HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkr@cray.com (John Renwick)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Breaking parts (was: Starting an Acro II)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:18:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <1992Oct14.171408.24050@news.arc.nasa.gov> doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
>Congradulations John!! Hearing about somebody starting to build is almost
>as exciting as learning that a friend has had a baby (and I am not too sure
>which will be out of the house first!).

Gotten pregnant, is more like it.  Only the outcome is a LOT less
certain! :-}

>I am always glad to hear that people plan to test parts to destruction prior
>to building the final parts. The only real question is how do you know the point
>at which some sub-assembly is supposed to break?
>

My understanding is that testing glue joints is like testing
welds--the bond has to be stronger than the base material.  You
bend or pry until something breaks, and if the bond broke instead
of the base, it was bad.  In the case of glue, you're supposed to
see the glue pull away part of the wood as the joint parts.

-- 
- John Renwick
J-3 Cub N62088, building Acro II S/N 911
jkr@cray.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: cap@selway.umt.edu (Charles A. Smith)
Subject: auto engines
Keywords: CAM100
Organization: University of Montana
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:43:17 GMT

The recent discussion on the use of auto engines in homebuilts reminded me 
of something that I learned from reading the promotional literature for
the CAM100 engine.

BTW, the CAM100 is a ~100 HP engine/PSRU combo derived from a 1.6 litre
Honda auto engine.

Anyway, one nice piece on info buried in the CAM100 promo is the fact that
the typical clearances between parts in the remanufactured Honda engine
are "opened up" from factory clearances for the auto application.  That is,
the clearances are larger for the CAM version (designed for aircraft use)
than for the original Honda engine.

The reason for this change is that auto engines are not designed for 
continous duty at full power.  At full power, more clearance is needed, 
because the parts "grow" more.  Well, you know what I mean...

I thought this was nice to know, because I was brought up with the 
"car mentality" that engines need to be assembled to tight tolerances
in order to go fast, (and therefore be "good").  So, it was somewhat
counter-intuitive to think that aircraft engines need loose fits
(to be good).
-- 
Cap Smith                 Assistant Prof. of MIS           
cap@selway.umt.edu        University of Montana            
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 16:59:30 GMT

In article <BvuvpD.19I@waterloo.hp.com> enns@waterloo.hp.com (Roger Enns) writes:
>I am not convinced at the power output of the Rotax 912.  In
>aircraft powered by both the 912 and the 2-stroke 532, the
>performance difference is slim to nill in some cases.  Also, the
>Rotax 912 costs more than $8000 Can, with the 914 selling for a
>few thousand more.

The 914 was essentially for people that were more comfortable with a 4-cycle 
engine rather than a 2-cycle engine. The marginal increase in performance
doesn't justify the price difference and this is something both the Kitfox
and the Pulsar folks have always been explicit about. 

venky
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: kaufman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: EXEC 90 Helicopter kit?
Reply-To: kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:22:58 GMT

David Farmer, in rec.aviation.misc, said he had a Rotorway.  I asked him
if I could repost his email reply to me in this group:

From: vendidf@kgnaix11.aix.kingston.ibm.com (David Farmer)
Message-Id: <9210121653.AA316651@kgnaix11.aix.kingston.ibm.com>
To: kaufman@cs.stanford.edu
Status: R

>In rec.aviation.misc you write:
>
>>If I were to fly my Rotorway across the the US, I would have to have parts
>>waiting for me along the way. 
>
>I have heard of life-limited parts, but this is rediculous.  What parts
>have to be replaced at 10-25 hour intervals?  Belts?  (really, I  am
>interested because I have been considering buying a Rotorway kit).
Right now I am in New York, and I left my RW in Colorado.  So I am 
rusty on specifics.  I think I was susposed to change the Spark plugs
every 12 hours, oil every 20.  Check main drive chain every 50.
The couplings which control the tail rotor pitch seem to wear out in
about 20 hours.  I think the tail rotor only lasts 250 hours.  I think
the tail rotor belts are susposed to be replaced every 50.  I rember
there being a lot of items at the 50 hour mark, and some expensive ones
at the 200 hour mark like magnafluxing the head.  The valves have to be
adjusted every 12 or 25 hours.

