 |
Equipment - Polished Aluminum Spinner, Christmas Present,2005. I found out Van's spinner is a little smaller than what Hartzell would provide if Van offered it as an option. But a Hartzell spinner would cost the end user about $700 - $800, apparently a price tag Van doesn't think fits with his "Total Performance" pricing package. I've always thought that a polished spinner on the front of a bird was especially appealing, so I was happy when Van's recommended George & Becky Omdorff's (http://www.fly-gbi.com/) spinner. It's an exact replacement for Van's fiberglass spinner. So I ordered the spinner bulkheads only from Van's with my firewall forward kit and Connie bought the spinner for Christmas. George tells me that it's hand spun by an Octogenarian who lives in some little town in Australia. Important for minimizing the possibility of spinner cracks is to not use countersunk screws on spinner - no dimpling. She's a beaut! I'll probably try to form in some flanges around the blade holes in the spinner (like Hartzell) to increase strength. |
 |
Equipment - Landing Gear Fairings, Christmas Present, 2005. Some things I really want to make my self for example; seat cushions & covers, throttle quadrant. But I have no great desire to make these fairings. They are not supplied from Van's, either in the basic kit or as an option - you're expected to make them. http://www.fairings-etc.com/?source=rvproject.com Shown are the nose gear fairing (top), the node gear wheel pant fairing (top right), one of the main gear wheel pant fairings (middle right), and one of the main gear fuselage fairings (bottom left). |
 |
Equipment - Stainless Wheel pant Brackets, Christmas Present, 2005. I have gotten the impression that the aluminum wheel pant brackets supplied with Van's finishing kit are a "high maintenance item" and need to be replaced regularly because they crack. Sounds like work I'm not terribly interested in once the plane is done, not that I don't realize ongoing maintenance and inspection will be required of the whole aircraft... On the other hand these stainless still brackets are considerable heavier than Van's aluminum ones... http://www.attawayair.com/ |
 |
Equipment
- Hartzell CS Prop, December 17th, 2004. Connie was
too busy getting ready for Christmas. so I took the trip to Piqua
alone. Turns out that was a good choice on her part. Her knee
has been bothering her and lots of walking is not good. Brad
Huelsman, the OEM marketing manager, spent about 2 1/2 hours talking props
and giving me the tour. Hartzell machines all of their props from
just six different blade forgings that are cast to their specifications by
Alcoa. Alcoa also forges their aluminum hub blanks. Hartzell
still has the STC for numerous steel hub props, so some company must cast
those blanks for them. In terms of set-up and operations, Brad told
me that, if necessary the prop flat pitch can be adjusted. The goal
is to have the engine run up to a static rpm of about 2680, which will
yield a tack off roll rpm of 2700. Then, whether you gain speed or
shallow your climb, the governor will keep the engine at 2700 rpm.
On decent, long or final, you want the engine to work the prop not the
prop to work the engine. In other words, don't reduce your cruise
prop rpm setting until your prop has gone to flat pitch. With your
engine under a load (working the prop), you won't risk shock cooling the
engine. On final, when you've reduced throttle to the point where
the prop is at flat pitch, if you then push the prop lever full forward
you won't, as Brad pointed out sound like so many pilots who demonstrate
their lack of understanding of CS prop operations by pushing the prop
control forward before they've reduced their throttle sufficiently to keep
the prop from revving.
