prior" To: Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:26 PM Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't > seen it elsewhere yet. > > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > -RB4 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > /Hey Gang....anyone interested in a flight to Nelson for lunch on > Monday? This/ > /will accomplish two goals, the main one being to support the Nelson > Airport as a/ > /very important part of the BC airport infrastructure, and help to keep > it from being / > /foolishly closed (don't forget what has just happened to Meigs Filed in > Chicago), / > /and the second to make up for today's BCBC cancelled trip to Anacortes. / > // > /I also think it would be great if you each of us took a few minutes to > write up our / > /own letters of support for CZNL and take them with us. We can slip > them in the / > /mail box at city hall, or I can get them to John Dale for forwarding to > the mayor. / > /I'm pretty sure John would take a great deal of pleasure in making a > quick trip / > /next week to visit the mayor personally and give him our thoughts...en > masse. / > // > /Don't let Nelson down, guys! We all enjoy at least one trip each year > over there / > /for a day or even a weekend, and to lose it would be tragic for us all./ > // > /Plan on a 10:00 arrival with your letters in hand. We'll take a walk > into town to find/ > /city hall, and if not I hope John Dale will meet us and take charge of > the letters for/ > /delivery to the Mayor. After that we can stroll over somewhere for > lunch and some / > /AVBS./ > // > /*COME ON AND JOIN US IN NELSON! DO YOUR PART TO HELP SAVE A */ > /*GREAT *//*LITTLE AIRPORT, IN A GREAT LITTLE TOWN, FOR A GREAT BUNCH*/ > /*OF AVIATORS....THE AVIATORS OF NELSON AND BC!* / > // > /Please make the effort to be there, and let me know your intentions. > Pass this / > /message to everyone you know, and let's see if we can have the biggest > one day/ > /air arrival parade in the history of the Nelson Airport./ > // > /*We can stop the intended closing of this airport with your > help.....let's do it!*/ > /**/ > Take care and Fly Safe! > > */Breakfast Club of British Columbia (BCBC)/* > *//* > > Gary > Tel/Fax: (250) 497-6466 > > FLYING BC 2003 Events Calendar: http://ca.calendar.yahoo.com/flyingbc_ca/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Sun May 18 23:06:04 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] References: Message-ID: <003101c31dcc$bb1a4220$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Just got in from flying all afternoon-six legs around the Island. Tired, but with The Grin on my face. Am free, but have blown my fuel budget for this pay period. Anybody want to help me out, I have a seat available? Scott How do you pay for fuel in Nelson on a holiday? ----- Original Message ----- From: "George McNutt" To: Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:03 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > 10 AM in CZNL, lets see, I have to be airborne out of Langley in the RV-6A > at 8:25 - need to fuel first, 11 PM now, not normally an early riser. Any > other acft from lower mainland going - if so send a e-mail and I will make > the effort. > > George McNutt > Langley B.C. > (my letter in the mail) > > > - > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > -RB4 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > /Hey Gang....anyone interested in a flight to Nelson for lunch on > Monday? This will accomplish two goals, the main one being to support the > Nelson > Airport as a very important part of the BC airport infrastructure, and help > to keep > it from being foolishly closed (don't forget what has just happened to Meigs > Filed in > Chicago), and the second to make up for today's BCBC cancelled trip to > Anacortes. > I also think it would be great if you each of us took a few minutes to > write up our own letters of support for CZNL and take them with us. We can > slip > them in the mail box at city hall, or I can get them to John Dale for > forwarding to > the mayor. I'm pretty sure John would take a great deal of pleasure in > making a > quick trip next week to visit the mayor personally and give him our > thoughts...en > masse. > Don't let Nelson down, guys! We all enjoy at least one trip each year > over there for a day or even a weekend, and to lose it would be tragic for > us all. > > Plan on a 10:00 arrival with your letters in hand. We'll take a walk > into town to find city hall, and if not I hope John Dale will meet us and > take charge of > the letters for delivery to the Mayor. After that we can stroll over > somewhere for > lunch and some AVBS. > *COME ON AND JOIN US IN NELSON! DO YOUR PART TO HELP SAVE A */ > *GREAT *//*LITTLE AIRPORT, IN A GREAT LITTLE TOWN, FOR A GREAT BUNCH*/ > *OF AVIATORS....THE AVIATORS OF NELSON AND BC!* / > > Please make the effort to be there, and let me know your intentions. > Pass this message to everyone you know, and let's see if we can have the > biggest > one day air arrival parade in the history of the Nelson Airport. > > *We can stop the intended closing of this airport with your > help.....let's do it!* > Take care and Fly Safe! > > */Breakfast Club of British Columbia (BCBC)/* > *//* > > Gary > Tel/Fax: (250) 497-6466 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From rv7 at b4.ca Mon May 19 20:41:03 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] KMS Tools Tool Clearance Message-ID: <3EC9A3CF.9030202@b4.ca> For those of you in the Vancouver (BC) area, I came across some specials at KMS Tools in Coquitlam (www.kmstools.com if you need the address) that may interest some of you. It appears someone's brought a large load back from Boeing Surplus in the last couple of weeks, as they have quite a large selection of these this weekend. All of these are used. $6.95 ea. Cleco pliers (30-40 pairs, most in good shape, a few in great shape) $4.70 ea. Side Grip Clecos 1/2" (40-50 didn't count accurately, almost all in great shape) $6.50 ea. 12" #30 and #40 drill bits, with Boeing speedchuck fitting on the end (works great in a regular drill too) Also, 6" #30 and #40 drill bits, with the speedchuck fitting, and jobber length #30/40 bits (no fitting). Didn't look at the prices. They've got a large bin of each of the drills, and the #30/#40 bits are separated out from the larger sizes... I guess someone told them that there were homebuilders in the area... Look carefully, some of the 12" bits have slight bends in them. Most are fine, though. Some may need sharpening. $69.95 18ga. Air Nibblers. That's 18ga *steel*, I bought one there a while ago and it cuts through sheet aluminum like butter. *Very* handy. This public service announcement brought to you by: -- --------- Rob Prior rv7 "at" b4.ca ----------------------------- Stop dreaming... Start flying -------------------------------------------------------------------------- perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Mon May 19 22:29:38 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Would anyone be able to provide me with a template on paper of the wing cross section for my cradle. If there is anyone in the Vernon area building a RV7, I could come and copy it myself, Thanks for your help Franz franz@lastfrontierheli.com -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Hamilton McClymont Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:30 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to Cranbrook) and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. Hammy -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Rob Prior Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't seen it elsewhere yet. If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there will be a few RV's there... 8-) -RB4 -------- Original Message -------- _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 From jjewell at telus.net Mon May 19 23:13:33 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] References: Message-ID: <000f01c31e96$f157d9e0$104fad8e@bc.hsia.telus.net> Hi Franz, I think Larry williams (larryw@uniserve.com) and Rick Thorburn( trtarch@telus.net) in Vernon and myself in Kelowna all have what you need. Though the internal structural design has differences in some models the RV4, 6, 7, and 8, all share the same airfoil so getting the cross section from one of us should not present a big problem. Is this what you want? Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Fux" To: Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:29 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > Hi, > Would anyone be able to provide me with a template on paper of the wing > cross section for my cradle. If there is anyone in the Vernon area building > a RV7, I could come and copy it myself, > Thanks for your help > Franz > franz@lastfrontierheli.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Hamilton McClymont > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:30 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to Cranbrook) > and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad > weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. > > Hammy > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Rob Prior > Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't > seen it elsewhere yet. > > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > -RB4 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Tue May 20 10:16:16 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] In-Reply-To: <000f01c31e96$f157d9e0$104fad8e@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: Hi Jim, I talked to Larry already and he is under the impression that the cross section is different in the RV7. I just need the shape so that I can cut out the plywood for the cradle. Franz -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jim Jewell Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 11:14 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] Hi Franz, I think Larry williams (larryw@uniserve.com) and Rick Thorburn( trtarch@telus.net) in Vernon and myself in Kelowna all have what you need. Though the internal structural design has differences in some models the RV4, 6, 7, and 8, all share the same airfoil so getting the cross section from one of us should not present a big problem. Is this what you want? Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Fux" To: Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:29 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > Hi, > Would anyone be able to provide me with a template on paper of the wing > cross section for my cradle. If there is anyone in the Vernon area building > a RV7, I could come and copy it myself, > Thanks for your help > Franz > franz@lastfrontierheli.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Hamilton McClymont > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:30 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to Cranbrook) > and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad > weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. > > Hammy > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Rob Prior > Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't > seen it elsewhere yet. > > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > -RB4 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 From jjewell at telus.net Tue May 20 17:12:00 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] References: Message-ID: <000901c31f2d$9a064f40$104fad8e@bc.hsia.telus.net> Hi Franz, I think that if you contact Van's they will confirm weather or not there is any difference in the airfoil shapes. I think they will say that the RV-3, -9, and -10, are the airfoil profiles that are different from the RV-4, -6, -7, and -8, which share the same airfoil. In any case it is always best to get the information from the horses mouth so to speak. They have always responded to my querries the next day. they might have what you want on hand. Jim ------- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Fux" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > Hi Jim, > I talked to Larry already and he is under the impression that the cross > section is different in the RV7. I just need the shape so that I can cut out > the plywood for the cradle. > Franz > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Jim Jewell > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 11:14 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: Re: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > Hi Franz, > > I think Larry williams (larryw@uniserve.com) and Rick Thorburn( > trtarch@telus.net) in Vernon and myself in Kelowna all have what you need. > Though the internal structural design has differences in some models the > RV4, 6, 7, and 8, all share the same airfoil so getting the cross section > from one of us should not present a big problem. Is this what you want? > > Jim in Kelowna > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Franz Fux" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:29 PM > Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > > Hi, > > Would anyone be able to provide me with a template on paper of the wing > > cross section for my cradle. If there is anyone in the Vernon area > building > > a RV7, I could come and copy it myself, > > Thanks for your help > > Franz > > franz@lastfrontierheli.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > > Behalf Of Hamilton McClymont > > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:30 PM > > To: wing@vansairforce.org > > Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > > > > I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to > Cranbrook) > > and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad > > weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. > > > > Hammy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > > Behalf Of Rob Prior > > Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM > > To: wing@vansairforce.org > > Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > > > > Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and > haven't > > seen it elsewhere yet. > > > > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure > there > > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > > > -RB4 > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wing mailing list > > Wing@vansairforce.org > > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > > --- > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wing mailing list > > Wing@vansairforce.org > > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From dvoth at shaw.ca Tue May 20 17:15:40 2003 From: dvoth at shaw.ca (Dennis Voth) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] References: Message-ID: <000b01c31f2e$1c808fd0$ab709344@warsteiner> We made a cradle for our RV 7 wings. If I remember correctly, I think all we did was trace the outline from the end of the wing (quickbuild). You could do the same with a rib. Then just make it a bit bigger, to leave space for padding of some sort. Dennis Voth, RV-7A, Calgary. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Fux" To: Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 11:29 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > Hi, > Would anyone be able to provide me with a template on paper of the wing > cross section for my cradle. If there is anyone in the Vernon area building > a RV7, I could come and copy it myself, > Thanks for your help > Franz > franz@lastfrontierheli.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Hamilton McClymont > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:30 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to Cranbrook) > and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad > weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. > > Hammy > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Rob Prior > Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't > seen it elsewhere yet. > > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > -RB4 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From tedd at vansairforce.org Sat May 24 22:31:37 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley RV Fly-in 2003 Message-ID: <20030524222747.H8638-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> A short reminder that the Langley RV Fly-in is just two weeks away, on Saturday, June 7. Details are on our web site, at http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ/ If you have any questions about the fly-in, please feel free to write me at the address below or phone me at (604) 574-4764. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From elgood at aebc.com Tue May 27 13:46:20 2003 From: elgood at aebc.com (T&M Elgood) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Demel Aircraft Message-ID: <001001c32491$db1748e0$b8cc35d1@AEBC> To anyone who intends to order anything from Demel, Doug will bring your order to the Langley flyin if you ask him. From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue May 27 22:12:04 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Demel Aircraft In-Reply-To: <001001c32491$db1748e0$b8cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: <20030527221034.M94972-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Terry: Thanks for that reminder. For anyone who has questions for Demel, or an order to place, they will be at the Langley RV Fly-in on Saturday, June 7, at CYNJ. Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org On Tue, 27 May 2003, T&M Elgood wrote: > To anyone who intends to order anything from Demel, Doug will bring your > order to the Langley flyin if you ask him. From tedd at vansairforce.org Sun Jun 1 16:12:18 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-10 Photos on Wing Web Site Message-ID: <20030601161122.S4826-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> There are some new photos of the RV-10 on the Western Canada Wing web site, courtesy of Jerry Cochran. http://www.vansairforce.org/misc/RV-10/ Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From sdrivers at aaahawk.com Sun Jun 1 17:54:17 2003 From: sdrivers at aaahawk.com (Stuart Driver) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-10 Photos on Wing Web Site References: <20030601161122.S4826-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <001701c328a1$7f6f9290$66224804@stuart> Tedd, I'm sorry to be off topic but I am trying to find a phone number for Vettermans Exhaust Systems. Could you help? SSD ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: "Western Canada Wing List" Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 7:12 PM Subject: [Wing] RV-10 Photos on Wing Web Site > There are some new photos of the RV-10 on the Western Canada Wing web site, > courtesy of Jerry Cochran. > > http://www.vansairforce.org/misc/RV-10/ > > Tedd McHenry > Van's Air Force > Western Canada Wing > tedd@vansairforce.org > www.vansairforce.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From tedd at vansairforce.org Sun Jun 1 22:26:26 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-10 Photos on Wing Web Site In-Reply-To: <001701c328a1$7f6f9290$66224804@stuart> Message-ID: <20030601222602.M11900-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Stuart Driver wrote: > Tedd, I'm sorry to be off topic but I am trying to find a phone number for > Vettermans Exhaust Systems. Could you help? SSD Try http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/vetterman/VettermanExhaust.htm Tedd From tedd at vansairforce.org Mon Jun 2 21:26:30 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] More RV-10 Photos Message-ID: <20030602212512.H33960-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> We have some more great photos of the RV-10, this time by George McNutt, on the Wing web site. http://www.vansairforce.org/misc/RV-10/ Thanks, George! --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Jun 3 08:23:00 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Reminder: Langley RV Fly-in this Saturday Message-ID: <20030603082145.O15386-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Just a short reminder that the Western Canada Wing/Langley Aero Club RV fly-in is this Saturday, June 7, at Langley (CYNJ). For details, see http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ/ We hope you can all make it. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Tue Jun 3 08:50:07 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV10 roof structure In-Reply-To: <20030603082145.O15386-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: Hi Ted Further to my comments on the RV10 roof structure. I noticed in the cockpit photo on the web that the windshield center support is also bolted to the roof at the top, the bolts are just visible in picture. George From kiwi at sunwave.net Sat Jun 7 21:50:14 2003 From: kiwi at sunwave.net (Barry Tunzelmann) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] VANs @ Salmon Arm Message-ID: <01C32D3E.C7C7FAE0.kiwi@sunwave.net> Howdy RVers, got an email from Scott Risan on Friday saying that most likely the RV9A will be at the Salmon Arm Air Affair on Sunday 15th June. Please encourage any one interested in purchasing this fantastic aircraft to come and have a taste on VANs. The Air Affair RV demonstrations by VANs at Salmon Arm has resulted in/or concluded the deal on 4 kit sales over the past 2 years. Barry & Cindy Tunzelmann Box 359 Canoe BC V0E 1K0 From tedd at vansairforce.org Mon Jun 9 09:02:50 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in Message-ID: <20030609085228.T70820-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> The second annual Langley RV Fly-in was a great success, with an even better turnout of RVs (and other aircraft) than last year. The clear weather made it easier for people inland of the coastal mountains to fly in, and we had several RVs from the interior who weren't able to make last year's event. We also had RVs from as far afield as Springbank, AB, San Jose, CA, and Tuscon, AZ! I'd like to thank all the RVers who flew in. It was a most impressive line-up of airplanes! There are several pages of photos at http://www.vansairforce.org/events/CYNJ/2003/ Keep your eye on this page, as I will be uploading more photos over the next few days. Thanks to Les Burkholder and Susan Stannard for their excellent photos, and thanks in advance to Rob Prior, whose photos will be posted at the same link shortly. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From jjewell at telus.net Tue Jun 10 10:19:48 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? Message-ID: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. Suggestions? Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/8abb51ea/attachment.htm From grizzlybear at klondiker.com Tue Jun 10 13:33:34 2003 From: grizzlybear at klondiker.com (Jacob & Grace) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? References: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: <005801c32f8f$90b55ea0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about him in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and insists I bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a whole serious of events I can provide but suffice to say I am immersed in the turf wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. Suggestions? Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/3eda6ded/attachment.htm From rv7 at b4.ca Tue Jun 10 13:39:50 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Stats on completions? Message-ID: <3EE64216.6000709@b4.ca> Does anyone here know where I could find stats on RV completions? I'm curious how many aircraft per month are being finished, and would like to know how the numbers changed over the last 6 months to a year. I could always call Van's and ask, but thought someone here might have the info handy (or a link to it). Thanks in advance, Rob P. From rv7 at b4.ca Tue Jun 10 13:44:12 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <005801c32f8f$90b55ea0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> References: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> <005801c32f8f$90b55ea0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> Message-ID: <3EE6431C.7030708@b4.ca> Jacob & Grace wrote: > If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really > unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my > last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about > him in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and > insists I bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a > whole serious of events I can provide but suffice to say I am > immersed in the turf wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. Hi Jacob, How about a little more detail (but not much...)? How long ago was your last aircraft inspected (presumably quite a while, as Transport handed off inspections to MD-RA a long time ago now)? How far "down south" do you need to bring an inspector from? And where are you located? Just curious... I wasn't aware there was a "turf war" between MD-RA and TC. I thought TC was quite happy to hand off all the inspections to MD-RA. -Rob From b.m.carr at telus.net Tue Jun 10 16:05:02 2003 From: b.m.carr at telus.net (bryan carr) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? References: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: <002901c32fa4$ba8164d0$6911c2cf@S0025031703> Hi Jim I have had Jim Asprey do my last 3 planes and would highly recommend you ask for him when you need an inspection. He is very thorough and is well qualified to the job. (he is building a RV-6 ). Bryan ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. Suggestions? Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/5db3ff6c/attachment.htm From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Tue Jun 10 16:24:04 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <002901c32fa4$ba8164d0$6911c2cf@S0025031703> Message-ID: Where does Jim Asprey live and do you have a contact number. I am building an RV7 and would love to have the opportunity of an independent inspection and or some suggestions some times along the building process Franz Fux Vernon -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of bryan carr Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:05 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? Hi Jim I have had Jim Asprey do my last 3 planes and would highly recommend you ask for him when you need an inspection. He is very thorough and is well qualified to the job. (he is building a RV-6 ). Bryan ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. Suggestions? Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/7989f196/attachment.htm From del at deltech.ca Tue Jun 10 16:55:16 2003 From: del at deltech.ca (Del Schneider) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <005801c32f8f$90b55ea0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> Message-ID: I finished my RV6-A last November. Inspection and paper work was virtually seamless from start to finish with lots of help from the people at MD-RA. I know in a couple of instances I did not fill the paper out exactly correctly, but had help at every angle from Gerry Halliburton in London, Ont. and Terry Elgood in Vancouver and in particular the local inspector Dan McKeith in Quesnel. When the 25 hour were completed I walked into the Transport Canada office and had the paper work signed off in a couple of hours. Sure it's a lot of paper work and a pain in the butt for those of us that hate paper work but what the heck, you just spent years building and you did that right, now do the paper work correctly. Del Schneider Prince George, BC C-GZVD -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jacob & Grace Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 1:34 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about him in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and insists I bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a whole serious of events I can provide but suffice to say I am immersed in the turf wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. Suggestions? Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/f64ba7fa/attachment.htm From grizzlybear at klondiker.com Tue Jun 10 17:23:15 2003 From: grizzlybear at klondiker.com (Jacob & Grace) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? References: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> <005801c32f8f$90b55ea0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> <3EE6431C.7030708@b4.ca> Message-ID: <009301c32faf$a66a1c20$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Prior" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? > Jacob & Grace wrote: > > > If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really > > unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my > > last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about > > him in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and > > insists I bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a > > whole serious of events I can provide but suffice to say I am > > immersed in the turf wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. > > Hi Jacob, > > How about a little more detail (but not much...)? > > How long ago was your last aircraft inspected (presumably quite a while, > as Transport handed off inspections to MD-RA a long time ago now)? > My last aircraft was built in 1999/2000, inspections were during those two years, first two inspectors very professional but last (new) one was....uh.....less professional! > How far "down south" do you need to bring an inspector from? And where > are you located? > Sorry, we are building in Whitehorse, Yukon (Two hours North of Skagway Alaska). Transport Canada has an agreement with MD-RA that MDRA will do inspections, "except where no inspector is available". Our nearest inspector (travel wise) would be Vancouver or Edmonton. (over 1600 miles) The government sponsored cost for air fare alone is $1,600.00 right now, there are better prices from time to time, but there is expenses, lodging, fees, etc to add. > Just curious... I wasn't aware there was a "turf war" between MD-RA and > TC. I thought TC was quite happy to hand off all the inspections to MD-RA. > Transport Canada wants out of the responsibility, and MD-RA wants in to do it! The agreement is still officially that Transport Canada will do it when the MD-RA is too far away. Because the one TC guy in charge here is really ticked at me for complaining he wants me (and only me it seems, the other builders seem to be getting thier inspections done by TC for now), to pay to bring someone up from Edmonton or Vancouver. The turf war begins because the MD-RA is very reluctant to say they want TC to do ANY inspections, so they are siding with TC in this case on principle I guess.. > -Rob > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Tue Jun 10 18:08:53 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jim Jewell Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:20 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. [George McNutt] __ If you are not happy say how and why here. Hi Jim, - good idea! I think that the MD-RA is trying to do a good job and has many fine volunteers, but I also believe that MD-RA is handicapped by their inadequate agreements with Transport. These problems mostly emanate from MD-RA and Transport headquarters but are exasperated by some individuals who seem to think that their MD-RA training manual supercedes the CAR's. I ran into two procedures problems in April - May 2002 with MD-RA (Pacific Region) while trying to get my initial flight authorization. My problems were all resolved by getting a refund for my final inspection fees from MD-RA and dealing with Transport Canada. I believe one problem area has been resolved for succeeding builders. (1) Gross weight increase, - Despite already having kit manufacturers letters on file MD-RA was insisting on a letter from the kit manufacturer (Vans) approving a gross weight increase for my individual aircraft prior to issuing a flight authorization. This seemed to be a case of the MD-RA worrying about their own liability and ignoring what the CAR's said about the subject. My understanding is that this problem is now resolved with the builder supplying a letter assuming liability for the heavier weight. (2) MD-RA's inability to modify initial operating limitations - The 25 mile operating radius limitation at airports such as Boundary Bay can be a safety hazard. All of the 25 mile area is built-up city, over water, in the USA, in a high traffic area capped at 2500 feet by class "C" airspace or over mountains. Unfortunately we are dealing with MD-RA, Bombardier or Air Canada simply request a safe operating area from Transport. In our case MD-RA says their hands are tied by their agreement with Transport on issuing a safer operating area. They will only issue the standard 25 mile area and then you must have Transport amend the Flight Authorization to give you a safer area. Yes, amendments cost money, in this case $35. Why should one pay hundreds of dollars for a Flight Authorization that needs to be amended in the interests of safety?? On a side note - I received excellent service from Transport Canada (Abbottsford), no fee for changing the 25 mile radius to the Hope corridor, no hassle in removing the VFR restriction, and I ended up with two final inspections MD-RA and Transport for the price of one! George McNutt Langley B.C. 6A - 152 hrs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/325442dc/attachment.htm From elgood at aebc.com Tue Jun 10 22:22:54 2003 From: elgood at aebc.com (T&M Elgood) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Wing digest, Vol 1 #195 - 8 msgs Message-ID: <004f01c32fd9$995b1dc0$15cc35d1@AEBC> > Today's Topics: With comments from Terry Elgood, MD-RA Chief inspector for BC > > > If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really = > unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my = > last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about him = > in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and insists I = > bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a whole serious = > of events I can provide but suffice to say I am immersed in the turf = > wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. T.E. There is no "turf war" between MD-RA and Transport Canada. MD-RA has a contract with Transport Canada to provide inspection services to amateur built aircraft builders in Canada. If more information regarding this arrangement is required contact Allan Mahon, General Manager MD-RA Inspection Services > I have had Jim Asprey do my last 3 planes and would highly recommend you = > ask for him when you need an inspection. > He is very thorough and is well qualified to the job. (he is building a = > RV-6 ). > Bryan T.E. Thank you Bryan, I'm sure Jim appreciates your comments. You and your wife have built some beautiful airplanes. > From: "Franz Fux" > Where does Jim Asprey live and do you have a contact number. I am building > an RV7 and would love to have the opportunity of an independent inspection > and or some suggestions some times along the building process > Franz Fux > Vernon T.E. Franz, there are two qualified inspectors in Kamloops, one of them will inspect your aircraft. I doubt you would consider the travel costs for Jim from White Rock. > From: "Del Schneider" > > I finished my RV6-A last November. Inspection and paper work was virtually > seamless from start to finish with lots of help from the people at MD-RA. I > know in a couple of instances I did not fill the paper out exactly > correctly, but had help at every angle from Gerry Halliburton in London, > Ont. and Terry Elgood in Vancouver and in particular the local inspector Dan > McKeith in Quesnel. When the 25 hour were completed I walked into the > Transport Canada office and had the paper work signed off in a couple of > hours. Sure it's a lot of paper work and a pain in the butt for those of us > that hate paper work but what the heck, you just spent years building and > you did that right, now do the paper work correctly. > T.E. Del, thank you, I appreciate your comments and I'm sure Dan and Gerry will also. I doubt any of you would believe me if I told you the amount of time I spend on this VOLUNTEER job, trying to HELP people. Hi Jacob, > > > Sorry, we are building in Whitehorse, Yukon (Two hours North > of Skagway Alaska). Transport Canada has an agreement with MD-RA that MDRA > will do inspections, "except where no inspector is available". T.E. Jacob, there is not much I can do to help you here, you may have to request an inspection from Transport Canada through the MD-RA. If you are having "difficulty" with a local inspector, contact Allan Mahon he may be able to help you deal with Transport through his contacts. > The turf war begins because the MD-RA is very reluctant to > say they want TC to do ANY inspections, so they are siding with TC in this > case on principle I guess.. > > -Rob T.E. Rob, not quite true. As I stated above, MD-RA has a contract. If a T.C. inspector gets involved without him being requested to through the proper channels he just might get a phone call from a certain individual back east who carries a very big stick and is not reluctant to use it, it has happened before. > > [George McNutt] __ If you are not happy say how and why here. > > Hi Jim, - good idea! > > I think that the MD-RA is trying to do a good job and has many fine > volunteers, T.E. George, thank you but I also believe that MD-RA is handicapped by their inadequate > agreements with Transport.These problems mostly emanate from MD-RA and > Transport headquarters but are exasperated by some individuals who seem to > think that their MD-RA training manual supercedes the CAR's. T.E. George, specifically, what "individuals-------training manual supercedes the CARS" > (1) Gross weight increase, - Despite already having kit manufacturers > letters on file MD-RA was insisting on a letter from the kit manufacturer > (Vans) approving a gross weight increase for my individual aircraft prior to > issuing a flight authorization. This seemed to be a case of the MD-RA > worrying about their own liability and ignoring what the CAR's said about > the subject. > My understanding is that this problem is now resolved with the builder > supplying a letter assuming liability for the heavier weight. > T.E. George, each aircraft is unique, like it or not it is. It is irrelevant what is on file for the gross weight for similar aircraft. As I am sure you are aware Transport Canada form 24-0079 Application for C of A asks "was the design modified" prior to resolving this issue if the answer was yes (the gross weight was increased) the builder required a letter from the designer allowing the increase, Vans would no longer do this. A new procedure was developed to allow a builder to increase the gross weight. Thank you for your help in resolving this situation. (why should MD-RA worry about liability, as an inspector I am working for and insured by Transport Canada , if I wasn't do you think I would be doing this) T.E. personal comment It will be interesting to see what happens in a lawsuit when someone is killed in a over gross RV, the builder already has a noose around his neck as the manufacturer of an aircraft. I can just imagine the fake indignation of some lawyer saying you mean to tell me you willingly flew the aircraft over it's RECOMMENDED design limits. When they get finished with him he will be eating dog food and living under a bridge. > (2) MD-RA's inability to modify initial operating limitations - The 25 > mile operating radius limitation at airports such as Boundary Bay can be a > safety hazard. > T.E. George, at your request I brought this up at a meeting in Ontario. Prior to the meeting I reviewed the situation with Transport Canada locally, they were in agreement that I should be allowed to provide an exemption to the 25 mile rule, similar to that provided then and now. At the Ont. meeting, Transport agreed, when I returned home he changed his mind. Believe me I tried. T.E. Jim Jewell, thank you for starting this discussion, there appears to be a lot of misunderstanding about MD-RA. I hope this clears up some questions. Are you the Jim that Larry introduced me to at Langley last weekend, if you are it's too bad you didn't join in our conversation, it would have been interesting to talk to you. From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Tue Jun 10 23:30:34 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:24 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <009301c32faf$a66a1c20$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jacob & Grace Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:23 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? > Jacob & Grace wrote: > > > I recieved really > > unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my > > last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about > > him in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and > > insists I bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a > > whole serious of events I can provide but suffice to say I am > > immersed in the turf wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. > My Suggestion FWIW. Write to the MD-RA headquarters and ask how one goes about getting a homebuilt aircraft inspected in Whitehorse. I doubt that the answer will be to fly someone in from Edmonton. If they are unable to give you a satisfactory response refer them to paragraph 4.3 of the following: Aircraft Maintenance & Manufacturing, Staff Instructions # MSI-43 (July 11, 2002) (File # AARP-5009-3-43)part of which is reproduced below. ------------------------------------ 4. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION 4.1 Transport Canada has named MD-RA Inspection Services as sole sponsoring organization charged with delivering the Minister's Delegate - Recreational Aviation Program. They can be reached at the following address: MD-RA Inspection Services 2469 Aviation Lane London, ON, N5V 3Z9 Toll Free: (877) 419-2111 Business: (519) 457-2909 Fax: (519) 457-0980 4.2 All amateur-built projects, including letters of intent and requests for importation, shall be forwarded to MD-RA Inspection Services for processing. 4.3 In the case where a MD-RA is not available, MD-RA Inspection Services shall forward the file to the appropriate Transport Canada Centre (TCC). 4.4 In the cases of amateur-built aircraft built outside Canada, CASIs and delegates shall refer to MPL 10 for further guidance. ------------------------------------------------- Should Transport Canada YXY refuse to handle the file I would then want an answer from the Minister of Transport as to why they are not following their own policy. It is possible to build a Canadian homebuilt outside of Canada, surely it is possible to build one in Whitehorse, even after butting heads with the local TC guy. George McNutt Langley B.C. From grizzlybear at klondiker.com Tue Jun 10 23:30:16 2003 From: grizzlybear at klondiker.com (Jacob & Grace) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Wing digest, Vol 1 #195 - 8 msgs References: <004f01c32fd9$995b1dc0$15cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: <001601c32fe2$ec2ad410$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> Thanks Terry, I can only imagine the frustration you must sometimes experience. I thank you for your efforts and clarification. I didn't know I had to arrange a Transport Canada Inspection through the MD-RA but if so that is what I will try to do. I imagine you understand my frustration too, I did nothing wrong last time, and all I want is the inspections a bureacrat is currently paid to do, and is currently doing for everyone else up here. No one I have ever met (yet) wants to fly an airplane that is not safe, and I think we all know the paper work is part of the job like Dell says. Maybe call me directly if you have advice. Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "T&M Elgood" To: Cc: "Allan Mahon" ; "Gerry Haliburton" ; "Jim Asprey" ; "Dan McKeith" Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:22 PM Subject: [Wing] Fw: Wing digest, Vol 1 #195 - 8 msgs > > Today's Topics: With comments from Terry Elgood, MD-RA Chief inspector > for BC > > > > > > If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really = > > unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my = > > last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about him = > > in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and insists I = > > bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a whole serious = > > of events I can provide but suffice to say I am immersed in the turf = > > wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. > > > T.E. > There is no "turf war" between MD-RA and Transport Canada. MD-RA has a > contract with Transport Canada to provide inspection services to amateur > built aircraft builders in Canada. If more information regarding this > arrangement is required contact Allan Mahon, General Manager MD-RA > Inspection Services > > > > > > > I have had Jim Asprey do my last 3 planes and would highly recommend you = > > ask for him when you need an inspection. > > He is very thorough and is well qualified to the job. (he is building a = > > RV-6 ). > > Bryan > > T.E. > Thank you Bryan, I'm sure Jim appreciates your comments. You and your wife > have built some beautiful airplanes. > > > > From: "Franz Fux" > > > Where does Jim Asprey live and do you have a contact number. I am building > > an RV7 and would love to have the opportunity of an independent inspection > > and or some suggestions some times along the building process > > Franz Fux > > Vernon > > T.E. > Franz, there are two qualified inspectors in Kamloops, one of them will > inspect your aircraft. I doubt you would consider the travel costs for Jim > from White Rock. > > > > > From: "Del Schneider" > > > > I finished my RV6-A last November. Inspection and paper work was virtually > > seamless from start to finish with lots of help from the people at MD-RA. > I > > know in a couple of instances I did not fill the paper out exactly > > correctly, but had help at every angle from Gerry Halliburton in London, > > Ont. and Terry Elgood in Vancouver and in particular the local inspector > Dan > > McKeith in Quesnel. When the 25 hour were completed I walked into the > > Transport Canada office and had the paper work signed off in a couple of > > hours. Sure it's a lot of paper work and a pain in the butt for those of > us > > that hate paper work but what the heck, you just spent years building and > > you did that right, now do the paper work correctly. > > > > T.E. > Del, thank you, I appreciate your comments and I'm sure Dan and Gerry will > also. I doubt any of you would believe me if I told you the amount of time I > spend on this VOLUNTEER job, trying to HELP people. > > > > > Hi Jacob, > > > > > Sorry, we are building in Whitehorse, Yukon (Two hours North > > of Skagway Alaska). Transport Canada has an agreement with MD-RA that > MDRA > > will do inspections, "except where no inspector is available". > > T.E. > > Jacob, there is not much I can do to help you here, you may have to request > an inspection from Transport Canada through the MD-RA. If you are having > "difficulty" with a local inspector, contact Allan Mahon he may be able to > help you deal with Transport through his contacts. > > > > > > The turf war begins because the MD-RA is very reluctant to > > say they want TC to do ANY inspections, so they are siding with TC in this > > case on principle I guess.. > > > -Rob > > T.E. > Rob, not quite true. As I stated above, MD-RA has a contract. If a T.C. > inspector gets involved without him being requested to through the proper > channels he just might get a phone call from a certain individual back east > who carries a very big stick and is not reluctant to use it, it has happened > before. > > > > > > [George McNutt] __ If you are not happy say how and why here. > > > > Hi Jim, - good idea! > > > > I think that the MD-RA is trying to do a good job and has many fine > > volunteers, > > T.E. > George, thank you > > > but I also believe that MD-RA is handicapped by their inadequate > > agreements with Transport.These problems mostly emanate from MD-RA and > > Transport headquarters but are exasperated by some individuals who seem to > > think that their MD-RA training manual supercedes the CAR's. > > T.E. > George, specifically, what "individuals-------training manual supercedes the > CARS" > > > > > > (1) Gross weight increase, - Despite already having kit manufacturers > > letters on file MD-RA was insisting on a letter from the kit manufacturer > > (Vans) approving a gross weight increase for my individual aircraft prior > to > > issuing a flight authorization. This seemed to be a case of the MD-RA > > worrying about their own liability and ignoring what the CAR's said about > > the subject. > > My understanding is that this problem is now resolved with the builder > > supplying a letter assuming liability for the heavier weight. > > > T.E. > George, each aircraft is unique, like it or not it is. It is irrelevant what > is on file for the gross weight for similar aircraft. As I am sure you are > aware Transport Canada form 24-0079 Application for C of A asks "was the > design modified" prior to resolving this issue if the answer was yes (the > gross weight was increased) the builder required a letter from the designer > allowing the increase, Vans would no longer do this. A new procedure was > developed to allow a builder to increase the gross weight. Thank you for > your help in resolving this situation. (why should MD-RA worry about > liability, as an inspector I am working for and insured by Transport Canada > , if I wasn't do you think I would be doing this) > > > > T.E. personal comment > > It will be interesting to see what happens in a lawsuit when someone is > killed in a over gross RV, the builder already has a noose around his neck > as the manufacturer of an aircraft. I can just imagine the fake indignation > of some lawyer saying you mean to tell me you willingly flew the aircraft > over it's RECOMMENDED design limits. When they get finished with him he will > be eating dog food and living under a bridge. > > > > > (2) MD-RA's inability to modify initial operating limitations - The 25 > > mile operating radius limitation at airports such as Boundary Bay can be a > > safety hazard. > > > T.E. > George, at your request I brought this up at a meeting in Ontario. Prior to > the meeting I reviewed the situation with Transport Canada locally, they > were in agreement that I should be allowed to provide an exemption to the 25 > mile rule, similar to that provided then and now. At the Ont. meeting, > Transport agreed, when I returned home he changed his mind. Believe me I > tried. > > T.E. > Jim Jewell, thank you for starting this discussion, there appears to be a > lot of misunderstanding about MD-RA. I hope this clears up some questions. > Are you the Jim that Larry introduced me to at Langley last weekend, if you > are it's too bad you didn't join in our conversation, it would have been > interesting to talk to you. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From rv7 at b4.ca Wed Jun 11 08:35:11 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EE74C2F.3090707@b4.ca> George McNutt wrote: > individuals who seem to think that their MD-RA training manual > supercedes the CAR's. Hi George, I'd be interested in knowing which parts of the training manual supercede which CAR's. > (1) Gross weight increase, > > This > seemed to be a case of the MD-RA worrying about their own liability > and ignoring what the CAR's said about the subject. According to the calculation in Appendix A of Chapter 549 of the CAR's, the maximum permissible wing loading of an RV-6A (using dimensions from Van's website) is about 16.5 lb/ft^2, corresponding to a gross weight of about 1800lb. That exceeds Van's reccommended numbers by 200 lb and 2 lb/ft^2. Do you feel qualified to second guess the designer, even if "everyone else is doing it"? Remember, the CAR's are meant to be generic, they weren't written specifically for RV's. They list the *limits*. They don't list what is reasonable or prudent for any one design (or for any one specific, modified, aircraft). Only the designer can be doing that. Frankly, i'm surprised Van's was ever willing to write letters authorizing increased gross weights at all. Do those letters come with reduced G limits? They should... -RB4 From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Wed Jun 11 12:37:20 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <3EE74C2F.3090707@b4.ca> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Rob Prior Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:35 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? George McNutt wrote: > individuals who seem to think that their MD-RA training manual > supercedes the CAR's. Hi George, I'd be interested in knowing which parts of the training manual supercede which CAR's. > (1) Gross weight increase, > > This > seemed to be a case of the MD-RA worrying about their own liability > and ignoring what the CAR's said about the subject. According to the calculation in Appendix A of Chapter 549 of the CAR's, the maximum permissible wing loading of an RV-6A (using dimensions from Van's website) is about 16.5 lb/ft^2, corresponding to a gross weight of about 1800lb. That exceeds Van's reccommended numbers by 200 lb and 2 lb/ft^2. Do you feel qualified to second guess the designer, even if "everyone else is doing it"? Remember, the CAR's are meant to be generic, they weren't written specifically for RV's. They list the *limits*. They don't list what is reasonable or prudent for any one design (or for any one specific, modified, aircraft). Only the designer can be doing that. Frankly, i'm surprised Van's was ever willing to write letters authorizing increased gross weights at all. Do those letters come with reduced G limits? They should... -RB4 ----------------------------------------- Hi Rob To answer your questions will probably get into a great diatribe on the subject, however it may be interesting and it is nice to see some action on the wing website, so here goes. Remember, in my case I am speaking of rules that existed in April 2002 and there may have been subsequent changes. (1) The CAR's never did require a letter from Vans to set gross weight, neither did Transport Canada, this was (only) a MD-RA requirement. (2) I do not feel qualified to second guess the designer. Therefore I will observe his structural loading limits, especially the aerobatic weight. However the recommended gross for my RV-6A is not specific in the builders manual, it states "Vans recommends a 1600-1650 pound limit" but it also states that "the aircraft builder is allowed to specify this [gross] weight" (Page 14-1 #2). Certainly I could set gross at 1600 or 1650lb. (which one?) and always have more than utility category "G" limits. However the regulations also allow builders to set a higher weight. The beauty of the homebuilt regulations is that a builder can increase gross weight and fly the aircraft like a Boeing or Airbus which have flown millions of hours with a 2.8 "G" limit. How high could I have theoretically set my gross weight, CAR's limit homebuilt weights to 3968 pounds, and there are no structural strength requirements in the regulations. It is my understanding (from a telephone conversation with Maurice Simoneau) that we actually do have one Canadian RV-6(A?) registered with a 3968 lb gross weight, I sure would have liked to witness that climb test!! (3) I think Terry Elgood puts it very well in his pamphlet where he states "some of the formula in chapter 549 are next to impossible for a builder (and a lot of inspectors) to understand". Actually that complicated formula for wing loading that we builders must figure out has nothing to do with aircraft gross weight, "G" loadings or strength. It is simply a calculation to see if one needs a "High Performance Endorsement" on his pilots licence to fly that particular aircraft. If you exceed the specified weights you need the high performance endorsement!! Nothing at all to do with aircraft structural safety. (4) I agree, why would any aircraft designer give anyone a letter to increase gross weight. Once the kit leaves the loading dock the designer has no control over how much strength the builder has added or subtracted from the structure. The builder is ultimately responsible. I believe that the proposed new homebuilt legislation has had a lot of input from kit manufacturers and they will be a big liability relief for them. It spells out the fact that the builder is responsible for everything, including quality of (kit) components. By the way homebuilt weights were/are proposed to increase to around 5000 lb. do we see a bigger Murphy Moose in the future? Happy Building, George McNutt Langley, B.C. From rv7 at b4.ca Wed Jun 11 13:31:53 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EE791B9.3010501@b4.ca> George McNutt wrote: > To answer your questions will probably get into a great diatribe on the > subject, however it may be interesting and it is nice to see some action on > the wing website, so here goes. Remember, in my case I am speaking of rules > that existed in April 2002 and there may have been subsequent changes. I agree, this is an interesting exchange... I hope others are getting something out of it as well. > (2) I do not feel qualified to second guess the designer. Therefore I > will observe his structural loading limits, especially the aerobatic > weight. However the recommended gross for my RV-6A is not specific in > the builders manual, it states "Vans recommends a 1600-1650 pound > limit" but it also states that "the aircraft builder is allowed to > specify this [gross] weight" (Page 14-1 #2). The first thing that comes to mind here is, if you think that Vans' limits for normal category are too low, and willingly fly above them, then why would you bother observing his aerobatic structural limits? Still... I think a little background may be necessary from an Aeronautical Engineer's perspective (which could be likened to Vans' perspective, although I don't claim to be speaking for them at all). First off, an airplane is not designed with a "variable" or "unspecified" gross weight in mind. An airplane is designed to meet a desired "mission profile". Such a profile will contain requirements like: - two 170lb passengers + 100lb baggage - 200mph cruise - +4.4/-2.2 (utility category) limits - 1600lb gross weight These numbers are used to design the entire structure of the aircraft. In the case of the RV-6, the gross weight limit was chosen to be 1600lb at a utility category loading of 4.4G, or 1375lb at an aerobatic loading of 6G. Let's take the example of your aircraft, raising the gross weight to 1800lb. That's an extra 200 lb. Where does it go? A few places come to mind, let's explore what happens when you put the weight in those locations: Fuel. You could add fuel in the manner of an additional bay along the leading edge, or at the wingtip. Keep in mind that this places an additional dead-weight shear load on the wing, either along the leading edge or at the tip, locations that were not designed to take these loads originally. Passengers. You could carry extra-heavy passengers. Keep in mind that the seat structure was designed to carry a certain passenger load, and to carry it safely up to a certain G load. Raising your passenger weight lowers the safety factor on your seats. Also, an extra heavy passenger will likely have larger legs and torso, which may hamper control movement. Baggage. I think many owners of RV-6's will agree that the aircraft starts to show an aft CG problem if it's loaded near Gross with baggage. Adding more baggage means that problem gets worse, and affects the stability and performance of the aircraft. You could distribute the extra 200 lb throughout your aircraft. You could have an extra 1/2 bay of fuel in each wing, an extra 50lb of IFR avionics, an extra 50lb of baggage, and an extra 50lb of passenger. That'll distribute the load quite evenly, right? Well, consider that the stall speed creeps up, and service ceiling and range creep down, with an increase in gross weight. For example, note that the service ceiling of a 160HP RV-6A drops from 20,500 to 16,300 when you go from the solo weight to the gross weight, a change of 225 lb. How much lower is it at 1800 lb? In the end, are any of these changes going to affect someone flying an RV from Langley to Chilliwack for pie? Possibly not. But keep in mind that by increasing your gross weight, you're cutting into your safety margins. Despite all the inspections, friends looking at the construction, and everyone's agreement that you fly a beautiful RV-6A (which you do... 8-), can you say with 100% certainty that every structural component on your aircraft matches the plans? > Certainly I could set gross at 1600 or 1650lb. (which one?) and always have > more than utility category "G" limits. However the regulations also allow > builders to set a higher weight. The beauty of the homebuilt regulations is > that a builder can increase gross weight and fly the aircraft like a Boeing > or Airbus which have flown millions of hours with a 2.8 "G" limit. This is one of the points I make above... The RV-6(A) is 1600-1650lb gross at 4.4G (Utility Category) and 1375 at 6G (Aerobatic Category). So at 1600-1650, you do not have "more than utility category limits". > How high could I have theoretically set my gross weight, CAR's limit > homebuilt weights to 3968 pounds, and there are no structural strength > requirements in the regulations. This is a bit of a misconception. The CAR's do have structural strength requirements, but this isn't the section where you find them. The CAR's say your aircraft must be able to withstand a design load factor at a design load condition. For example, Gross Weight at 4.4G (utility category) or Aerobatic Weight at 6G (aerobatic category). That is the structural strength requirement. Once you've designed your aircraft around this, you look to see if it's a high-performance aircraft or not, and that is defined using wing loading. For an RV-6(A), the wing loading is 14.5 lb/ft^2, which falls within the limit of about 20 lb/ft^2. This section wasn't intended as an opportunity to show that your aircraft could have a larger gross weight, it's intended to show that your aircraft falls well within the non-high-performance category. Nothing more. > It is my understanding (from a telephone conversation with Maurice Simoneau) > that we actually do have one Canadian RV-6(A?) registered with a 3968 lb > gross weight, I sure would have liked to witness that climb test!! I'd also want to check that the pilot has a high-performance endorsement (3968/110 = 36lb/ft^2). > Happy Building, And Happy Flying... 8-) > George McNutt > Langley, B.C. -Rob P. From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Wed Jun 11 16:19:11 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <3EE791B9.3010501@b4.ca> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Rob Prior Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:32 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? Hi Rob This is getting so long I am not sure how to format this so my answers to Robs reply are logical so will use a double >> for this last reply. George McNutt wrote: > To answer your questions will probably get into a great diatribe on the > subject, however it may be interesting and it is nice to see some action on > the wing website, so here goes. Remember, in my case I am speaking of rules > that existed in April 2002 and there may have been subsequent changes. I agree, this is an interesting exchange... I hope others are getting something out of it as well. > (2) I do not feel qualified to second guess the designer. Therefore I > will observe his structural loading limits, especially the aerobatic > weight. However the recommended gross for my RV-6A is not specific in > the builders manual, it states "Vans recommends a 1600-1650 pound > limit" but it also states that "the aircraft builder is allowed to > specify this [gross] weight" (Page 14-1 #2). The first thing that comes to mind here is, if you think that Vans' limits for normal category are too low, and willingly fly above them, then why would you bother observing his aerobatic structural limits? >> You are mixing the words normal and utility category. >> I do not fly beyond normal category weight limits, there may be a rare time when the aircraft >> is loaded to gross and it is beyond utility category weight limits. When this occurs it is >> always operated as a normal category aircraft just like thousands of Cessnas and Pipers. >> Still... I think a little background may be necessary from an Aeronautical Engineer's perspective (which could be likened to Vans' perspective, although I don't claim to be speaking for them at all). >> I am a little ignorant here Rob, are you an Aeronautical Engineer? First off, an airplane is not designed with a "variable" or "unspecified" gross weight in mind. An airplane is designed to meet a desired "mission profile". Such a profile will contain requirements like: - two 170lb passengers + 100lb baggage - 200mph cruise - +4.4/-2.2 (utility category) limits - 1600lb gross weight >> what is Vans actual "mission profile limits" please supply a reference. These numbers are used to design the entire structure of the aircraft. In the case of the RV-6, the gross weight limit was chosen to be 1600lb at a utility category loading of 4.4G, or 1375lb at an aerobatic loading of 6G. Let's take the example of your aircraft, raising the gross weight to 1800lb. That's an extra 200 lb. Where does it go? A few places come to mind, let's explore what happens when you put the weight in those locations: Fuel. You could add fuel in the manner of an additional bay along the leading edge, or at the wingtip. Keep in mind that this places an additional dead-weight shear load on the wing, either along the leading edge or at the tip, locations that were not designed to take these loads originally. >> OK here, I would get engineering evaluation if I was adding fuel tanks. Passengers. You could carry extra-heavy passengers. Keep in mind that the seat structure was designed to carry a certain passenger load, and to carry it safely up to a certain G load. Raising your passenger weight lowers the safety factor on your seats. Also, an extra heavy passenger will likely have larger legs and torso, which may hamper control movement. >> OK with this, sample loading on p14-9 of builders instructions shows 225lb pilot and >> 225 lb pax. No limiting weights specified. Baggage. I think many owners of RV-6's will agree that the aircraft starts to show an aft CG problem if it's loaded near Gross with baggage. Adding more baggage means that problem gets worse, and affects the stability and performance of the aircraft. >> You are required to stay within the CofG limits for all loading configurations be they baggage >> or whatever. >> The 100 pound baggage limit is the structural limit of the baggage compartment floor. You could distribute the extra 200 lb throughout your aircraft. You could have an extra 1/2 bay of fuel in each wing, an extra 50lb of IFR avionics, an extra 50lb of baggage, and an extra 50lb of passenger. That'll distribute the load quite evenly, right? Well, consider that the stall speed creeps up, and service ceiling and range creep down, with an increase in gross weight. For example, note that the service ceiling of a 160HP RV-6A drops from 20,500 to 16,300 when you go from the solo weight to the gross weight, a change of 225 lb. How much lower is it at 1800 lb? >> You lost me fere? Of course the performance decreases as weight increases, same with >> all aircraft, if someone finds a 15000 foot service ceiling is limiting they should go around >> high mountains. In my case I will never know the service ceiling of my 6A will be at 1800lb >> because my gross weight is 1750 plus I will burn 30 lb of fuel getting up there. What I can >> tell you is that it is still climbing 300 FPM at 15,000 feet at 1550lb and trues out to 160 >> knots on the estimated 45% power available at that altitude. In the end, are any of these changes going to affect someone flying an RV from Langley to Chilliwack for pie? Possibly not. But keep in mind that by increasing your gross weight, you're cutting into your safety margins. Despite all the inspections, friends looking at the construction, and everyone's agreement that you fly a beautiful RV-6A (which you do... 8-), can you say with 100% certainty that every structural component on your aircraft matches the plans? >> In the end most people say "dont bother with the hassle of changing the paperwork, you know it >> will carry the load, just put it in and go". Is this change going to affect someone flying to >> Chilliwack for pie? Probably not unless they have an insurance claim! > Certainly I could set gross at 1600 or 1650lb. (which one?) and always have > more than utility category "G" limits. However the regulations also allow > builders to set a higher weight. The beauty of the homebuilt regulations is > that a builder can increase gross weight and fly the aircraft like a Boeing > or Airbus which have flown millions of hours with a 2.8 "G" limit. This is one of the points I make above... The RV-6(A) is 1600-1650lb gross at 4.4G (Utility Category) and 1375 at 6G (Aerobatic Category). So at 1600-1650, you do not have "more than utility category limits". >> I am curious, where does your 4.4 G at 1600-1650lb figure come from. > How high could I have theoretically set my gross weight, CAR's limit > homebuilt weights to 3968 pounds, and there are no structural strength > requirements in the regulations. This is a bit of a misconception. The CAR's do have structural strength requirements, but this isn't the section where you find them. The CAR's say your aircraft must be able to withstand a design load factor at a design load condition. For example, Gross Weight at 4.4G (utility category) or Aerobatic Weight at 6G (aerobatic category). That is the structural strength requirement. >> If you show me a CAR that specifys a structural strength limit for amateur built aircraft I >> will buy you lunch!! (this offer is limited to Rob, can't afford to buy everyone lunch) >> The aircraft must be safe and designed and constructed in conformity with C 549, which does >> not specify structural limits. I like the word "shall" in the first sentence of 507.06 below. 507.06, the Minister shall issue a special certificate of airworthiness in respect of an aircraft that (a) meets the criteria for one of the classifications of a special certificate of airworthiness specified in Chapter 507 of the Airworthiness Manual; (b) conforms to the applicable type design or, in the case of an amateur-built aircraft, is designed and constructed in a way that ensures its airworthiness, in conformity with the requirements of Chapter 549 of the Airworthiness Manual; and (c) is safe for flight. Once you've designed your aircraft around this, you look to see if it's a high-performance aircraft or not, and that is defined using wing loading. For an RV-6(A), the wing loading is 14.5 lb/ft^2, which falls within the limit of about 20 lb/ft^2. This section wasn't intended as an opportunity to show that your aircraft could have a larger gross weight, it's intended to show that your aircraft falls well within the non-high-performance category. Nothing more. > It is my understanding (from a telephone conversation with Maurice Simoneau) > that we actually do have one Canadian RV-6(A?) registered with a 3968 lb > gross weight, I sure would have liked to witness that climb test!! >> Happy Building, >> George McNutt >> Langley, B.C. From wjoke at shaw.ca Wed Jun 11 22:27:35 2003 From: wjoke at shaw.ca (Jim Oke) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: RV-6 Loading (was [Wing] Consumer satisfaction?) References: Message-ID: <093a01c330a3$549fb0e0$6601a8c0@Pentium> Since I am hoping to do the paperwork for a final on my RV-6A in a few days, I have more than a passing interest in this. The terms normal, utility, and acrobatic (as they are used in describing light aircraft) are defined in great detail in FAR 23 - which can be seen at http://www.tisco.com/aviation/FAA/far-23/index.shtml The essential points are: Normal category - max G +3.8, stalls only, "normal" maneuvers less than 60 degs bank Utility category - max G + 4.4, stalls and spins, "normal" maneuvers >60 degs but < 90 degs bank Acrobatic category - max G + 6.0, no restrictions (except those shown by flt test, etc.) in Van's does not actually say in the builder's manual that 1650 lbs (well, 1600 for a -6 and 1650 for a -6A - can't say why) corresponds to the "utility" category - or at least I cannot find any such reference. The 6 G limit for aerobatic category is mentioned however. If 1650 lbs is for "utility category" at 4.4 G then a slightly higher gross weight at a reduced max G load should be practicable. An alternative which some builders have used is 1750 lbs for "normal category" operation. The normal category designation implies the lower G limit, restricts the aircraft from spins, and also (by Van's advice) moves the CG aft limit .6 inches forward (28% vice 29% of MAC). The intent (as I see it) is that a properly designed aircraft can fall into all three categories depending on how it is loaded, and this is how I intend to propose my aircraft's W&B limits be defined. Jim Oke Winnipeg, MB RV-6A C-GKGZ (getting close) ----- Original Message ----- From: "George McNutt" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:19 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Rob Prior > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:32 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? > > Hi Rob > > This is getting so long I am not sure how to format this so my answers to > Robs reply are logical so will use a double >> for this last reply. > > > George McNutt wrote: > > To answer your questions will probably get into a great diatribe on the > > subject, however it may be interesting and it is nice to see some action > on > > the wing website, so here goes. Remember, in my case I am speaking of > rules > > that existed in April 2002 and there may have been subsequent changes. > > I agree, this is an interesting exchange... I hope others are getting > something out of it as well. > > > (2) I do not feel qualified to second guess the designer. Therefore I > > will observe his structural loading limits, especially the aerobatic > > weight. However the recommended gross for my RV-6A is not specific in > > the builders manual, it states "Vans recommends a 1600-1650 pound > > limit" but it also states that "the aircraft builder is allowed to > > specify this [gross] weight" (Page 14-1 #2). > > The first thing that comes to mind here is, if you think that Vans' > limits for normal category are too low, and willingly fly above them, > then why would you bother observing his aerobatic structural limits? > > >> You are mixing the words normal and utility category. > >> I do not fly beyond normal category weight limits, there may be a rare > time when the aircraft > >> is loaded to gross and it is beyond utility category weight limits. When > this occurs it is > >> always operated as a normal category aircraft just like thousands of > Cessnas and Pipers. > >> > > > Still... > > I think a little background may be necessary from an Aeronautical > Engineer's perspective (which could be likened to Vans' perspective, > although I don't claim to be speaking for them at all). > > >> I am a little ignorant here Rob, are you an Aeronautical Engineer? > > First off, an airplane is not designed with a "variable" or > "unspecified" gross weight in mind. An airplane is designed to meet a > desired "mission profile". Such a profile will contain requirements like: > > - two 170lb passengers + 100lb baggage > - 200mph cruise > - +4.4/-2.2 (utility category) limits > - 1600lb gross weight > > > >> what is Vans actual "mission profile limits" please supply a reference. > > These numbers are used to design the entire structure of the aircraft. > In the case of the RV-6, the gross weight limit was chosen to be 1600lb > at a utility category loading of 4.4G, or 1375lb at an aerobatic loading > of 6G. > > > Let's take the example of your aircraft, raising the gross weight to > 1800lb. That's an extra 200 lb. Where does it go? A few places come > to mind, let's explore what happens when you put the weight in those > locations: > > Fuel. You could add fuel in the manner of an additional bay along the > leading edge, or at the wingtip. Keep in mind that this places an > additional dead-weight shear load on the wing, either along the leading > edge or at the tip, locations that were not designed to take these loads > originally. > > >> OK here, I would get engineering evaluation if I was adding fuel tanks. > > Passengers. You could carry extra-heavy passengers. Keep in mind that > the seat structure was designed to carry a certain passenger load, and > to carry it safely up to a certain G load. Raising your passenger > weight lowers the safety factor on your seats. Also, an extra heavy > passenger will likely have larger legs and torso, which may hamper > control movement. > > >> OK with this, sample loading on p14-9 of builders instructions shows > 225lb pilot and > >> 225 lb pax. No limiting weights specified. > > Baggage. I think many owners of RV-6's will agree that the aircraft > starts to show an aft CG problem if it's loaded near Gross with baggage. > Adding more baggage means that problem gets worse, and affects the > stability and performance of the aircraft. > > >> You are required to stay within the CofG limits for all loading > configurations be they baggage >> or whatever. > >> The 100 pound baggage limit is the structural limit of the baggage > compartment floor. > > > You could distribute the extra 200 lb throughout your aircraft. You > could have an extra 1/2 bay of fuel in each wing, an extra 50lb of IFR > avionics, an extra 50lb of baggage, and an extra 50lb of passenger. > That'll distribute the load quite evenly, right? Well, consider that > the stall speed creeps up, and service ceiling and range creep down, > with an increase in gross weight. For example, note that the service > ceiling of a 160HP RV-6A drops from 20,500 to 16,300 when you go from > the solo weight to the gross weight, a change of 225 lb. How much lower > is it at 1800 lb? > > >> You lost me fere? Of course the performance decreases as weight > increases, same with > >> all aircraft, if someone finds a 15000 foot service ceiling is limiting > they should go around >> high mountains. In my case I will never know the > service ceiling of my 6A will be at 1800lb > >> because my gross weight is 1750 plus I will burn 30 lb of fuel getting up > there. What I can > >> tell you is that it is still climbing 300 FPM at 15,000 feet at 1550lb > and trues out to 160 > >> knots on the estimated 45% power available at that altitude. > > In the end, are any of these changes going to affect someone flying an > RV from Langley to Chilliwack for pie? Possibly not. But keep in mind > that by increasing your gross weight, you're cutting into your safety > margins. Despite all the inspections, friends looking at the > construction, and everyone's agreement that you fly a beautiful RV-6A > (which you do... 8-), can you say with 100% certainty that every > structural component on your aircraft matches the plans? > > >> In the end most people say "dont bother with the hassle of changing the > paperwork, you know it >> will carry the load, just put it in and go". Is > this change going to affect someone flying to >> Chilliwack for pie? > Probably not unless they have an insurance claim! > > > > Certainly I could set gross at 1600 or 1650lb. (which one?) and always > have > > more than utility category "G" limits. However the regulations also allow > > builders to set a higher weight. The beauty of the homebuilt regulations > is > > that a builder can increase gross weight and fly the aircraft like a > Boeing > > or Airbus which have flown millions of hours with a 2.8 "G" limit. > > This is one of the points I make above... The RV-6(A) is 1600-1650lb > gross at 4.4G (Utility Category) and 1375 at 6G (Aerobatic Category). > So at 1600-1650, you do not have "more than utility category limits". > > >> I am curious, where does your 4.4 G at 1600-1650lb figure come from. > > > How high could I have theoretically set my gross weight, CAR's limit > > homebuilt weights to 3968 pounds, and there are no structural strength > > requirements in the regulations. > > This is a bit of a misconception. The CAR's do have structural strength > requirements, but this isn't the section where you find them. The CAR's > say your aircraft must be able to withstand a design load factor at a > design load condition. For example, Gross Weight at 4.4G (utility > category) or Aerobatic Weight at 6G (aerobatic category). That is the > structural strength requirement. > > >> If you show me a CAR that specifys a structural strength limit for > amateur built aircraft I > >> will buy you lunch!! (this offer is limited to Rob, can't afford to buy > everyone lunch) > >> The aircraft must be safe and designed and constructed in conformity with > C 549, which does > >> not specify structural limits. I like the word "shall" in the first > sentence of 507.06 below. > > 507.06, the Minister shall issue a special certificate of airworthiness in > respect of an aircraft that > (a) meets the criteria for one of the classifications of a special > certificate > of airworthiness specified in Chapter 507 of the Airworthiness Manual; > (b) conforms to the applicable type design or, in the case of an > amateur-built > aircraft, is designed and constructed in a way that ensures its > airworthiness, > in conformity with the requirements of Chapter 549 of the Airworthiness > Manual; and > (c) is safe for flight. > > > Once you've designed your aircraft around this, you look to see if it's > a high-performance aircraft or not, and that is defined using wing > loading. For an RV-6(A), the wing loading is 14.5 lb/ft^2, which falls > within the limit of about 20 lb/ft^2. This section wasn't intended as > an opportunity to show that your aircraft could have a larger gross > weight, it's intended to show that your aircraft falls well within the > non-high-performance category. Nothing more. > > > It is my understanding (from a telephone conversation with Maurice > Simoneau) > > that we actually do have one Canadian RV-6(A?) registered with a 3968 lb > > gross weight, I sure would have liked to witness that climb test!! > > >> Happy Building, > > > >> George McNutt > >> Langley, B.C. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From rv7 at b4.ca Thu Jun 12 09:18:39 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: RV-6 Loading (was [Wing] Consumer satisfaction?) In-Reply-To: <093a01c330a3$549fb0e0$6601a8c0@Pentium> References: <093a01c330a3$549fb0e0$6601a8c0@Pentium> Message-ID: <3EE8A7DF.7070703@b4.ca> Somehow my email program lost George's last reply, so i'll answer George's questions at the bottom of Jim's email... Jim Oke wrote: > in Van's does not actually say in the builder's manual that 1650 lbs (well, > 1600 for a -6 and 1650 for a -6A - can't say why) corresponds to the > "utility" category - or at least I cannot find any such reference. You're right, there's no "explicit" wording that says that. I inferred it from the website, where it says: "The RVs have a design stress limit of +6 and -3Gs at aerobatic gross weights: 1375 lbs for the RV-4 and RV-6/6A, and 1600 lbs for the RV-7/7A, and RV-8/8A. This equates to an ultimate or failure limit of +9 and -4.5 Gs." I *assumed* that the if the RV's were Aerobatic at 1375, that they must meet the next category down (Utility) at gross, but that may not be correct. But if they're actually Normal Category at gross weight, it argues even more heavily for not increasing your Gross Weight. > The intent (as I see it) is that a properly designed aircraft can fall into > all three categories depending on how it is loaded, and this is how I intend > to propose my aircraft's W&B limits be defined. And you're 100% correct. But you will need to *show* that these limits are safe in each category. To do that, you'll need to consider where the extra weight can go, and that those locations can take the extra weight. You'll also need to show show what the limits are in each category. > ----- Original Message ----- >From: "George McNutt" > >I am a little ignorant here Rob, are you an Aeronautical Engineer? Why yes, I am. At least I was trained as one at University, i've never found a job working as one (not for lack of offers, there just haven't been any in the Vancouver area and I don't really want to move). >what is Vans actual "mission profile limits" please supply a reference. The numbers I gave were intended as an example, but I would expect Vans' mission profile to consist of the advertised specs/performance from the website, plus some numbers not mentioned there but mentioned in the builder's manual. For example, I didn't know that the RV-6 manual specifies an occupant load of 225lb per seat... We used ICAO standards for analysis when I was in university, which amazingly enough assume 170lb for a "standard male." But even I break that limit by 5-10lb, depending on what i'm wearing and what I had for dinner the night before. Specs: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-6spe.htm http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-6per.htm >What I can >tell you is that it is still climbing 300 FPM at 15,000 feet at 1550lb >and trues out to 160 >knots on the estimated 45% power available at that altitude. I'll guess you've got 160-ish HP, which would suggest a service ceiling of 16,300 at 1600lb. So 300fpm at 15000' and 1550lb sounds about right. Service ceiling is defined as the point where climb rate equals 100fpm, so you were pretty close to it. Don't be surprised if your service ceiling drops by as much as 2000' if you're flying at 1750lb, though. >>In the end most people say "dont bother with the hassle of changing the >>paperwork, you know it >> will carry the load, just put it in and go". Is >>this change going to affect someone flying to >> Chilliwack for pie? >>Probably not unless they have an insurance claim! Exactly. And i'd bet that there are more airplanes flying around like this than people would admit to, just because it's one heck of a lot easier than jumping through hoops to meet the requirements. As an aside: Most people know that an airplane will fly just fine over gross if you fly it smoothly and expect some pitch sensitivity. When I did my flight test, we took off 50-100lb. over gross, because I was told to do all my planning for a 170lb passenger (ICAO Standard Male, right?). That's all the room I had, once the plane was fuelled and loaded. Then the examiner showed up who must have weighed *at least* 220lb. >more than utility category "G" limits. However the regulations also >allow >builders to set a higher weight. That's true, and I never argued that point. All I wanted to point out was that choosing this number shouldn't be done arbitrarily (as in the case of an RV-6 with 3968lb Gross, for example). You need to show (or at least be really comfortable with someone else's choice) that increasing that limit is safe. Personally, i'd want to do the calculations myself. I wouldn't want to do it "because others were allowed to." >>>>I am curious, where does your 4.4 G at 1600-1650lb figure come from. That comes from Vans' numbers on his website, although it's "reading between the lines" to get it. The website states that the Aerobatic limits are 1375lb at 6G. It also states that Gross is 1600lb (1600-1650 *recommended* in the builder's manual). I *assumed* that since the airplane didn't meet Aerobatic Category at gross weight, that the intent must have been for it to meet Utility Category. The RV's may well be safe for 5.2G at gross (1600-1650), and Van just doesn't publish the numbers. But since we don't *know* those numbers, we have to work with the standards that the plane is designed to, and those standards only have three categories. I can't find the reference right now, but i'm sure i've seen it written somewhere that the RV's were designed to meet or exceed FAR Part 23 requirements (for certificated aircraft). >>If you show me a CAR that specifys a structural strength limit for >>amateur built aircraft I >>will buy you lunch!! (this offer is limited to Rob, can't afford to buy >>everyone lunch) I'll try... "Chapter 549 Amateur-Built Aircraft 549.5 Construction (b) Methods of fabrication and assembly, and workmanship shall be appropriate and should conform to accepted aviation standard practices." http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/REGSERV/CARAC/CARS/cars/549/toc.htm In this case, the "accepted aviation standard practise" is to follow the requirements of US FAR Part 23, or in Canada, Chapter 523: "Chapter 523 Normal, Utility, Aerobatic And Commuter Category Aeroplanes" Specifically Subsections C and D. http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/REGSERV/CARAC/CARS/html_e/doc/nav-523e.htm Now, that's a really short answer to your question. But it's what 98% of designers do, because it simplifies greatly the process of bringing a design to market. If you can tell people that your design meets the requirements of the standard that all aircraft in the last 50 years were built to, chances are it's going to be a reasonably safe design. Hopefully that's enough for a free lunch... If it comes with a ride to Chilliwack, i'll buy the gas... 8-) > (b) conforms to the applicable type design or, in the case of an >amateur-built > aircraft, is designed and constructed in a way that ensures its >airworthiness, > in conformity with the requirements of Chapter 549 of the Airworthiness > Manual; and > (c) is safe for flight. The problem here is that you need to *show* the Minister that you meet these requirements. How do you *show* that your homebuilt is safe for flight? Typically, you show that you have built a kit to the specifications of a respected and/or qualified designer. In the case of changing gross weight limits, you have to show that someone has done the analysis to show that the limits are safe. Hence the requirement for a letter from Van's, as the designer, in the past. I would expect (but i'm not positive) that if you were able to show with appropriate calculations that the increase in gross weight coupled with a reduced G limit didn't violate any loading conditions, that you could have sidestepped the letter from Van's. But those would have to be pretty thorough analyses to convince Transport. -RB4 From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Thu Jun 12 19:58:46 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: RV-6 Loading (was [Wing] Consumer satisfaction?) In-Reply-To: <3EE8A7DF.7070703@b4.ca> Message-ID: Hi Rob I think you are mixing up what may be desirable standards with what is actually required. Your statement "accepted aviation standard practise" is to follow the requirements of US FAR Part 23, or in Canada, Chapter 523:" The cold chilling fact is that Vans designs and those of other kit designers do not meet the requirements of US FAR Part 23, period. In some areas they may exceed FAR 23 but I can show you areas where they clearly do not meet the standards for certified aircraft. That does not mean they are unsafe but it does mean that a passenger warning label is required. And I cannot buy your statement that - "The problem here is that you need to *show* the Minister that you meet these requirements [part 23]. How do you *show* that your homebuilt is safe for flight? Typically, you show that you have built a kit to the specifications of a respected and/or qualified designer." A nice gentleman in the hangar beside me has designed and scratch built at least two homebuilts, including making the propellors, how could he comply with a need to *show* the Minister that it meets (FAR 23) requirements. In my past life I tried to *show* the Minister that a shoulder harness I installed in my 61 Mooney met the requirements, TC wanted it tested to destruction. Took the shoulder harness back out so that the aircraft was "in compliance". Thank goodness we have Chapter 549 and the passenger warning sign. George McNutt Langley, B.C. ----------------------------------------- Rob wrote Somehow my email program lost George's last reply, so i'll answer George's questions at the bottom of Jim's email... Jim Oke wrote: > in Van's does not actually say in the builder's manual that 1650 lbs (well, > 1600 for a -6 and 1650 for a -6A - can't say why) corresponds to the > "utility" category - or at least I cannot find any such reference. You're right, there's no "explicit" wording that says that. I inferred it from the website, where it says: "The RVs have a design stress limit of +6 and -3Gs at aerobatic gross weights: 1375 lbs for the RV-4 and RV-6/6A, and 1600 lbs for the RV-7/7A, and RV-8/8A. This equates to an ultimate or failure limit of +9 and -4.5 Gs." I *assumed* that the if the RV's were Aerobatic at 1375, that they must meet the next category down (Utility) at gross, but that may not be correct. But if they're actually Normal Category at gross weight, it argues even more heavily for not increasing your Gross Weight. > The intent (as I see it) is that a properly designed aircraft can fall into > all three categories depending on how it is loaded, and this is how I intend > to propose my aircraft's W&B limits be defined. And you're 100% correct. But you will need to *show* that these limits are safe in each category. To do that, you'll need to consider where the extra weight can go, and that those locations can take the extra weight. You'll also need to show show what the limits are in each category. > ----- Original Message ----- >From: "George McNutt" > >I am a little ignorant here Rob, are you an Aeronautical Engineer? Why yes, I am. At least I was trained as one at University, i've never found a job working as one (not for lack of offers, there just haven't been any in the Vancouver area and I don't really want to move). >what is Vans actual "mission profile limits" please supply a reference. The numbers I gave were intended as an example, but I would expect Vans' mission profile to consist of the advertised specs/performance from the website, plus some numbers not mentioned there but mentioned in the builder's manual. For example, I didn't know that the RV-6 manual specifies an occupant load of 225lb per seat... We used ICAO standards for analysis when I was in university, which amazingly enough assume 170lb for a "standard male." But even I break that limit by 5-10lb, depending on what i'm wearing and what I had for dinner the night before. Specs: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-6spe.htm http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-6per.htm >What I can >tell you is that it is still climbing 300 FPM at 15,000 feet at 1550lb >and trues out to 160 >knots on the estimated 45% power available at that altitude. I'll guess you've got 160-ish HP, which would suggest a service ceiling of 16,300 at 1600lb. So 300fpm at 15000' and 1550lb sounds about right. Service ceiling is defined as the point where climb rate equals 100fpm, so you were pretty close to it. Don't be surprised if your service ceiling drops by as much as 2000' if you're flying at 1750lb, though. >>In the end most people say "dont bother with the hassle of changing the >>paperwork, you know it >> will carry the load, just put it in and go". Is >>this change going to affect someone flying to >> Chilliwack for pie? >>Probably not unless they have an insurance claim! Exactly. And i'd bet that there are more airplanes flying around like this than people would admit to, just because it's one heck of a lot easier than jumping through hoops to meet the requirements. As an aside: Most people know that an airplane will fly just fine over gross if you fly it smoothly and expect some pitch sensitivity. When I did my flight test, we took off 50-100lb. over gross, because I was told to do all my planning for a 170lb passenger (ICAO Standard Male, right?). That's all the room I had, once the plane was fuelled and loaded. Then the examiner showed up who must have weighed *at least* 220lb. >more than utility category "G" limits. However the regulations also >allow >builders to set a higher weight. That's true, and I never argued that point. All I wanted to point out was that choosing this number shouldn't be done arbitrarily (as in the case of an RV-6 with 3968lb Gross, for example). You need to show (or at least be really comfortable with someone else's choice) that increasing that limit is safe. Personally, i'd want to do the calculations myself. I wouldn't want to do it "because others were allowed to." >>>>I am curious, where does your 4.4 G at 1600-1650lb figure come from. That comes from Vans' numbers on his website, although it's "reading between the lines" to get it. The website states that the Aerobatic limits are 1375lb at 6G. It also states that Gross is 1600lb (1600-1650 *recommended* in the builder's manual). I *assumed* that since the airplane didn't meet Aerobatic Category at gross weight, that the intent must have been for it to meet Utility Category. The RV's may well be safe for 5.2G at gross (1600-1650), and Van just doesn't publish the numbers. But since we don't *know* those numbers, we have to work with the standards that the plane is designed to, and those standards only have three categories. I can't find the reference right now, but i'm sure i've seen it written somewhere that the RV's were designed to meet or exceed FAR Part 23 requirements (for certificated aircraft). >>If you show me a CAR that specifys a structural strength limit for >>amateur built aircraft I >>will buy you lunch!! (this offer is limited to Rob, can't afford to buy >>everyone lunch) I'll try... "Chapter 549 Amateur-Built Aircraft 549.5 Construction (b) Methods of fabrication and assembly, and workmanship shall be appropriate and should conform to accepted aviation standard practices." http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/REGSERV/CARAC/CARS/cars/549/toc.htm In this case, the "accepted aviation standard practise" is to follow the requirements of US FAR Part 23, or in Canada, Chapter 523: "Chapter 523 Normal, Utility, Aerobatic And Commuter Category Aeroplanes" Specifically Subsections C and D. http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/REGSERV/CARAC/CARS/html_e/doc/nav-523e.htm Now, that's a really short answer to your question. But it's what 98% of designers do, because it simplifies greatly the process of bringing a design to market. If you can tell people that your design meets the requirements of the standard that all aircraft in the last 50 years were built to, chances are it's going to be a reasonably safe design. Hopefully that's enough for a free lunch... If it comes with a ride to Chilliwack, i'll buy the gas... 8-) > (b) conforms to the applicable type design or, in the case of an >amateur-built > aircraft, is designed and constructed in a way that ensures its >airworthiness, > in conformity with the requirements of Chapter 549 of the Airworthiness > Manual; and > (c) is safe for flight. The problem here is that you need to *show* the Minister that you meet these requirements. How do you *show* that your homebuilt is safe for flight? Typically, you show that you have built a kit to the specifications of a respected and/or qualified designer. In the case of changing gross weight limits, you have to show that someone has done the analysis to show that the limits are safe. Hence the requirement for a letter from Van's, as the designer, in the past. I would expect (but i'm not positive) that if you were able to show with appropriate calculations that the increase in gross weight coupled with a reduced G limit didn't violate any loading conditions, that you could have sidestepped the letter from Van's. But those would have to be pretty thorough analyses to convince Transport. -RB4 _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From rv7 at b4.ca Fri Jun 13 08:42:38 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: RV-6 Loading (was [Wing] Consumer satisfaction?