In the twenty hours I put on mine, I had a tail rotor belt break, and
one of the 4 main drive belts come apart.  These were while hovering
so didn't cause any problems.  I had the motor slip forward while flying,
which allowed the main belts to loosen.  I had a hard landing which 
broke the landing gear, resulting in a tail strike.  I was hovering
in the winter, and had an exhaust valve break which totaled the motor.

I found a cheaper way to fly, and have lost confidence in my RW.
When I get back, I want to do a lot of hovering, and see if I can regain
my confidence.
>
>>costs $50/hour just for the parts that have to be replaced based on hours
>>flown.
>
>Which parts are that?  I know the main rotor has a (2000 hour?) life.
The killers are the tail rotor, rod ends, belts and bearings.
You had better have a pretty good alternator, and fuel pump since there
is no engine driven fuel pump, and the electronic ignition.
>
>>For me, I love to fly helicopters, but their usefullness lies in their 
>>ability to get into places where airplanes cannot.  They are just not
>>practical as long distance vehicles.
>
>Comments on the Rotorway would be appreciated (there is a Rotorway thread
>attempted to be started in rec.aviation.homebuilt).  I learned to fly heli
>in a Robinson, and have visited the Rotorway factory (before it was sold
>to the current owners).
>
>
>-- 
>Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU)
>
>
Too bad I don't get the rec.aviation.homebuilt group.  I learned in an
Enstrom, then my RW.  I went to Austin, and soloed a Robinson in 3 hours.


Good Luck, David Farmer

-- 
Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Kit Plane phone number?
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:52:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.204957.7423@qedinc.com>, larry@qedinc.com (Larry Johnson) writes:
|> I've been looking for Kit Plane magazine since all you guys keep referring
|> to it, but alas, no luck.
|> 
|> So,
|> 1) Does anyone have a phone number/address so I can subscribe?
|> 2) Is this the best one, or are there other options?
|> 

Joining the EAA gets you a subscription to Sport Aviation, and it is better
than Kitplanes, although I do get both.

You can call the EAA for info at 
	1-800-322-2412
from 8:15 to 5:00 Central time zone

If you have enough interset to post here and ask questions, etc., then being
an EAA member is a good idea. Lots of answers can be had there.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Berkut update 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:44:55 GMT

Just thought I share the info I got from calling Experimental Aviation
this morning. 

As of now only one Berkut is flying -- the same prototype shown in
Pop Mech.  The original seven kit is still building at the factory.
The next batch is due out November, with 8 or 9 orders already in.

Length of build time is from 1500 to 2000, depending whether you want
to get to to fly fast or go for full IFR, and also how experience you
are.

Full info $20, no credit card, checks only.  The address and phone number
printed in Pop Mech is wrong.  Call the (wrong) number in Pop Mech and you
will automatically be routed to them.  Get the correct address from them.

Can't wait till I get my checkride, cash in some stock option, and... 

(2000 hour is long, but I have one A&P and another pilot friend, both
whom I think may consider contributing labor in return for dry time...)
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Advantages to radial engines?
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:48:41 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct6.221603.13424@unislc.uucp>, dlm@unislc.uucp (Dennis McCurdy) writes:
> 
> Personally, I would enjoy seeing some radials used in homebuilts. Anyone seen
> something like this? Yow!

The Hatz which won Grand Champion- Plans Built at Oshkosh this year (and
which I've camped next to for the last 2 years :) is powered by a Kinner
radial.  There are also lots of WWI replicas which are powered by radials
and rotaries.  I seem to remember a picture of a radial powered 
Starduster (??) in KITPLANES earlier this year.  So yes, they do exist.
I don't think I've seen a radial powered Lancair yet ;-)
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: CMSC28@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Mark Hickey)
Subject: Re: Pitching Moment ... OOPS! (was:Seawinds Sea Plane Kit)
Organization: Motorola
Date: 9 Oct 1992 15:31:02 CDT

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
>In an earlier posting I wrote about pitching moment from high thrustlin
>engine placement. Marcus Leonard wrote:
>> ... I don't think this is right.  The pitching moment due
>>to the engine is equal to the thrust multiplied by the distance from te
>>thrust line to the CG.  It does not matter where along the thrust linethe
>>engine is located.