By the way, I was very interested in the MT propeller, primarily for the weight, but I called one of the assembly centers and after talking about costs and my objectives decided to go with Hartzell. In addition to the already steep price of the MT prop, there is a $600 assembly charge, plus shipping. Bottom line, unless you're really going after aerobatics, the Hartzell is a better value. |
 |
Equipment - 7A Strobe Box, September, 04. I ordered an extra right-side baggage floor so I could make the first bay floor removable as well as the center control tube channel. The box is screwed to nut plates in the 1/16" x 1" x 1" angle shown. I soldered leads between each strobe lead so that all leads are grounded at the box as directed. The leads are stiffer that I thought through and if I could do it over, I'd move the box further aft in the bay and just put a 90 degree curve in the leads to the box. But I've got everything laced together with waxed polyester cord, so it won't go anywhere. |
 |
Equipment - AOA Flap Switch, September, 04. This seemed like a good place to actuate the flap switch for my Proprietary Software Systems AOA indicator. I'll bond the maple cam in place when I set the flaps so that the switch completes the necessary ground somewhere around 5 degrees of flaps. For small bundles of wire, like these and the few wires that hook up my Flap Positioning System, I chose to lay down some waxed polyester cord, which because it's waxed, will stay put, and then put a dollop of RTV where I'd like to secure some wires. After it's cured, I cut off the pointy tip of the RTV and tie off the wires. The RTV bonds very securely, and I found through testing that the cord has to pull away from the RTV several inches before the RTV is cut by the cord, so it seems like a good anchor for little bundles of wire. |
 |
Equipment - Auto Pilot Pitch Servo, September, 04. All I did was set the push-pull tube so that the servo arm was mid-way between it's stops and the bell crank was neutral, according to the construction manual. Without the push-pull tube from the control column in place, both servo stops can be reached without any any other interference. Also shown is the doubler plate I put in for the blade transponder antenna, which I feel will provide additional support to the surrounding skin to prevent cracks that might otherwise appear because of the buffeting the blade might be subjected to from the swirling prop blast. And as was suggested to my by an A/P buddy, it'll put the antenna in a position where you won't easily whack it while trying to wash the belly of the bird. I also liked Bob Nuchols suggestion for binding wire bundles together with waxed polyester cord. makes it nice and tidy, and a visitor to my shop who works for Boeing noted my lace job and said that it looked nice and that wire insulation chaffing was a big issue in aviation these days. |
 |
Equipment - ELT, September, 04. See "Equipment - ELT Support, 8/15/04" for a shot of how I supported the nut plates to which the ELT attach bracket mounts and why. As you can see I chose to mount it between the seat back and the flap torque tube. Part of the reason for not putting it in the tail cone was the fact that I'm going to use a lighter IO-320 engine. Having it in the cockpit also makes it convenient to disarm. |
 |
Equipment - ELT Support, 8/15/04. I chose to mount my Ameri-King ELT on the passenger seat bottom, just aft of the seat back and forward of the flap torque tube. The installation instructions indicate that the underlying structure must be non-flexing up to 9 G or something like that. Anyway, the skin between the seat bottom ribs would flex a bit so I included the stiffeners on the underside of the seat bottom skin shown in the picture with the nut plates that I'll use to attach the ELT mount bracket. |
|
Equipment
- TruTrak Auto Pilot: Digitrack II VSG: 2/14/04. I
finally got my programmer for the autopilot. I was surprised that
the magnetometer was not in a separate box. Since GRT says their
EFIS AHRS and magnetometer must be mounted within 0.5 degrees for all axis
relative to each other and of course in line with the fuselage, I assumed
that the magnetometer for the AP would also require "critical"
alignment - not the 8 degree tilt associated with the standard
panel. But Andrew Barker from Trutrak replied that "The
magnetometer is a back up if GPS is lost. For a backup we do not need 1
degree precision, that is why it is in the box.".
I also found out while I was on the phone, quite by accident, that my servos, being very early models, should be sent in for replacement/rework. There were two problems and the only one I can recall now is that some early ones (that were not in service yet and thus were not being "exercised") were rusting. The heads-up here is that TruTrak does not have "Service Bulletin" page on their web site, and did not send me any email/letter about the "recall". |
 |
Equipment
- Decision: AeroSport Power IO-320, 9/24/03. I'll replace
this with a picture of my engine when it arrives. Background:
I sent my
deposit for the finishing kit for a 320, no spinner (meaning I was going
to use a MT prop from Van's) after Oshkosh. About 2 weeks ago I got
a letter from Van's demanding an additional $500 and my signature acknowledging that
this was non-refundable and I was committing myself to an O-320 engine
mount and cowling. They would not
proceed with my order even though they already has their required 25% or
$1,300.