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EE9F0EE.7030803@b4.ca> George McNutt wrote: > The cold chilling fact is that Vans designs and those of other kit designers > do not meet the requirements of US FAR Part 23, period. In some areas they > may exceed FAR 23 but I can show you areas where they clearly do not meet > the standards for certified aircraft. That does not mean they are unsafe but > it does mean that a passenger warning label is required. I'd like to hear about any places on the aircraft *structure* that do not meet FAR Part 23. It really is the base standard that planes are designed to (structurally). The *systems* beyond that, like fuel line sizes, filters/gascolators, wiring, etc. are all secondary and "not structural". > A nice gentleman in the hangar beside me has designed and scratch built at > least two homebuilts, including making the propellors, how could he comply > with a need to *show* the Minister that it meets (FAR 23) requirements. He doesn't need to show that it meets FAR 23 requirements. What he needs to show is that he believes the plane is going to be airworthy. How he does that is by either (a) showing that it meets FAR 23 requirements, or (b) showing that it's going to be airworthy with some combination of drawings/calculations/etc. I'm about 80% certain that it wasn't as simple as just building an airplane from scratch, and then going to ask MD-RA or Transport if he could fly it. He likely also had to show design drawings and/or calculations that show a reasonable expectation of controlability. I guess I don't get a free lunch... 8-) > In my past life I tried to *show* the Minister that a shoulder harness I > installed in my 61 Mooney met the requirements, TC wanted it tested to > destruction. Took the shoulder harness back out so that the aircraft was "in > compliance". Thank goodness we have Chapter 549 and the passenger warning > sign. Ah, but in that case, you're talking about certified aircraft, and the "requirement" is for an STC. Did you have one? 8-) -RB4 From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Fri Jun 13 17:52:43 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: RV-6 Loading (was [Wing] Consumer satisfaction?) In-Reply-To: <3EE9F0EE.7030803@b4.ca> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Rob Prior Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 8:43 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: RV-6 Loading (was [Wing] Consumer satisfaction?) George McNutt wrote: > The cold chilling fact is that Vans designs and those of other kit designers > do not meet the requirements of US FAR Part 23, period. In some areas they > may exceed FAR 23 but I can show you areas where they clearly do not meet > the standards for certified aircraft. That does not mean they are unsafe but > it does mean that a passenger warning label is required. I'd like to hear about any places on the aircraft *structure* that do not meet FAR Part 23. It really is the base standard that planes are designed to (structurally). The *systems* beyond that, like fuel line sizes, filters/gascolators, wiring, etc. are all secondary and "not structural". *** Carb air intake heat and rudder cables are two items I have noticed during construction. > A nice gentleman in the hangar beside me has designed and scratch built at > least two homebuilts, including making the propellors, how could he comply > with a need to *show* the Minister that it meets (FAR 23) requirements. He doesn't need to show that it meets FAR 23 requirements. What he needs to show is that he believes the plane is going to be airworthy. **** Rob thats exactly what I have been saying and you have been arguing against!!!! How he does that is by either (a) showing that it meets FAR 23 requirements, or (b) showing that it's going to be airworthy with some combination of drawings/calculations/etc. I'm about 80% certain that it wasn't as simple as just building an airplane from scratch, and then going to ask MD-RA or Transport if he could fly it. He likely also had to show design drawings and/or calculations that show a reasonable expectation of controlability. I guess I don't get a free lunch... 8-) **** not unless you come up with hard facts. > In my past life I tried to *show* the Minister that a shoulder harness I > installed in my 61 Mooney met the requirements, TC wanted it tested to > destruction. Took the shoulder harness back out so that the aircraft was "in > compliance". Thank goodness we have Chapter 549 and the passenger warning > sign. Ah, but in that case, you're talking about certified aircraft, and the "requirement" is for an STC. Did you have one? 8-) ***** Ah, but in that case, no STC's were available, all I had was a "B" licenced AME!!! George McNutt Langley B.C. _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Fri Jun 13 18:29:48 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] Scappoose In-Reply-To: <3EE791B9.3010501@b4.ca> Message-ID: http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing Anyone from the Lower Mainland going to Scappoose tomorrow?? Weather permitting I plan to clear customs at Bellingham at 9 AM before heading south. Looks like it will be a day much like today, may have to skirt around TFR areas rather than go over top of them. Locations are shown on VAF Home Wing and AOPA websites and now nicely marked on my map. George McNutt Langley B.C. From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Fri Jun 13 18:41:26 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] Scappoose References: Message-ID: <001101c33216$13c43180$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Thinkin' of it, George. Just got back from NRT this afternoon and am kind of dragging.... Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "George McNutt" To: Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 6:29 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] Scappoose > > > > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > Anyone from the Lower Mainland going to Scappoose tomorrow?? > > Weather permitting I plan to clear customs at Bellingham at 9 AM before > heading south. > Looks like it will be a day much like today, may have to skirt around TFR > areas rather than go over top of them. Locations are shown on VAF Home Wing > and AOPA websites and now nicely marked on my map. > > George McNutt > Langley B.C. > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From ve7fp at jetstream.net Fri Jun 13 20:14:28 2003 From: ve7fp at jetstream.net (Ken Hoshowski) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] Salmon Arm Fly in Message-ID: <000c01c33223$11a2c530$3e897240@cs> Just a reminder that the Salmon Arm Flying Club/Copa Flight #80 is holding its 19th annual Fathers Day Fly In on Sunday June 15. Pancake breakfast starts at 8:00 am. Static displays, flybys, flea market, vintage car display. Bring your sunscreen and spend the day. Free spaghetti dinner 6:00 pm for those who arrive Saturday June 14. Camping on the field. See you here. Ken Hoshowski RV6 C-FKEH Salmon Arm (CZAM) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030613/95d585bd/attachment.htm From ham at hammcc.com Sat Jun 14 07:13:36 2003 From: ham at hammcc.com (Hamilton McClymont) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] Salmon Arm Fly in In-Reply-To: <000c01c33223$11a2c530$3e897240@cs> Message-ID: Hi Ken: I hope to make it, weather permitting. I'm off to Wisconsin early Monday, so I can't take a chance on not being able to get back. Have a great fly-in! Hammy -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Ken Hoshowski Sent: June 13, 2003 8:14 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] Salmon Arm Fly in Just a reminder that the Salmon Arm Flying Club/Copa Flight #80 is holding its 19th annual Fathers Day Fly In on Sunday June 15. Pancake breakfast starts at 8:00 am. Static displays, flybys, flea market, vintage car display. Bring your sunscreen and spend the day. Free spaghetti dinner 6:00 pm for those who arrive Saturday June 14. Camping on the field. See you here. Ken Hoshowski RV6 C-FKEH Salmon Arm (CZAM) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030614/1ac995a8/attachment.htm From rv7 at b4.ca Mon Jun 16 10:39:49 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: RV-6 Loading (was [Wing] Consumer satisfaction?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EEE00E5.4070602@b4.ca> For those still reading other than George and Myself: All of this discussion about gross weights and such is mostly meaningless now, as MD-RA will accept *any* gross weight that the builder is willing to sign a letter taking responsibility for. MD-RA *used* to require a letter from the manufacturer, and when the letters stopped being available they stopped approving higher gross weights. I don't know the exact date of the change, but at least as of last Friday (when I checked), you no longer need a letter from the manufacturer. You just say "I want my gross weight to be X" and sign a letter taking responsibility for changing that Gross Weight. Note that this can be done *after completion* as well (but there may be a fee for filing the new paperwork, i'm not sure). Talk to your local MD-RA inspector or regional MD-RA director if you need more info or want to know what that letter has to say. Just be sure that if you choose to increase your Gross Weight, that you understand the implications. Not "oh, well, everyone is doing it so it must be okay." That's all I wanted to point out when this all started. Now, for George: George McNutt wrote: > *** Carb air intake heat and rudder cables are two items I have noticed > during construction. Neither of which are structural, and I suspect you could build them to meet FAR 23 quite easily without your inspector even batting an eyelash. >> He doesn't need to show that it meets FAR 23 requirements. What he >> needs to show is that he believes the plane is going to be airworthy. > > **** Rob thats exactly what I have been saying and you have been arguing > against!!!! Actually, no. I've been saying all along that he needs to show that he believes it to be airworthy. He can't do that without some kind of designer's log or drawings that show the design of the aircraft, and a builder's log showing it's construction. He couldn't just throw four 4x8 sheets of plywood on a 20 foot propane tank, attach an M-14P to the front of it, and call for an inspection (unless, of course, the inspector mistakes it for a Murphy Moose). So, when he does his design work, he needs to do his design work to meet some requirements. He has to decide what it has to carry, and at what safety factors, and at what G-loads. Where do these numbers come from? More often than not, they come from FAR 23 (or the Canadian equivalent). > Ah, but in that case, you're talking about certified aircraft, and the > "requirement" is for an STC. Did you have one? 8-) > > ***** Ah, but in that case, no STC's were available, all I had was a "B" > licenced AME!!! Then you didn't meet the requirements, did you? 8-) One-off approvals of mods are *possible* on certified aircraft, but you need to get an Engineer to sign them off first. Not an AME, but an Aeronautical Engineer. -RB4 From jjewell at telus.net Mon Jun 16 15:12:10 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] consumer satisfaction - results ?! Message-ID: <008c01c33454$55653860$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> In an effort to get a consensus of opinion as to the efficacy of the inspection services currently available to the 'obligated users', Namely the MD-RA., I posted the following email; "I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiences and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. Suggestions?" I light of the fact that the MD-RA is 'apparently' our only access to satisfy our need to have inspections done, I expected to get more input from all three categories. I received 11 emails with responses to that "consumer satisfaction" title. In my opinion there was not enough response to get a truly clear or reliable consensus. My interpretation of them as Follows: 1/ Problems with Transport Canada from an individual up north ( not covered by MD-RA I assume). 2/ A response to # 1. 3/ A compliment re- a specific inspector. 4/ A response to # 3. 5/ A clearly satisfied customer. 6/ An additional response to # 1 by # 2, 7/ A play by play of problems with MD-RA eventually resolved with inspection done by Transport Canada! 8/ A suggestion to # 1 re- transport Canada procedures. 9/ A concern about current delay in communication with MD-RA. 10/ A complaint not titled "consumer satisfaction" about the MD-RA's system it's fee structures and procedures etc. 11/ A complaint starting with the RAA and resolved with an inspection from an EAA inspector ?! I am unsure as to how the final inspection and C of A will work out. 12/ As you might have guessed I am not so far pleased with services supplied, in the first place with the RAA and to date with the MD-RA. I Have to put myself in as a complainant. There Where no "suggestions" offered! Due to the small number of responses, the results of this unofficial poll are not very reliable and no very clear outcome emerges. The unhappy campers do however outnumber the happy ones. About average for polls in general I suspect. I recently sent Terry Elgood (the BC man in charge of The MD-RA inspections) a history of my dealings with both the RAA and the MD-RA up to the present time. I started the letter referring to him as "Tom". If you are reading this Terry, please excuse the use of the wrong name. I sent the email to him on the 11th of June and another on the 13th. I have sent an email again today using his correct name. In the two preceding emails I asked him a series of questions that I felt should go to him first. I have not had any response as yet to my emails to him. At this time of year he could be on holidays or otherwise occupied and I expect a response from him in due time. With all the talk that I hear person to person, I did expect to see more input pro and con. It would seem that the silent majority have nothing to say and have once again spoken as eloquently as usual. I did try to send the same "poll" to the RAA and the rv-list. I am not at present a Member of the RAA and I'm unsure if it got sent out to that group. If you are one of that group and did not see it on line there, please forward it. If you did not take part on the first go around, this is your chance to jump in. Thanks, Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030616/52b999ad/attachment.htm From tedd at vansairforce.org Mon Jun 16 22:48:58 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV Fractional Ownership? Message-ID: <20030616224701.G85693-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> It appears that Chris Horsten, of the RAA, is attempting to develop a fractional ownership program for RVs in Canada. If you're interested in fractional ownership of an RV, you might want to check out his web site at http://www.sharedplane.com/ --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Jun 17 23:27:00 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:25 2005 Subject: [Wing] Delta Fly-in July 5 Message-ID: <20030617231521.A98809-101000@strongbad.retrix.com> The Delta Heritage Air Park (CAK3) fly-in is Saturday, July 5. I've attached a poster with more details (PDF format). Please contact Tim Baker at (604) 588-0333 if you have any questions about the fly-in, or write to fly_in_2003@b4.ca. This is a really fun event, with antique cars, antique engines, and lots of other interesting stuff on the field along with a wide variety of airplanes. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FlyInPoster.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 603482 bytes Desc: Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030617/25586257/FlyInPoster.pdf From jjewell at telus.net Wed Jun 18 08:48:11 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Message-ID: <011501c335b1$061aa980$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> ATTN. Canadian rv-list, RAA and Western Wing members. It has been pointed out to me that the original version and purpose of the email below was not clearly identified. One more time. This email is meant to be an informal non scientific public arena poll. It is intended to spark commentary and conversation in respect to the MD-RA inspection process. I have been listening to local area aircraft kit builder people's comments regarding the MD-RA inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. If you have Suggestions? here. Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030618/962b49b1/attachment.htm From haywire at telus.net Wed Jun 18 22:34:18 2003 From: haywire at telus.net (Haywire) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <011501c335b1$061aa980$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: One more time. This email is meant to be an informal non scientific public arena poll. It is intended to spark commentary and conversation in respect to the MD-RA inspection process. I have been listening to local area aircraft kit builder people's comments regarding the MD-RA inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. Hi Jim; I wasn't going to share this, but since you keep asking, here goes.... When I first began my project 3 years ago I was told to file a letter of intent with the MD-RA, so I did. Then I began to hear things that I didn't really like and at the same time I was hearing how our local TC inspector (George Hohnisch) was really a great guy to deal with, very helpful and easy to deal with. The MD-RA inspections were much more costly and required paying travel time to the inspector ($100). Since I have alot of extra fuel capacity, I need an increased GW and I was informed that at that time MD-RA was refusing this without a letter from Van's which he was rightfully not providing (why should he accept responsibility for a plane that he didn't build?) I was also informed that they didn't look to kindly on the use of automotive engines (13B rotary) so I was expecting alot of trouble going this route. I talked with the TC inspector about my project and was eager to help out, but informed me that I would have to request that MD-RA relinquish my file to TC. So I sent an e-mail to MD-RA requesting this. Gerry Halliburton replied with a "NO". Send us your money, we will do it." Not really the kind of reply that encouraged me to want to do business with them. I exchanged a few more e-mails with Gerry, each one sounding a little more hostile. Finally I found and quoted directly the TC reg that covers this. I don't have it here right now but it basically states that "if builders insists that inspections be done by Transport Canada, the MD-RA must forward the entire file and all its contents to the appropriate TC office" His reply was that upon receipt of the MD-RA inspection fee they would forward the file to TC where I could pay their fee as well for inspection, after inspection they would request that TC return the file to them and all subsequent inspections or re-inspections would be handled the same way. While I was choking on this e-mail I received another from him requesting a current credit card #. I suspect that he had attempted to charge my Visa number that I had used when I filed my letter of intent, but I had cancelled that card after a cabbie drove off with it. By this time I was convinced that Gerry Halliburton is only in it for the money. When I called the TC inspector for his advice on this latest event, I found he was on vacation and wasn't due back until after I had to head into the bush for guiding season. After I got back, I immediately went on a long vacation out of the country myself. When I got back I started into my fuselage, leaving the wings to have the "pre-cover" done later. After finishing the fuse, I realized that I was way overdue to have my pre-cover done (I was FWF), so I phoned TC only to find out that George had retired and no one was taking over inspections from him! Damn, now what was I going to do? At about this time I met Dan McKeith at a local experimental meeting. Dan is the nearest MD-RA inspector, so I sheepishly explained my situation to him. He was very encouraging in his comments and mentioned that they were looking into the GW issue and assured me that my choice of engine would not be an issue and informed me that he was actually a big fan of the rotary engine, owning an RX-7 and an engine that was destined for some future project. So I went ahead and submitted my inspection application to MD-RA, cringing while thinking about Gerry gloating with glee while charging the the fee to my CC. While the fee was charged to my CC immediately, it was a few weeks before I received my inspection package in the mail, but when I called Dan McKeith, he was very co-operative and eager to do my inspection. When inspection day arrived I was nervous, expecting that he must have a mandate from Gerry to find any excuse to fail me (I was starting to feel paranoid;-)). When Dan arrived he was friendly, very professional and thorough and made me feel completely at ease. Even though it was not part of the pre-cover, he went through the fuselage and start of the engine installation, asking many questions due to his own desire to use a rotary. I now hope to have Dan back up here in mid-July for my final inspection and expect no problems dealing with him, but I'm still dreading the submission of paperwork. As I'm certain that this e-mail will be forwarded to Gerry by someone, I'm sure he will be eagerly awaiting my paper work. He'll probably have a special stamp made up for me ;-) While Dan may not represent all inspectors, he certainly gets two thumbs up from me. I've probably already said too much about Gerry..... I also feel that the inspection fees are way out of line, considering that none of it is given to the inspectors. They are completely volunteer with no pay. The only money they get is the travel fee. I'd be surprised if a lawyer would charge as much for dealing with a similar amount of paperwork. (I may need a lawyer after Gerry reads this ;-) This is probably more than you wanted to know, but you asked for it so...... S. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RV-9endurance C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass". . --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/03 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030618/61da0782/attachment.htm From jjewell at telus.net Thu Jun 19 02:00:36 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? References: Message-ID: <005501c33641$401fb5e0$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Hi Todd, Like you my start with the bureaucrats 6 years ago was not satisfying. I began with the RAA and then the MD-RA came along. At that time I was pretty ticked off at them. I am currently involved in an email exchange with One MD-RA person. It's hard to say how that will come out. So far I don't see too much by way of complaints in this type of format. With all the vocal stuff I have heard in the local area I did expect to see more traffic. Also I have not seen much by way of suggestions, Such as how 'not' to get off on the wrong foot, how to prepare for an inspection, how to help the inspector or whatever. So far I'm told the MD-RA is a non profit organization. Is that in fact true? If the fact is that MD-RA is not paying the volunteers I would have to agree with you that the fees do seem to be out of line. However, if the MD-RA has hired someone, some people or a management company the money could be going there. Do you have an idea of the total cost for an inspection from letter of intent to the finish of the 25 hour test flying time? I hear that it tops $1200.00 these days. Thanks and Happy rotarying (;-} ! Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: Haywire To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:34 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? One more time. This email is meant to be an informal non scientific public arena poll. It is intended to spark commentary and conversation in respect to the MD-RA inspection process. I have been listening to local area aircraft kit builder people's comments regarding the MD-RA inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. Hi Jim; I wasn't going to share this, but since you keep asking, here goes.... When I first began my project 3 years ago I was told to file a letter of intent with the MD-RA, so I did. Then I began to hear things that I didn't really like and at the same time I was hearing how our local TC inspector (George Hohnisch) was really a great guy to deal with, very helpful and easy to deal with. The MD-RA inspections were much more costly and required paying travel time to the inspector ($100). Since I have alot of extra fuel capacity, I need an increased GW and I was informed that at that time MD-RA was refusing this without a letter from Van's which he was rightfully not providing (why should he accept responsibility for a plane that he didn't build?) I was also informed that they didn't look to kindly on the use of automotive engines (13B rotary) so I was expecting alot of trouble going this route. I talked with the TC inspector about my project and was eager to help out, but informed me that I would have to request that MD-RA relinquish my file to TC. So I sent an e-mail to MD-RA requesting this. Gerry Halliburton replied with a "NO". Send us your money, we will do it." Not really the kind of reply that encouraged me to want to do business with them. I exchanged a few more e-mails with Gerry, each one sounding a little more hostile. Finally I found and quoted directly the TC reg that covers this. I don't have it here right now but it basically states that "if builders insists that inspections be done by Transport Canada, the MD-RA must forward the entire file and all its contents to the appropriate TC office" His reply was that upon receipt of the MD-RA inspection fee they would forward the file to TC where I could pay their fee as well for inspection, after inspection they would request that TC return the file to them and all subsequent inspections or re-inspections would be handled the same way. While I was choking on this e-mail I received another from him requesting a current credit card #. I suspect that he had attempted to charge my Visa number that I had used when I filed my letter of intent, but I had cancelled that card after a cabbie drove off with it. By this time I was convinced that Gerry Halliburton is only in it for the money. When I called the TC inspector for his advice on this latest event, I found he was on vacation and wasn't due back until after I had to head into the bush for guiding season. After I got back, I immediately went on a long vacation out of the country myself. When I got back I started into my fuselage, leaving the wings to have the "pre-cover" done later. After finishing the fuse, I realized that I was way overdue to have my pre-cover done (I was FWF), so I phoned TC only to find out that George had retired and no one was taking over inspections from him! Damn, now what was I going to do? At about this time I met Dan McKeith at a local experimental meeting. Dan is the nearest MD-RA inspector, so I sheepishly explained my situation to him. He was very encouraging in his comments and mentioned that they were looking into the GW issue and assured me that my choice of engine would not be an issue and informed me that he was actually a big fan of the rotary engine, owning an RX-7 and an engine that was destined for some future project. So I went ahead and submitted my inspection application to MD-RA, cringing while thinking about Gerry gloating with glee while charging the the fee to my CC. While the fee was charged to my CC immediately, it was a few weeks before I received my inspection package in the mail, but when I called Dan McKeith, he was very co-operative and eager to do my inspection. When inspection day arrived I was nervous, expecting that he must have a mandate from Gerry to find any excuse to fail me (I was starting to feel paranoid;-)). When Dan arrived he was friendly, very professional and thorough and made me feel completely at ease. Even though it was not part of the pre-cover, he went through the fuselage and start of the engine installation, asking many questions due to his own desire to use a rotary. I now hope to have Dan back up here in mid-July for my final inspection and expect no problems dealing with him, but I'm still dreading the submission of paperwork. As I'm certain that this e-mail will be forwarded to Gerry by someone, I'm sure he will be eagerly awaiting my paper work. He'll probably have a special stamp made up for me ;-) While Dan may not represent all inspectors, he certainly gets two thumbs up from me. I've probably already said too much about Gerry..... I also feel that the inspection fees are way out of line, considering that none of it is given to the inspectors. They are completely volunteer with no pay. The only money they get is the travel fee. I'd be surprised if a lawyer would charge as much for dealing with a similar amount of paperwork. (I may need a lawyer after Gerry reads this ;-) This is probably more than you wanted to know, but you asked for it so...... S. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RV-9endurance C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass". . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030619/7d88fcc1/attachment.htm From rdkennett at shaw.ca Thu Jun 19 11:35:26 2003 From: rdkennett at shaw.ca (Della & Robert Kennett) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? References: <011501c335b1$061aa980$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: <002f01c33691$d7ee91c0$f4aa4318@ok.shawcable.net> Hi Jim. My comments regarding the inspection process follow. I was generally happy with the MD-RA portion of the process. I dealt with three different inspectors over the 5 1/2 years it took to build the plane. The first one didn't go totally by the book with respect to the paperwork in order to save the builder some of the inspection fees (i.e. he would let you take the smaller pieces such as empennage, flaps, etc. to his place for inspection and enter some notations in his own personal files. He would then sign them off when he did the pre-cover on the wings). Unfortuneately, he was no longer doing inspections when it came time to do the wing inspection. The second inspector worked with me on this as he knew the first inspector and trusted him. I did sweat for a few days however, anticipating that I might have to remove a few rivets in the completed pieces. It probably also helped that I had very good records and pictures showing the insides of the various pieces before they were closed. By the time I got to the final inspection, the second inspector had retired. Dwayne Piper from Kamloops was the new inspector and I found him to be very easy to deal with. He answered a lot of questions ahead of time concerning the process, and was very thorough during the inspection. He had built his own RV and was obviously knowledgeable about the aircraft. The paperwork was returned within 10 days, as promised. I didn't have any problems with the paperwork (unlike some other local builders) since I was aware of the document at www.vansairforce.org that Terry Elgood had put together. I agree with other responses that the fees seem a little high considering that the inspectors don't get any of it. You can save some money if you have room to leave the empennage, flaps & ailerons until the wing inspection, or don't mind finishing them off without using the various jigs. For peace of mind, however, you should have someone look at them before you get too far into the project in case there are some serious problems with your riveting skills. Transport Canada was another issue, however. The application for the certificate of registration took several weeks. I finally phoned them and was able to get the process moving. I also applied for an expanded test area with the local TC office. After several weeks, I received a "no" response for what I had asked for (Penticton to Salmon Arm to Kamloops). They would however give me Salmon Arm (a gain of about 1 mile beyond the standard 25 mile range as I was based in Vernon) for a $35 fee. Needless to say I declined. When I was getting close to having the hours flown off I contacted TC in Vancouver to find out how to have the restrictions removed. After bouncing from person to person I left a detailed voice mail with supposedly the right person. No response was received. I then contacted George McNutt in Langley who indicated that he received his C of A over the counter in Abbotsford. I called the local TC office in Kelowna and was told "This is a very low priority for us - send us the letter and logbook and we'll get to it when we can". I didn't push it since it was November but understand that another builder pushed them recently when he received a similar response and was able to get it completed over the counter. Rob Kennett RV-6A C-GRBK ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org ; rv-list@matronics.com ; national@raa.ca Sent: June 18, 2003 8:48 AM Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? ATTN. Canadian rv-list, RAA and Western Wing members. It has been pointed out to me that the original version and purpose of the email below was not clearly identified. One more time. This email is meant to be an informal non scientific public arena poll. It is intended to spark commentary and conversation in respect to the MD-RA inspection process. I have been listening to local area aircraft kit builder people's comments regarding the MD-RA inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. If you have Suggestions? here. Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030619/6bd3a8cd/attachment.htm From Bob_Cutting at toyota.ca Thu Jun 19 14:01:18 2003 From: Bob_Cutting at toyota.ca (Bob_Cutting@toyota.ca) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Message-ID: I have been involved as an MDRA inspector from the start of the AIR-ABA program, originally as Chief Inspector for BC, I am saddened to hear of the discontent that some builders are experiencing. The MDRA program has been excellent for most builders, and of all the inspections I have been involved in, (Sub-assembly/Precover/Final/51% Determination) I have had only 1 disgruntled builder, I do have some suggestions however. A lot of builders do not belong to a local Chapter of either the RAA or EAA, this is is a good starting point for someone wishing to build an amateur built aircraft. From here, one can foster a relationship with other builders and even get to meet some of the inspectors, such as myself, who can help a builder navigate the requirements. I know, from some of my experiences, that in the case of a file turnover to TC, that the fees TC charge are CONSIDERABLY beyond those charged by MDRA.. A builder only needs 2 inspections, the Pre-cover and a Final, the total cost for these is less than $500, however, there is a $250 fee for the issuance of the flight permit which goes to TC . so the fees are a very small part of the cost of building an aircraft. If a builder has any concerns about the program they can always talk to Terry Elgood, who is the Chief Inspector for BC , Terry is very accomodating and can pass information to Al Mahon in Toronto. From dvoth at shaw.ca Thu Jun 19 15:27:06 2003 From: dvoth at shaw.ca (Dennis Voth) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] consumer satisfaction - results ?! References: <008c01c33454$55653860$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: <00dd01c336b1$eaac0840$ab709344@warsteiner> We have thus far only had one inspection done on our RV-7A. We have had good interactions with MD-RA, both in Ottawa and locally. No problems whatsoever. Our local inspector, a member of the RAA, Calgary, is very helpful. I was interested in all the chatter this question sparked! I saved several of the emails, hoping they will be helpful in the coming months as we complete our project. Dennis, in Calgary ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 4:12 PM Subject: [Wing] consumer satisfaction - results ?! In an effort to get a consensus of opinion as to the efficacy of the inspection services currently available to the 'obligated users', Namely the MD-RA., I posted the following email; "I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiences and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. Suggestions?" I light of the fact that the MD-RA is 'apparently' our only access to satisfy our need to have inspections done, I expected to get more input from all three categories. I received 11 emails with responses to that "consumer satisfaction" title. In my opinion there was not enough response to get a truly clear or reliable consensus. My interpretation of them as Follows: 1/ Problems with Transport Canada from an individual up north ( not covered by MD-RA I assume). 2/ A response to # 1. 3/ A compliment re- a specific inspector. 4/ A response to # 3. 5/ A clearly satisfied customer. 6/ An additional response to # 1 by # 2, 7/ A play by play of problems with MD-RA eventually resolved with inspection done by Transport Canada! 8/ A suggestion to # 1 re- transport Canada procedures. 9/ A concern about current delay in communication with MD-RA. 10/ A complaint not titled "consumer satisfaction" about the MD-RA's system it's fee structures and procedures etc. 11/ A complaint starting with the RAA and resolved with an inspection from an EAA inspector ?! I am unsure as to how the final inspection and C of A will work out. 12/ As you might have guessed I am not so far pleased with services supplied, in the first place with the RAA and to date with the MD-RA. I Have to put myself in as a complainant. There Where no "suggestions" offered! Due to the small number of responses, the results of this unofficial poll are not very reliable and no very clear outcome emerges. The unhappy campers do however outnumber the happy ones. About average for polls in general I suspect. I recently sent Terry Elgood (the BC man in charge of The MD-RA inspections) a history of my dealings with both the RAA and the MD-RA up to the present time. I started the letter referring to him as "Tom". If you are reading this Terry, please excuse the use of the wrong name. I sent the email to him on the 11th of June and another on the 13th. I have sent an email again today using his correct name. In the two preceding emails I asked him a series of questions that I felt should go to him first. I have not had any response as yet to my emails to him. At this time of year he could be on holidays or otherwise occupied and I expect a response from him in due time. With all the talk that I hear person to person, I did expect to see more input pro and con. It would seem that the silent majority have nothing to say and have once again spoken as eloquently as usual. I did try to send the same "poll" to the RAA and the rv-list. I am not at present a Member of the RAA and I'm unsure if it got sent out to that group. If you are one of that group and did not see it on line there, please forward it. If you did not take part on the first go around, this is your chance to jump in. Thanks, Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030619/8e7e8019/attachment.htm From wjoke at shaw.ca Thu Jun 19 20:00:11 2003 From: wjoke at shaw.ca (Jim Oke) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? References: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: <098b01c336d8$116c9370$6601a8c0@Pentium> My views on MD-RA ..... First off, about 10 years ago I built an RV-3 and the three (possibly four) inspections were done here in Winnipeg by Transport Canada reps. All inspections were done promptly within a day or two of making a request. After the final inspection was done at a local airport I had a few snags to fix and the inspector later stopped by on his own initative to recheck the airplane and so my flight permit got issued without my even asking for it! My experience was not untypical of other Winnipeg area builders. In short, we got excellent service at no direct cost from our local TC office and were rather unhappy when AIR-ABA came on the scene replacing TC with big inspection fees attached as well. AIR-ABA seemed to be a National fix for a distinctly southern Ontario (mostly Toronto) problem where I gather there were real problems getting inspections done. Yes, that was 10 years ago before the Feds got on their "cost-recovery" aka "price gouge" binge for most TC services and I agree that the price tag for a TC inspection would be a big one if they were still in the amateur-built business. My general impression with the two inspections (pre-closure & final) for my RV-6A have been positive. Then, too, the two or three local MD-RA inspectors are longtime local builders who are known to most of the local homebuilt community. MD-RA HQ in London has been a bit slow in responding to requests for inspections - simple answer is to send the money well ahead of time and follow up with a phone call a few weeks before you actually need the inspection. My inspector (whom I have know personally for five years or more) was patient, through, and courteous - what more could one ask? The forms took more than one try but the advice on completing them was free and readily given. I have wondered over the past few years about what the real $$$ balance sheet for AIR-ABA and now MD-RA looks like. Was the initial "break even" budget realistic and met? Was the program subsidizing RAA or vice versa? Are present costs reasonable to cover the level of service builders want and create a modest reserve for the future? Are there other curious minds wondering about this? Can't think of any real suggestions. A lot seems to depend on the HQ in London and basically a hiccup there (be it computer problems, somebody away or on vacation (not a complaint, BTW, we all have to have a life somehow) puts everything on hold across the country. It is tempting to suggest regional MD-RA offices but the fragments would likely be too small to be vaible on their own and there would be all sorts of standardization problems to deal with. My own opinion is that it would be better if TC would get back into homebuilt inspections on some sort of reasonable basis - but that's not likely to happen in the present government climate in the GWN. Plus we wouldn't want the same bureaucrats who have done such a swell job running (??) the gun registration program anywhere near recreational aviation. Interesting that in the big, bad, everythings privatized, USA, builders can call on a friendly local FAA guy for their final inspection but in kinder, gentler, socialized this and that Canada, the government washes it hands of homebuilt aircraft and says do it yourself, we can't or won't be bothered! So much for politics. Have to get my airplane back together assuming my flight permit will actually show up someday soon.... Jim Oke Winnipeg, MB RV-6A C-GKGZ (waiting for paper) ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:19 PM Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. Suggestions? Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030619/3adc8d63/attachment.htm From briant at telus.net Thu Jun 19 20:11:15 2003 From: briant at telus.net (Brian W. Truitt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? References: <011501c335b1$061aa980$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: <006401c336d9$b8fe9100$02c134d1@a1a28765> Hi Jim Our RV-7 has been flying for two months and happy to say the MD-RA process worked very well. Rick Mosher did both our pre-cover and final inspection. He has built a couple -6s and in the process of building a -7. Needless to say he really knew his stuff, was thorough and very professional. With very little notice he took a day away from his project to complete our final, which included 6 hours of driving. I found Terry Elgoods article on completing form 24-0079 to be very helpful. Terry and I exchanged a couple e:mails to ensure I was doing it right so there would be no hiccups in the final paperwork. And yes, I had screwed it up. I would consider the "service" aspect to be excellent. In the administration end I'd suggest a follow-up call to London might be required occasionally. Our paperwork was misfiled or lost. Had I not called to enquire there would have been a lengthy delay and additional travelling costs incurred. Our total cost was 1167.50. I have no problem with the travel costs for the inspectors which I think is a bargain. I hope the remainder of the costs would include some training and workshops for the inspectors. And throw in a few good meals as well, they've earned it. In order to get the final C of A I had to "drive" to Victoria for a personal visit with TC. After flying the aircraft the equivalent of 4,600 miles it seemed ridiculous to "drive" six hours to get a piece of paper. In this day of faxs, scanners, e:mail etc. why is the visit required at all ? What about builders who are further removed from a TC inspector or would have trouble getting away from work, lose a days pay etc.? Why not fly the airplane ? It was even suggested I might have to come back the next day. Not a chance, I was at their office just after the door opened and gone by 11AM. I would suggest pre-arranging any visits to the TC offices. I consciously went a little overboard on the paperwork. Put extra time into things like the Fuel Flow report, W&B report, Maintenance Schedule etc., extra copies for everybody. It seemed to help as no follow ups were required. After all that I'm happy to say the plane has 48 hours on it and performing well. Brian T in Courtenay RV-7 C-GZXM ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org ; rv-list@matronics.com ; national@raa.ca Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:48 AM Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? ATTN. Canadian rv-list, RAA and Western Wing members. It has been pointed out to me that the original version and purpose of the email below was not clearly identified. One more time. This email is meant to be an informal non scientific public arena poll. It is intended to spark commentary and conversation in respect to the MD-RA inspection process. I have been listening to local area aircraft kit builder people's comments regarding the MD-RA inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. If you have Suggestions? here. Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030619/a5fd3b31/attachment.htm From haywire at telus.net Thu Jun 19 23:06:07 2003 From: haywire at telus.net (Haywire) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <005501c33641$401fb5e0$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: Hi Jim; As you seemed insistent on hearing more comments on the MD-RA process, I assumed that you also had unpleasant dealings with them. Reading today's mail, the letters all suggest the same thing. Everybody seems happy with the local inspectors who all do a fine job for nothing more than their travel cost, but it seems that service from headquarters is less than acceptable. Even those that didn't seem overly upset over delays mentioned follow-up calls, lost paper work, etc. This is from the office that is charging the exorbitant fees. Completely unacceptable IMHO. I feel that I should have kept quite until after I had finished with all the bureaucracy and I wonder how many others are hesitant to speak up because of this. Gotta love monopolies, heh? S. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RV-9endurance C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass". -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jim Jewell Sent: June 19, 2003 2:01 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Hi Todd, Like you my start with the bureaucrats 6 years ago was not satisfying. I began with the RAA and then the MD-RA came along. At that time I was pretty ticked off at them. I am currently involved in an email exchange with One MD-RA person. It's hard to say how that will come out. So far I don't see too much by way of complaints in this type of format. With all the vocal stuff I have heard in the local area I did expect to see more traffic. Also I have not seen much by way of suggestions, Such as how 'not' to get off on the wrong foot, how to prepare for an inspection, how to help the inspector or whatever. So far I'm told the MD-RA is a non profit organization. Is that in fact true? If the fact is that MD-RA is not paying the volunteers I would have to agree with you that the fees do seem to be out of line. However, if the MD-RA has hired someone, some people or a management company the money could be going there. Do you have an idea of the total cost for an inspection from letter of intent to the finish of the 25 hour test flying time? I hear that it tops $1200.00 these days. Thanks and Happy rotarying (;-} ! Jim in Kelowna --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/03 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030619/8a0fb216/attachment.htm From haywire at telus.net Thu Jun 19 23:55:58 2003 From: haywire at telus.net (Haywire) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <098b01c336d8$116c9370$6601a8c0@Pentium> Message-ID: I'm certain that I've already said too much, but........... I've been reading through a few of these other e-mails and read comments like "sure it's alot of paper work, but after building a plane......." & "compared to the cost of building the plane the fees aren't that bad...." C'mon really? Does this mean that because we've worked real hard & invested alot of money that we won't mind when we're screwed just a little? Maybe the average builder is financially secure and has the time for this, but many like myself have sacrificed much to accomplish this goal, stretching my time & finances to the breaking point. When I have extra time and money it all goes into the project to accomplish my goal of a better, safer, more efficient flying machine. I really resent the nonchalant attitude of some who seem to think it is ok because it is "in the interest of safety"! Let's be realistic. It has nothing to do with safety. It has everything to do with feeding the insatiable bureaucratic machine back east. I'm certain that the local inspectors have safety as their primary goal, but they are also the ones who are working quickly to provide a good service at absolutely no profit to themselves. If you don't mind the service you received, fine. But lets not sugar-coat it by saying they are saving us from ourselves, so it's ok to get screwed a little, because it's not. This will be my last post on the subject, because it's starting to sound a little too political. Next I'll start bitching about gun control, gay marriages, etc.... better get back to building to cheer up some..... happy building. S. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RV-9endurance C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/03 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030619/c932219a/attachment.htm From jjewell at telus.net Fri Jun 20 02:20:14 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? References: Message-ID: <011201c3370d$289287a0$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Todd, Over the last week or so I have exchanged a couple of rounds of 'You said, I say' type emails with Terry Elgood. He is the BC. area Chief inspector. When I asked him today what fees to expect His answer was. >"TE, The October 2000 fee schedule shows; > > Letter of intent $8.03 , > Pre-closing $197.95, > Final $513.60 (includes $ 250.00 for C of R) > >After 25 hours, contact the nearest Transport Canada office for the C of A." When I add to that the mileage to my area from Kamloops for the volunteer I see an estimated total come in quite near to a $900.00. Figure in T.C.fee about $35.00 for a larger area to fly off the 25 hr. in. There could be one more small optional TC. fee for $25.00. If I have it right, that is a good percentage less than the $1200.00 plus rumors I was hearing a short time ago. Still a noticeable hit for somewhat less than ideal services rendered In my closing comment to Terry (Quoted below) I came to basically the same conclusion as you about the general content of the emails. They seem to indicate that the service, communications, paperwork handling etc.at the office level needs to be worked on. On reading My words again I might well have worded it a bit stronger. It does seem to me that fairly serious service refinements that have been needed since day one are to say the very least rather slow in coming. The bureaucratic attitude is a tough nut to crack eh. (:-)! I would like to think these recent email exchanges might have focused some attention where it will do some good. However I'm not waiting and holding my breath about it. The closing quote; "I think that the responses that came out of the email questionnaires have provided a generally neutral result. Neutral seems good. Few complaints with the volunteers, most seemed to point at delays with paper handling, Attitude and communications. All in all, quite a low number of responses. With only a few more complaints than kudos. There where several with mixed feeling about services rendered, A few of those aimed at T.C., the larger remaining number aimed at the MD-RA" As far as people being penalized for speaking out Todd. We take that chance I suppose because the outcome of not taking that chance has it's own reward to ponder. The meek shall inherit the earth. I guess if you want all that dirt Have at it (;-]! Todd I just received your more recent email. I feel that I have some blame in getting you a fair bit lathered up. I do hope the information above helps level off the pressure a bit.(8-)! Like you I think that The prime goal of bureaucracy is imagined in it's own mind and broadcast as public protection. However in it's gut, feeding and growing and controling grumble on ceaselessly! Thanks go out to all the contributors, I have all the inputs in a file and will continue to add more if they continue to come. Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: Haywire To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:06 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Hi Jim; As you seemed insistent on hearing more comments on the MD-RA process, I assumed that you also had unpleasant dealings with them. Reading today's mail, the letters all suggest the same thing. Everybody seems happy with the local inspectors who all do a fine job for nothing more than their travel cost, but it seems that service from headquarters is less than acceptable. Even those that didn't seem overly upset over delays mentioned follow-up calls, lost paper work, etc. This is from the office that is charging the exorbitant fees. Completely unacceptable IMHO. I feel that I should have kept quite until after I had finished with all the bureaucracy and I wonder how many others are hesitant to speak up because of this. Gotta love monopolies, heh? S. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RV-9endurance C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass". -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jim Jewell Sent: June 19, 2003 2:01 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Hi Todd, Like you my start with the bureaucrats 6 years ago was not satisfying. I began with the RAA and then the MD-RA came along. At that time I was pretty ticked off at them. I am currently involved in an email exchange with One MD-RA person. It's hard to say how that will come out. So far I don't see too much by way of complaints in this type of format. With all the vocal stuff I have heard in the local area I did expect to see more traffic. Also I have not seen much by way of suggestions, Such as how 'not' to get off on the wrong foot, how to prepare for an inspection, how to help the inspector or whatever. So far I'm told the MD-RA is a non profit organization. Is that in fact true? If the fact is that MD-RA is not paying the volunteers I would have to agree with you that the fees do seem to be out of line. However, if the MD-RA has hired someone, some people or a management company the money could be going there. Do you have an idea of the total cost for an inspection from letter of intent to the finish of the 25 hour test flying time? I hear that it tops $1200.00 these days. Thanks and Happy rotarying (;-} ! Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030620/b719f034/attachment.htm From d2w at telus.net Fri Jun 20 09:34:59 2003 From: d2w at telus.net (William Robson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? References: <011201c3370d$289287a0$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: <002301c33749$e41aae80$daff59d1@ab.hsia.telus.net> Hello Jim I have read with interest the comments that have passed back and forth on this subject. I am really surprised at all those Recreational Builders out there that are prepared to just play dead and pay for a second rate service. The local MD-RA inspectors are jewels and should receive as much consideration as possible. The guy that should be made aware of the poor service is Maurice A. Simoneau Senior Civil Aviation Safety Inspector, Maintenance and Manufacturing Recreational Aircraft, Tower "C" Place de Ville 330 Sparks Street, 2nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0N8 Telephone (613) 990-9490, Fax (613) 952-3298, Internet simonem@tc.gc.ca If everyone started ringing this guys phone off the wall he may get on to London Ontario and improve the service. One of the major problems as I see it is the lack of inspectors available. London Ontario will not provide any money to increase the number of inspectors. I was looking at the Fee Schedule that was previously listed. I just checked my RAA builder's Manual and there were a few costs left out of the first quote. Listed below for your reference,- Fee Schedule 2001 Information Package $ 8.03 Letter of Intent $21.40 51% Determination $101.65 Sub-Assembly $139.10 Pre-Cover/Pre-Paint $197.95 Final (includes $250.00 for Cof R) $513.60 Supplementary (Re-visits) for any inspection $69.55 Plus travel expenses for the inspector at $0.50 per Kilometre. The way I count that comes to $1051.28 just for inspections alone and not counting travel expenses. When I last talked to London Ontario concerning Inspection Service I was told that MD-RA have a franchise just like the Post Office in the corner drug store. It is apparently Transport Canada responsibility to protect and keep MD-RA secure with their inspection Service. I hope my comments will be helpful to someone. Regards to All Bill Robson ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:20 AM Subject: Re: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Todd, Over the last week or so I have exchanged a couple of rounds of 'You said, I say' type emails with Terry Elgood. He is the BC. area Chief inspector. When I asked him today what fees to expect His answer was. >"TE, The October 2000 fee schedule shows; > > Letter of intent $8.03 , > Pre-closing $197.95, > Final $513.60 (includes $ 250.00 for C of R) > >After 25 hours, contact the nearest Transport Canada office for the C of A." When I add to that the mileage to my area from Kamloops for the volunteer I see an estimated total come in quite near to a $900.00. Figure in T.C.fee about $35.00 for a larger area to fly off the 25 hr. in. There could be one more small optional TC. fee for $25.00. If I have it right, that is a good percentage less than the $1200.00 plus rumors I was hearing a short time ago. Still a noticeable hit for somewhat less than ideal services rendered In my closing comment to Terry (Quoted below) I came to basically the same conclusion as you about the general content of the emails. They seem to indicate that the service, communications, paperwork handling etc.at the office level needs to be worked on. On reading My words again I might well have worded it a bit stronger. It does seem to me that fairly serious service refinements that have been needed since day one are to say the very least rather slow in coming. The bureaucratic attitude is a tough nut to crack eh. (:-)! I would like to think these recent email exchanges might have focused some attention where it will do some good. However I'm not waiting and holding my breath about it. The closing quote; "I think that the responses that came out of the email questionnaires have provided a generally neutral result. Neutral seems good. Few complaints with the volunteers, most seemed to point at delays with paper handling, Attitude and communications. All in all, quite a low number of responses. With only a few more complaints than kudos. There where several with mixed feeling about services rendered, A few of those aimed at T.C., the larger remaining number aimed at the MD-RA" As far as people being penalized for speaking out Todd. We take that chance I suppose because the outcome of not taking that chance has it's own reward to ponder. The meek shall inherit the earth. I guess if you want all that dirt Have at it (;-]! Todd I just received your more recent email. I feel that I have some blame in getting you a fair bit lathered up. I do hope the information above helps level off the pressure a bit.(8-)! Like you I think that The prime goal of bureaucracy is imagined in it's own mind and broadcast as public protection. However in it's gut, feeding and growing and controling grumble on ceaselessly! Thanks go out to all the contributors, I have all the inputs in a file and will continue to add more if they continue to come. Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: Haywire To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:06 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Hi Jim; As you seemed insistent on hearing more comments on the MD-RA process, I assumed that you also had unpleasant dealings with them. Reading today's mail, the letters all suggest the same thing. Everybody seems happy with the local inspectors who all do a fine job for nothing more than their travel cost, but it seems that service from headquarters is less than acceptable. Even those that didn't seem overly upset over delays mentioned follow-up calls, lost paper work, etc. This is from the office that is charging the exorbitant fees. Completely unacceptable IMHO. I feel that I should have kept quite until after I had finished with all the bureaucracy and I wonder how many others are hesitant to speak up because of this. Gotta love monopolies, heh? S. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RV-9endurance C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass". -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jim Jewell Sent: June 19, 2003 2:01 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Hi Todd, Like you my start with the bureaucrats 6 years ago was not satisfying. I began with the RAA and then the MD-RA came along. At that time I was pretty ticked off at them. I am currently involved in an email exchange with One MD-RA person. It's hard to say how that will come out. So far I don't see too much by way of complaints in this type of format. With all the vocal stuff I have heard in the local area I did expect to see more traffic. Also I have not seen much by way of suggestions, Such as how 'not' to get off on the wrong foot, how to prepare for an inspection, how to help the inspector or whatever. So far I'm told the MD-RA is a non profit organization. Is that in fact true? If the fact is that MD-RA is not paying the volunteers I would have to agree with you that the fees do seem to be out of line. However, if the MD-RA has hired someone, some people or a management company the money could be going there. Do you have an idea of the total cost for an inspection from letter of intent to the finish of the 25 hour test flying time? I hear that it tops $1200.00 these days. Thanks and Happy rotarying (;-} ! Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030620/4f32787b/attachment.htm From grizzlybear at klondiker.com Fri Jun 20 09:57:23 2003 From: grizzlybear at klondiker.com (Jacob & Grace) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? References: <011201c3370d$289287a0$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> <002301c33749$e41aae80$daff59d1@ab.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: <002001c3374d$05194ee0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> William, I think you are right on about the "franchise", but there is possibly one more issue involved in the situation being discussed here, at least for me. When Transport Canada began denying my requests to do inspections, I then inquired about the possibility of getting our own MD-RA inspector for the Yukon. I was told that MD-RA inspectors need training and certification from TC, and need to stay current (sounds logical?) but, because MD-RA inspectors would not do enough inspections up here, they were reluctant to pay for the required training. I have tried to ask about this but never received an answer. Perhaps someone knows about this? If TC and "Eastern bureacrats" get their way and force me to deal with MD-RA, I am going to need to know my options. ----- Original Message ----- From: William Robson To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Hello Jim I have read with interest the comments that have passed back and forth on this subject. I am really surprised at all those Recreational Builders out there that are prepared to just play dead and pay for a second rate service. The local MD-RA inspectors are jewels and should receive as much consideration as possible. The guy that should be made aware of the poor service is Maurice A. Simoneau Senior Civil Aviation Safety Inspector, Maintenance and Manufacturing Recreational Aircraft, Tower "C" Place de Ville 330 Sparks Street, 2nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0N8 Telephone (613) 990-9490, Fax (613) 952-3298, Internet simonem@tc.gc.ca If everyone started ringing this guys phone off the wall he may get on to London Ontario and improve the service. One of the major problems as I see it is the lack of inspectors available. London Ontario will not provide any money to increase the number of inspectors. I was looking at the Fee Schedule that was previously listed. I just checked my RAA builder's Manual and there were a few costs left out of the first quote. Listed below for your reference,- Fee Schedule 2001 Information Package $ 8.03 Letter of Intent $21.40 51% Determination $101.65 Sub-Assembly $139.10 Pre-Cover/Pre-Paint $197.95 Final (includes $250.00 for Cof R) $513.60 Supplementary (Re-visits) for any inspection $69.55 Plus travel expenses for the inspector at $0.50 per Kilometre. The way I count that comes to $1051.28 just for inspections alone and not counting travel expenses. When I last talked to London Ontario concerning Inspection Service I was told that MD-RA have a franchise just like the Post Office in the corner drug store. It is apparently Transport Canada responsibility to protect and keep MD-RA secure with their inspection Service. I hope my comments will be helpful to someone. Regards to All Bill Robson ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:20 AM Subject: Re: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Todd, Over the last week or so I have exchanged a couple of rounds of 'You said, I say' type emails with Terry Elgood. He is the BC. area Chief inspector. When I asked him today what fees to expect His answer was. >"TE, The October 2000 fee schedule shows; > > Letter of intent $8.03 , > Pre-closing $197.95, > Final $513.60 (includes $ 250.00 for C of R) > >After 25 hours, contact the nearest Transport Canada office for the C of A." When I add to that the mileage to my area from Kamloops for the volunteer I see an estimated total come in quite near to a $900.00. Figure in T.C.fee about $35.00 for a larger area to fly off the 25 hr. in. There could be one more small optional TC. fee for $25.00. If I have it right, that is a good percentage less than the $1200.00 plus rumors I was hearing a short time ago. Still a noticeable hit for somewhat less than ideal services rendered In my closing comment to Terry (Quoted below) I came to basically the same conclusion as you about the general content of the emails. They seem to indicate that the service, communications, paperwork handling etc.at the office level needs to be worked on. On reading My words again I might well have worded it a bit stronger. It does seem to me that fairly serious service refinements that have been needed since day one are to say the very least rather slow in coming. The bureaucratic attitude is a tough nut to crack eh. (:-)! I would like to think these recent email exchanges might have focused some attention where it will do some good. However I'm not waiting and holding my breath about it. The closing quote; "I think that the responses that came out of the email questionnaires have provided a generally neutral result. Neutral seems good. Few complaints with the volunteers, most seemed to point at delays with paper handling, Attitude and communications. All in all, quite a low number of responses. With only a few more complaints than kudos. There where several with mixed feeling about services rendered, A few of those aimed at T.C., the larger remaining number aimed at the MD-RA" As far as people being penalized for speaking out Todd. We take that chance I suppose because the outcome of not taking that chance has it's own reward to ponder. The meek shall inherit the earth. I guess if you want all that dirt Have at it (;-]! Todd I just received your more recent email. I feel that I have some blame in getting you a fair bit lathered up. I do hope the information above helps level off the pressure a bit.(8-)! Like you I think that The prime goal of bureaucracy is imagined in it's own mind and broadcast as public protection. However in it's gut, feeding and growing and controling grumble on ceaselessly! Thanks go out to all the contributors, I have all the inputs in a file and will continue to add more if they continue to come. Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: Haywire To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:06 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Hi Jim; As you seemed insistent on hearing more comments on the MD-RA process, I assumed that you also had unpleasant dealings with them. Reading today's mail, the letters all suggest the same thing. Everybody seems happy with the local inspectors who all do a fine job for nothing more than their travel cost, but it seems that service from headquarters is less than acceptable. Even those that didn't seem overly upset over delays mentioned follow-up calls, lost paper work, etc. This is from the office that is charging the exorbitant fees. Completely unacceptable IMHO. I feel that I should have kept quite until after I had finished with all the bureaucracy and I wonder how many others are hesitant to speak up because of this. Gotta love monopolies, heh? S. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RV-9endurance C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass". -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jim Jewell Sent: June 19, 2003 2:01 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Re: MD-RA Consumer satisfaction? Hi Todd, Like you my start with the bureaucrats 6 years ago was not satisfying. I began with the RAA and then the MD-RA came along. At that time I was pretty ticked off at them. I am currently involved in an email exchange with One MD-RA person. It's hard to say how that will come out. So far I don't see too much by way of complaints in this type of format. With all the vocal stuff I have heard in the local area I did expect to see more traffic. Also I have not seen much by way of suggestions, Such as how 'not' to get off on the wrong foot, how to prepare for an inspection, how to help the inspector or whatever. So far I'm told the MD-RA is a non profit organization. Is that in fact true? If the fact is that MD-RA is not paying the volunteers I would have to agree with you that the fees do seem to be out of line. However, if the MD-RA has hired someone, some people or a management company the money could be going there. Do you have an idea of the total cost for an inspection from letter of intent to the finish of the 25 hour test flying time? I hear that it tops $1200.00 these days. Thanks and Happy rotarying (;-} ! Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030620/a36bfcec/attachment.htm From elgood at aebc.com Fri Jun 20 17:31:42 2003 From: elgood at aebc.com (T&M Elgood) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Help with the Inspection Message-ID: <000a01c3378c$9f6ee560$82cc35d1@AEBC> Over the past several years I have performed many inspections on Amateur Built Aircraft at all stages of construction, plus as MD-RA regional chief inspector I have reviewed the final inspection paperwork for all MD-RA inspections in BC. With this experience I have a few suggestions to help you through the inspection process. The main area of concern on this forum seems to be with the issuing of paperwork for inspections. If this is a concern for you, deal with it by allowing sufficient time for Gerry Haliburton at MD-RA headquarters to issue your inspection paperwork, don't leave it to the last moment. I have passed on various forum submissions to Allan Mahon and Gerry Haliburton so that they see the reaction some people have to MD-RA. I have also passed on compliments to the appropriate inspectors in BC. Various comments against MD-RA are followed with "I hope they don't hold this against me". I think you will find that MD-RA will deal with your inspection in a professional and reasonable manner. Before you forum guys get all wound up about training requirements on CD or tape, read Gary Wolf's response and keep in mind it is a Transport Canada requirement for classroom training. You cannot exchange ideas and solutions to problems by watching a recorded training session. The two day training sessions we all attend are very interesting and educational with input from T. C. and MD-RA. Do yourself a favour, when it is updated, get the RAA Builders Manual. It will guide you through the inspection process, also included is Chapter 549 and amendments. The section on how to fill out the Application for C of A could use some improvement, have a look at www.vansairforce.org look for Procedure for completing the application for c of a, you will find it much easier. (Tedd, is there a direct route to this) Another book you should have is AC 43.13 Acceptable Methods, Techniques and Practices. Your aircraft project requires inspection at specific stages during the course of construction, it is your responsibility to ensure this is done. After the final inspection there are often delays in issuing the Flight Authority due to problems with the paperwork submitted by builders, for example; 1/ Weight and Balance Review the MD-RA sheet showing the required content, some are incomplete and require correction. Three loading conditions are required; gross weight, most forward CG, most aft CG. ( for your own information, at gross weight burn off the fuel and see what happens to the CG) End this document with " I certify---- etc." date and sign 2/ Log book entries Review the MD-RA sheet showing the log entries, DO NOT date and sign the MD-RA FORM. write the three statements in your log book and provide a xerox copy for your inspector. Hint; make all 3 entries on one page, it's easier to copy than when written across two pages. 3/ Data Plate Fill out the MD-RA form, content; name of builder, aircraft model, serial number. A 2" x 4" stainless plate is available from Demel Aircraft. 4/ Application for C of A The mistakes in this form are the main reason for delays in issuing the Flight Authority, follow the math on my procedure and it will be a lot easier. Some submissions are painted with so much whiteout they are illegible, they will be sent back. Fill it out in imperial or metric measurement, not both. Please supply me with the dimensions of ; wing- span and chord, flap- span and chord. I check all the math on this form. On the top right corner there is a question " was the design modified yes or no". If you increase the designers recommended gross weight, answer yes and provide me with a letter including the following; aircraft type, model and serial number with a statement similar to " The recommended gross weight for this aircraft is_____lbs. , I request ______lbs. and I accept the responsibility. Date and sign. Three copies of the application form are required with original signatures of the builder and the inspector who performed your final inspection. 5/ Certificate of Registration You should have the C of R before the final inspection; apply for the final from MD-RA (well ahead of time ), apply to Transport Canada for your C of R. When you have the C of R and the paperwork from MD-RA completed, phone the inspector and arrange the inspection. A few final thoughts. Be sure the aircraft is ready for the final inspection, it should be completed and ready to fly, the engine should run properly, brakes and instruments function properly. The cowlings and inspection covers should be off. Pay attention to the placards, instrument limits and gas gauge calibration. If you have any questions about the inspection procedure and can't find an answer in Chapter 549 or the Builders Manual, contact me, preferably by email. I will respond or forward your question. Terry Elgood -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030620/be50d7fa/attachment.htm From grizzlybear at klondiker.com Fri Jun 20 18:55:45 2003 From: grizzlybear at klondiker.com (Jacob & Grace) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Help with the Inspection References: <000a01c3378c$9f6ee560$82cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: <00d801c33798$3af901e0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> Yes there are lots of people who deserve credit for their efforts. Sorry Terry, I don't want to get wound up about training! I don't have "Gary Wolf's response..." and I was simply asking an honest question, I don't know anything about tapes or CD's or 2 day courses. I have all the other stuff you describe and use it, I agree with your statements fully. ----- Original Message ----- From: T&M Elgood To: wing@vansairforce.org Cc: Gerry Haliburton Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:31 PM Subject: [Wing] Help with the Inspection Over the past several years I have performed many inspections on Amateur Built Aircraft at all stages of construction, plus as MD-RA regional chief inspector I have reviewed the final inspection paperwork for all MD-RA inspections in BC. With this experience I have a few suggestions to help you through the inspection process. The main area of concern on this forum seems to be with the issuing of paperwork for inspections. If this is a concern for you, deal with it by allowing sufficient time for Gerry Haliburton at MD-RA headquarters to issue your inspection paperwork, don't leave it to the last moment. I have passed on various forum submissions to Allan Mahon and Gerry Haliburton so that they see the reaction some people have to MD-RA. I have also passed on compliments to the appropriate inspectors in BC. Various comments against MD-RA are followed with "I hope they don't hold this against me". I think you will find that MD-RA will deal with your inspection in a professional and reasonable manner. Before you forum guys get all wound up about training requirements on CD or tape, read Gary Wolf's response and keep in mind it is a Transport Canada requirement for classroom training. You cannot exchange ideas and solutions to problems by watching a recorded training session. The two day training sessions we all attend are very interesting and educational with input from T. C. and MD-RA. Do yourself a favour, when it is updated, get the RAA Builders Manual. It will guide you through the inspection process, also included is Chapter 549 and amendments. The section on how to fill out the Application for C of A could use some improvement, have a look at www.vansairforce.org look for Procedure for completing the application for c of a, you will find it much easier. (Tedd, is there a direct route to this) Another book you should have is AC 43.13 Acceptable Methods, Techniques and Practices. Your aircraft project requires inspection at specific stages during the course of construction, it is your responsibility to ensure this is done. After the final inspection there are often delays in issuing the Flight Authority due to problems with the paperwork submitted by builders, for example; 1/ Weight and Balance Review the MD-RA sheet showing the required content, some are incomplete and require correction. Three loading conditions are required; gross weight, most forward CG, most aft CG. ( for your own information, at gross weight burn off the fuel and see what happens to the CG) End this document with " I certify---- etc." date and sign 2/ Log book entries Review the MD-RA sheet showing the log entries, DO NOT date and sign the MD-RA FORM. write the three statements in your log book and provide a xerox copy for your inspector. Hint; make all 3 entries on one page, it's easier to copy than when written across two pages. 3/ Data Plate Fill out the MD-RA form, content; name of builder, aircraft model, serial number. A 2" x 4" stainless plate is available from Demel Aircraft. 4/ Application for C of A The mistakes in this form are the main reason for delays in issuing the Flight Authority, follow the math on my procedure and it will be a lot easier. Some submissions are painted with so much whiteout they are illegible, they will be sent back. Fill it out in imperial or metric measurement, not both. Please supply me with the dimensions of ; wing- span and chord, flap- span and chord. I check all the math on this form. On the top right corner there is a question " was the design modified yes or no". If you increase the designers recommended gross weight, answer yes and provide me with a letter including the following; aircraft type, model and serial number with a statement similar to " The recommended gross weight for this aircraft is_____lbs. , I request ______lbs. and I accept the responsibility. Date and sign. Three copies of the application form are required with original signatures of the builder and the inspector who performed your final inspection. 5/ Certificate of Registration You should have the C of R before the final inspection; apply for the final from MD-RA (well ahead of time ), apply to Transport Canada for your C of R. When you have the C of R and the paperwork from MD-RA completed, phone the inspector and arrange the inspection. A few final thoughts. Be sure the aircraft is ready for the final inspection, it should be completed and ready to fly, the engine should run properly, brakes and instruments function properly. The cowlings and inspection covers should be off. Pay attention to the placards, instrument limits and gas gauge calibration. If you have any questions about the inspection procedure and can't find an answer in Chapter 549 or the Builders Manual, contact me, preferably by email. I will respond or forward your question. Terry Elgood -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030620/0d1f7b12/attachment.htm From haywire at telus.net Fri Jun 20 20:36:52 2003 From: haywire at telus.net (Haywire) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Help with the Inspection In-Reply-To: <000a01c3378c$9f6ee560$82cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: I keep reading about lower fees than posted on the MD-RA site so I just visited it and cut & pasted the current fee schedule below. It lost it's format in the conversion from Adobe to plain text, but I'm sure most of you can figure it out. If not you probably shouldn't be building airplanes ;-). In a few moments I'm going to apply for my final so I will soon be able to tell you if it cost $642 as posted on the site, or $513.60 as recently reported. S. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RV-9endurance C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass". Inspection Services FEE SCHEDULE * Effective 01 Apr 02 Fee GST Total Information Package $12.50 $0.87 $13.37 Letter of Intent $35.00 $2.45 $37.45 51% Determination $185.00 $12.95 $197.95 Sub-Assembly $185.00 $12.95 $197.95 Pre-Cover / Pre-Paint $240.00 $16.80 $256.80 Final (Includes $250.00 for C of A) $600.00 $42.00 $642.00 Supplementary (Re-Visit) for any inspection $130.00 $9.10 $139.10 All fees are collected by MD-RA Inspection Services. We accept VISA, MasterCard, or Postal Money Orders. Personal Cheques are discouraged, due to handling costs. *Fees for travel are payable directly to the inspector at the rate of $00.35 per Kilometer traveled. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/03 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030620/3066ad17/attachment.htm From tedd at vansairforce.org Sat Jun 21 08:13:47 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:26 2005 Subject: [Wing] Help with the Inspection In-Reply-To: <000a01c3378c$9f6ee560$82cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: <20030621081147.P57881-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, T&M Elgood wrote: > The section on how to fill out the Application for C of A could use some > improvement, have a look at www.vansairforce.org look for Procedure for > completing the application for c of a, you will find it much easier. (Tedd, > is there a direct route to this) Terry: There is a link to that document on the site index, but here's a link directly to it. http://www.vansairforce.org/POH/CofA.html Tedd McHenry Vans Air Force Western Canada Wing www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Thu Jul 3 12:35:26 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] Delta Fly-in this Saturday (July 5) Message-ID: <20030703122131.T49059-101000@strongbad.retrix.com> The Delta Heritage Air Park (CAK3) fly-in is this Saturday, July 5. Delta pilots have been very supportive of our RV fly-in at Langley, and I'd like to see the Western Canada Wing reciprocate with a good turnout of RVs for their fly-in. Details are in the attached PDF file. You can also check their web page at http://www3.telus.net/airpark/ --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FlyInPoster1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 444340 bytes Desc: Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030703/9c9cc3aa/FlyInPoster1.pdf From tedd at vansairforce.org Thu Jul 3 13:01:15 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson Fly-in September 7 Message-ID: <20030703124853.A51928-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Nelson airport is hosting a fly-in on September 7. This is in support of the airport which, as you may already know, is at some risk of being closed. I'd like to see a good turnout of Wing members for this fly-in, to show our support for Nelson. It's a terrific airport and, like Banff, represents an important link in the chain of alternate landing spots for the many aircraft operating in that area. I'm not aware of any web page specifically for the fly-in, but I'm told you can get more information by writing to John Dale, jrdale@flynorth.com. If you're within a reasonable flying distance of Nelson, I encourage you to organize a group from your area to go. Anyone interested in going as a group from the Vancouver and Fraser Valley area can contact me directly. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Thu Jul 3 19:23:44 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson Fly-in September 7 References: <20030703124853.A51928-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <006b01c341d3$4afceb20$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Count me in, Boss. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: "Western Canada Wing List" ; Cc: "Mike Freund" ; Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:01 PM Subject: [Wing] Nelson Fly-in September 7 > Nelson airport is hosting a fly-in on September 7. This is in support of the > airport which, as you may already know, is at some risk of being closed. I'd > like to see a good turnout of Wing members for this fly-in, to show our support > for Nelson. It's a terrific airport and, like Banff, represents an important > link in the chain of alternate landing spots for the many aircraft operating in > that area. > > I'm not aware of any web page specifically for the fly-in, but I'm told you can > get more information by writing to John Dale, jrdale@flynorth.com. > > If you're within a reasonable flying distance of Nelson, I encourage you to > organize a group from your area to go. Anyone interested in going as a group > from the Vancouver and Fraser Valley area can contact me directly. > > --- > > Tedd McHenry > Van's Air Force > Western Canada Wing > tedd@vansairforce.org > www.vansairforce.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From tedd at vansairforce.org Thu Jul 3 23:00:19 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: Nelson Fly-in September 7 In-Reply-To: <20030703124853.A51928-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <20030703225841.S62905-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Correction: the Nelson fly-in is September 6 and 7, not just September 7. They have discount rates at local hotels, and camping on the field, in case you plan to stay overnight. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From mifreund at netidea.com Mon Jul 7 08:29:03 2003 From: mifreund at netidea.com (Micheal Freund) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] nelson Message-ID: <003601c3449c$80b5f060$8a7ba8c0@MichealFreund> Hi to all, My name is Mike Freund in Nelson.I have been a member of VOF for the past three years since moving here from the Toronto area to retire.I brought with me my RV6A project which was started jan 98.The empenage,wings and bottom of the fuselage were completed at the time of my move and the project is now nearing completion.I met Homer Rogers on this web site he became mentor and friend,without his vast knowledge and help this project would not be this far advanced.My engine is an IO360 200hp 0 timed out of a Mooney and an IFR panel includes a Micro Syst VM1000 Garmin GNS430 Nav aids auto pilot.I also included many of Homer rogers modifications. With this introduction,I would also like to invite as many of you as can make it to come to Nelson's Fly-in Sep 6th-7th.We should like to organize an (RV) fly by.I would be happy to hear from all you RV pilots who tentatively intend to come and any of you who would be interested in joining the fly by "positively no airobatics or high speed manouvers". Mike Freund -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030707/230c0c31/attachment.htm From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Sun Jul 20 09:17:20 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] insurance Message-ID: Good morning, I am looking into getting insurance for my project during the building time in my garage. Can anybody point me in the right direction. Does most everybody have insurance during the building time and if so which insurance and how much do they charge. Thanks for any reply Franz RV7 fuselage Franz Fux E: franz@lastfrontierheli.com Web: www.lastfrontierheli.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 1676 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030720/9a911d22/winmail.bin From dvoth at shaw.ca Sun Jul 20 09:21:12 2003 From: dvoth at shaw.ca (Dennis Voth) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] insurance References: Message-ID: <001d01c34eda$ef4c54e0$ab709344@warsteiner> We do not have insurance beyond regular homeowners insurance. RV 7A builders in Calgary, Dennis Voth Bruce Blight Mel Field ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Fux" To: Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 10:17 AM Subject: [Wing] insurance > > Good morning, > I am looking into getting insurance for my project during the building time > in my garage. Can anybody point me in the right direction. Does most > everybody have insurance during the building time and if so which insurance > and how much do they charge. Thanks for any reply > Franz > RV7 fuselage > > > Franz Fux > > E: franz@lastfrontierheli.com > Web: www.lastfrontierheli.com > > > From haywire at telus.net Sun Jul 20 11:17:51 2003 From: haywire at telus.net (Haywire) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] insurance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Frank; During most of construction I was covered by Avemco, but they have recently pulled out of Canadian aviation insurance, so I went without insurance for the last few months. As I just moved it out to the airport, I bought insurance from Marsh, through COPA. I noticed that they also provide construction insurance at cheaper rates than Avemco was charging. Beware that most home policies specifically exclude aircraft and aircraft parts. If you are not already a COPA member, you must join to be eligible, but you will easily get this back on the savings of insurance. S. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RV-9Endurance C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass". > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org > [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 9:17 AM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: [Wing] insurance > > > Good morning, > I am looking into getting insurance for my project during the building > time in my garage. Can anybody point me in the right direction. Does most > everybody have insurance during the building time and if so which > insurance and how much do they charge. Thanks for any reply > Franz > RV7 fuselage > > > Franz Fux > > E: franz@lastfrontierheli.com > Web: www.lastfrontierheli.com > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2652 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030720/edbb1ee6/winmail.bin From tedd at vansairforce.org Sun Jul 20 12:33:58 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] insurance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030720123231.K8103-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Franz: My home insurance is through BCAA, and I had them add extra to my contents insurance to cover the project. They said that they considered it "contents" the same as furniture or anything else that might normally be in my house. Tedd From rv7 at b4.ca Sun Jul 20 16:00:40 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] insurance In-Reply-To: <20030720123231.K8103-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> References: <20030720123231.K8103-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <3F1B1F18.1040701@b4.ca> I'll have to look into BCAA's policy for my own project, I didn't know they would cover it. I know that there are a few insurers who will decline to insure the project, despite the fact that it's really only "contents" of your house. I believe one of the Recreational Aircraft Association of Canada's insurance policies is a builder's insurance policy. Visit the RAAC website at www.raa.ca, there is an Insurance link in the left column. You can also contact the RAAC at 1-800-387-1028 and ask about the insurance policies. Rob Prior Regional Director, BC Mainland, RAAC Tedd McHenry wrote: > Franz: > > My home insurance is through BCAA, and I had them add extra to my contents > insurance to cover the project. They said that they considered it "contents" > the same as furniture or anything else that might normally be in my house. > > Tedd From mifreund at netidea.com Tue Jul 22 11:49:26 2003 From: mifreund at netidea.com (Micheal Freund) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] insurance References: Message-ID: <001901c35082$0021ede0$8a7ba8c0@MichealFreund> I am building an RV6A in my garage I got buiders insurance from COPA when the value of the project exceeded a number I did not want to risk anymore.The cost of insurance is based on the declared value of the project. Regards Mike Freund ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Fux" To: Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 9:17 AM Subject: [Wing] insurance > > Good morning, > I am looking into getting insurance for my project during the building time > in my garage. Can anybody point me in the right direction. Does most > everybody have insurance during the building time and if so which insurance > and how much do they charge. Thanks for any reply > Franz > RV7 fuselage > > > Franz Fux > > E: franz@lastfrontierheli.com > Web: www.lastfrontierheli.com > > > From wayne at pedersentransport.com Tue Jul 22 12:17:25 2003 From: wayne at pedersentransport.com (Wayne Pedersen) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] re:insurance Message-ID: When I came back from Van's with my empennage kit in Nov '01, I contacted my broker and asked if I could increase my contents insurance with Alliance of Canada as my kit progressed. "we'll get back to you" and in 2 months they got back to me with the answer "NO" So I contacted Park Insurance in Vancvr and got them to insure the kit as a kit in progress. In the mean time Alliance of Canada started getting real excited that I was building a plane in my garage. I explained that I was not welding, painting or using composite materials and aluminum and rivets pose no danger. "we'll get back to you" And sure enough they did - in the form of a registered letter revoking my household insurance and terminating the contract within 15 days. I could nothing about it except wonder at the stupidity of someone in an ivory office who makes decisions based on the brains in certain parts of the anatomy that is used to sit on. Anyway, I had a tough time getting household insurance (without the plane being covered) because every company would ask if I had ever been refused insurance and of course being the honest sort I answered yes and tried to explain..... Anyway on the 14th day with 24 hours to go I was finally able to get my house covered. Heres the good part..... a few weeks after this I received my legal paper work from Park insurance for the work in progress. The underwriter was Alliance of Canada - The same $%#@ guys that had just pulled my house insurance for building a plane in my detached garage !!!!! I am glad that I have this cleared up and wonder what would have happened if I had not been up front about building a plane and had run into troubles i.e. house burnt down - would they have covered me ?? Long frustrating story with a happy ending. Wayne Pedersen RV7a Fuse Claresholm, AB. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/03 From tedd at vansairforce.org Fri Aug 1 20:06:32 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:27 2005 Subject: [Wing] Classified Ads Message-ID: <20030801200423.L84442-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Because of spammers, I've had to remove the feature on the Wing web site that allows you to automatically post your own ads. If you want to post an ad to the classifieds section, please send it by email to classifieds@vansairforce.org. Sorry for the loss of this service. I will try to find a way to restore it. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Mon Aug 4 10:06:34 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] First Canadian RV-7 for Sale! Message-ID: <20030804100406.F54948-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Wing Members: Brian Truitt's award-winning RV-7 is for sale. This is the airplane that won the People's Choice award at the Langley RV Fly-in in June. You can see photos of it at http://www.vansairforce.org/airplanes/C-GZXM/ Brian's description follows. Tedd McHenry --- RV-7 Serial #70195, Tip Up Canopy, C-GZXM, 65 hours TTSN New Aerosport O-360 A2A. Sensenich 72FM8 S9-1-85 metal prop. Slick mags with impulse couplings on both mags. Vetterman stainless exhaust. Lightweight starter, 35 amp lightweight internally regulated alternator. All wiring aircraft quality and wire marked. All electrical and avionics have common point grounding. Whelen wing tip strobe and position lights. Landing & Pulse lights in each wing. Panel and interior lights with electronic dimmer. Vans VFR flight and engine instruments, Precision vertical compass, G meter. Garmin 196 GPS mounted in panel and coupled to Smart Coupler in Navaid Autopilot, Microair MA760 Com, Microair T2000 Transponder, TCI Encoder, Sigtronics intercom, Artex ELT200 with remote control. Wired for Cell phone or second Com. Panel with glove box powder coated in flat black with fine texture. Pilot stick grip with PTT, com frequency toggle, transponder ident & autopilot interrupt. Mountain High 22 cu ft Oxygen system mounted in baggage area. Nonin FlightStat Pulse Oximeter. Seat foams from Vans and professionally upholstered, arm rests, storage pockets, baggage area cover and exterior cabin cover. Manual aileron trim kit, Rocket steering arm, RV-9 rudder mounted and RV-7 rudder completed but not painted. Tinted tilt up canopy. Metal work and paint is superb. While searching for a bad rivet gaze at the paint, base coat clear coat in indigo blue metallic with simple silver and red speed lines. Very sharp, a "Peoples Choice For Best RV" award. 89,900 USD. Call or e:mail for details or pictures. Brian W. Truitt 1825 Brant Place Courtenay B.C. V9N 8Y8 (250)-897-0260 b-l-t@shaw.ca From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Aug 5 12:21:37 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Eastern Ontario RV BBQ Message-ID: <20030805121659.T5006-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> The eastern Ontario RV BBQ will be August 23 at the Smith's Falls airport. A bit of a haul for most of us on this list, but some might want to attend. I don't have any contact information for the event, but you might try abarstad@sympatico.com (Are Barstad). Tedd McHenry From mifreund at netidea.com Sat Aug 9 07:08:45 2003 From: mifreund at netidea.com (Micheal Freund) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson Flightfest Message-ID: <001601c35e7f$c5f485e0$8a7ba8c0@MichealFreund> A reminder about Nelson Flightfest Weekend SEPT 6th&7th. We would very much like to see some RV's.If anyone is planning on attending either or both days Please advise this writer.I would also like to organize an RV fly -past if possible. Mike Freund -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030809/099031b1/attachment.htm From Bob_Cutting at toyota.ca Sat Aug 9 10:46:04 2003 From: Bob_Cutting at toyota.ca (Bob_Cutting@toyota.ca) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Bob Cutting/TCI is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 08/08/2003 and will not return until 09/02/2003. Please contact Wayne Christie if further assistance is required From tedd at vansairforce.org Sat Aug 9 15:35:20 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson Flightfest In-Reply-To: <001601c35e7f$c5f485e0$8a7ba8c0@MichealFreund> Message-ID: <20030809153037.C8163-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Mike: We're making good progress on our training for the "Fraser Valley Sqn" four-plane RV fly-by. There are also a few other RVs from the Fraser Valley interested in going. Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Micheal Freund wrote: > A reminder about Nelson Flightfest Weekend SEPT 6th&7th. We would very much like to see some RV's.If anyone is planning on attending either or both days Please advise this writer.I would also like to organize an RV fly -past if possible. > > Mike Freund From ve7fp at jetstream.net Sat Aug 9 16:54:43 2003 From: ve7fp at jetstream.net (Ken Hoshowski) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson Flightfest In-Reply-To: <20030809153037.C8163-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <000501c35ed1$9b5a7b80$49897240@cs> Tedd, What day are you going? Possibly some of the Kamloops/Okanagan RV'ers could join up with you in Penticton? I would like to go but only for the one day. Ken -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] On Behalf Of Tedd McHenry Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 3:35 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Nelson Flightfest Mike: We're making good progress on our training for the "Fraser Valley Sqn" four-plane RV fly-by. There are also a few other RVs from the Fraser Valley interested in going. Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Micheal Freund wrote: > A reminder about Nelson Flightfest Weekend SEPT 6th&7th. We would very much like to see some RV's.If anyone is planning on attending either or both days Please advise this writer.I would also like to organize an RV fly -past if possible. > > Mike Freund _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From haywire at telus.net Sat Aug 9 17:01:52 2003 From: haywire at telus.net (Haywire) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson Flightfest In-Reply-To: <20030809153037.C8163-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: Hi Guy's I'm really trying. Aircraft is ready for flight, and just straining at the reins, but bureaucracy is holding me up. It'd be touch and go to get the test hours flown off, but I hope to attend. S. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RV-9Endurance C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass". > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Tedd McHenry > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 3:35 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: Re: [Wing] Nelson Flightfest > > > Mike: > > We're making good progress on our training for the "Fraser Valley Sqn" > four-plane RV fly-by. There are also a few other RVs from the > Fraser Valley > interested in going. > > Tedd McHenry > Van's Air Force > Western Canada Wing > tedd@vansairforce.org > www.vansairforce.org > > On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Micheal Freund wrote: > > > A reminder about Nelson Flightfest Weekend SEPT 6th&7th. We > would very much like to see some RV's.If anyone is planning on > attending either or both days Please advise this writer.I would > also like to organize an RV fly -past if possible. > > > > Mike Freund > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From tedd at vansairforce.org Sat Aug 9 18:02:28 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson Flightfest In-Reply-To: <000501c35ed1$9b5a7b80$49897240@cs> Message-ID: <20030809175845.I39039-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> > What day are you going? Possibly some of the Kamloops/Okanagan RV'ers > could join up with you in Penticton? I would like to go but only for > the one day. > > Ken Ken: The plan at the moment is to fly up Saturday (6th) and return Sunday, if everyone involved can make both days. Tedd From mifreund at netidea.com Sun Aug 10 08:49:49 2003 From: mifreund at netidea.com (Micheal Freund) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson Flyfest Message-ID: <002301c35f57$08e49f20$8a7ba8c0@MichealFreund> Nelson Flyfwst Good show guys,now it looks like we're making progress for a good showing.We really need the support to show the city council and avoid the possible closure of the airport.It should be fun.I wish my bird was ready for this event but I'am a couple month shy of completing the project Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030810/8fbdc273/attachment.htm From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Sun Aug 10 11:18:31 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson Flightfest In-Reply-To: <000501c35ed1$9b5a7b80$49897240@cs> Message-ID: Subject: RE: [Wing] Nelson Flightfest Tedd, What day are you going? Possibly some of the Kamloops/Okanagan RV'ers could join up with you in Penticton? I would like to go but only for the one day. Ken Hi Ken What a wonderfully intriguing idea, the Okanagan (aka Okie) wing forms a defensive line and tries to intercept the Coasters on their way to Nelson, and if you get on their six they buy breakfast, also visa-versa! FYI I have been able to smuggle the following info out of the Coasters ops room. The Coasters are a very dis-organized bunch and are still waiting for their CO's (wives) to come up with operational plans, therefore some assumptions will have to be made by the Okie wing. #1 - that base ops provides good weather. #2 - breakfast is from 8-10 am Saturday and the Coasters are a lazy but hungry bunch so will probably plan a last minute, for breakfast, departure. #3 - if the Coasters were to departed Langley at 8 am Saturday they would be over Skaha Lake between 0854 and 0857 pdt, and into CZNL at 0935 (if not they are delayed or lost). #4 - the Coasters would probably be at 7500 feet but might have top cover at 9500 feet. #5 - the sun will rise in the East so the Oakie wing will have hotter aircraft. #6 - there is only a slim chance the Coasters will send a stealth Rocket ahead to reconnoiter. #7 - there will probably be radio chatter on 122.75. #8 - some of us need another project to keep us occupied! Will try and forward more info when and if it becomes available. George From mifreund at netidea.com Sat Aug 16 10:51:46 2003 From: mifreund at netidea.com (Micheal Freund) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson Message-ID: <000a01c3641f$16622380$8a7ba8c0@MichealFreund> Hi, At the Nelson Pilot's Ass upcoming meeting next wednesday aug 20th.I will be asked whether I can give any indication of the RV's that maybe attending the fly-in sept 6th and 7th.It would be extremely helpful if those planning to attend could let me know before then.I know of the four from the Fraser Valley but have no further indications. Thanks Mike Freund -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030816/bcd58e0e/attachment.htm From jjewell at telus.net Sat Aug 16 14:07:59 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson References: <000a01c3641f$16622380$8a7ba8c0@MichealFreund> Message-ID: <003d01c3643a$78fe0520$c5dcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> MY wife Chris and I will be there in that other kind of RV ... Old Blue, our camper. Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: Micheal Freund To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: [Wing] Nelson Hi, At the Nelson Pilot's Ass upcoming meeting next wednesday aug 20th.I will be asked whether I can give any indication of the RV's that maybe attending the fly-in sept 6th and 7th.It would be extremely helpful if those planning to attend could let me know before then.I know of the four from the Fraser Valley but have no further indications. Thanks Mike Freund -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030816/49c392fa/attachment.htm From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Sat Aug 16 15:04:43 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson In-Reply-To: <000a01c3641f$16622380$8a7ba8c0@MichealFreund> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Micheal Freund Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 10:52 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] Nelson Hi, At the Nelson Pilot's Ass upcoming meeting next wednesday aug 20th.I will be asked whether I can give any indication of the RV's that maybe attending the fly-in sept 6th and 7th.It would be extremely helpful if those planning to attend could let me know before then.I know of the four from the Fraser Valley but have no further indications. Thanks Mike Freund [George McNutt] Hi Mike Planning on coming in RV-6A C-GJTY weather permitting. Will arrive Saturday & overnight. George McNutt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030816/d03cc83a/attachment.htm From ve7fp at jetstream.net Sun Aug 17 21:32:16 2003 From: ve7fp at jetstream.net (Ken Hoshowski) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson In-Reply-To: <000a01c3641f$16622380$8a7ba8c0@MichealFreund> Message-ID: <000001c36541$b9249d50$8a897240@cs> Mike, If all goes well I expect to attend your flyin on the Saturday, not sure about staying over. I talked to 3 other RVer's at the Kamloops breakfast this morning and at least one wants to attend. Two of them were from Vernon and they are having their young eagles day on the 6th. so presents a problem for them. Note to George McNutt, I may intercept and attack from the sun so be warned, watch front and back or you buy lunch! Hope we don't have smoke on the 6th. like we had today. Thank goodness for GPS. Was trying to stay south of the Chase fire and it was darn near IFR from 5000 to 7500 feet. Ken -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] On Behalf Of Micheal Freund Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 10:52 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] Nelson Hi, At the Nelson Pilot's Ass upcoming meeting next wednesday aug 20th.I will be asked whether I can give any indication of the RV's that maybe attending the fly-in sept 6th and 7th.It would be extremely helpful if those planning to attend could let me know before then.I know of the four from the Fraser Valley but have no further indications. Thanks Mike Freund -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030817/e7445ce6/attachment.htm From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Sun Aug 17 22:05:36 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson References: <000001c36541$b9249d50$8a897240@cs> Message-ID: <008d01c36546$5e55c020$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Oh damn, if Ken's going, make sure my battered -6 is parked a loooong way away from his -4. Unless, of course, George and I manage to shoot him down on the way there.... Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Hoshowski To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 9:32 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] Nelson Mike, If all goes well I expect to attend your flyin on the Saturday, not sure about staying over. I talked to 3 other RVer's at the Kamloops breakfast this morning and at least one wants to attend. Two of them were from Vernon and they are having their young eagles day on the 6th. so presents a problem for them. Note to George McNutt, I may intercept and attack from the sun so be warned, watch front and back or you buy lunch! Hope we don't have smoke on the 6th. like we had today. Thank goodness for GPS. Was trying to stay south of the Chase fire and it was darn near IFR from 5000 to 7500 feet. Ken -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] On Behalf Of Micheal Freund Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 10:52 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] Nelson Hi, At the Nelson Pilot's Ass upcoming meeting next wednesday aug 20th.I will be asked whether I can give any indication of the RV's that maybe attending the fly-in sept 6th and 7th.It would be extremely helpful if those planning to attend could let me know before then.I know of the four from the Fraser Valley but have no further indications. Thanks Mike Freund -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030817/72ea2ae0/attachment.htm From tedd at vansairforce.org Sun Aug 17 23:08:07 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson In-Reply-To: <008d01c36546$5e55c020$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <20030817230710.H96841-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Jaye and Scott Jackson wrote: > Unless, of course, George and I manage to shoot him down on the way there.... You have the numerical advantage. Shall we start adding section tactics to our formation training? Tedd From ham at hammcc.com Mon Aug 18 19:13:07 2003 From: ham at hammcc.com (Hamilton McClymont) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson In-Reply-To: <000001c36541$b9249d50$8a897240@cs> Message-ID: I drove from Calgary to Vancouver today and barely saw the mountains. The Chase fire was billowing smoke that carried all the way to the prairies. Ten miles west of Chase, it cleared up, and the rest of the drive was marvellous. It was the clearest blue sky I'd seen since I left Arlington for Wisconsin June 10. We had lots of Mississippi moisture in the midwest during the past 5 weeks, and more than our share of thunderstorms. It's good to be home. Hammy -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Ken Hoshowski Sent: August 17, 2003 9:32 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: RE: [Wing] Nelson Mike, If all goes well I expect to attend your flyin on the Saturday, not sure about staying over. I talked to 3 other RVer?s at the Kamloops breakfast this morning and at least one wants to attend. Two of them were from Vernon and they are having their young eagles day on the 6th. so presents a problem for them. Note to George McNutt, I may intercept and attack from the sun so be warned, watch front and back or you buy lunch! Hope we don?t have smoke on the 6th. like we had today. Thank goodness for GPS. Was trying to stay south of the Chase fire and it was darn near IFR from 5000 to 7500 feet. Ken -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] On Behalf Of Micheal Freund Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 10:52 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] Nelson Hi, At the Nelson Pilot's Ass upcoming meeting next wednesday aug 20th.I will be asked whether I can give any indication of the RV's that maybe attending the fly-in sept 6th and 7th.It would be extremely helpful if those planning to attend could let me know before then.I know of the four from the Fraser Valley but have no further indications. Thanks Mike Freund -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030818/3d27d120/attachment.htm From tedd at vansairforce.org Wed Aug 20 08:59:25 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Reminder - Eastern Ontario RV BBQ (fwd) Message-ID: <20030820085808.Y38422-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Here's a message from the Ontario RVators group about the Eastern Ontario RV BBQ. Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 20 Aug 2003 15:03:26 -0000 From: ontariorvators@yahoogroups.com To: ontariorvators@yahoogroups.com Subject: [ontariorvators] Reminder - Eastern Ontario RV BBQ We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Eastern Ontario RV BBQ Date: Saturday, August 23, 2003 Time: 11:00AM - 3:00PM EDT (GMT-04:00) RV BBQ at CYSH at the Lamport hangar. From ham at hammcc.com Wed Aug 20 09:21:05 2003 From: ham at hammcc.com (Hamilton McClymont) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV4 passenger Message-ID: Airplane to airplane W&B variations notwithstanding, what is the height limit for an RV4 back seat passenger in terms of his/her comfort for cross country flying? Hammy cell 604-728-2422 www.hammcc.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030820/0d006286/attachment.htm From rv7 at b4.ca Wed Aug 20 09:28:47 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV4 passenger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F43A1BF.2000501@b4.ca> If personal testimonials are acceptable, i'm 6' tall and was comfortable in the back of an RV-4 for a flight of over an hour, maybe 1.5 hours... And I could have gone longer. My recollection is that my head had about 1/2" clearance to the canopy, and that the bottom seat cushion was the standard 1.5" to 2" thick flat type. I get the impression from the RV-List that this clearance may be variable based on how people choose to cut their canopy... Not sure if the RV I was in was cut large or small (C-FJOJ). -Rob Hamilton McClymont wrote: > Airplane to airplane W&B variations notwithstanding, what is the height > limit for an RV4 back seat passenger in terms of his/her comfort for > cross country flying? > > Hammy > > cell 604-728-2422 > www.hammcc.com > > From rdkennett at shaw.ca Wed Aug 20 10:12:30 2003 From: rdkennett at shaw.ca (rdkennett@shaw.ca) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Nelson Message-ID: <3df7df3e290e.3e290e3df7df@shaw.ca> I hope to make it for one of the days. Rob Kennett RV-6A ----- Original Message ----- From: George McNutt Date: Saturday, August 16, 2003 3:04 pm Subject: RE: [Wing] Nelson > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Micheal Freund > Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 10:52 AM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: [Wing] Nelson > > > Hi, > At the Nelson Pilot's Ass upcoming meeting next wednesday > aug 20th.I > will be asked whether I can give any indication of the RV's that maybe > attending the fly-in sept 6th and 7th.It would be extremely > helpful if > those planning to attend could let me know before then.I know of > the four > from the Fraser Valley but have no further indications. > Thanks > Mike Freund > > [George McNutt] > > Hi Mike > > Planning on coming in RV-6A C-GJTY weather permitting. Will arrive > Saturday & overnight. > > George McNutt > From rembree at sympatico.ca Wed Aug 20 12:34:00 2003 From: rembree at sympatico.ca (Roger Embree) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV4 passenger References: Message-ID: <3F43CD28.9070608@sympatico.ca> I carried a 6' 2" passenger for a short cross country flight but would have to say that it is not the right plane for someone that big. We took the seat cushion out and he sat on a pillow. Headroom did not seem to be a problem. In my 4 I have rudder pedals for the rear and they limit how far you can stretch your legs out. There was a conflict with the canopy brace and his knees as we slowly closed the canopy. With me at 225 lbs and the passenger at 185 I was limited to one tank of gas. That would make for some short cross country legs. Roger Embree Alliston, Ontario Hamilton McClymont wrote: > Airplane to airplane W&B variations notwithstanding, what is the > height limit for an RV4 back seat passenger in terms of his/her > comfort for cross country flying? > > Hammy > > cell 604-728-2422 > www.hammcc.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030820/6560909f/attachment.htm From tedd at vansairforce.org Wed Aug 20 13:35:57 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV4 passenger In-Reply-To: <3F43CD28.9070608@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <20030820132741.A22489-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Hammy: The question of back-seat comfort in an RV-4 is pretty subjective. Someone who's happy, or even keen, to be riding there in the first place will happily put up with the close quarters, and for longer, than someone who's not so keen on the idea to begin with. Susan, who's not large (5'4"), had some interesting comments on riding in the back of an RV-4 as compared to the front of an RV-6. She said that the difference in physical comfort was not large, but she greatly prefers the -6 for other reasons. Mainly, she feels much more a PAX--less part of the action--in the back seat. She also feels more at ease and more able to communicate with me when the seating is side-by-side. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC From ve7fp at jetstream.net Wed Aug 20 19:34:05 2003 From: ve7fp at jetstream.net (Ken Hoshowski) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV4 passenger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c3678f$4e0cc5b0$4c897240@cs> It's not the height so much as the weight that is the issue. I am 6 feet tall (215 lbs) and fit into the back seat of an RV4 (180 hp with constant speed) but the trim was set to the forward limit of its travel. Not a good situation in an engine out. Weight and balance is the issue here! Ken -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] On Behalf Of Hamilton McClymont Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:21 AM To: Van's Air Force - Western Canada Wing Subject: [Wing] RV4 passenger Airplane to airplane W&B variations notwithstanding, what is the height limit for an RV4 back seat passenger in terms of his/her comfort for cross country flying? Hammy cell 604-728-2422 www.hammcc.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030820/1eb02fd1/attachment.htm From b.m.carr at telus.net Sat Aug 23 17:36:27 2003 From: b.m.carr at telus.net (bryan carr) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV4 passenger References: Message-ID: <00bc01c369d7$c386eab0$32c734d1@S0025031703> Hi Hammy Both the RV-8 and the Rocket are more comfortable than the -4,especially with the foot wells that Bryan puts in. My preference is the Rocket. Marge ----- Original Message ----- From: Hamilton McClymont To: Van's Air Force - Western Canada Wing Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:21 AM Subject: [Wing] RV4 passenger Airplane to airplane W&B variations notwithstanding, what is the height limit for an RV4 back seat passenger in terms of his/her comfort for cross country flying? Hammy cell 604-728-2422 www.hammcc.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030823/7b149d53/attachment.htm From acwrench at yahoo.ca Mon Aug 25 12:13:51 2003 From: acwrench at yahoo.ca (pat morency) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] 6'2" Message-ID: <20030825191351.10448.qmail@web11903.mail.yahoo.com> Are there any tall persons out there that have modified their RV-6 to fit them and if so how did you do it! I was in the back seat of an RV-4 a few years ago and the ride was a love hate thing because of my 6'2" size. Thanks, Pat in Calgary ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca From tedd at vansairforce.org Mon Aug 25 12:29:16 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] 6'2" In-Reply-To: <20030825191351.10448.qmail@web11903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030825122833.T3535-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, pat morency wrote: > Are there any tall persons out there that have > modified their RV-6 to fit them and if so how did you > do it! I was in the back seat of an RV-4 a few years > ago and the ride was a love hate thing because of my > 6'2" size. Pat: Build really slowly, so that you will have shrunk significantly by the time you're finished. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC From jjewell at telus.net Mon Aug 25 16:12:41 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] 6'2" References: <20030825191351.10448.qmail@web11903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005501c36b5e$62777680$c5dcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Hi Pat, I don't think there is an official procedure to accommodate the long people in the RV-4 series unless of course you take into account the RV-8 There is however accepted mods for the RV-6 series. Call Van's and they will indicate how it is done. Here again the RV-7 and RV-9 were designed with longer and wider people in mind. Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: "pat morency" To: Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:13 PM Subject: [Wing] 6'2" > Are there any tall persons out there that have > modified their RV-6 to fit them and if so how did you > do it! I was in the back seat of an RV-4 a few years > ago and the ride was a love hate thing because of my > 6'2" size. > > Thanks, > Pat in Calgary > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From acwrench at yahoo.ca Mon Aug 25 16:24:10 2003 From: acwrench at yahoo.ca (pat morency) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] 6'2" In-Reply-To: <005501c36b5e$62777680$c5dcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: <20030825232410.96791.qmail@web11905.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Jim Will email Vans to see the options Regards, Pat in Calgary --- Jim Jewell wrote: > Hi Pat, > > I don't think there is an official procedure to > accommodate the long people > in the RV-4 series unless of course you take into > account the RV-8 > There is however accepted mods for the RV-6 series. > Call Van's and they will > indicate how it is done. Here again the RV-7 and > RV-9 were designed with > longer and wider people in mind. > > Jim in Kelowna > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "pat morency" > To: > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:13 PM > Subject: [Wing] 6'2" > > > > Are there any tall persons out there that have > > modified their RV-6 to fit them and if so how did > you > > do it! I was in the back seat of an RV-4 a few > years > > ago and the ride was a love hate thing because of > my > > 6'2" size. > > > > Thanks, > > Pat in Calgary > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > > _______________________________________________ > > Wing mailing list > > Wing@vansairforce.org > > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca From ve7fp at jetstream.net Mon Aug 25 19:25:41 2003 From: ve7fp at jetstream.net (Ken Hoshowski) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] 6'2" In-Reply-To: <20030825191351.10448.qmail@web11903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c36b79$5c6eb580$ba897240@cs> Pat, I checked my seat cushion thickness today (RV6) and it is 3 1/2 inches on the seat going to 4 1/2 on the edges, I am not sure how much compression there would be when I am sitting on it, but it is very firm foam that I ordered from an upholstery shop in Vancouver and before the days of Oregon Aero. I am 6 feet tall and 215 lbs and have about 2 inches of head room. Eustace Bowhay is 6 foot 3 inches and has flown my airplane with no problems. Now with Oregon Aero foam available you could certainly reduce the seat thickness to give you more room and you could also if you are building, build your canopy a bit higher. My suggestion would be to find a handy RV6 and sit in it with some different thickness of cushion to see it works for you. Of course a lot depends on your build ie: long legs, short torso or short torso and long legs but I am sure you could make it work. Regards Ken Hoshowski RV6 Salmon Arm B.C. -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] On Behalf Of pat morency Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:14 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] 6'2" Are there any tall persons out there that have modified their RV-6 to fit them and if so how did you do it! I was in the back seat of an RV-4 a few years ago and the ride was a love hate thing because of my 6'2" size. Thanks, Pat in Calgary ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From mdeg at shaw.ca Tue Aug 26 20:40:54 2003 From: mdeg at shaw.ca (Marc Degirolamo) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] 6'2" References: <000001c36b79$5c6eb580$ba897240@cs> Message-ID: <001501c36c4d$05143d80$33994e18@ss.shawcable.net> Hello all......I'm not sure if this is relevant but I've had a 6'5" 235lber in my back seat (-4). I had to take the seat cushion (the comfortable one) out and he sat on a very skinny cushion. He did have head room but we taped (metal stuff) his headset up so it wouldn't scratch the glass. He says that he was comfy but I think it was the RV phenomenon (grin)......btw: I would not have any more weight than that in the back seat... Marc DeGirolamo RV-4 , 108 grinning hours ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Hoshowski" To: Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 8:25 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] 6'2" > Pat, > > I checked my seat cushion thickness today (RV6) and it is 3 1/2 inches > on the seat going to 4 1/2 on the edges, I am not sure how much > compression there would be when I am sitting on it, but it is very firm > foam that I ordered from an upholstery shop in Vancouver and before the > days of Oregon Aero. I am 6 feet tall and 215 lbs and have about 2 > inches of head room. Eustace Bowhay is 6 foot 3 inches and has flown my > airplane with no problems. Now with Oregon Aero foam available you > could certainly reduce the seat thickness to give you more room and you > could also if you are building, build your canopy a bit higher. My > suggestion would be to find a handy RV6 and sit in it with some > different thickness of cushion to see it works for you. Of course a lot > depends on your build ie: long legs, short torso or short torso and long > legs but I am sure you could make it work. > > Regards > > Ken Hoshowski > RV6 Salmon Arm B.C. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] > On Behalf Of pat morency > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:14 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: [Wing] 6'2" > > Are there any tall persons out there that have > modified their RV-6 to fit them and if so how did you > do it! I was in the back seat of an RV-4 a few years > ago and the ride was a love hate thing because of my > 6'2" size. > > Thanks, > Pat in Calgary > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From dvoth at shaw.ca Wed Aug 27 09:40:54 2003 From: dvoth at shaw.ca (Dennis Voth) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] 6'2" References: <000001c36b79$5c6eb580$ba897240@cs> Message-ID: <004e01c36cb9$fbaf11d0$ab709344@warsteiner> Who is this Oregon Aero company? Sounds like they do Van's upholstery? I am interested. Thanks. Dennis, RV 7A builder in Calgary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Hoshowski" To: Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 8:25 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] 6'2" > Pat, > > I checked my seat cushion thickness today (RV6) and it is 3 1/2 inches > on the seat going to 4 1/2 on the edges, I am not sure how much > compression there would be when I am sitting on it, but it is very firm > foam that I ordered from an upholstery shop in Vancouver and before the > days of Oregon Aero. I am 6 feet tall and 215 lbs and have about 2 > inches of head room. Eustace Bowhay is 6 foot 3 inches and has flown my > airplane with no problems. Now with Oregon Aero foam available you > could certainly reduce the seat thickness to give you more room and you > could also if you are building, build your canopy a bit higher. My > suggestion would be to find a handy RV6 and sit in it with some > different thickness of cushion to see it works for you. Of course a lot > depends on your build ie: long legs, short torso or short torso and long > legs but I am sure you could make it work. > > Regards > > Ken Hoshowski > RV6 Salmon Arm B.C. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] > On Behalf Of pat morency > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:14 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: [Wing] 6'2" > > Are there any tall persons out there that have > modified their RV-6 to fit them and if so how did you > do it! I was in the back seat of an RV-4 a few years > ago and the ride was a love hate thing because of my > 6'2" size. > > Thanks, > Pat in Calgary > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Wed Aug 27 10:24:55 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] 6'2" References: <000001c36b79$5c6eb580$ba897240@cs> <004e01c36cb9$fbaf11d0$ab709344@warsteiner> Message-ID: <015d01c36cc0$23ef1ea0$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> I think to make this thread more meaningful we should be including one's inseam measurement as well as their overall height; two people with the same height can have drastically different inseams, and that would mean that the trunk of their body is longer or shorter requiring different seat-cushion thicknesses. Or, to further labour the point, it would mean that, of two people with the same overall height, one would fit comfortably in the back seat of the -4 and another would hit their head on the canopy. I know whereof I speak..... Scott in Vancouver -6 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Voth" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9:40 AM Subject: Re: [Wing] 6'2" > Who is this Oregon Aero company? Sounds like they do Van's upholstery? I > am interested. Thanks. > Dennis, RV 7A builder in Calgary > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Hoshowski" > To: > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 8:25 PM > Subject: RE: [Wing] 6'2" > > > > Pat, > > > > I checked my seat cushion thickness today (RV6) and it is 3 1/2 inches > > on the seat going to 4 1/2 on the edges, I am not sure how much > > compression there would be when I am sitting on it, but it is very firm > > foam that I ordered from an upholstery shop in Vancouver and before the > > days of Oregon Aero. I am 6 feet tall and 215 lbs and have about 2 > > inches of head room. Eustace Bowhay is 6 foot 3 inches and has flown my > > airplane with no problems. Now with Oregon Aero foam available you > > could certainly reduce the seat thickness to give you more room and you > > could also if you are building, build your canopy a bit higher. My > > suggestion would be to find a handy RV6 and sit in it with some > > different thickness of cushion to see it works for you. Of course a lot > > depends on your build ie: long legs, short torso or short torso and long > > legs but I am sure you could make it work. > > > > Regards > > > > Ken Hoshowski > > RV6 Salmon Arm B.C. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] > > On Behalf Of pat morency > > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:14 PM > > To: wing@vansairforce.org > > Subject: [Wing] 6'2" > > > > Are there any tall persons out there that have > > modified their RV-6 to fit them and if so how did you > > do it! I was in the back seat of an RV-4 a few years > > ago and the ride was a love hate thing because of my > > 6'2" size. > > > > Thanks, > > Pat in Calgary > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > > _______________________________________________ > > Wing mailing list > > Wing@vansairforce.org > > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wing mailing list > > Wing@vansairforce.org > > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From ernest.kells at sympatico.ca Wed Aug 27 18:23:39 2003 From: ernest.kells at sympatico.ca (Ernest Kells) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: Wing digest, Vol 1 #232 - 3 msgs References: <20030827190005.50592.91523.Mailman@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <008c01c36d06$fb2a7180$08b3e2d1@hpcustomer> I wish to comment on two topics from this long thread. > > Who is this Oregon Aero company? Sounds like they do Van's upholstery? Thanks.< < This is a premium upholstery company. They are probably the best. RVs are strictly a side business. Their main business is military (fighter jets, etc.) plus the commercial stuff. They have a fabulous catalogue. Unbelievable! ! For the RV planes they sell a standard fitting seat core. I believe that it used to be $755US for the foam only - no fabric (each seat). BTW: Vans now carries foams (Conforfoam) for less than $200US - for both seats, and includes the instruction kit for making the covers. I can't wait to order. > > Are there any tall persons out there that have modified their RV-6 to fit them and if so how did you do it! I was in the back seat of an RV-4 a few years ago and the ride was a love hate thing because of my 6'2" size. Thanks, Pat in Calgary < < I am not tall - - but the RV-7x and RV-9x (and probably the RV-6x) are all probably VERY suitable for adjusting to suit a combination of tall...plus short...plus in between. This answer may not apply to tandem configurations. In my RV-9A I completed the two seats. Then WE "designed the seating " by simply sitting in the plane - after making a few airplane noises and contemplating our future life together. The side-by-sides are designed for three rows of piano hinge, where the bottom of the EACH seat can be placed forward (or back) to fit the legs of the occupant. Thus, you can adjust (ON THE GROUND) the seating for each occupant. My wife and I determined the comfortable position for US. This became the centre piano hinge. I put the other two rows of piano hinge for "a bit taller" and for "a bit shorter". We have tested this - works really well. In addittion, we fine-tuned the fit for the pedals - - plus operating the brakes. After getting a good fit - for both of us, I then created the splices out of 1/2" SS with our fit in mind - - ended up being slightly longer than the drawings (attaching the rudder cables to the pedals). BTW: the rudder cables were easy to establish since they are push/pull. If they fit in the centred position they will fit for both seats in all three seat positions. Happy building! Ernest Kells - RV-9A O235-N2C, Wood Prop 90% Complete - Fairings From kiwirv6 at telus.net Sun Oct 19 08:36:15 2003 From: kiwirv6 at telus.net (Barry Tunzelmann) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:28 2005 Subject: [Wing] First Flight Message-ID: <01C39626.5F5908E0.kiwirv6@telus.net> Just to let you know that my RV-6 C-GZAX defied the forces of gravity at Josephburg on Saturday 18th. Weather was perfect with visibility at unlimited and winds virtually zero. Test pilot James Jesperson took her up for 35 minutes then we stripped the cowls did some checks and revised the spinner clearance as the prop rubbed lightly, most likely on the runup prop cycle. No oil leaks. Then back together and I was at the controls with some dual checking from James. As this is a new engine we saw some better speeds on the second flight. At the moment I am running no gear leg fairings or wheel pants and am seeing 175mph IAS at 75% and have not verified the ASI with GPS. Overall it is exactly how I expected it and advice to the other buildes - don't give up, you will thouroughly enjoy the day you get there. Barry E Tunzelmann email: kiwirv6@telus.net From jjewell at telus.net Sun Oct 19 10:07:59 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:29 2005 Subject: [Wing] First Flight References: <01C39626.5F5908E0.kiwirv6@telus.net> Message-ID: <006501c39663$8c642d50$b3c7b742@speedy> Hi Barry, Great news, way to go there! Jim in Kelowna do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Tunzelmann" To: Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:36 AM Subject: [Wing] First Flight > Just to let you know that my RV-6 C-GZAX defied the forces of gravity at > Josephburg on Saturday 18th. Weather was perfect with visibility at > unlimited and winds virtually zero. Test pilot James Jesperson took her up > for 35 minutes then we stripped the cowls did some checks and revised the > spinner clearance as the prop rubbed lightly, most likely on the runup prop > cycle. No oil leaks. Then back together and I was at the controls with some > dual checking from James. As this is a new engine we saw some better speeds > on the second flight. At the moment I am running no gear leg fairings or > wheel pants and am seeing 175mph IAS at 75% and have not verified the ASI > with GPS. Overall it is exactly how I expected it and advice to the other > buildes - don't give up, you will thouroughly enjoy the day you get there. > > Barry E Tunzelmann > email: kiwirv6@telus.net > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From tedd at vansairforce.org Sun Oct 19 10:43:02 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:29 2005 Subject: [Wing] First Flight In-Reply-To: <01C39626.5F5908E0.kiwirv6@telus.net> Message-ID: <20031019104224.U74102-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Barry: Fantastic news, Barry. Great work! Send some photos for the Wing web site when you get a chance. Tedd --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From mdeg at shaw.ca Sun Oct 19 19:20:55 2003 From: mdeg at shaw.ca (Marc Degirolamo) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:29 2005 Subject: [Wing] First Flight References: <01C39626.5F5908E0.kiwirv6@telus.net> Message-ID: <000d01c396b0$caec4c40$33994e18@ss.shawcable.net> That's great Barry.......congratulations !! Marc DeGirolamo (Saskatoon) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Tunzelmann" To: Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 9:36 AM Subject: [Wing] First Flight > Just to let you know that my RV-6 C-GZAX defied the forces of gravity at > Josephburg on Saturday 18th. Weather was perfect with visibility at > unlimited and winds virtually zero. Test pilot James Jesperson took her up > for 35 minutes then we stripped the cowls did some checks and revised the > spinner clearance as the prop rubbed lightly, most likely on the runup prop > cycle. No oil leaks. Then back together and I was at the controls with some > dual checking from James. As this is a new engine we saw some better speeds > on the second flight. At the moment I am running no gear leg fairings or > wheel pants and am seeing 175mph IAS at 75% and have not verified the ASI > with GPS. Overall it is exactly how I expected it and advice to the other > buildes - don't give up, you will thouroughly enjoy the day you get there. > > Barry E Tunzelmann > email: kiwirv6@telus.net > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From fvalarm at rapidnet.net Sun Oct 19 21:20:49 2003 From: fvalarm at rapidnet.net (BTomm) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:29 2005 Subject: [Wing] First Flight Message-ID: <01C39686.E3491EF0.fvalarm@rapidnet.net> I'm as happy as I can be!! Which engine/prop combo are you using? Bevan RV7A Fuse > From thomwhar at digitalweb.net Wed Oct 22 11:49:25 2003 From: thomwhar at digitalweb.net (Tom Wharton) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:29 2005 Subject: [Wing] First Flight References: <01C39626.5F5908E0.kiwirv6@telus.net> <000d01c396b0$caec4c40$33994e18@ss.