>He is right, and I was wrong. I should have done the 2 lines of trig beore
>posting and destroying my net.credibility.

>However, Moving the engine/prop rearward from the Cg can allow for a dereased
>pitching moment for a different reason. As the plane tapers towards thetail
>a prop with a given diameter can be moved down relative to the Cg. Furter
>forward the engine pod would have to be higher to clear the fuselage whch is
>higher to wrap over passanger's heads.

>David        doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

It seems to me that while the pitching moment may remain constant,
the overall effect on the attitude of the aircraft would decrease
as the thrust is moved aft.  Picture a teeter-tooter with vertical
attachments on one end and at the center...  The pivot point in
this oversimplified diagram becomes the CG (wings). Wouldn't it
take more more forward thrust to lift the weight at point A than
point B?


 A---->|             B---->|
       |___________________|____________________
         __|__             0
        |10lbs|           /_\
        |_____|         /     \
                      /         \


'Course, keep in mind I haven't flown in 18 years, and haven't had
a math class in longer than that.......

Mark Hickey
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Avid, Denney ... (was: Auto Engines: Montana Coyote)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:52:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.185658.11578@news.arc.nasa.gov>, doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
|> The latest Aviation Consumer flight tested these two and gave some history
|> about their sometimes not-so-friendly (all in the past now) competition.
|> 
|> David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The Avaition Consumer article was very interesting - and quite critical of the
handling qualities of the Avid and the Skyfox.  Other reviews (eg in Plane&Pilot)
have alluded to the strong adverse yaw and marginal directional stability
characteristics in polite terms, but this is the first time I've seen strong
criticisms.

Do any rec.avaitors who've flown either of these planes want to offer
support or rebuttal to the critiques?  If they are true, it seems that these
designs need a bit more development, especially if they are looking towards
VLA certification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Advantages to radial engines?
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:26:54 GMT
Keywords: Radials,

In <1992Oct5.181511.26641@netnews.synoptics.com> franks@synoptics.com (Frank Stutzman) writes:

>Somebody at work here made it down to the Salinas airshow (I had to stay in 
>town, sniff) and was talking about the the Wilga that was there.  The question
>came up as to what the advantages are to a radial engine. I have no idea. Are
>there any?  Anybody know?

Based solely on thinkology (i.e. I haven't a clue, but I've got a couple of
good guesses) two things leap to mind: easy to make a non-counterbalanced
engine (opposed cylinders/pistons balance each other's motion), and more
easily designed to be air-cooled.

-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
From: leftwich@indiana.edu (Brad Leftwich)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: paint spray guns
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:59:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: leftwich.leftwich-081092145004
Followup-To: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Distribution: usa
Organization: Indiana University

I'm in the market for a paint spray gun. I'd like to hear from anyone who's
had good or bad experiences with any particular product.

A friend says he's heard good things about the Croix systems, which use
lower pressure and heated air. The advantages, supposedly, are that with
lower pressure you blow more paint on your surface and less into the
atmosphere; and with heated air the paint dries faster, running less risk
of temperature/humidity related problems like blushing and runs. Has anyone
used one of these? Thanks,

--Brad Leftwich
  leftwich@indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: auto engines
Keywords: CAM100
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:22:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.174317.21849@selway.umt.edu>, cap@selway.umt.edu (Charles A. Smith) writes:
|> The recent discussion on the use of auto engines in homebuilts reminded me 
|> of something that I learned from reading the promotional literature for
|> the CAM100 engine.
|> 
|> BTW, the CAM100 is a ~100 HP engine/PSRU combo derived from a 1.6 litre
|> Honda auto engine.
|> 
|> Anyway, one nice piece on info buried in the CAM100 promo is the fact that
|> the typical clearances between parts in the remanufactured Honda engine
|> are "opened up" from factory clearances for the auto application.  That is,
|> the clearances are larger for the CAM version (designed for aircraft use)
|> than for the original Honda engine.
|> 
|> The reason for this change is that auto engines are not designed for 
|> continous duty at full power.  At full power, more clearance is needed, 
|> because the parts "grow" more.  Well, you know what I mean...
|> 
|> I thought this was nice to know, because I was brought up with the 
|> "car mentality" that engines need to be assembled to tight tolerances
|> in order to go fast, (and therefore be "good").  So, it was somewhat
|> counter-intuitive to think that aircraft engines need loose fits
|> (to be good).
|> -- 