Generally I have been disappointed with Van's technical support, but this really got my goat. The following is just one question, but is illustrative of the difficulty of getting a straight answer - I asked this question and got this response from the general manager no-less: Question: ..., would it be practical for me to cut the belly scoop off of the "Alpha" cowl so that I could use a horizontal draft induction on an IO-320? Answer: NO, as the other cowls will not accomodate the 2" forward placement of the O-320 engine... The 'alpha" cowl is the only cowl that Van's supplies for a 320 installation, i.e. it is 2" longer to accommodate the forward placement of the lighter 320 engine via the 2" longer 320 engine mount. That's the cowl I asked about (...cut the belly scoop off of the "Alpha" cowl). I did not ask about "other cowls". The answer was NO; implication: not practical. But what followed the NO, the rational, well I don't have a clue what the "other cowls" have to do with the feasibility of cutting the belly scoop off an "alpha" cowl. Other questions in my email were simply ignored, not - Sorry, we don't have time for these types of questions - just ignored - like I didn't take the time to try to pose a reasonable question! I sent a email to Van's tech support and asked for Van's email address as I wasn't happy with the support I was getting. That email went unanswered altogether! I guess I'll have to print it put it in en envelop and hope he opens his own mail - otherwise, he may not have any idea there's anything wrong in RV-land. Maybe he doesn't care. I get the impression that Van thinks that the only good RV ideas come from his shop. Enough grousing about Van's - it's still a wonderful airplane. Here's what I believe today: barring a shake in the world, I'll order the following from http://www.aerosportpower.com/: AeroSport Power Engine (8 week lead time) New IO-320-D1A Airflow Performance Fuel Injection - vertical induction ECI Titan cylinders with CermiNil barrels Denso 40 amp Internally Regulated Alternator Chrome Package Custom Paint (red - specify color code) Reiff Preheat System Light Speed Plasma III Direct Crank Sensor Why? 1) Does not have RPM restrictions with constant speed props. (I know I can avoid this with a 360 by just using manifold pressure to manage % of hp while keeping the rpm out of the bad harmonics range, but the fact that the 360 engine has these issues bothers me. It's interesting that if you talk to Lycoming, it's not an engine problem, it's a prop problem! Right!) 2) Lighter than 360. 3) Because it's light, the engine mount places it 2" further forward of the firewall than a 360, which gives you a 2" longer cowl. I'm hoping that translates into a littler sleeker looking bird. Certainly I though the old 4" prop extensions van's used to offer made the plane look better than the snub-nosed cowl. |
|
Equipment - Quality/Costly/Cool Eyeball Air Vents, 9/10/03. Van's fuel valve would certainly be serviceable and keep the total cost of the airplane down as must as that is possible when dealing with a machine where a new, but low end of the HP spectrum, engine alone costs over 20 grand. However, the same cannot be said for the Van's kit-supplied air vents. They are Yugo-quality black plastic, and as you can see, the closed position would let enough cold air on my wife, who loves to be snuggly, to risk her not wanting to fly anywhere if it's not positively balmy at altitude. I figured better to be safe than sorry. I found some large aluminum vents at Oshkosh with a very good seal to keep the cold air out when desired and a larger throat than the black plastic one's to let it in when it's hot @ http://www.bravoavtech.com/airkit/. Unfortunately, they did cost me dearly. |
|
Equipment - Flap Positioning System, 9/10/03. I was initially hesitant about this system. I got my pilot's license in a 152 and for a balked landing I was trained not to retract my flaps all at once, but rather in steps as I rebuilt airspeed. Oddly enough I couldn't get a rationale for this one-touch complete flap retract design from Van's, but they did suggest I call the manufacturer. The skinny I got from "Show Planes" was that even a moderately powered RV was nothing like a 152 in the sense that back to full throttle in an RV is going to have you back at flying speed for a no-flap condition by the time the one-touch flaps are retracted! No need to do it in steps with an RV because it accelerates much better than a 152. Puzzling why Van's couldn't have set me straight on that... |
 |