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <000101c39923$76c80170$97ee7bd8@m0h8n5> Congratulations Barry on a very nice machine. Hope to join you next year. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Degirolamo" To: Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [Wing] First Flight > That's great Barry.......congratulations !! > Marc DeGirolamo (Saskatoon) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Barry Tunzelmann" > To: > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 9:36 AM > Subject: [Wing] First Flight > > > > Just to let you know that my RV-6 C-GZAX defied the forces of gravity at > > Josephburg on Saturday 18th. Weather was perfect with visibility at > > unlimited and winds virtually zero. Test pilot James Jesperson took her up > > for 35 minutes then we stripped the cowls did some checks and revised the > > spinner clearance as the prop rubbed lightly, most likely on the runup > prop > > cycle. No oil leaks. Then back together and I was at the controls with > some > > dual checking from James. As this is a new engine we saw some better > speeds > > on the second flight. At the moment I am running no gear leg fairings or > > wheel pants and am seeing 175mph IAS at 75% and have not verified the ASI > > with GPS. Overall it is exactly how I expected it and advice to the other > > buildes - don't give up, you will thouroughly enjoy the day you get there. > > > > Barry E Tunzelmann > > email: kiwirv6@telus.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wing mailing list > > Wing@vansairforce.org > > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > From tedd at vansairforce.org Thu Oct 23 23:08:32 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:29 2005 Subject: [Wing] Slide Show on Web Page Message-ID: <20031023230658.X82056-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Wing Members: I've added a new feature to the Wing web page: a slide show of photos of member's airplanes. There's a link to it on the main page at http://www.vansairforce.org/ or you can link directly to it at http://www.vansairforce.org/slideshow.html --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From kiwi at sunwave.net Wed Dec 24 09:47:59 2003 From: kiwi at sunwave.net (Barry Tunzelmann) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:29 2005 Subject: [Wing] Merry Xmas Message-ID: <01C3CA03.04B9BD60.kiwi@sunwave.net> I would like to extend the very best of the season to you all and thank you for the help and support over the years to get my 6 flying. I was hoping to return from Edmonton to Salmon Arm in it yesterday but there was a narrow trough of bad weather that prevented that from happening. And I even flew 12.4 hours last Friday, Saturday and Sunday so that I could do the paperwork with TC on Monday. Merry Xmas and the best for 2004 to all of you. Barry & Cindy Tunzelmann Box 359 Canoe BC V0E 1K0 From ham at hammcc.com Mon Dec 29 09:48:49 2003 From: ham at hammcc.com (Hamilton McClymont) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:29 2005 Subject: [Wing] RE: Merry Xmas In-Reply-To: <01C3CA03.04B9BD60.kiwi@sunwave.net> Message-ID: Barry: Glad to read that you're flying! I'll be in Salmon Arm on a project at the end of January. Where will the plane be then? Best wishes for a healthy, happy and prosperous new year! Hammy -----Original Message----- From: wing-bounces@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-bounces@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Barry Tunzelmann Sent: December 24, 2003 9:48 AM To: 'wing@vansairforce.org' Subject: [Wing] Merry Xmas I would like to extend the very best of the season to you all and thank you for the help and support over the years to get my 6 flying. I was hoping to return from Edmonton to Salmon Arm in it yesterday but there was a narrow trough of bad weather that prevented that from happening. And I even flew 12.4 hours last Friday, Saturday and Sunday so that I could do the paperwork with TC on Monday. Merry Xmas and the best for 2004 to all of you. Barry & Cindy Tunzelmann Box 359 Canoe BC V0E 1K0 _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From dvoth at shaw.ca Sat Jan 4 18:55:04 2003 From: dvoth at shaw.ca (Dennis Voth) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:40 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-7 sliding canopy Message-ID: <001401c2b465$d920d7a0$ab709344@warsteiner> We are having trouble fitting the rear skirts onto our sliding canopy and are wondering whether anyone else has had this problem. I am not sure whether the 6 has this same curve in the canopy, but the nine likely would. So, for any 7 or 9 builders: HELP! The problem is in the fact that the canopy does a concave curve at the rear. This has created quite a "ducktail" just at the rivet line where we have to rivet the rear skirt through the plexiglass into the rear tube of the canopy frame. This "ducktail" wants to throw the skirt up into the air (how indecent!), rather than it sitting nice and flat, so as to make connection with the rear fuselage skin when closed. How do we get the skirt to come down to make this contact? We have thought of putting a spacer along the forward edge of the skirt, from the rivet line forward, in order to bring up the front edge of the skirt, and thus lower the rear edge. But this leaves a rather large lip. We did try sanding off some of that "ducktail", but to get it all the way off would leave the rear edge of the plexi quite thin. Would we run the risk of cracks developing from the rivet holes to the rear? Any suggestions welcome! Dennis Voth, Calgary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030104/72736029/attachment-0001.htm From Bob_Cutting at toyota.ca Mon Jan 6 08:43:56 2003 From: Bob_Cutting at toyota.ca (Bob_Cutting@toyota.ca) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:40 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-7 sliding canopy Message-ID: I had this problem on both my 6A and my recently completed 9A, tthe problem is you cannot form 2024T3 aliminium around a compound curve unless you use a metal roller or edge shrinker, I talked to the guys at Vans, they say the 3/16 gap just about everybody gets at the bottom rear corners, is "normal" . There is a solution ,however, and that is, to do as I did and make the skirt from glass cloth and epoxy. You mould it in place right onto the canopy and rear skin and the fit is pretty good..DONT use polyester or Vinylester resins, they will attack the acrylic of the canopy and destroy it. Bob Cutting C-FRVC From mdeg at shaw.ca Mon Jan 6 12:41:24 2003 From: mdeg at shaw.ca (Marc Degirolamo) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:40 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-7 sliding canopy References: <001401c2b465$d920d7a0$ab709344@warsteiner> Message-ID: <001b01c2b5c3$fb05b2a0$db874718@ss.shawcable.net> This is a problem area on all RV's as far as I know. The problem is the compound curve. the answer is that you will have to "shrink" the bottom edge to make it sit tight on the fuselage turtledeck. I made a skirt out of roof flashing (cheap stuff) and did what I needed to do to get it to sit tight on my -4. I then did the same to the real skirt. The advantage here is that if you mess it up just go and get another piece of cheap flashing and start again.......It can be done but does take a little....no, a lot of patience....or...I guess you could make it out of fi..fi..fiber...fiberglass, if you really want to stay away from metal forming..:-) happy building !! Marc DeGirolamo Rv-4, C-FRVE ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Voth To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 8:55 PM Subject: [Wing] RV-7 sliding canopy We are having trouble fitting the rear skirts onto our sliding canopy and are wondering whether anyone else has had this problem. I am not sure whether the 6 has this same curve in the canopy, but the nine likely would. So, for any 7 or 9 builders: HELP! The problem is in the fact that the canopy does a concave curve at the rear. This has created quite a "ducktail" just at the rivet line where we have to rivet the rear skirt through the plexiglass into the rear tube of the canopy frame. This "ducktail" wants to throw the skirt up into the air (how indecent!), rather than it sitting nice and flat, so as to make connection with the rear fuselage skin when closed. How do we get the skirt to come down to make this contact? We have thought of putting a spacer along the forward edge of the skirt, from the rivet line forward, in order to bring up the front edge of the skirt, and thus lower the rear edge. But this leaves a rather large lip. We did try sanding off some of that "ducktail", but to get it all the way off would leave the rear edge of the plexi quite thin. Would we run the risk of cracks developing from the rivet holes to the rear? Any suggestions welcome! Dennis Voth, Calgary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030106/70fd8f98/attachment-0001.htm From brjaques at pris.ca Mon Jan 13 14:37:24 2003 From: brjaques at pris.ca (Bruce Jaques) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:40 2005 Subject: [Wing] Gel cells References: Message-ID: <000901c2bb54$61e5eae0$14dcf4cc@brucejaques> The following is extracted from a letter from Brad Overhaulser of Pelican Aviation in Costa Mesa, Ca. "Gel cell batteries, for some reason, require higher charging voltage than "wet" batteries of the same rated voltage. Globe Union Gel-Cell Batteries specifies 14.6 volts plus or minus 0.2 volts. Since most automotive voltage regulators are set up for 13 to 13 1/2 volts, a regulator which is adjustable or pre-set at a higher level must be used. If not, the battery will weaken through under-charging. My Uap/Napa gel instructions state to adjust the regulator to 14.1 volts. Other useful information: always use a charger with a regulator because a cheap trickle charger will ruin a gel cell battery. I don't know how old the information is that I'm forwarding but it says adjustable regulators are available from Aircraft Spruce or Van's. Bruce Jaques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030113/bf5ce146/attachment-0001.htm From tedd at vansairforce.org Sun Feb 2 22:41:47 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:40 2005 Subject: [Wing] Jabiru 180 HP in Production Message-ID: <20030202221048.H58760-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Jabiru has announced that their 180 horsepower engine was released for production in January. There have been a few significant changes to the engine during the development phase. You can read more about it at http://www.jabiru.net.au/ I didn't see an announcement on the Candian distributor's web site, but if you wnt to contact them they're at http://www.jabirucanada.com/ Displacement is down from 6.0 litres to 5.1 litres. This was achieved by shortening the stroke. Reading between the lines, it appears that the rod:stroke ratio was a bit too small in the original design, which would give higher than ideal bearing loads. The horsepower is slightly down (presumably as a result of the lost displacement). It's now rated 180 HP @ 3,000 RPM and 170 HP @ 2,700 RPM. For what it's worth, I did some calculations on these numbers and came up with a few interesting results. For those concerned about wear, the shorter stroke of the Jabiru gives it a lower piston speed than a Lycoming, even at 3,000 RPM. The Jabiru at 3,000 RPM has a piston speed that is 15 percent lower than that of an O-360 at 2,700 RPM, and 4 percent lower than the O-320. However, the Jabiru does have a 5 percent higher BMEP (essentially equivalent to manifold pressure). One thing I noticed that's a bit odd is that the rating of 170 HP at 2,700 RPM requires a higher BMEP than the rating of 180 HP at 3,000 RPM. This suggests either that torque drops off significantly between 2,700 and 3,000 RPM, or that they're using different manifold pressures for the two ratings. Both explanations seem a bit odd, to me, and my calculations indicate that the power should be closer to 160 HP at 2,700 RPM, which would make sense for a 310 cubic-inch engine. The weight is up slightly, from a projected 231 pounds to 257 pounds. Nevertheless, for a complete engine with mags, carbs, exhaust, cooling ducts, and alternators, it's still very light. They are now developing a 50-amp alternator system, which they hope to release soon. This will be a dual 25-amp system, with both alternators directly on the crankshaft, so it should be very reliable. Jabiru is also working on installation kits for the RV-6, -7, and -9. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Sun Feb 2 22:55:13 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Jabiru 180 HP in Production In-Reply-To: <20030202221048.H58760-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <20030202225043.A63844-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> By the way, I've just noticed something interesting about the Jabiru engine I never noticed before. It has the camshaft mounted below the crankshaft, per Continental, but it doesn't have the Continental cross-flow heads (i.e. no intake manifold on the top). That seems to combine the best of both worlds--the Continental's superior camshaft lubrication but with air intake on the bottom like a Lycoming. I'm guessing they achieved this with angled rocker arms, which implies stud-mounted rockers instead of shaft-mounted. Anybody have any details on that? How is it done on the smaller Jabirus? If they have stud-mounted roller rockers they will have a very bulletproof top end. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Mon Feb 3 21:53:56 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing Message-ID: <20030203213542.T32144-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing has had steady membership growth since we went on the web three or four years ago. We're now up to 223 members in total, with 95 members on the Wing email list (this list). I'm pleased to see such great interest in RVs in western Canada, and I'm sure you are too. While the majority of our members are in western Canada, we have 45 members from outside that area (or whose location is unknown). Our furthest-afield members are in Oslo, Norway, Auckland, New Zeland, and Dublin, Ireland. We have members in every province from Quebec west, and a member in the Yukon, but none yet in Nunavut or the Nortwest Territories. Perhaps the best news of all is that, of those 223 members, 153 are either building or flying an RV or Rocket! That's a lot of RVs. You can see the full membership list at http://www.vansairforce.org/members/ You'll need your username and password to get in. Write to me if you've forgotten it. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Mon Feb 3 22:15:32 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing References: <20030203213542.T32144-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <009901c2cc14$d3061a80$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Where the hell is New Zeland? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: "Western Canada Wing List" Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:53 PM Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing > Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing has had steady membership growth since we > went on the web three or four years ago. We're now up to 223 members in total, > with 95 members on the Wing email list (this list). I'm pleased to see such > great interest in RVs in western Canada, and I'm sure you are too. > > While the majority of our members are in western Canada, we have 45 members > from outside that area (or whose location is unknown). Our furthest-afield > members are in Oslo, Norway, Auckland, New Zeland, and Dublin, Ireland. We > have members in every province from Quebec west, and a member in the Yukon, but > none yet in Nunavut or the Nortwest Territories. > > Perhaps the best news of all is that, of those 223 members, 153 are either > building or flying an RV or Rocket! That's a lot of RVs. > > You can see the full membership list at > > http://www.vansairforce.org/members/ > > You'll need your username and password to get in. Write to me if you've > forgotten it. > > --- > > Tedd McHenry > Van's Air Force > Western Canada Wing > tedd@vansairforce.org > www.vansairforce.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From rv7 at b4.ca Mon Feb 3 22:42:49 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing In-Reply-To: <009901c2cc14$d3061a80$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> References: <20030203213542.T32144-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> <009901c2cc14$d3061a80$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <3E3F60E9.4050304@b4.ca> Jaye and Scott Jackson wrote: > Where the hell is New Zeland? It's over by Austrlia, a few thousand miles west of us here in Britsh Colmbia. 8-P -RB4 -- --------- Rob Prior rv7 "at" b4.ca ----------------------------- Stop dreaming... Start flying -------------------------------------------------------------------------- perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From jjewell at telus.net Mon Feb 3 23:13:53 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing References: <20030203213542.T32144-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> <009901c2cc14$d3061a80$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <002b01c2cc1c$f9c84f00$05ddb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Right next to Astrailia I think! Geez some times I the temptation is just soooo strong, Sorry! Do not archive Jim in kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaye and Scott Jackson" To: Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing > Where the hell is New Zeland? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tedd McHenry" > To: "Western Canada Wing List" > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:53 PM > Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing > > > > Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing has had steady membership growth since > we > > went on the web three or four years ago. We're now up to 223 members in > total, > > with 95 members on the Wing email list (this list). I'm pleased to see > such > > great interest in RVs in western Canada, and I'm sure you are too. > > > > While the majority of our members are in western Canada, we have 45 > members > > from outside that area (or whose location is unknown). Our > furthest-afield > > members are in Oslo, Norway, Auckland, New Zeland, and Dublin, Ireland. > We > > have members in every province from Quebec west, and a member in the > Yukon, but > > none yet in Nunavut or the Nortwest Territories. > > > > Perhaps the best news of all is that, of those 223 members, 153 are either > > building or flying an RV or Rocket! That's a lot of RVs. > > > > You can see the full membership list at > > > > http://www.vansairforce.org/members/ > > > > You'll need your username and password to get in. Write to me if you've > > forgotten it. > > > > --- > > > > Tedd McHenry > > Van's Air Force > > Western Canada Wing > > tedd@vansairforce.org > > www.vansairforce.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wing mailing list > > Wing@vansairforce.org > > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Feb 4 07:16:03 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Western Canada Wing Still Growing In-Reply-To: <009901c2cc14$d3061a80$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <20030204071410.T96016-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Jaye and Scott Jackson wrote: > Where the hell is New Zeland? It's a few thousand miles east of Australlia and a long way south west of Kanada. Tedd From tedd at vansairforce.org Thu Feb 13 08:05:23 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in 2003 Message-ID: <20030213075212.E94755-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> The Langley Aero Club and Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing are holding the second annual Langley RV Fly-in on Saturday, June 7, 2003 at Langley airport (CYNJ). It'll will be essentially identical to last year's fly-in, only with better weather. Keep an eye on the Fly-in web page for details, http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ Perhaps you're already the proud owner of a flying RV. Lucky you! Then you'll surely want to fly in for a chance to win the People's Choice award for the best RV, and to show off your beautiful airplane. There's also a Furthest RV award, for the RV that flies the furthest distance to get there. There will be plenty of space on the field for parking. You can come for the day, camp on the field, or stay in one of the hotels near the airport. There are links to the local Travelodge on the web page. Currently building an RV? Then you'll enjoy our seminars. The seminar schedule isn't set yet, but you can expect sessions on building, safety, probably engines, and perhaps more. I'll be making more announcements as details are set. Are you an RV wannabe? Seriously thinking about building one, but unsure about what's involved, the cost, the time commitment? Worried that you don't have the skills? Then you may want to attend the seminar I'll be giving, "Introduction to RV Building." The seminar will cover those basic questions, and others, and will be a place where you can ask whatever's on your mind about the building process. We hope to have a representative from Van's there, as well. If you just like to look at RVs, this is probably going to be your best chance inside Canada this year. There are about 40 RVs registered in B.C., and we hope to have a sizeable portion of them at Langley. Last year we had 23 RVs, despite almost none from Canada being able to make it, due to weather. We hope to have all the great RVs we had last year, plus all those who wanted to come but couldn't due to weather, and maybe a few more. Naturally, we're encouraging anyone who wants to fly in, regardless of what type of airplane they have. If you plan to attend, and especially if you plan to fly in, please take the time to write me at tedd@vansairforce.org or, if you prefer, sign the Guest Book on the Fly-in web page. http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ/guestbook/lac_sign.html That will help us plan facilities such as food, washrooms, and customs for U.S. visitors. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Thu Feb 13 08:18:34 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] BC Calendar of Aviation Events Message-ID: <20030213081423.B7539-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Wing Members: Gary West (of the Penticton Flying Club, COPA Flight 50, etc.) has created an on-line calendar of aviation events in B.C. You can view it at http://ca.calendar.yahoo.com/flyingbc_ca/ This is a very handy resource, and I've created a link to it from the Wing web site. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From elgood at aebc.com Thu Feb 20 08:49:12 2003 From: elgood at aebc.com (T&M Elgood) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: [RAA-N]Fw: Maintenance schedule Message-ID: <005f01c2d900$12648480$d7cc35d1@AEBC> I'll try again, I only have one response from the RAA forum, maybe the RV guys will spend a moment and review the schedule. ----- Original Message ----- From: "T&M Elgood" To: Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:16 PM Subject: [RAA-N]Fw: Maintenance schedule > To all RAA Forum members; > > Subject: Maintenance schedule > > I am compiling a Maintenance Schedule for Amateur Built aircraft, (it is > similar to the one Adam Hunt produced in COPA, but more specific to amateur > built) to ensure that it is complete please review the attachment and > respond with any suggestions for content. > > This form is intended to be supplied to builders at the final inspection > stage, usually they haven't a clue what a maintenance schedule is. (CAR 625 > B&C shows WHAT work is required, the Maintenance Schedule shows WHEN the > work is required) > > What I need; > Information on any item I missed including reference to the applicable > regulation also reference to regulations to the items shown. > > How to contact me; email elgood@aebc.com (do not attach my draft, just note > your comments) or > Terry Elgood, > 4751 Tilton Rd., > Richmond BC, > V7C 1K6 > > Thanks, T. > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maintenance Schedule.doc Type: application/msword Size: 49152 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030220/4cdeafc4/MaintenanceSchedule-0001.doc From garth at islandnet.com Thu Feb 20 11:17:24 2003 From: garth at islandnet.com (Garth Shearing) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Colin Walker Propellers Message-ID: <009701c2d914$bbcc58e0$d2718e8b@islandnet.com> Can someone give us the latest status of Colin Walker? Specifically, my partner and I are looking for a 72 x 85 wood propeller for the Lycoming O-360-A1A-equipped RV6A under construction. Thanks. Garth Shearing VariEze and 80% RV6A Victoria BC Canada From brjaques at pris.ca Thu Feb 20 18:02:16 2003 From: brjaques at pris.ca (Bruce Jaques) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Colin Walker Propellers References: <009701c2d914$bbcc58e0$d2718e8b@islandnet.com> Message-ID: <000501c2d94d$437bef20$2edcf4cc@brucejaques> The builders of my RV-4 150 horse said they ordered a 68 x 68 prop but Colin recommended a 68 x 66 and it worked out perfectly. After takeoff the rpm begins to climb at 140 mph and flat out it reaches 2700. I sent the prop to Colin for inspection after a rock hit and endured a stiff talking to because I had been cleaning the prop with a silicone based cleaner. Apparently it contaminated his shop when he sanded. I have great respect his craftsmanship, though, and I'm happy with the propeller. Bruce Jaques -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030220/6e9829ad/attachment-0001.htm From kiwirv6 at telus.net Sun Mar 2 20:40:43 2003 From: kiwirv6 at telus.net (Barry Tunzelmann) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Panel Builder Message-ID: <01C2E104.63C26C00.kiwirv6@telus.net> Does anyone know where one can find the panel builder program on the web? I had been linking to "www.sonexlinks.com/panelbuilder/ " but now get a bunch of non related garbage when that comes up - plus those annoying advertisements. Barry E Tunzelmann email: kiwirv6@telus.net From ltodd at telus.net Mon Mar 3 07:36:45 2003 From: ltodd at telus.net (Linda Todd) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Panel Builder References: <01C2E104.63C26C00.kiwirv6@telus.net> Message-ID: <3E63768D.000001.87305@oemcomputer> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 494 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030303/827aeeb2/attachment-0001.gif From rv7 at b4.ca Mon Mar 3 08:39:29 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Panel Builder In-Reply-To: <3E63768D.000001.87305@oemcomputer> References: <01C2E104.63C26C00.kiwirv6@telus.net> <3E63768D.000001.87305@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <3E638541.5080600@b4.ca> Just remember that it doesn't work on anything but Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher. Netscape/Mozilla/Opera browsers need not apply (yes, the author has been notified/harassed/etc. about this and is working on a solution for those of us who refuse to patronize Microsoft). -Rob Prior Linda Todd wrote: > We use http://epanelbuilder.com/ > The instruments are a little off at the edges of the panel when you > print it but it has a great selection of instrument and avionics types > and sizes. > > Bob Baldock > RV6A (Wings in jigs) What, *another* RV, Bob? From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Mar 18 15:58:37 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in Message-ID: <20030318155213.E15884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> We've invited Van's to our Langley RV Fly-in again this year, and there's a good chance they'll be able to come, though they can't confirm it yet. I'd like to do a survey, as I did last year, to determine which airplane Wing members would most like Van's to bring. I'm sure the RV-10 is the top choice, but Gus Funnell of from Van's has said that the RV-10 probably won't be ready by June 7, the day of the fly-in. I believe Van's demo planes are the RV-7, RV-8, RV-9, and RV-9A. If you don't expect to attend, please don't reply. But if you do, and especially if you're still making up your mind which plane to build, please let me know which one you'd most like to see. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From guyb at shaw.ca Tue Mar 18 16:23:16 2003 From: guyb at shaw.ca (Guy Bourgeois) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in References: <20030318155213.E15884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <000601c2edad$bc8a98c0$8caf9044@guys> Hi, Their RV7 has now become an RV7A and that is the demo that I would like to see. Cheers, Guy From dvoth at shaw.ca Tue Mar 18 16:25:02 2003 From: dvoth at shaw.ca (Dennis Voth) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in References: <20030318155213.E15884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> <000601c2edad$bc8a98c0$8caf9044@guys> Message-ID: <001301c2edad$fb64d650$ab709344@warsteiner> yes, me also, Dennis, Calgary, RV-7A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Bourgeois" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in > Hi, > Their RV7 has now become an RV7A and that is the demo that I would like to > see. > Cheers, > Guy > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From fvalarm at rapidnet.net Tue Mar 18 21:45:11 2003 From: fvalarm at rapidnet.net (BTomm) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in Message-ID: <01C2ED98.59DA3600.fvalarm@rapidnet.net> Tedd, Most definitely the re-vamped RV7A gets my vote. Bevan From dvoth at shaw.ca Fri Mar 21 17:54:35 2003 From: dvoth at shaw.ca (Dennis Voth) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] park brake Message-ID: <003a01c2f015$fd59dea0$ab709344@warsteiner> Has anyone else installed the optional park brake system in their RV? We are building an RV 7A, purchased the park brake valve from Van's, but rec'd no instructions. Where does one install the valve? How do you hook up a cable to activate it? Any ideas would be welcome. We'd like to get the thing installed prior to covering the front top fuselage. Thanks, Dennis Voth, Calgary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030321/ee43e9d1/attachment-0001.htm From acornyn at telusplanet.net Sun Mar 23 06:25:41 2003 From: acornyn at telusplanet.net (Al Cornyn) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] park brake References: <003a01c2f015$fd59dea0$ab709344@warsteiner> Message-ID: <001b01c2f148$160ec040$be1cb8a1@USER> I put the valve right between and above the pilot rudder pedals. I ran the cable through a piece of steel fuel line to get the correct angle to the activator lever. My brake valve leaks down, so don't trust it too long. It works plenty long enough to get out and fuel up or tie down. Used the same push pull cable as on carb heat. Al Pincher Creek rv6 CFADC---- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Voth To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: [Wing] park brake Has anyone else installed the optional park brake system in their RV? We are building an RV 7A, purchased the park brake valve from Van's, but rec'd no instructions. Where does one install the valve? How do you hook up a cable to activate it? Any ideas would be welcome. We'd like to get the thing installed prior to covering the front top fuselage. Thanks, Dennis Voth, Calgary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030323/40d25b4e/attachment-0001.htm From ltodd at telus.net Sun Mar 23 06:38:35 2003 From: ltodd at telus.net (Linda Todd) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Van's at Langley RV Fly-in References: <20030318155213.E15884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <3E7DC6EB.000010.33149@oemcomputer> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 494 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030323/f0b1baca/attachment-0001.gif From tedd at vansairforce.org Mon Apr 7 19:07:31 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Web-based Builder's Logs Message-ID: <20030407190519.N78884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Wing Members: I'm considering setting up web-based builder's logs on the Wing web site that would allow you to keep a chronological record of your project, complete with pictures. You would be able to post your own photos and text through a web browser. If there's enough interest in this idea I'll install the software for it and publish instructions on how to use it. Please write to me if you would use such a service. Tedd --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From guyb at shaw.ca Tue Apr 8 06:04:21 2003 From: guyb at shaw.ca (Guy Bourgeois) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Web-based Builder's Logs References: <20030407190519.N78884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <000f01c2fdcf$5f1e6400$8caf9044@guys> Hi Tedd, As I hate keeping a log, I would give it a try and if it was really user friendly then I would be a user. Cheers, Guy From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Apr 8 09:57:43 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: Web-based Builder's Logs In-Reply-To: <20030407190519.N78884-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <20030408095442.I12862-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> I may have inadvertently mis-represented the weblog idea. This is not a builder's log, as such, like Kitlog Pro. It isn't meant to be a replacement for your official builder's log. It's simply a web publishing system that allows you to put pictures and text up on your own web page fairly easily. It's a "blog," in web terminology. Tedd From carpenter at globalserve.net Tue Apr 8 15:18:38 2003 From: carpenter at globalserve.net (Chris Carpenter) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Blog Message-ID: Tedd, I would be interested, but I would have to buy a digital camera first, something that could take some time. It would be neat to see some local construction photos. Chris RV-8 w From mdeg at shaw.ca Tue Apr 8 15:11:42 2003 From: mdeg at shaw.ca (Marc Degirolamo) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Re: Web-based Builder's Logs References: <20030408095442.I12862-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <003001c2fe1b$d6696a40$db874718@ss.shawcable.net> Yes...I would be interested Ted. Marc ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: "Western Canada Wing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:57 AM Subject: [Wing] Re: Web-based Builder's Logs > I may have inadvertently mis-represented the weblog idea. This is not a > builder's log, as such, like Kitlog Pro. It isn't meant to be a replacement > for your official builder's log. It's simply a web publishing system that > allows you to put pictures and text up on your own web page fairly easily. > It's a "blog," in web terminology. > > Tedd > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Apr 8 15:20:31 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV Formation Message-ID: <20030408152006.N41841-101000@strongbad.retrix.com> Great photo, just had to pass it on. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: aw0708d.jpg.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 30284 bytes Desc: Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030408/6c7fd8c6/aw0708d.jpg-0001.obj From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Tue Apr 8 16:04:13 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV Formation References: <20030408152006.N41841-101000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <008401c2fe23$2c4009e0$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Say, Tedd, isn't that your -6 in Lead? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: "Western Canada Wing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:20 PM Subject: [Wing] RV Formation > Great photo, just had to pass it on. > From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Apr 8 16:11:26 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV Formation In-Reply-To: <008401c2fe23$2c4009e0$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <20030408161022.V56840-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> > Say, Tedd, isn't that your -6 in Lead? Yeah... Lead... yeah, that's the ticket: me in Lead. Yeah. From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Tue Apr 8 16:19:25 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV Formation References: <20030408161022.V56840-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <00a801c2fe25$4c077f40$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Only if I get to be Tail-end Charlie. Wonder how much a tail turret weighs? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [Wing] RV Formation > > Say, Tedd, isn't that your -6 in Lead? > > Yeah... Lead... yeah, that's the ticket: me in Lead. Yeah. > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From acornyn at telusplanet.net Wed Apr 9 07:40:08 2003 From: acornyn at telusplanet.net (Al Cornyn) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] (no subject) Message-ID: <000a01c2fea5$ec352500$a11ab8a1@USER> Does anyone have or know one who might have hangar space for an RV6 in Prince George BC in the next couple of months for a few days at a time so I can visit my wife while she takes care of her father's estate. Al Cornyn acornyn@telusplanet.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030409/92974775/attachment-0001.htm From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Wed Apr 9 22:32:43 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Blog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Tedd, I would be definitely interessted, I am finishing the empennage as we speak and am starting on the fuselage, Franz Fux -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Chris Carpenter Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:19 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] Blog Tedd, I would be interested, but I would have to buy a digital camera first, something that could take some time. It would be neat to see some local construction photos. Chris RV-8 w _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.458 / Virus Database: 257 - Release Date: 2/24/2003 From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Wed Apr 9 22:32:47 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV Formation In-Reply-To: <20030408152006.N41841-101000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: Thanks Franz -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Tedd McHenry Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 3:21 PM To: Western Canada Wing List Subject: [Wing] RV Formation Great photo, just had to pass it on. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.458 / Virus Database: 257 - Release Date: 2/24/2003 From gordjack at telus.net Sat Apr 12 19:24:18 2003 From: gordjack at telus.net (Gordon Jack) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] (no subject) References: <000a01c2fea5$ec352500$a11ab8a1@USER> Message-ID: <3E98CA52.5060906@telus.net> Al I checked at the airport while at ground school ( recurrence training) on Thursday night , could not get a definite solution. I will ask at the home builders meeting on tuesday night to see if any of the RV and others who have hangers will know of any space. I am sure we can find something. Ol Ed was a very nice guy who used to come out to the model airplane field as far back as the early seventies to watch us practice aerobatics for upcoming contests for hours at a time. When I was talking to him last fall at Spruceland Shopping Center he was really happy to hear I was building a RV. When he talked about riding in your RV his faced beamed. The world needs more guys like him. I will let you know when I find anything. Sincerely Gordon Jack 250-561-2223 Prince George B.C. RV-7A 70011 (fuselage) C-FRVN (res) Al wrote: > Does anyone have or know one who might have hangar space for an RV6 in > Prince George BC in the next couple of months for a few days at a time > so I can visit my wife while she takes care of her father's estate. > > Al Cornyn acornyn@telusplanet.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030412/c4a8151c/attachment-0001.htm From elgood at aebc.com Fri Apr 18 09:57:05 2003 From: elgood at aebc.com (T&M Elgood) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Fw: Carb Heat Message-ID: <001301c305cb$a020a5e0$33cc35d1@AEBC> Does anyone have any temperature rise information on the 2" tube type carb heat (see below) Is this type of reply typical of Ken Scott? The implication being the manufacturer supply the specs, not the builders. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Scott" To: "T&M Elgood" Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 8:03 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Carb Heat > Perhaps a carb heat probe? > > Forwarded by: "Support" > Forwarded to: KENS > Date forwarded: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 07:26:01 -0700 > From: "T&M Elgood" > To: > Subject: Fw: Carb Heat > Date sent: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:27:23 -0700 > > Do you have any suggestions on how to determine the heating > ability of > this assembly? Terry > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "T&M Elgood" > To: > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 6:03 PM > Subject: Fw: Carb Heat > > > > Ken, thanks for the reply, > > > > There is a requirement for Amateur Built aircraft in Canada to show > > that > the > > carb heat system is capable of providing a temperature rise of 90 > > degrees > F. > > ( shown on AMA:549.13/2 15 April 1987 ) My concern is, is this > > system capable of providing that much heat, I really doubt it. > > > > My reason for asking about this carb heat system is because I am an > (MD-RA) > > inspector for amateur built aircraft in BC and I want to be sure > > that the system works properly. Last weekend I inspected an RV4 > > built by ***** *******, it was the first time I had seen this type > > of carb heat assembly. > > > > Terry Elgood > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ken Scott" > > To: "T&M Elgood" > > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:27 AM > > Subject: Re: Carb Heat > > > > > > > It seems to work under most circumstances, but we have never > > > done formal tests on it. > > > > > > Forwarded by: "Support" > > > Forwarded to: kens > > > Date forwarded: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 06:25:56 -0800 > > > From: "T&M Elgood" > > > To: > > > Subject: Carb Heat > > > Date sent: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:54:13 -0800 > > > > > > In your catalogue a carb heat muff is listed, it is a simple > > > assembly with what appears to be a 2" aluminum tube with a cut out > > > to fit over the exhaust pipe. Considering the small surface area > > > against the exhaust does this assembly provide enough heat, do you > > > have any test information showing the temperature rise above > > > ambient. > > > > > > Terry Elgood > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From wjoke at shaw.ca Fri Apr 18 10:49:48 2003 From: wjoke at shaw.ca (Jim Oke) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:41 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Fw: Carb Heat References: <001301c305cb$a020a5e0$33cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: <010101c305d2$e7d9fd80$6401a8c0@wp.shawcable.net> Terry; I have no engineering data on this assembly although such would be of interest to me as I have the identical assembly on my RV-6A. Some years ago I used to fly Beech Musketeers (Beech Model 23) for the Air force and also taught aircraft systems for student pilots at PFS. To my recollection, the Musketeers I flew had a very similar or identical carb heat induction system. That is a piece of scat tube was held close to the exhaust manifold and drew unfiltered air past the manifold into the carb heat box. There was no form of muff that would circulate the air for an extended distance past the manifold. If you are able to examine the engine installation on a Musketeer and determine the mechanics of the carb heat system were practically similar, then approval by way of similar design and installation might be an appropriate rationale. Another approach would be to check the operational effectiveness of the carb heat. If a similarly powered certified aircraft was run up and provided say 120 rpm drop when carb heat was selected under certain conditions and the RV-4 was run-up and provided the same or greater rpm drop then this would imply the RV-4 system was at least equally effective in providing heated air to the engine regardless of the mechanics of how this was done. IOW, it was the drop good enough for a certified aircraft then it ought to be OK for an amateur. From d2w at telus.net Fri Apr 18 13:59:39 2003 From: d2w at telus.net (William Robson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Carb Heat Message-ID: <001a01c305ed$6d22efa0$6683cecd@ab.hsia.telus.net> Hello Terry Osgood I was just wondering Terry, when you would be taking over for Joel Schoenberger, District Superintendent, Aircraft Maintenance and Manufacturing, with Transport Canada? Bill Robson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030418/486e055f/attachment-0001.htm From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Fri Apr 18 17:42:22 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Fw: Carb Heat In-Reply-To: <001301c305cb$a020a5e0$33cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: Does anyone have any temperature rise information on the 2" tube type carb heat (see below) Is this type of reply typical of Ken Scott? The implication being the manufacturer supply the specs, not the builders. ----------------snip There is a requirement for Amateur Built aircraft in Canada to show that the carb heat system is capable of providing a temperature rise of 90 degrees F. shown on AMA:549.13/2 15 April 1987, My concern is, is this system capable of providing that much heat, I really doubt it. My reason for asking about this carb heat system is because I am an (MD-RA)inspector for amateur built aircraft in BC and I want to be sure that the system works properly. Last weekend I inspected an RV4 built by ***** *******, it was the first time I had seen this type of carb heat assembly. Terry Elgood > > From: "Ken Scott" > > To: "T&M Elgood" > > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:27 AM > > Subject: Re: Carb Heat > > > > > > > It seems to work under most circumstances, but we have never > > > done formal tests on it. ----------------------snip > > > Subject: Carb Heat > > > Date sent: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:54:13 -0800 > > > > > > In your catalogue a carb heat muff is listed, it is a simple > > > assembly with what appears to be a 2" aluminum tube with a cut out > > > to fit over the exhaust pipe. Considering the small surface area > > > against the exhaust does this assembly provide enough heat, do you > > > have any test information showing the temperature rise above > > > ambient. > > > > > > Terry Elgood --------------------------------------------------- HI Terry & RV Builders I will chime in with my opinions because I think the carb heat issue is very important to those of us flying here in the Pacific Northwest. In the past I have posted questions on this subject on the RV-list with very little response. (I am a old guy so temperatures below are farenheit!) (1) Regulations The AMA Terry quotes provides guidance for acceptable means, but not the only means, of showing compliance with the requirements of preventing ice build-up in carburettors of amateur-built aircraft. The AMA is based on regulations for certified aircraft such as, FAR 23.1093 (1983) paragraph (1) states that a carb preheater should provide a heat rise of 90 deg F with the engine at 75 % power and OAT 30 deg. (for conventional venturi carburetors). Also 23.1105 calls for a 100 degree rise where the heated air passes through a filter. Note these regulations calls for a heat muff rise and this temperature would be read at the outlet of the heat muff or in the carb air box, not in the carb venturi where the temperature has dropped again due to the latent heat of vaporization of fuel, etc. Therefore a CAT gauge normally cannot tell you if you meet the regulation, only that you have a safe temp in the carb venturi. I would assume that a safe venturi temperature at 75% power on a 30 deg day meets the heat muff requirements. (2) Underdog's Carb Heat. I did not like the looks of the small Van's heat muff and returned it for credit. I had a larger heat muff made up, looks much like the cabin heater muffs but slightly shorter, 9" long and encasing the forward exhaust crossover pipe. Because I fly IFR I am still not satisfied with the indicated carb heat rise and plan on making a larger heat muff that wraps around both crossover pipes. On runup @ 1700 RPM I show a 15 degree rise on the CAT gauge and a 30 RPM drop. In cruise @ 2200 - 2400 RPM the temp rise is 15 - 20 deg and a 50 RPM drop. On approach at 1400 RPM (less airflow through muff) I get a 40+ degree CAT rise. I have flown my RV6A in cloud at near freezing temperatures (carb heat on) for a 30 minute period with no sign of carb ice, so I assume I am getting enough heat but would like more as a comfort factor. The only actual carb ice I have experienced was when taxiing out in rain. Fly safely. George McNutt From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Fri Apr 18 17:55:29 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Fw: Carb Heat References: Message-ID: <011801c3060e$5fc412a0$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> My RV-6 is fitted with an Iceman optical carb-ice detector and the short, Van's heat pipe mounted on the crossover exhaust pipe directly above the FAB alternate-air inlet. Several times the ice detector warning has activated and been silenced using this arrangement for carb heat. I get virtually no RPM drop at any speed when selecting hot air. Initially thought the smaller stove would be alright as, unlike the traditional muffs, it's drawing in air that's already been heated a bit by passing over the cylinders to get into the lower cowl area. Plan to instrument my installation this summer to test the temp rise with a computer motherboard temp sensor. Worried about a couple of RV crashes from carb ice that were using this system.. Scott in Vancouver From d2w at telus.net Fri Apr 18 18:00:22 2003 From: d2w at telus.net (William Robson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Carb Heat Message-ID: <001101c3060f$0e40a6e0$6683cecd@ab.hsia.telus.net> Hello George Thank you for your logical, intelligent and informative reponse to the Carb Heat question. Best Regards Bill Robson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030418/d58ef840/attachment-0001.htm From elgood at aebc.com Sat Apr 19 14:01:47 2003 From: elgood at aebc.com (T&M Elgood) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Carb Heat Message-ID: <001101c306b6$e7700a80$accc35d1@AEBC> To all who replied about the Vans carb heat, thank you; Bill, it's not clear what you are implying here. As an MDRA inspector my objective is to assist airplane builders through a complicated inspection process and to ensure their aircraft are safe to operate, which results in my concern for this particular carb heat assembly. > Hello Terry Osgood (Terry Elgood ) > I was just wondering Terry, when you would be taking over for Joel = > Schoenberger, District Superintendent, Aircraft Maintenance and = > Manufacturing, with Transport Canada? > Bill Robson George, thanks this is what I need to know, if this is the temperature rise from a bigger shroud type heater I'm even more concerned about the 2" tube type, I can't see how such a small surface area can produce enough heat to operate safely. > On runup @ 1700 RPM I show a 15 degree rise on the CAT gauge and a 30 RPM > drop. In cruise @ 2200 - 2400 RPM the temp rise is 15 - 20 deg and a 50 RPM > drop. On approach at 1400 RPM (less airflow through muff) I get a 40+ degree > CAT rise. > Fly safely. George McNutt As a suggestion to anyone using the 2" tube carb heater, be careful. Just because it is supplied by Vans does not imply they have tested it, Ken Scott said they have not done formal tests on it. Terry From del at deltech.ca Mon Apr 21 08:14:40 2003 From: del at deltech.ca (Del Schneider) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Carb Heat In-Reply-To: <001101c306b6$e7700a80$accc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: Thank you. A couple of us in Prince George who fly RV's have been wondering about this for some time and looking at what to consider. Keep the info flowing on this subject. Del Schneider, RV-6A -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of T&M Elgood Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 2:02 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] Carb Heat To all who replied about the Vans carb heat, thank you; Bill, it's not clear what you are implying here. As an MDRA inspector my objective is to assist airplane builders through a complicated inspection process and to ensure their aircraft are safe to operate, which results in my concern for this particular carb heat assembly. > Hello Terry Osgood (Terry Elgood ) > I was just wondering Terry, when you would be taking over for Joel = > Schoenberger, District Superintendent, Aircraft Maintenance and = > Manufacturing, with Transport Canada? > Bill Robson George, thanks this is what I need to know, if this is the temperature rise from a bigger shroud type heater I'm even more concerned about the 2" tube type, I can't see how such a small surface area can produce enough heat to operate safely. > On runup @ 1700 RPM I show a 15 degree rise on the CAT gauge and a 30 RPM > drop. In cruise @ 2200 - 2400 RPM the temp rise is 15 - 20 deg and a 50 RPM > drop. On approach at 1400 RPM (less airflow through muff) I get a 40+ degree > CAT rise. > Fly safely. George McNutt As a suggestion to anyone using the 2" tube carb heater, be careful. Just because it is supplied by Vans does not imply they have tested it, Ken Scott said they have not done formal tests on it. Terry _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Thu Apr 24 17:13:20 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Empennage Message-ID: Hi Everybody, I am just finishing the empennage and am needing help with the products used to filler, prime the gaps between the alu and the plastic tips of the empennage. Can anybody provide me with the product names and the place to purchase that stuff Thanks, happy building Franz Fux Director of Operations Last Frontier Heliskiing & Bell 2 Lodge E: franz@lastfrontierheli.com Web: www.lastfrontierheli.com Lodge Phone: 1-604-881-8530 Lodge Fax: 1-604-881-8330 Lodge Reservations: 1-877-617-2288 Heliski Reservations: 1-888-655-5566 Mailing Address: Box 49, Meziadin, BC, V0J 3S0 Head Office: Box 1118, Vernon, BC, V1T 6N4 Also see: www:bell2lodge.com www:steelhead-fishing.net www:heliskiing.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 1968 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030424/baad95f3/winmail-0001.bin From ve7fp at jetstream.net Thu Apr 24 18:37:30 2003 From: ve7fp at jetstream.net (Ken Hoshowski) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Empennage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001301c30acb$3d1522a0$3d897240@cs> Franz, When I built my RV6 I filled in the little spaces between the fiberglass tips and the aluminum with a light body type filler. If I were doing it again I would not do this. Over time there is a tendency for this space to show a crack line. The time and effort spent to make it look like a composite just isn't worth it. For those with in driving or flying range of Salmon Arm we are hosting a Rust Remover (recurrency training) this Saturday April 26 at the Salmon Arm airport starting at 10:00 am. No charge for the seminar. Lunch will be available for a nominal charge. Transport Canada will be in attendance and will issue a certificate of recurrency. Ken Hoshowski RV6 C-FKEH Salmon Arm B.C. Also helping two local builder with 9A quickbuilds. Hi Everybody, I am just finishing the empennage and am needing help with the products used to filler, prime the gaps between the alu and the plastic tips of the empennage. Can anybody provide me with the product names and the place to purchase that stuff Thanks, happy building Franz Fux Director of Operations Last Frontier Heliskiing & Bell 2 Lodge -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 7684 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030424/727cd9a7/winmail-0001.bin From ross-cm at shaw.ca Thu Apr 24 18:40:57 2003 From: ross-cm at shaw.ca (Chuck & Marion Ross) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Empennage References: Message-ID: <000b01c30acb$b85198e0$0a9a4d18@ok.shawcable.net> Hi Franz, I used a Poly-Fiber product called Superlite epoxy filler (from Aircraft Spruce, I think- it's been a long time). I found it very good but there are many fillers you could use, I would not recommend bondo. Any epoxy resin can be mixed with tiny foam spheres to make it sandable and that will work. The shperes are called micro-balloons, I have some if you need them. I prefer epoxy resin over poly-ester resin (that's what boat-builders use), because the epoxy does not shrink. Keep the filler to a minimum and remember that composites and aluminium expand at different rates with temp. changes so it may crack along the joint. I chose to cut a thin kerf with a narrow fine saw along the joint about 1mm deep. If it cracked, it's inside this cut and I can't see it. You might drop by Larry William's hanger to see what he used if you're in Vernon. Chuck Ross 542-1740 From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Thu Apr 24 19:09:37 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Empennage In-Reply-To: <001301c30acb$3d1522a0$3d897240@cs> Message-ID: thanks for the reply, unfortunately I will be still working up North, otherwise I would love to come by, especially to see some other projects Franz > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org > [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 6:38 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: RE: [Wing] Empennage > > Franz, > > When I built my RV6 I filled in the little spaces between the fiberglass > tips and the aluminum with a light body type filler. If I were doing it > again I would not do this. Over time there is a tendency for this space > to show a crack line. The time and effort spent to make it look like a > composite just isn't worth it. > > For those with in driving or flying range of Salmon Arm we are hosting a > Rust Remover (recurrency training) this Saturday April 26 at the Salmon > Arm airport starting at 10:00 am. No charge for the seminar. Lunch will > be available for a nominal charge. Transport Canada will be in attendance > and will issue a certificate of recurrency. > > Ken Hoshowski RV6 C-FKEH > Salmon Arm B.C. > > Also helping two local builder with 9A quickbuilds. > > > > Hi Everybody, > I am just finishing the empennage and am needing help with > the products used to filler, prime the gaps between the alu and the > plastic tips of the empennage. Can anybody provide me with the product > names and the place to purchase that stuff > Thanks, happy building > Franz Fux > Director of Operations > Last Frontier Heliskiing & Bell 2 Lodge > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2760 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030424/b87a57f4/winmail-0001.bin From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Thu Apr 24 19:11:39 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Empennage In-Reply-To: <000b01c30acb$b85198e0$0a9a4d18@ok.shawcable.net> Message-ID: Thanks Ross, I am still up North until for ten more days, maybe I will track you guys down later, Franz -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Chuck & Marion Ross Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 6:41 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Empennage Hi Franz, I used a Poly-Fiber product called Superlite epoxy filler (from Aircraft Spruce, I think- it's been a long time). I found it very good but there are many fillers you could use, I would not recommend bondo. Any epoxy resin can be mixed with tiny foam spheres to make it sandable and that will work. The shperes are called micro-balloons, I have some if you need them. I prefer epoxy resin over poly-ester resin (that's what boat-builders use), because the epoxy does not shrink. Keep the filler to a minimum and remember that composites and aluminium expand at different rates with temp. changes so it may crack along the joint. I chose to cut a thin kerf with a narrow fine saw along the joint about 1mm deep. If it cracked, it's inside this cut and I can't see it. You might drop by Larry William's hanger to see what he used if you're in Vernon. Chuck Ross 542-1740 _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.458 / Virus Database: 257 - Release Date: 2/24/2003 From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Apr 29 22:07:08 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in 2003 Message-ID: <20030429220240.H10373-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> The Langley Aero Club and Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing are holding the second annual Langley RV Fly-in on Saturday, June 7, 2003 at Langley airport (CYNJ). It'll will be essentially identical to last year's fly-in, only with better weather. Keep an eye on the Fly-in web page for details, http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ Perhaps you're already the proud owner of a flying RV. Lucky you! Then you'll surely want to fly in for a chance to win the People's Choice award for the best RV, and to show off your beautiful airplane. There's also a Furthest RV award, for the RV that flies the furthest distance to get there. There will be plenty of space on the field for parking. You can come for the day, camp on the field, or stay in one of the hotels near the airport. There are links to the local Travelodge on the web page. Currently building, or thinking of building an RV? Then you'll enjoy our seminars. Eustace Bowhay will be repeating his highly popular discussion on RV building and flying. And I'll be giving an introductory seminar on RV building, ideal for those who are making the decision to build or have just started their project. If you just like to look at RVs, this is probably going to be your best chance inside Canada this year. There are about 40 RVs registered in B.C., and we hope to have a sizeable portion of them at Langley. Last year we had 23 RVs, despite almost none from Canada being able to make it, due to weather. We hope to have all the great RVs we had last year, plus all those who wanted to come but couldn't due to weather, and maybe a few more. Naturally, we're encouraging anyone who wants to fly in, regardless of what type of airplane they have. If you plan to attend, and especially if you plan to fly in, please take the time to write me at tedd@vansairforce.org or, if you prefer, sign the Guest Book on the Fly-in web page. http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ/guestbook/lac_sign.html That will help us plan facilities such as food, washrooms, and customs for U.S. visitors. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Wed Apr 30 09:31:54 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in Activities Message-ID: <20030430092918.N93460-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Below are some comments from George McNutt on activities in the Langley area that you might want to consider when planning a trip to the RV Fly-in on June 7. Thank you for the information, George. Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:11:09 -0700 From: George McNutt To: tedd@vansairforce.org Subject: Five Corners Hi Ted Just read your message on RV-list about fly-in and looked at our web page. Not sure if you know about these other Langley attractions. Some visitors to the RV fly-in may be interested in some of the "theme" sites at the five corners (216 st & 48th ave) it's a long walk from the RV parking area but only about 15-20 minute stroll from the flight museum area. About 1/2 block east of five corners on the old Yale highway is a new chocolate factory that started up about a year ago, expensive, but they have a nice tea house type restaurant. Also there is the Travelers Rest bed & breakfast and a coffee house. A little far but might be nice for some visitors with wives who might want to stay for the whole weekend, maybe those businesses would be willing to run a shuttle ?? Also the new coffee shop at the flight museum is very nice, Sam, the new owner is very congenial. He has two three wheel bicycles plus a tandem bike at the coffee shop, he may be willing to allow visitors to use same that day to go back & forth. George McNutt From mdeg at shaw.ca Fri May 2 16:10:55 2003 From: mdeg at shaw.ca (Marc Degirolamo) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in Activities References: <20030430092918.N93460-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <006c01c31100$1590f700$db874718@ss.shawcable.net> tedd....sorry I missed your call the other night.....You want contacts in this area is that right...? If so here are a few: Tom Makinson.....374-5807 ...RV-6A Don Francis..........967-2831....RV-6 Dennis Bourgeois....648-2758 Jeff Leach..... jsleach@cableregina.com Hope this helps...... Marc ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: "Western Canada Wing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:31 AM Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in Activities > Below are some comments from George McNutt on activities in the Langley area > that you might want to consider when planning a trip to the RV Fly-in on June > 7. Thank you for the information, George. > > Tedd McHenry > Van's Air Force > Western Canada Wing > tedd@vansairforce.org > www.vansairforce.org > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:11:09 -0700 > From: George McNutt > To: tedd@vansairforce.org > Subject: Five Corners > > > Hi Ted > > Just read your message on RV-list about fly-in and looked at our web page. > Not sure if you know about these other Langley attractions. > > Some visitors to the RV fly-in may be interested in some of the "theme" > sites at the five corners (216 st & 48th ave) it's a long walk from the RV > parking area but only about 15-20 minute stroll from the flight museum area. > > About 1/2 block east of five corners on the old Yale highway is a new > chocolate factory that started up about a year ago, expensive, but they have > a nice tea house type restaurant. > Also there is the Travelers Rest bed & breakfast and a coffee house. > > A little far but might be nice for some visitors with wives who might want > to stay for the whole weekend, maybe those businesses would be willing to > run a shuttle ?? > > Also the new coffee shop at the flight museum is very nice, Sam, the new > owner is very congenial. He has two three wheel bicycles plus a tandem bike > at the coffee shop, he may be willing to allow visitors to use same that day > to go back & forth. > > George McNutt > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From mdeg at shaw.ca Fri May 2 16:02:05 2003 From: mdeg at shaw.ca (Marc Degirolamo) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: [RAA-N]Fw: Maintenance schedule References: <005f01c2d900$12648480$d7cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: <005a01c310fe$d9e05080$db874718@ss.shawcable.net> Terry, I used the maintenance schedule that you made up. I changed a few things to suit, and added a few.... Here is the one we are going to use. ttyl Marc DeGirolamo ----- Original Message ----- From: "T&M Elgood" To: Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:49 AM Subject: [Wing] Fw: [RAA-N]Fw: Maintenance schedule > I'll try again, I only have one response from the RAA forum, maybe the RV > guys will spend a moment and review the schedule. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "T&M Elgood" > To: > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:16 PM > Subject: [RAA-N]Fw: Maintenance schedule > > > > To all RAA Forum members; > > > > Subject: Maintenance schedule > > > > I am compiling a Maintenance Schedule for Amateur Built aircraft, (it is > > similar to the one Adam Hunt produced in COPA, but more specific to > amateur > > built) to ensure that it is complete please review the attachment and > > respond with any suggestions for content. > > > > This form is intended to be supplied to builders at the final inspection > > stage, usually they haven't a clue what a maintenance schedule is. (CAR > 625 > > B&C shows WHAT work is required, the Maintenance Schedule shows WHEN the > > work is required) > > > > What I need; > > Information on any item I missed including reference to the applicable > > regulation also reference to regulations to the items shown. > > > > How to contact me; email elgood@aebc.com (do not attach my draft, just > note > > your comments) or > > Terry Elgood, > > 4751 Tilton Rd., > > Richmond BC, > > V7C 1K6 > > > > Thanks, T. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Maintenance Schedule.doc Type: application/msword Size: 65536 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030502/3602ae1c/MaintenanceSchedule-0001.doc From tedd at vansairforce.org Wed May 7 21:33:01 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV BBQ at Smiths Falls, Ontario - May 31st (fwd) Message-ID: <20030507212932.Y67232-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Wing Members: Below is a message I received from the Ontario RVators group about their annual BBQ, in Smith's Falls, ON. Those of you who are withing a reasonable flying distance of Smith's Falls might want to go to this. Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 16:36:14 -0400 From: The Lamport Household To: Tedd McHenry Subject: RV BBQ at Smiths Falls, Ontario - May 31st Hi Tedd: Our 5th annual RV BBQ is being held at the Smith's Falls airport (CYSH) on May 31st in case anyone from the West would like to join us. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you require any further information. Dale Cathy Lamport Van's Airforce - Ontario Wing RV6A - C-GLRV From rv7 at b4.ca Thu May 8 22:07:30 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Save Nelson Airport In-Reply-To: <3EBB2F49.422313E6@telus.net> References: <3EBB2F49.422313E6@telus.net> Message-ID: <3EBB3792.3080501@b4.ca> If anyone on these two lists has flown or would like to fly into the airport at Nelson, BC, it might be a good time to voice an objection to the airport's closure. -Rob Prior > ----- Original Message ----- > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:50 PM > *Subject:* Fw: Save Nelson Airport > > We need your help! > > Nelson Airport is under absolute threat of closure. Apparently some real > estate deal has gone through for nearby property with the promise that > the airport is part of the deal. Current City Council does not see the > value of the airport and is under the impression that it is not used and > does not have any local economic value. Please help us convince them > that this is not true. > > Help us by emailing or writing to the Mayor and Council about your > positive experiences at the Nelson Airport and your intention of > visiting Nelson with your plane again. Mention of how many nights you > have spent in local hotels and meals in local restaurants would be > helpful. All contact information can be found at: > http://flynorth.com/nelson.html > > Please bcc. Flynorth.com with your email so that we can keep a file of > these letters of support. There is some urgency to this matter as the > vote will be held soon and all information must be given to council by > May 16th! > > Diana Haschke > dhca@flynorth.com > http://www.flynorth.com -- --------- Rob Prior rv7 "at" b4.ca ----------------------------- Stop dreaming... Start flying -------------------------------------------------------------------------- perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From del at deltech.ca Thu May 15 15:37:47 2003 From: del at deltech.ca (Del Schneider) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] efis Message-ID: Has anyone installed a EFIS (like Blue Mountain) and how do you like it? Comments please. Del Schneider Prince George, BC RV-6A C-GZVD From rv7 at b4.ca Sun May 18 21:26:26 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] Message-ID: <3EC85CF2.2080104@b4.ca> Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't seen it elsewhere yet. If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there will be a few RV's there... 8-) -RB4 -------- Original Message -------- /Hey Gang....anyone interested in a flight to Nelson for lunch on Monday? This/ /will accomplish two goals, the main one being to support the Nelson Airport as a/ /very important part of the BC airport infrastructure, and help to keep it from being / /foolishly closed (don't forget what has just happened to Meigs Filed in Chicago), / /and the second to make up for today's BCBC cancelled trip to Anacortes. / // /I also think it would be great if you each of us took a few minutes to write up our / /own letters of support for CZNL and take them with us. We can slip them in the / /mail box at city hall, or I can get them to John Dale for forwarding to the mayor. / /I'm pretty sure John would take a great deal of pleasure in making a quick trip / /next week to visit the mayor personally and give him our thoughts...en masse. / // /Don't let Nelson down, guys! We all enjoy at least one trip each year over there / /for a day or even a weekend, and to lose it would be tragic for us all./ // /Plan on a 10:00 arrival with your letters in hand. We'll take a walk into town to find/ /city hall, and if not I hope John Dale will meet us and take charge of the letters for/ /delivery to the Mayor. After that we can stroll over somewhere for lunch and some / /AVBS./ // /*COME ON AND JOIN US IN NELSON! DO YOUR PART TO HELP SAVE A */ /*GREAT *//*LITTLE AIRPORT, IN A GREAT LITTLE TOWN, FOR A GREAT BUNCH*/ /*OF AVIATORS....THE AVIATORS OF NELSON AND BC!* / // /Please make the effort to be there, and let me know your intentions. Pass this / /message to everyone you know, and let's see if we can have the biggest one day/ /air arrival parade in the history of the Nelson Airport./ // /*We can stop the intended closing of this airport with your help.....let's do it!*/ /**/ Take care and Fly Safe! */Breakfast Club of British Columbia (BCBC)/* *//* Gary Tel/Fax: (250) 497-6466 FLYING BC 2003 Events Calendar: http://ca.calendar.yahoo.com/flyingbc_ca/ From ham at hammcc.com Sun May 18 21:29:35 2003 From: ham at hammcc.com (Hamilton McClymont) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] In-Reply-To: <3EC85CF2.2080104@b4.ca> Message-ID: I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to Cranbrook) and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. Hammy -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Rob Prior Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't seen it elsewhere yet. If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there will be a few RV's there... 8-) -RB4 -------- Original Message -------- From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Sun May 18 23:03:43 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] In-Reply-To: <3EC85CF2.2080104@b4.ca> Message-ID: 10 AM in CZNL, lets see, I have to be airborne out of Langley in the RV-6A at 8:25 - need to fuel first, 11 PM now, not normally an early riser. Any other acft from lower mainland going - if so send a e-mail and I will make the effort. George McNutt Langley B.C. (my letter in the mail) - If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there will be a few RV's there... 8-) -RB4 -------- Original Message -------- /Hey Gang....anyone interested in a flight to Nelson for lunch on Monday? This will accomplish two goals, the main one being to support the Nelson Airport as a very important part of the BC airport infrastructure, and help to keep it from being foolishly closed (don't forget what has just happened to Meigs Filed in Chicago), and the second to make up for today's BCBC cancelled trip to Anacortes. I also think it would be great if you each of us took a few minutes to write up our own letters of support for CZNL and take them with us. We can slip them in the mail box at city hall, or I can get them to John Dale for forwarding to the mayor. I'm pretty sure John would take a great deal of pleasure in making a quick trip next week to visit the mayor personally and give him our thoughts...en masse. Don't let Nelson down, guys! We all enjoy at least one trip each year over there for a day or even a weekend, and to lose it would be tragic for us all. Plan on a 10:00 arrival with your letters in hand. We'll take a walk into town to find city hall, and if not I hope John Dale will meet us and take charge of the letters for delivery to the Mayor. After that we can stroll over somewhere for lunch and some AVBS. *COME ON AND JOIN US IN NELSON! DO YOUR PART TO HELP SAVE A */ *GREAT *//*LITTLE AIRPORT, IN A GREAT LITTLE TOWN, FOR A GREAT BUNCH*/ *OF AVIATORS....THE AVIATORS OF NELSON AND BC!* / Please make the effort to be there, and let me know your intentions. Pass this message to everyone you know, and let's see if we can have the biggest one day air arrival parade in the history of the Nelson Airport. *We can stop the intended closing of this airport with your help.....let's do it!* Take care and Fly Safe! */Breakfast Club of British Columbia (BCBC)/* *//* Gary Tel/Fax: (250) 497-6466 From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Sun May 18 23:00:35 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] References: <3EC85CF2.2080104@b4.ca> Message-ID: <002701c31dcb$f71019e0$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Just got in from a Tofino-Qualicum Beach-Victoria-Cranfield-BB cross-country. Who's going, and what's the weather supposed to be like? Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Prior" To: Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:26 PM Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't > seen it elsewhere yet. > > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > -RB4 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > /Hey Gang....anyone interested in a flight to Nelson for lunch on > Monday? This/ > /will accomplish two goals, the main one being to support the Nelson > Airport as a/ > /very important part of the BC airport infrastructure, and help to keep > it from being / > /foolishly closed (don't forget what has just happened to Meigs Filed in > Chicago), / > /and the second to make up for today's BCBC cancelled trip to Anacortes. / > // > /I also think it would be great if you each of us took a few minutes to > write up our / > /own letters of support for CZNL and take them with us. We can slip > them in the / > /mail box at city hall, or I can get them to John Dale for forwarding to > the mayor. / > /I'm pretty sure John would take a great deal of pleasure in making a > quick trip / > /next week to visit the mayor personally and give him our thoughts...en > masse. / > // > /Don't let Nelson down, guys! We all enjoy at least one trip each year > over there / > /for a day or even a weekend, and to lose it would be tragic for us all./ > // > /Plan on a 10:00 arrival with your letters in hand. We'll take a walk > into town to find/ > /city hall, and if not I hope John Dale will meet us and take charge of > the letters for/ > /delivery to the Mayor. After that we can stroll over somewhere for > lunch and some / > /AVBS./ > // > /*COME ON AND JOIN US IN NELSON! DO YOUR PART TO HELP SAVE A */ > /*GREAT *//*LITTLE AIRPORT, IN A GREAT LITTLE TOWN, FOR A GREAT BUNCH*/ > /*OF AVIATORS....THE AVIATORS OF NELSON AND BC!* / > // > /Please make the effort to be there, and let me know your intentions. > Pass this / > /message to everyone you know, and let's see if we can have the biggest > one day/ > /air arrival parade in the history of the Nelson Airport./ > // > /*We can stop the intended closing of this airport with your > help.....let's do it!*/ > /**/ > Take care and Fly Safe! > > */Breakfast Club of British Columbia (BCBC)/* > *//* > > Gary > Tel/Fax: (250) 497-6466 > > FLYING BC 2003 Events Calendar: http://ca.calendar.yahoo.com/flyingbc_ca/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From jayeandscott at shaw.ca Sun May 18 23:06:04 2003 From: jayeandscott at shaw.ca (Jaye and Scott Jackson) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] References: Message-ID: <003101c31dcc$bb1a4220$0200a8c0@vc.shawcable.net> Just got in from flying all afternoon-six legs around the Island. Tired, but with The Grin on my face. Am free, but have blown my fuel budget for this pay period. Anybody want to help me out, I have a seat available? Scott How do you pay for fuel in Nelson on a holiday? ----- Original Message ----- From: "George McNutt" To: Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:03 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > 10 AM in CZNL, lets see, I have to be airborne out of Langley in the RV-6A > at 8:25 - need to fuel first, 11 PM now, not normally an early riser. Any > other acft from lower mainland going - if so send a e-mail and I will make > the effort. > > George McNutt > Langley B.C. > (my letter in the mail) > > > - > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > -RB4 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > /Hey Gang....anyone interested in a flight to Nelson for lunch on > Monday? This will accomplish two goals, the main one being to support the > Nelson > Airport as a very important part of the BC airport infrastructure, and help > to keep > it from being foolishly closed (don't forget what has just happened to Meigs > Filed in > Chicago), and the second to make up for today's BCBC cancelled trip to > Anacortes. > I also think it would be great if you each of us took a few minutes to > write up our own letters of support for CZNL and take them with us. We can > slip > them in the mail box at city hall, or I can get them to John Dale for > forwarding to > the mayor. I'm pretty sure John would take a great deal of pleasure in > making a > quick trip next week to visit the mayor personally and give him our > thoughts...en > masse. > Don't let Nelson down, guys! We all enjoy at least one trip each year > over there for a day or even a weekend, and to lose it would be tragic for > us all. > > Plan on a 10:00 arrival with your letters in hand. We'll take a walk > into town to find city hall, and if not I hope John Dale will meet us and > take charge of > the letters for delivery to the Mayor. After that we can stroll over > somewhere for > lunch and some AVBS. > *COME ON AND JOIN US IN NELSON! DO YOUR PART TO HELP SAVE A */ > *GREAT *//*LITTLE AIRPORT, IN A GREAT LITTLE TOWN, FOR A GREAT BUNCH*/ > *OF AVIATORS....THE AVIATORS OF NELSON AND BC!* / > > Please make the effort to be there, and let me know your intentions. > Pass this message to everyone you know, and let's see if we can have the > biggest > one day air arrival parade in the history of the Nelson Airport. > > *We can stop the intended closing of this airport with your > help.....let's do it!* > Take care and Fly Safe! > > */Breakfast Club of British Columbia (BCBC)/* > *//* > > Gary > Tel/Fax: (250) 497-6466 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From rv7 at b4.ca Mon May 19 20:41:03 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] KMS Tools Tool Clearance Message-ID: <3EC9A3CF.9030202@b4.ca> For those of you in the Vancouver (BC) area, I came across some specials at KMS Tools in Coquitlam (www.kmstools.com if you need the address) that may interest some of you. It appears someone's brought a large load back from Boeing Surplus in the last couple of weeks, as they have quite a large selection of these this weekend. All of these are used. $6.95 ea. Cleco pliers (30-40 pairs, most in good shape, a few in great shape) $4.70 ea. Side Grip Clecos 1/2" (40-50 didn't count accurately, almost all in great shape) $6.50 ea. 12" #30 and #40 drill bits, with Boeing speedchuck fitting on the end (works great in a regular drill too) Also, 6" #30 and #40 drill bits, with the speedchuck fitting, and jobber length #30/40 bits (no fitting). Didn't look at the prices. They've got a large bin of each of the drills, and the #30/#40 bits are separated out from the larger sizes... I guess someone told them that there were homebuilders in the area... Look carefully, some of the 12" bits have slight bends in them. Most are fine, though. Some may need sharpening. $69.95 18ga. Air Nibblers. That's 18ga *steel*, I bought one there a while ago and it cuts through sheet aluminum like butter. *Very* handy. This public service announcement brought to you by: -- --------- Rob Prior rv7 "at" b4.ca ----------------------------- Stop dreaming... Start flying -------------------------------------------------------------------------- perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Mon May 19 22:29:38 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Would anyone be able to provide me with a template on paper of the wing cross section for my cradle. If there is anyone in the Vernon area building a RV7, I could come and copy it myself, Thanks for your help Franz franz@lastfrontierheli.com -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Hamilton McClymont Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:30 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to Cranbrook) and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. Hammy -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Rob Prior Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't seen it elsewhere yet. If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there will be a few RV's there... 8-) -RB4 -------- Original Message -------- _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 From jjewell at telus.net Mon May 19 23:13:33 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] References: Message-ID: <000f01c31e96$f157d9e0$104fad8e@bc.hsia.telus.net> Hi Franz, I think Larry williams (larryw@uniserve.com) and Rick Thorburn( trtarch@telus.net) in Vernon and myself in Kelowna all have what you need. Though the internal structural design has differences in some models the RV4, 6, 7, and 8, all share the same airfoil so getting the cross section from one of us should not present a big problem. Is this what you want? Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Fux" To: Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:29 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > Hi, > Would anyone be able to provide me with a template on paper of the wing > cross section for my cradle. If there is anyone in the Vernon area building > a RV7, I could come and copy it myself, > Thanks for your help > Franz > franz@lastfrontierheli.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Hamilton McClymont > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:30 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to Cranbrook) > and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad > weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. > > Hammy > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Rob Prior > Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't > seen it elsewhere yet. > > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > -RB4 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Tue May 20 10:16:16 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] In-Reply-To: <000f01c31e96$f157d9e0$104fad8e@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: Hi Jim, I talked to Larry already and he is under the impression that the cross section is different in the RV7. I just need the shape so that I can cut out the plywood for the cradle. Franz -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jim Jewell Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 11:14 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] Hi Franz, I think Larry williams (larryw@uniserve.com) and Rick Thorburn( trtarch@telus.net) in Vernon and myself in Kelowna all have what you need. Though the internal structural design has differences in some models the RV4, 6, 7, and 8, all share the same airfoil so getting the cross section from one of us should not present a big problem. Is this what you want? Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Fux" To: Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:29 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > Hi, > Would anyone be able to provide me with a template on paper of the wing > cross section for my cradle. If there is anyone in the Vernon area building > a RV7, I could come and copy it myself, > Thanks for your help > Franz > franz@lastfrontierheli.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Hamilton McClymont > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:30 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to Cranbrook) > and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad > weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. > > Hammy > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Rob Prior > Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't > seen it elsewhere yet. > > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > -RB4 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing _______________________________________________ Wing mailing list Wing@vansairforce.org http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 From jjewell at telus.net Tue May 20 17:12:00 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] References: Message-ID: <000901c31f2d$9a064f40$104fad8e@bc.hsia.telus.net> Hi Franz, I think that if you contact Van's they will confirm weather or not there is any difference in the airfoil shapes. I think they will say that the RV-3, -9, and -10, are the airfoil profiles that are different from the RV-4, -6, -7, and -8, which share the same airfoil. In any case it is always best to get the information from the horses mouth so to speak. They have always responded to my querries the next day. they might have what you want on hand. Jim ------- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Fux" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > Hi Jim, > I talked to Larry already and he is under the impression that the cross > section is different in the RV7. I just need the shape so that I can cut out > the plywood for the cradle. > Franz > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Jim Jewell > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 11:14 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: Re: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > Hi Franz, > > I think Larry williams (larryw@uniserve.com) and Rick Thorburn( > trtarch@telus.net) in Vernon and myself in Kelowna all have what you need. > Though the internal structural design has differences in some models the > RV4, 6, 7, and 8, all share the same airfoil so getting the cross section > from one of us should not present a big problem. Is this what you want? > > Jim in Kelowna > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Franz Fux" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:29 PM > Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > > Hi, > > Would anyone be able to provide me with a template on paper of the wing > > cross section for my cradle. If there is anyone in the Vernon area > building > > a RV7, I could come and copy it myself, > > Thanks for your help > > Franz > > franz@lastfrontierheli.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > > Behalf Of Hamilton McClymont > > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:30 PM > > To: wing@vansairforce.org > > Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > > > > I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to > Cranbrook) > > and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad > > weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. > > > > Hammy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > > Behalf Of Rob Prior > > Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM > > To: wing@vansairforce.org > > Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > > > > Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and > haven't > > seen it elsewhere yet. > > > > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure > there > > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > > > -RB4 > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wing mailing list > > Wing@vansairforce.org > > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > > --- > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wing mailing list > > Wing@vansairforce.org > > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From dvoth at shaw.ca Tue May 20 17:15:40 2003 From: dvoth at shaw.ca (Dennis Voth) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] References: Message-ID: <000b01c31f2e$1c808fd0$ab709344@warsteiner> We made a cradle for our RV 7 wings. If I remember correctly, I think all we did was trace the outline from the end of the wing (quickbuild). You could do the same with a rib. Then just make it a bit bigger, to leave space for padding of some sort. Dennis Voth, RV-7A, Calgary. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz Fux" To: Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 11:29 PM Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > Hi, > Would anyone be able to provide me with a template on paper of the wing > cross section for my cradle. If there is anyone in the Vernon area building > a RV7, I could come and copy it myself, > Thanks for your help > Franz > franz@lastfrontierheli.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Hamilton McClymont > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:30 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: RE: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > I wish I could - I've only seen Nelson from the air (on my way to Cranbrook) > and I was glad to know there was a place to set down in the case of bad > weather or other trouble. Off to Milwaukee at 0600 for two weeks instead. > > Hammy > > -----Original Message----- > From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On > Behalf Of Rob Prior > Sent: May 18, 2003 9:26 PM > To: wing@vansairforce.org > Subject: [Wing] [Fwd: Monday Air Convoy to Nelson?] > > > Sorry for the last minute notice, I just found this in my inbox and haven't > seen it elsewhere yet. > > If anyone in the Vancouver, BC area is interested in a nice flight on > Monday, Nelson will be a popular place to meet other pilots. I'm sure there > will be a few RV's there... 8-) > > -RB4 > > -------- Original Message -------- > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing From tedd at vansairforce.org Sat May 24 22:31:37 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley RV Fly-in 2003 Message-ID: <20030524222747.H8638-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> A short reminder that the Langley RV Fly-in is just two weeks away, on Saturday, June 7. Details are on our web site, at http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ/ If you have any questions about the fly-in, please feel free to write me at the address below or phone me at (604) 574-4764. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From elgood at aebc.com Tue May 27 13:46:20 2003 From: elgood at aebc.com (T&M Elgood) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Demel Aircraft Message-ID: <001001c32491$db1748e0$b8cc35d1@AEBC> To anyone who intends to order anything from Demel, Doug will bring your order to the Langley flyin if you ask him. From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue May 27 22:12:04 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Demel Aircraft In-Reply-To: <001001c32491$db1748e0$b8cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: <20030527221034.M94972-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Terry: Thanks for that reminder. For anyone who has questions for Demel, or an order to place, they will be at the Langley RV Fly-in on Saturday, June 7, at CYNJ. Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org On Tue, 27 May 2003, T&M Elgood wrote: > To anyone who intends to order anything from Demel, Doug will bring your > order to the Langley flyin if you ask him. From tedd at vansairforce.org Sun Jun 1 16:12:18 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-10 Photos on Wing Web Site Message-ID: <20030601161122.S4826-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> There are some new photos of the RV-10 on the Western Canada Wing web site, courtesy of Jerry Cochran. http://www.vansairforce.org/misc/RV-10/ Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From sdrivers at aaahawk.com Sun Jun 1 17:54:17 2003 From: sdrivers at aaahawk.com (Stuart Driver) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-10 Photos on Wing Web Site References: <20030601161122.S4826-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: <001701c328a1$7f6f9290$66224804@stuart> Tedd, I'm sorry to be off topic but I am trying to find a phone number for Vettermans Exhaust Systems. Could you help? SSD ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tedd McHenry" To: "Western Canada Wing List" Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 7:12 PM Subject: [Wing] RV-10 Photos on Wing Web Site > There are some new photos of the RV-10 on the Western Canada Wing web site, > courtesy of Jerry Cochran. > > http://www.vansairforce.org/misc/RV-10/ > > Tedd McHenry > Van's Air Force > Western Canada Wing > tedd@vansairforce.org > www.vansairforce.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From tedd at vansairforce.org Sun Jun 1 22:26:26 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV-10 Photos on Wing Web Site In-Reply-To: <001701c328a1$7f6f9290$66224804@stuart> Message-ID: <20030601222602.M11900-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Stuart Driver wrote: > Tedd, I'm sorry to be off topic but I am trying to find a phone number for > Vettermans Exhaust Systems. Could you help? SSD Try http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/vetterman/VettermanExhaust.htm Tedd From tedd at vansairforce.org Mon Jun 2 21:26:30 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] More RV-10 Photos Message-ID: <20030602212512.H33960-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> We have some more great photos of the RV-10, this time by George McNutt, on the Wing web site. http://www.vansairforce.org/misc/RV-10/ Thanks, George! --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From tedd at vansairforce.org Tue Jun 3 08:23:00 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:42 2005 Subject: [Wing] Reminder: Langley RV Fly-in this Saturday Message-ID: <20030603082145.O15386-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Just a short reminder that the Western Canada Wing/Langley Aero Club RV fly-in is this Saturday, June 7, at Langley (CYNJ). For details, see http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ/ We hope you can all make it. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Tue Jun 3 08:50:07 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] RV10 roof structure In-Reply-To: <20030603082145.O15386-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> Message-ID: Hi Ted Further to my comments on the RV10 roof structure. I noticed in the cockpit photo on the web that the windshield center support is also bolted to the roof at the top, the bolts are just visible in picture. George From kiwi at sunwave.net Sat Jun 7 21:50:14 2003 From: kiwi at sunwave.net (Barry Tunzelmann) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] VANs @ Salmon Arm Message-ID: <01C32D3E.C7C7FAE0.kiwi@sunwave.net> Howdy RVers, got an email from Scott Risan on Friday saying that most likely the RV9A will be at the Salmon Arm Air Affair on Sunday 15th June. Please encourage any one interested in purchasing this fantastic aircraft to come and have a taste on VANs. The Air Affair RV demonstrations by VANs at Salmon Arm has resulted in/or concluded the deal on 4 kit sales over the past 2 years. Barry & Cindy Tunzelmann Box 359 Canoe BC V0E 1K0 From tedd at vansairforce.org Mon Jun 9 09:02:50 2003 From: tedd at vansairforce.org (Tedd McHenry) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Langley Fly-in Message-ID: <20030609085228.T70820-100000@strongbad.retrix.com> The second annual Langley RV Fly-in was a great success, with an even better turnout of RVs (and other aircraft) than last year. The clear weather made it easier for people inland of the coastal mountains to fly in, and we had several RVs from the interior who weren't able to make last year's event. We also had RVs from as far afield as Springbank, AB, San Jose, CA, and Tuscon, AZ! I'd like to thank all the RVers who flew in. It was a most impressive line-up of airplanes! There are several pages of photos at http://www.vansairforce.org/events/CYNJ/2003/ Keep your eye on this page, as I will be uploading more photos over the next few days. Thanks to Les Burkholder and Susan Stannard for their excellent photos, and thanks in advance to Rob Prior, whose photos will be posted at the same link shortly. --- Tedd McHenry Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing tedd@vansairforce.org www.vansairforce.org From jjewell at telus.net Tue Jun 10 10:19:48 2003 From: jjewell at telus.net (Jim Jewell) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? Message-ID: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. Suggestions? Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/8abb51ea/attachment-0001.htm From grizzlybear at klondiker.com Tue Jun 10 13:33:34 2003 From: grizzlybear at klondiker.com (Jacob & Grace) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? References: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: <005801c32f8f$90b55ea0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about him in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and insists I bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a whole serious of events I can provide but suffice to say I am immersed in the turf wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. Suggestions? Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/3eda6ded/attachment-0001.htm From rv7 at b4.ca Tue Jun 10 13:39:50 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Stats on completions? Message-ID: <3EE64216.6000709@b4.ca> Does anyone here know where I could find stats on RV completions? I'm curious how many aircraft per month are being finished, and would like to know how the numbers changed over the last 6 months to a year. I could always call Van's and ask, but thought someone here might have the info handy (or a link to it). Thanks in advance, Rob P. From rv7 at b4.ca Tue Jun 10 13:44:12 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <005801c32f8f$90b55ea0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> References: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> <005801c32f8f$90b55ea0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> Message-ID: <3EE6431C.7030708@b4.ca> Jacob & Grace wrote: > If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really > unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my > last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about > him in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and > insists I bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a > whole serious of events I can provide but suffice to say I am > immersed in the turf wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. Hi Jacob, How about a little more detail (but not much...)? How long ago was your last aircraft inspected (presumably quite a while, as Transport handed off inspections to MD-RA a long time ago now)? How far "down south" do you need to bring an inspector from? And where are you located? Just curious... I wasn't aware there was a "turf war" between MD-RA and TC. I thought TC was quite happy to hand off all the inspections to MD-RA. -Rob From b.m.carr at telus.net Tue Jun 10 16:05:02 2003 From: b.m.carr at telus.net (bryan carr) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? References: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: <002901c32fa4$ba8164d0$6911c2cf@S0025031703> Hi Jim I have had Jim Asprey do my last 3 planes and would highly recommend you ask for him when you need an inspection. He is very thorough and is well qualified to the job. (he is building a RV-6 ). Bryan ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. Suggestions? Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/5db3ff6c/attachment-0001.htm From franz at lastfrontierheli.com Tue Jun 10 16:24:04 2003 From: franz at lastfrontierheli.com (Franz Fux) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <002901c32fa4$ba8164d0$6911c2cf@S0025031703> Message-ID: Where does Jim Asprey live and do you have a contact number. I am building an RV7 and would love to have the opportunity of an independent inspection and or some suggestions some times along the building process Franz Fux Vernon -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of bryan carr Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:05 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? Hi Jim I have had Jim Asprey do my last 3 planes and would highly recommend you ask for him when you need an inspection. He is very thorough and is well qualified to the job. (he is building a RV-6 ). Bryan ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. Suggestions? Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/7989f196/attachment-0001.htm From del at deltech.ca Tue Jun 10 16:55:16 2003 From: del at deltech.ca (Del Schneider) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <005801c32f8f$90b55ea0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> Message-ID: I finished my RV6-A last November. Inspection and paper work was virtually seamless from start to finish with lots of help from the people at MD-RA. I know in a couple of instances I did not fill the paper out exactly correctly, but had help at every angle from Gerry Halliburton in London, Ont. and Terry Elgood in Vancouver and in particular the local inspector Dan McKeith in Quesnel. When the 25 hour were completed I walked into the Transport Canada office and had the paper work signed off in a couple of hours. Sure it's a lot of paper work and a pain in the butt for those of us that hate paper work but what the heck, you just spent years building and you did that right, now do the paper work correctly. Del Schneider Prince George, BC C-GZVD -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jacob & Grace Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 1:34 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Jewell To: wing@vansairforce.org Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about him in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and insists I bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a whole serious of events I can provide but suffice to say I am immersed in the turf wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. Suggestions? Jim in Kelowna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/f64ba7fa/attachment-0001.htm From grizzlybear at klondiker.com Tue Jun 10 17:23:15 2003 From: grizzlybear at klondiker.com (Jacob & Grace) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? References: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> <005801c32f8f$90b55ea0$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> <3EE6431C.7030708@b4.ca> Message-ID: <009301c32faf$a66a1c20$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Prior" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? > Jacob & Grace wrote: > > > If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really > > unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my > > last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about > > him in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and > > insists I bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a > > whole serious of events I can provide but suffice to say I am > > immersed in the turf wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. > > Hi Jacob, > > How about a little more detail (but not much...)? > > How long ago was your last aircraft inspected (presumably quite a while, > as Transport handed off inspections to MD-RA a long time ago now)? > My last aircraft was built in 1999/2000, inspections were during those two years, first two inspectors very professional but last (new) one was....uh.....less professional! > How far "down south" do you need to bring an inspector from? And where > are you located? > Sorry, we are building in Whitehorse, Yukon (Two hours North of Skagway Alaska). Transport Canada has an agreement with MD-RA that MDRA will do inspections, "except where no inspector is available". Our nearest inspector (travel wise) would be Vancouver or Edmonton. (over 1600 miles) The government sponsored cost for air fare alone is $1,600.00 right now, there are better prices from time to time, but there is expenses, lodging, fees, etc to add. > Just curious... I wasn't aware there was a "turf war" between MD-RA and > TC. I thought TC was quite happy to hand off all the inspections to MD-RA. > Transport Canada wants out of the responsibility, and MD-RA wants in to do it! The agreement is still officially that Transport Canada will do it when the MD-RA is too far away. Because the one TC guy in charge here is really ticked at me for complaining he wants me (and only me it seems, the other builders seem to be getting thier inspections done by TC for now), to pay to bring someone up from Edmonton or Vancouver. The turf war begins because the MD-RA is very reluctant to say they want TC to do ANY inspections, so they are siding with TC in this case on principle I guess.. > -Rob > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Tue Jun 10 18:08:53 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <000801c32f74$80c65820$8cdcb742@bc.hsia.telus.net> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jim Jewell Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:20 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? I have been listening to home builder people's comments regarding the inspection process that they are required to follow. It occurred to me that It might be good to get and share a more general scan of builders experiances and reactions. If you are happy say how and why here. [George McNutt] __ If you are not happy say how and why here. Hi Jim, - good idea! I think that the MD-RA is trying to do a good job and has many fine volunteers, but I also believe that MD-RA is handicapped by their inadequate agreements with Transport. These problems mostly emanate from MD-RA and Transport headquarters but are exasperated by some individuals who seem to think that their MD-RA training manual supercedes the CAR's. I ran into two procedures problems in April - May 2002 with MD-RA (Pacific Region) while trying to get my initial flight authorization. My problems were all resolved by getting a refund for my final inspection fees from MD-RA and dealing with Transport Canada. I believe one problem area has been resolved for succeeding builders. (1) Gross weight increase, - Despite already having kit manufacturers letters on file MD-RA was insisting on a letter from the kit manufacturer (Vans) approving a gross weight increase for my individual aircraft prior to issuing a flight authorization. This seemed to be a case of the MD-RA worrying about their own liability and ignoring what the CAR's said about the subject. My understanding is that this problem is now resolved with the builder supplying a letter assuming liability for the heavier weight. (2) MD-RA's inability to modify initial operating limitations - The 25 mile operating radius limitation at airports such as Boundary Bay can be a safety hazard. All of the 25 mile area is built-up city, over water, in the USA, in a high traffic area capped at 2500 feet by class "C" airspace or over mountains. Unfortunately we are dealing with MD-RA, Bombardier or Air Canada simply request a safe operating area from Transport. In our case MD-RA says their hands are tied by their agreement with Transport on issuing a safer operating area. They will only issue the standard 25 mile area and then you must have Transport amend the Flight Authorization to give you a safer area. Yes, amendments cost money, in this case $35. Why should one pay hundreds of dollars for a Flight Authorization that needs to be amended in the interests of safety?? On a side note - I received excellent service from Transport Canada (Abbottsford), no fee for changing the 25 mile radius to the Hope corridor, no hassle in removing the VFR restriction, and I ended up with two final inspections MD-RA and Transport for the price of one! George McNutt Langley B.C. 6A - 152 hrs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://retrix.com/pipermail/wing/attachments/20030610/325442dc/attachment-0001.htm From elgood at aebc.com Tue Jun 10 22:22:54 2003 From: elgood at aebc.com (T&M Elgood) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Wing digest, Vol 1 #195 - 8 msgs Message-ID: <004f01c32fd9$995b1dc0$15cc35d1@AEBC> > Today's Topics: With comments from Terry Elgood, MD-RA Chief inspector for BC > > > If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really = > unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my = > last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about him = > in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and insists I = > bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a whole serious = > of events I can provide but suffice to say I am immersed in the turf = > wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. T.E. There is no "turf war" between MD-RA and Transport Canada. MD-RA has a contract with Transport Canada to provide inspection services to amateur built aircraft builders in Canada. If more information regarding this arrangement is required contact Allan Mahon, General Manager MD-RA Inspection Services > I have had Jim Asprey do my last 3 planes and would highly recommend you = > ask for him when you need an inspection. > He is very thorough and is well qualified to the job. (he is building a = > RV-6 ). > Bryan T.E. Thank you Bryan, I'm sure Jim appreciates your comments. You and your wife have built some beautiful airplanes. > From: "Franz Fux" > Where does Jim Asprey live and do you have a contact number. I am building > an RV7 and would love to have the opportunity of an independent inspection > and or some suggestions some times along the building process > Franz Fux > Vernon T.E. Franz, there are two qualified inspectors in Kamloops, one of them will inspect your aircraft. I doubt you would consider the travel costs for Jim from White Rock. > From: "Del Schneider" > > I finished my RV6-A last November. Inspection and paper work was virtually > seamless from start to finish with lots of help from the people at MD-RA. I > know in a couple of instances I did not fill the paper out exactly > correctly, but had help at every angle from Gerry Halliburton in London, > Ont. and Terry Elgood in Vancouver and in particular the local inspector Dan > McKeith in Quesnel. When the 25 hour were completed I walked into the > Transport Canada office and had the paper work signed off in a couple of > hours. Sure it's a lot of paper work and a pain in the butt for those of us > that hate paper work but what the heck, you just spent years building and > you did that right, now do the paper work correctly. > T.E. Del, thank you, I appreciate your comments and I'm sure Dan and Gerry will also. I doubt any of you would believe me if I told you the amount of time I spend on this VOLUNTEER job, trying to HELP people. Hi Jacob, > > > Sorry, we are building in Whitehorse, Yukon (Two hours North > of Skagway Alaska). Transport Canada has an agreement with MD-RA that MDRA > will do inspections, "except where no inspector is available". T.E. Jacob, there is not much I can do to help you here, you may have to request an inspection from Transport Canada through the MD-RA. If you are having "difficulty" with a local inspector, contact Allan Mahon he may be able to help you deal with Transport through his contacts. > The turf war begins because the MD-RA is very reluctant to > say they want TC to do ANY inspections, so they are siding with TC in this > case on principle I guess.. > > -Rob T.E. Rob, not quite true. As I stated above, MD-RA has a contract. If a T.C. inspector gets involved without him being requested to through the proper channels he just might get a phone call from a certain individual back east who carries a very big stick and is not reluctant to use it, it has happened before. > > [George McNutt] __ If you are not happy say how and why here. > > Hi Jim, - good idea! > > I think that the MD-RA is trying to do a good job and has many fine > volunteers, T.E. George, thank you but I also believe that MD-RA is handicapped by their inadequate > agreements with Transport.These problems mostly emanate from MD-RA and > Transport headquarters but are exasperated by some individuals who seem to > think that their MD-RA training manual supercedes the CAR's. T.E. George, specifically, what "individuals-------training manual supercedes the CARS" > (1) Gross weight increase, - Despite already having kit manufacturers > letters on file MD-RA was insisting on a letter from the kit manufacturer > (Vans) approving a gross weight increase for my individual aircraft prior to > issuing a flight authorization. This seemed to be a case of the MD-RA > worrying about their own liability and ignoring what the CAR's said about > the subject. > My understanding is that this problem is now resolved with the builder > supplying a letter assuming liability for the heavier weight. > T.E. George, each aircraft is unique, like it or not it is. It is irrelevant what is on file for the gross weight for similar aircraft. As I am sure you are aware Transport Canada form 24-0079 Application for C of A asks "was the design modified" prior to resolving this issue if the answer was yes (the gross weight was increased) the builder required a letter from the designer allowing the increase, Vans would no longer do this. A new procedure was developed to allow a builder to increase the gross weight. Thank you for your help in resolving this situation. (why should MD-RA worry about liability, as an inspector I am working for and insured by Transport Canada , if I wasn't do you think I would be doing this) T.E. personal comment It will be interesting to see what happens in a lawsuit when someone is killed in a over gross RV, the builder already has a noose around his neck as the manufacturer of an aircraft. I can just imagine the fake indignation of some lawyer saying you mean to tell me you willingly flew the aircraft over it's RECOMMENDED design limits. When they get finished with him he will be eating dog food and living under a bridge. > (2) MD-RA's inability to modify initial operating limitations - The 25 > mile operating radius limitation at airports such as Boundary Bay can be a > safety hazard. > T.E. George, at your request I brought this up at a meeting in Ontario. Prior to the meeting I reviewed the situation with Transport Canada locally, they were in agreement that I should be allowed to provide an exemption to the 25 mile rule, similar to that provided then and now. At the Ont. meeting, Transport agreed, when I returned home he changed his mind. Believe me I tried. T.E. Jim Jewell, thank you for starting this discussion, there appears to be a lot of misunderstanding about MD-RA. I hope this clears up some questions. Are you the Jim that Larry introduced me to at Langley last weekend, if you are it's too bad you didn't join in our conversation, it would have been interesting to talk to you. From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Tue Jun 10 23:30:34 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <009301c32faf$a66a1c20$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Jacob & Grace Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:23 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? > Jacob & Grace wrote: > > > I recieved really > > unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my > > last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about > > him in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and > > insists I bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a > > whole serious of events I can provide but suffice to say I am > > immersed in the turf wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. > My Suggestion FWIW. Write to the MD-RA headquarters and ask how one goes about getting a homebuilt aircraft inspected in Whitehorse. I doubt that the answer will be to fly someone in from Edmonton. If they are unable to give you a satisfactory response refer them to paragraph 4.3 of the following: Aircraft Maintenance & Manufacturing, Staff Instructions # MSI-43 (July 11, 2002) (File # AARP-5009-3-43)part of which is reproduced below. ------------------------------------ 4. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION 4.1 Transport Canada has named MD-RA Inspection Services as sole sponsoring organization charged with delivering the Minister's Delegate - Recreational Aviation Program. They can be reached at the following address: MD-RA Inspection Services 2469 Aviation Lane London, ON, N5V 3Z9 Toll Free: (877) 419-2111 Business: (519) 457-2909 Fax: (519) 457-0980 4.2 All amateur-built projects, including letters of intent and requests for importation, shall be forwarded to MD-RA Inspection Services for processing. 4.3 In the case where a MD-RA is not available, MD-RA Inspection Services shall forward the file to the appropriate Transport Canada Centre (TCC). 4.4 In the cases of amateur-built aircraft built outside Canada, CASIs and delegates shall refer to MPL 10 for further guidance. ------------------------------------------------- Should Transport Canada YXY refuse to handle the file I would then want an answer from the Minister of Transport as to why they are not following their own policy. It is possible to build a Canadian homebuilt outside of Canada, surely it is possible to build one in Whitehorse, even after butting heads with the local TC guy. George McNutt Langley B.C. From grizzlybear at klondiker.com Tue Jun 10 23:30:16 2003 From: grizzlybear at klondiker.com (Jacob & Grace) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Fw: Wing digest, Vol 1 #195 - 8 msgs References: <004f01c32fd9$995b1dc0$15cc35d1@AEBC> Message-ID: <001601c32fe2$ec2ad410$d3edf7c7@D9PQ6L21> Thanks Terry, I can only imagine the frustration you must sometimes experience. I thank you for your efforts and clarification. I didn't know I had to arrange a Transport Canada Inspection through the MD-RA but if so that is what I will try to do. I imagine you understand my frustration too, I did nothing wrong last time, and all I want is the inspections a bureacrat is currently paid to do, and is currently doing for everyone else up here. No one I have ever met (yet) wants to fly an airplane that is not safe, and I think we all know the paper work is part of the job like Dell says. Maybe call me directly if you have advice. Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "T&M Elgood" To: Cc: "Allan Mahon" ; "Gerry Haliburton" ; "Jim Asprey" ; "Dan McKeith" Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:22 PM Subject: [Wing] Fw: Wing digest, Vol 1 #195 - 8 msgs > > Today's Topics: With comments from Terry Elgood, MD-RA Chief inspector > for BC > > > > > > If you are not happy say how and why here. I recieved really = > > unprofessional service from one Transport Canada inspector during my = > > last aircraft construction and made the mistake of complaining about him = > > in writing. Now he is refusing to do inspections for me and insists I = > > bring someone up from down south for my RV-8. There is a whole serious = > > of events I can provide but suffice to say I am immersed in the turf = > > wars between Transport Canada and MDRA. > > > T.E. > There is no "turf war" between MD-RA and Transport Canada. MD-RA has a > contract with Transport Canada to provide inspection services to amateur > built aircraft builders in Canada. If more information regarding this > arrangement is required contact Allan Mahon, General Manager MD-RA > Inspection Services > > > > > > > I have had Jim Asprey do my last 3 planes and would highly recommend you = > > ask for him when you need an inspection. > > He is very thorough and is well qualified to the job. (he is building a = > > RV-6 ). > > Bryan > > T.E. > Thank you Bryan, I'm sure Jim appreciates your comments. You and your wife > have built some beautiful airplanes. > > > > From: "Franz Fux" > > > Where does Jim Asprey live and do you have a contact number. I am building > > an RV7 and would love to have the opportunity of an independent inspection > > and or some suggestions some times along the building process > > Franz Fux > > Vernon > > T.E. > Franz, there are two qualified inspectors in Kamloops, one of them will > inspect your aircraft. I doubt you would consider the travel costs for Jim > from White Rock. > > > > > From: "Del Schneider" > > > > I finished my RV6-A last November. Inspection and paper work was virtually > > seamless from start to finish with lots of help from the people at MD-RA. > I > > know in a couple of instances I did not fill the paper out exactly > > correctly, but had help at every angle from Gerry Halliburton in London, > > Ont. and Terry Elgood in Vancouver and in particular the local inspector > Dan > > McKeith in Quesnel. When the 25 hour were completed I walked into the > > Transport Canada office and had the paper work signed off in a couple of > > hours. Sure it's a lot of paper work and a pain in the butt for those of > us > > that hate paper work but what the heck, you just spent years building and > > you did that right, now do the paper work correctly. > > > > T.E. > Del, thank you, I appreciate your comments and I'm sure Dan and Gerry will > also. I doubt any of you would believe me if I told you the amount of time I > spend on this VOLUNTEER job, trying to HELP people. > > > > > Hi Jacob, > > > > > Sorry, we are building in Whitehorse, Yukon (Two hours North > > of Skagway Alaska). Transport Canada has an agreement with MD-RA that > MDRA > > will do inspections, "except where no inspector is available". > > T.E. > > Jacob, there is not much I can do to help you here, you may have to request > an inspection from Transport Canada through the MD-RA. If you are having > "difficulty" with a local inspector, contact Allan Mahon he may be able to > help you deal with Transport through his contacts. > > > > > > The turf war begins because the MD-RA is very reluctant to > > say they want TC to do ANY inspections, so they are siding with TC in this > > case on principle I guess.. > > > -Rob > > T.E. > Rob, not quite true. As I stated above, MD-RA has a contract. If a T.C. > inspector gets involved without him being requested to through the proper > channels he just might get a phone call from a certain individual back east > who carries a very big stick and is not reluctant to use it, it has happened > before. > > > > > > [George McNutt] __ If you are not happy say how and why here. > > > > Hi Jim, - good idea! > > > > I think that the MD-RA is trying to do a good job and has many fine > > volunteers, > > T.E. > George, thank you > > > but I also believe that MD-RA is handicapped by their inadequate > > agreements with Transport.These problems mostly emanate from MD-RA and > > Transport headquarters but are exasperated by some individuals who seem to > > think that their MD-RA training manual supercedes the CAR's. > > T.E. > George, specifically, what "individuals-------training manual supercedes the > CARS" > > > > > > (1) Gross weight increase, - Despite already having kit manufacturers > > letters on file MD-RA was insisting on a letter from the kit manufacturer > > (Vans) approving a gross weight increase for my individual aircraft prior > to > > issuing a flight authorization. This seemed to be a case of the MD-RA > > worrying about their own liability and ignoring what the CAR's said about > > the subject. > > My understanding is that this problem is now resolved with the builder > > supplying a letter assuming liability for the heavier weight. > > > T.E. > George, each aircraft is unique, like it or not it is. It is irrelevant what > is on file for the gross weight for similar aircraft. As I am sure you are > aware Transport Canada form 24-0079 Application for C of A asks "was the > design modified" prior to resolving this issue if the answer was yes (the > gross weight was increased) the builder required a letter from the designer > allowing the increase, Vans would no longer do this. A new procedure was > developed to allow a builder to increase the gross weight. Thank you for > your help in resolving this situation. (why should MD-RA worry about > liability, as an inspector I am working for and insured by Transport Canada > , if I wasn't do you think I would be doing this) > > > > T.E. personal comment > > It will be interesting to see what happens in a lawsuit when someone is > killed in a over gross RV, the builder already has a noose around his neck > as the manufacturer of an aircraft. I can just imagine the fake indignation > of some lawyer saying you mean to tell me you willingly flew the aircraft > over it's RECOMMENDED design limits. When they get finished with him he will > be eating dog food and living under a bridge. > > > > > (2) MD-RA's inability to modify initial operating limitations - The 25 > > mile operating radius limitation at airports such as Boundary Bay can be a > > safety hazard. > > > T.E. > George, at your request I brought this up at a meeting in Ontario. Prior to > the meeting I reviewed the situation with Transport Canada locally, they > were in agreement that I should be allowed to provide an exemption to the 25 > mile rule, similar to that provided then and now. At the Ont. meeting, > Transport agreed, when I returned home he changed his mind. Believe me I > tried. > > T.E. > Jim Jewell, thank you for starting this discussion, there appears to be a > lot of misunderstanding about MD-RA. I hope this clears up some questions. > Are you the Jim that Larry introduced me to at Langley last weekend, if you > are it's too bad you didn't join in our conversation, it would have been > interesting to talk to you. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wing mailing list > Wing@vansairforce.org > http://vansairforce.org/mailman/listinfo/wing > From rv7 at b4.ca Wed Jun 11 08:35:11 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EE74C2F.3090707@b4.ca> George McNutt wrote: > individuals who seem to think that their MD-RA training manual > supercedes the CAR's. Hi George, I'd be interested in knowing which parts of the training manual supercede which CAR's. > (1) Gross weight increase, > > This > seemed to be a case of the MD-RA worrying about their own liability > and ignoring what the CAR's said about the subject. According to the calculation in Appendix A of Chapter 549 of the CAR's, the maximum permissible wing loading of an RV-6A (using dimensions from Van's website) is about 16.5 lb/ft^2, corresponding to a gross weight of about 1800lb. That exceeds Van's reccommended numbers by 200 lb and 2 lb/ft^2. Do you feel qualified to second guess the designer, even if "everyone else is doing it"? Remember, the CAR's are meant to be generic, they weren't written specifically for RV's. They list the *limits*. They don't list what is reasonable or prudent for any one design (or for any one specific, modified, aircraft). Only the designer can be doing that. Frankly, i'm surprised Van's was ever willing to write letters authorizing increased gross weights at all. Do those letters come with reduced G limits? They should... -RB4 From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Wed Jun 11 12:37:20 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <3EE74C2F.3090707@b4.ca> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Rob Prior Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:35 AM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? George McNutt wrote: > individuals who seem to think that their MD-RA training manual > supercedes the CAR's. Hi George, I'd be interested in knowing which parts of the training manual supercede which CAR's. > (1) Gross weight increase, > > This > seemed to be a case of the MD-RA worrying about their own liability > and ignoring what the CAR's said about the subject. According to the calculation in Appendix A of Chapter 549 of the CAR's, the maximum permissible wing loading of an RV-6A (using dimensions from Van's website) is about 16.5 lb/ft^2, corresponding to a gross weight of about 1800lb. That exceeds Van's reccommended numbers by 200 lb and 2 lb/ft^2. Do you feel qualified to second guess the designer, even if "everyone else is doing it"? Remember, the CAR's are meant to be generic, they weren't written specifically for RV's. They list the *limits*. They don't list what is reasonable or prudent for any one design (or for any one specific, modified, aircraft). Only the designer can be doing that. Frankly, i'm surprised Van's was ever willing to write letters authorizing increased gross weights at all. Do those letters come with reduced G limits? They should... -RB4 ----------------------------------------- Hi Rob To answer your questions will probably get into a great diatribe on the subject, however it may be interesting and it is nice to see some action on the wing website, so here goes. Remember, in my case I am speaking of rules that existed in April 2002 and there may have been subsequent changes. (1) The CAR's never did require a letter from Vans to set gross weight, neither did Transport Canada, this was (only) a MD-RA requirement. (2) I do not feel qualified to second guess the designer. Therefore I will observe his structural loading limits, especially the aerobatic weight. However the recommended gross for my RV-6A is not specific in the builders manual, it states "Vans recommends a 1600-1650 pound limit" but it also states that "the aircraft builder is allowed to specify this [gross] weight" (Page 14-1 #2). Certainly I could set gross at 1600 or 1650lb. (which one?) and always have more than utility category "G" limits. However the regulations also allow builders to set a higher weight. The beauty of the homebuilt regulations is that a builder can increase gross weight and fly the aircraft like a Boeing or Airbus which have flown millions of hours with a 2.8 "G" limit. How high could I have theoretically set my gross weight, CAR's limit homebuilt weights to 3968 pounds, and there are no structural strength requirements in the regulations. It is my understanding (from a telephone conversation with Maurice Simoneau) that we actually do have one Canadian RV-6(A?) registered with a 3968 lb gross weight, I sure would have liked to witness that climb test!! (3) I think Terry Elgood puts it very well in his pamphlet where he states "some of the formula in chapter 549 are next to impossible for a builder (and a lot of inspectors) to understand". Actually that complicated formula for wing loading that we builders must figure out has nothing to do with aircraft gross weight, "G" loadings or strength. It is simply a calculation to see if one needs a "High Performance Endorsement" on his pilots licence to fly that particular aircraft. If you exceed the specified weights you need the high performance endorsement!! Nothing at all to do with aircraft structural safety. (4) I agree, why would any aircraft designer give anyone a letter to increase gross weight. Once the kit leaves the loading dock the designer has no control over how much strength the builder has added or subtracted from the structure. The builder is ultimately responsible. I believe that the proposed new homebuilt legislation has had a lot of input from kit manufacturers and they will be a big liability relief for them. It spells out the fact that the builder is responsible for everything, including quality of (kit) components. By the way homebuilt weights were/are proposed to increase to around 5000 lb. do we see a bigger Murphy Moose in the future? Happy Building, George McNutt Langley, B.C. From rv7 at b4.ca Wed Jun 11 13:31:53 2003 From: rv7 at b4.ca (Rob Prior) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EE791B9.3010501@b4.ca> George McNutt wrote: > To answer your questions will probably get into a great diatribe on the > subject, however it may be interesting and it is nice to see some action on > the wing website, so here goes. Remember, in my case I am speaking of rules > that existed in April 2002 and there may have been subsequent changes. I agree, this is an interesting exchange... I hope others are getting something out of it as well. > (2) I do not feel qualified to second guess the designer. Therefore I > will observe his structural loading limits, especially the aerobatic > weight. However the recommended gross for my RV-6A is not specific in > the builders manual, it states "Vans recommends a 1600-1650 pound > limit" but it also states that "the aircraft builder is allowed to > specify this [gross] weight" (Page 14-1 #2). The first thing that comes to mind here is, if you think that Vans' limits for normal category are too low, and willingly fly above them, then why would you bother observing his aerobatic structural limits? Still... I think a little background may be necessary from an Aeronautical Engineer's perspective (which could be likened to Vans' perspective, although I don't claim to be speaking for them at all). First off, an airplane is not designed with a "variable" or "unspecified" gross weight in mind. An airplane is designed to meet a desired "mission profile". Such a profile will contain requirements like: - two 170lb passengers + 100lb baggage - 200mph cruise - +4.4/-2.2 (utility category) limits - 1600lb gross weight These numbers are used to design the entire structure of the aircraft. In the case of the RV-6, the gross weight limit was chosen to be 1600lb at a utility category loading of 4.4G, or 1375lb at an aerobatic loading of 6G. Let's take the example of your aircraft, raising the gross weight to 1800lb. That's an extra 200 lb. Where does it go? A few places come to mind, let's explore what happens when you put the weight in those locations: Fuel. You could add fuel in the manner of an additional bay along the leading edge, or at the wingtip. Keep in mind that this places an additional dead-weight shear load on the wing, either along the leading edge or at the tip, locations that were not designed to take these loads originally. Passengers. You could carry extra-heavy passengers. Keep in mind that the seat structure was designed to carry a certain passenger load, and to carry it safely up to a certain G load. Raising your passenger weight lowers the safety factor on your seats. Also, an extra heavy passenger will likely have larger legs and torso, which may hamper control movement. Baggage. I think many owners of RV-6's will agree that the aircraft starts to show an aft CG problem if it's loaded near Gross with baggage. Adding more baggage means that problem gets worse, and affects the stability and performance of the aircraft. You could distribute the extra 200 lb throughout your aircraft. You could have an extra 1/2 bay of fuel in each wing, an extra 50lb of IFR avionics, an extra 50lb of baggage, and an extra 50lb of passenger. That'll distribute the load quite evenly, right? Well, consider that the stall speed creeps up, and service ceiling and range creep down, with an increase in gross weight. For example, note that the service ceiling of a 160HP RV-6A drops from 20,500 to 16,300 when you go from the solo weight to the gross weight, a change of 225 lb. How much lower is it at 1800 lb? In the end, are any of these changes going to affect someone flying an RV from Langley to Chilliwack for pie? Possibly not. But keep in mind that by increasing your gross weight, you're cutting into your safety margins. Despite all the inspections, friends looking at the construction, and everyone's agreement that you fly a beautiful RV-6A (which you do... 8-), can you say with 100% certainty that every structural component on your aircraft matches the plans? > Certainly I could set gross at 1600 or 1650lb. (which one?) and always have > more than utility category "G" limits. However the regulations also allow > builders to set a higher weight. The beauty of the homebuilt regulations is > that a builder can increase gross weight and fly the aircraft like a Boeing > or Airbus which have flown millions of hours with a 2.8 "G" limit. This is one of the points I make above... The RV-6(A) is 1600-1650lb gross at 4.4G (Utility Category) and 1375 at 6G (Aerobatic Category). So at 1600-1650, you do not have "more than utility category limits". > How high could I have theoretically set my gross weight, CAR's limit > homebuilt weights to 3968 pounds, and there are no structural strength > requirements in the regulations. This is a bit of a misconception. The CAR's do have structural strength requirements, but this isn't the section where you find them. The CAR's say your aircraft must be able to withstand a design load factor at a design load condition. For example, Gross Weight at 4.4G (utility category) or Aerobatic Weight at 6G (aerobatic category). That is the structural strength requirement. Once you've designed your aircraft around this, you look to see if it's a high-performance aircraft or not, and that is defined using wing loading. For an RV-6(A), the wing loading is 14.5 lb/ft^2, which falls within the limit of about 20 lb/ft^2. This section wasn't intended as an opportunity to show that your aircraft could have a larger gross weight, it's intended to show that your aircraft falls well within the non-high-performance category. Nothing more. > It is my understanding (from a telephone conversation with Maurice Simoneau) > that we actually do have one Canadian RV-6(A?) registered with a 3968 lb > gross weight, I sure would have liked to witness that climb test!! I'd also want to check that the pilot has a high-performance endorsement (3968/110 = 36lb/ft^2). > Happy Building, And Happy Flying... 8-) > George McNutt > Langley, B.C. -Rob P. From gmcnutt at intergate.ca Wed Jun 11 16:19:11 2003 From: gmcnutt at intergate.ca (George McNutt) Date: Sun Jan 16 11:26:43 2005 Subject: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? In-Reply-To: <3EE791B9.3010501@b4.ca> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: wing-admin@vansairforce.org [mailto:wing-admin@vansairforce.org]On Behalf Of Rob Prior Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:32 PM To: wing@vansairforce.org Subject: Re: [Wing] Consumer satisfaction? Hi Rob This is getting so long I am not sure how to format this so my answers to Robs reply are logical so will use a double >> for this last reply. George McNutt wrote: > To answer your questions will probably get into a great diatribe on the > subject, however it may be interesting and it is nice to see some action on > the wing website, so here goes. Remember, in my case I am speaking of rules > that existed in April 2002 and there may have been subsequent changes. I agree, this is an interesting exchange... I hope others are getting something out of it as well. > (2) I do not feel qualified to second guess the designer. Therefore I > will observe his structural loading limits, especially the aerobatic > weight. However the recommended gross for my RV-6A is not specific in > the builders manual, it states "Vans recommends a 1600-1650 pound > limit" but it also states that "the aircraft builder is allowed to > specify this [gross] weight" (Page 14-1 #2). The first thing that comes to mind here is, if you think that Vans' limits for normal category are too low, and willingly fly above them, then why would you bother observing his aerobatic structural limits? >> You are mixing the words normal and utility category. >> I do not fly beyond normal category weight limits, there may be a rare time when the aircraft >> is loaded to gross and it is beyond utility category weight limits. When this occurs it is >> always operated as a normal category aircraft just like thousands of Cessnas and Pipers. >> Still... I think a little background may be necessary from an Aeronautical Engineer's perspective (which could be likened to Vans' perspective, although I don't claim to be speaking for them at all). >> I am a little ignorant here Rob, are you an Aeron