Equipment - Andair Fuel Valve, 7/31/03. My sole purchase at Oshkosh this year http://www.andair.co.uk/. Although I did find out a number of things that'll help me in the future. I'll describe them as they come up. But the thing I'm looking forward to is making my own seat cushions. My goal for this plane seems to have evolved into making things that are routinely touched or used, "nice". I'm sure the Van's supplied valve does it's job well and is certainly contributes to keeping the cost of the kit down. But it looks like a "steam valve". Not that I've got anything against them, but I am leaning strongly toward a glass cockpit. The Andair has the added benefit of not being able to accidently turn off the fuel, which is possible with Van's valve. In addition, it has a BMW/Audi quality look and function to it, not a Yugo quality. As far as the seat cushions go, I found a supplier http://seatfoam.com/, again at Oshkosh, that supplies the exact foam that Oregon Aero uses. I've sewn a number of things over the years and have no fear of pattern making and sewing machines. The thought of making my own cushions to fit my 6'5" body and my wife's 5'0" body sounds like fun. I'm thinking of leather for the outer bucket seat "wedges" and a mild tuck-and-roll for the main center panel of upholstery fabric. I know how to do piping for trim, so all I've got to learn is how to do the tuck-and-roll! |
 |
TruTrak DigitFlight-200VS with GPS Steering, 1/19/03. I love this stuff - the mechanics of an aircraft. Here's my roll servo installation. You're looking at the right wing. I used drilled head structural fillister head screws to attach the servo to the bracket hardware supplied. The screws weren't supplied; got them Aircraft Spruce. Then I safety wired them in place - my first safety wire job on this plane. As I said before, I wanted to keep all the plumbing clear of the mechanism, hence the Abel clamps. The blue and green tubing up top are from the pressure ports for my angle of attack instrument. Since I plan to do a lot pf traveling in this bird, an autopilot seems as natural to me as cruise control on an interstate. I was originally going to go with an S-Tec Model 30, then this solid state autopilot came more prominently into my field of view when Van's endorsed it by selling it in their catalog. http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ |
 |
Latest IP 'Straw
Dog', 11/24/02. I want the convenience of being able to fly IMC.
I really like the UPS MX20, but the $$$ may prevail, along with the
'double' subscription. I liked the engine monitor, even before Van
added it to his catalog. Gotta have music! Like t have Bose
headsets, but that might be another $$$ no-no. The internet rumor
mill is that CDs don't behave well in IPs. All my music is on CD and
I don't relish the idea of creating MP3s just to go flying. Jury's
still out on that. So far, all I'm committed to (bought), is the AOA
Sport and the TruTrak DFC200-VS with GPSS autopilot.
If you'd like to try building your own IP, try this site: http://epanelbuilder.com/builder.htm Just be aware that if you use a "standard' Van's panel for a 6/7/9, that you should look at the prepunched panel and note the 'open' spaces. For example, the vertical space between the artificial horizon and the altimeter is not there for the hell of it. It's there because prepunched or standard, that's where a bulkhead between the IP and the firewall is placed. |
 |
Whelen Strobe and Position Lights, 11/23/02. I was pretty much ready to order 'SYSTEM 2, OPTION B' with a separate power supply for each wingtip strobe so that I could avoid the high voltage runs through the wing next to my NAV and COMM antenna cables. I'm planning on using Bob Archer's wing tip antennas. I was keen on the 'Comet Flash', but was more interested in optimizing radio performance. And then I noticed on Van's accessory catalog where it says: 'Builders using the New Sheared Wing Tips, use: SYSTEM 6.'!!! What System 6 gives you is a strobe in the tail. Since the wing tip strobes are mounted toward the leading edge of the wing tips in an aerodynamic cut out that makes the strobes invisible to an aircraft directly behind you, I realized why System 6 was recommended for builders with the 'New Sheared Wing Tips', i.e. all RV-7/7A builders - to help make sure no one overtakes you from behind! So, ultimately I get to have the very cool 'Comet Flash' and to help minimize any noise from the shielded high voltage strobe cables, I've paid the $1.92 per foot for the 'RG-400U COAX CABLE CERTFD A/C' from Aircraft Spruce for my NAV and COMM antenna cables. I've got my fingers crossed. |
|
Duckworks
Landing Light, 11/23/02. I had originally ordered two Duckworks
landing lights with my wing kit from Van's. When I get around to
reading the installation instructions for the AOA, I find that my AOA
ports go in the outboard bay for access. I'm concerned that a
landing light lens that must also go in the outboard bay, however smoothly
installed, may affect the pressures the AOA ports see. Van's (and
most knowledgeable people) advise against horizontal paint stripes on your
wing near the leading edge, so if a polished paint edge can affect the
performance of a metal aircraft wing, I would think the top, bottom, and
side joints of a landing light lens could affect the pressure seen by AOA
ports. (9/12/03 - Apparently I was wrong on this 'thinking' - I
saw a posting that said the AOA [Proprietary Software Systems] tech guy
and Van's said that the AOA pressure ports work fine with a lens ahead of
them on the wing. They read pressure OK as long as the wing is
producing lift!)I was already interested in HID (High Intensity Discharge)
lighting and was trying to figure out how to do it without 'experimenting'
and without spending a LOT of $$$. So when I realized I could
only have one landing light. Just about that time, The Duck was
tooling up for a HID upgrade in a standard PAR 36 aviation
reflector. His price was comparatively reasonable and based on
testing in his RV-6, he felt one landing light (in the left wing) would do
the job. Also on the plus side, he was going to be selling the
latest generation HID bulbs, with the igniter in the bulb, not the
ballast, to minimize the potential for radio noise.
2/26/03: I happy with my installation. It may be overkill, but it makes sense to me. The ballast, like al ballast, is heavy. Not like a florescent light ballast, but not a featherweight either. So, I didn't want to hang that on the same bracket as the light. Why subject the "aim" held by four screws to the additional stress (landing, rolls, etc.) caused by the weight of the ballast. I wasn't even keen on one of the ribs. The main spar made sense to me. The ballast is mounted in a stainless steel bracket with two holes for attachment. I wasn't interested in designing and fabricating a new bracket and since two holes was one short of what I would have liked (if the thing was going to touch my spar, even at the tip, I didn't want it able to vibrate any wear into it), I mounted it on rubber. I drilled and primed two holes in my spar between the two large lightening holes and put in some rubber grommets. The ballast is on the front of the spar, with 2 AN3 bolts going through a 1/4" long bushing, which fits snug in the grommet. On the back side of the spar is a AN960-BIG washer and nylock nut. http://www.duckworksaviation.com/ |
 |
Tri-gear versus tail dragger, 3/26/02. Seeing how many RV-7s are being built compared to RV-7As and reading some of the internet postings by folks building these birds, I can't help wondering how many considered decisions have been made on the choice. Right now my gut tells me that at least some folks think to themselves: 'Tail draggers are so cool. That's what I'll build. [Kind of like I did with the sliding canopy decision. - TJW] I'll just get the tail dragger signoff when I'm ready to fly, no big deal' My Kolb is a tail dragger, but it is not worth mentioning the skill required for that thing since it's take off and landing speed are about 1/2 that of an RV. I had a bad experience with a Champ (no less) while getting checked out so that I would feel comfortable in the Kolb. That and an understanding of the forces involved, along with comments, especially Alan Tolle's in his 6A article in Sport Aviation a ways back, made me decide that landing with the LEAST RISK to me and my wife after I've been flying for possibly hours, maybe at night, probably at a strange airport, in perhaps bad weather (we plan to TRAVEL with this bird) cemented the decision to go with the tri-gear. If you haven't really considered this a serious decision, you should. Get some tail dragger time. Do wheel landings at 60 MPH, while you dance lightly on the pedals to keep her centered while pushing the stick forward to plant those wheels. It may change your mind. Landings and take offs in a tri-geared plane required far less skill than a tail dragger. And it's skill that always has to be there, every landing [at night, probably at a strange airport, in perhaps bad weather]. Remember, in a tail dragger The Force is not with you. Landing a trail dragger is like landing an arrow with the feathers on the front - the fuselage wants to come around [to ground loop] because the center of gravity is behind the center of drag [the wheels]. In a tri-geared plane that center of mass if ahead of the center of drag - the main gear - and that's just where it wants to stay. If the feather analogy doesn't register with you, try this: Take a stick, balance it on your fingertip straight up and down. OK, now gravity here is like the forces of deceleration acting on the plane. Your fingertip is the landing gear. Your skill at balancing that stick is what you need to input to the rudder pedals to keep the stick aligned with the runway, to keep it from ground looping - from falling off your finger. A long stick (easy to balance) would be like an ultralight landing at 35 mph, while a short stick (you get the point) would be like a Pitts Special @ 70 mph. An RV is going to be somewhere in between. Now take that stick and hold it with two fingers at the top, so it just hangs down. That's a tri-geared plane by comparison. See the skill difference required. Before you email me with 'Being able to land a tail dragger makes you an all round better pilot', I'm not buying it. Because you can dance on the rudder pedals to control divergent forces does not equate into being better at spot landing @ short field speeds in the event of an engine failure or any other important flying skill that I can see. What it makes you is able to land a tail dragger - today, maybe not tomorrow. And every single time you go flying whether you're alone or you've got your 8 year old daughter sitting next to you, you are pitting your skills against a machine that wants to swap ends. And it wants to do it at speeds that could have disastrous results. You wouldn't be the first person to get a broken neck from flipping a plane. The physics, the forces involved, are convergent for a tri-gear - they're stable. I'm not saying it's impossible to screw up a landing in a tri-gear, it's just less likely. Lastly, I know the world is fraught with risk and I would be the last person to want to impose my view of what's appropriate behavior on anyone. For example, I hate signs in national parks that clutter up the scenery by warning people to stay off the slippery rocks that happen to be right next to the raging Merced River - so you don't fall in and drown. Hey, you don't have the common sense to steer clear (or the skill to get away with it), then get out of the gene pool! At the same time I do think people who smoke in a car with their children along are selfish #!*holes! But I do not equate this to flying a tail dragger with your 8 year old daughter on board. I'm just saying, for me, the risks are not worth the reward (better looking plane, etc.), and I'm not interested in "playing the game". |
|
Tip up versus Slider, 3/21/02. The other big thing I've decided recently (2 days ago) is that I'm going with the tip-up canopy, not the slider. Primary reason is visibility, then comes ease of access to back of IP, ease of construction, higher probability of a good water/air seal, and easy mounting of GPS antenna. Gone is my macho sliding canopy hang-up. Take a look at the RV-9A. The right side of the pilot's face is hidden by the windscreen frame/roll bar. If you can't see in, they can't see out. I want to see out! |
 |
Angle of Attack, 3/16/02. My plane is going to be equipped with an 'angle of attack' instrument. The IP display for the model I've chosen is the instrument shown here with the series of LEDs. The April and May, 2001 issues of Sport Aviation had very good articles under the heading: "Test Pilot". Check them out for some very convincing arguments. But for me probably two pieces of information sold me on the idea. First, it is my understanding that the most often occurring mistake leading to aircraft fatalities is stall/spin in the pattern. Second, since aircraft carrier pilots have started landing only by angle of attach, carrier landing fatalities have been cut by 50%. And I believe this is all attributable to AOA. I've pitched this to some friends - one whose home strip is 800' with take offs and landings only from the west over a ravine. He flies a KitFox IV without the wing extensions on it. I believe he's a very good pilot, but whenever we come back to his strip after a little flight, it sure seems like a carrier landing to me. The cost of the pressure transducers (or whatever the heck used to make this affordable only to 'superpowers') is now very reasonable. Especially when compared to the 'souls on board' or the $$$ in your plane. Here's a 'testimonial' I pulled from the below site: "About a year ago I was trying to get into Santa Barbara and it was fogged in. Went back over the mountain to Santa Ynez, which by that time was clear. It is a 2800 ft runway, the shortest I had ever landed on in my Lancair IV. I saw one plane land. Was busy looking for other aircraft, strange airport, and as I turned from downwind to base the unit said, "Angle Angle Push". That was very welcome." For more info on the company I've chosen, visit: http://www.angleofattack.com/ |