I have read this about aircooled engines. The reason has to do with the large
temperature range the engine goes through, from full power climb to power off
decents. I had not read this about water cooled engines, but it may be true
just the same.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: aturudic@calvin.sbc.com (Andy Turudic)
Subject: DAVIS 4 Sale
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 18:51:36 GMT

My buddy has a Davis homebuilt aircraft 4 sale.

He hasn't got his license yet and I'm not sure if he will.

I flew the bird. Cruises about 120 mph. 2 place. All metal. V-tail

He's got new DG and horizon to go into it

If you are interested, give him a call. .


Robert Sikes   919-364-2889 (North Carolina)

I think it's around $6K????????????
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Cost of owning
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:51:01 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct9.171327.12927@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>                                              
> I think you proably would pay considerably more if you had hull coverage also.
> Can you even get hull insurance on a homebuilt?  It seems to me that after

Yes, hull insurance is available for homebuilts.  AVEMCO is probably the 
best-known homebuilt insurer.  

As a data point, earlier this year I obtained insurance quotes for both a 
Cessna 150 and a RANS S-10 (2 seat aerobatic homebuilt, Rotax power, 
taildragger, fairly low wing loading and stall speed, and similar in hull 
value to the 150).  The cost for the two airplanes was nearly identical for 
both hull and liability coverage.  Yes, the policies were a bit different and
were from two different insurers, but they were sufficiently similar to allow
a reasonable comparison.

I understand from discussions with builders that insurance for certain 
homebuilts can be quite high.  The Glasair and Rotorway Exec come to mind.
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Cost of owning
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:13:27 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <Bvuyx7.2po@waterloo.hp.com> enns@waterloo.hp.com (Roger Enns) writes:
>
>Insurance - I have never owned a certified aircraft, so I can't
>        compare here, but I know that I pay $60/yr for third
>	party liability, and also an optional $190/yr for
>	passenger liability.  If you always fly alone, or build a
>	single seater, insurance can be as low as a measly $60
>	per year!  I honestly expected to pay much more, but I'm
>	not complaining :-)
>
                                             
I think you proably would pay considerably more if you had hull coverage also.
Can you even get hull insurance on a homebuilt?  It seems to me that after
putting in that kind of work, you would want to be able to recoup some of the 
cost if something happened like a hangar burning down.  I know the hull
coverage makes a big difference on the cost of insurance on my 310.  

******************************************************************************
Mike "Dragonmaster" Serafin    PP-ASMEL-I      email=serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com
1964 C310I N48WM                                             Texas Instruments 
HQZ (Hudson Muni, Mesquite TX)                                   Dallas, Texas
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: schinner@vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer)
Subject: Re: thrust measurements
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:24:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I will go out on a limb here, and suggest that you just measure the
acceleration of your dragonfly from a standing start to a low speed
or a short distance.  By knowing how quickly it gets off the block,
you will have a good indication of the thrust produced.

Of course, you must know the test weight of the aircraft, so you need
the bathroom scale anyway....

If I thought about it long enough, I could come up with some crude
equations, but none of them would be empirically tested.

Have fun.

---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schinnerer  -  PP-ASEL-IA       |  Hewlett Packard
Mooney - 350X  -  "Buster"          |  Vancouver, WA
email - schinner@vcd.hp.com         |  (206) 944-3324
---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: mark@europa.ssc.gov (Mark Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Glue
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:33:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: sunova.1992Oct16.213337.11742
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory


      Most epoxy systems used in homebuilt construction have a tolerance
of plus/minus 10% without any serious loss in strength.  The best way I
have found to mix small quantities is to get two 60cc syringes (try a
medical supply or feed store for these). By storing the epoxy components
in a pair of pint to quart size bottles, with holes drilled in the tops
that match the syringe tips, epoxy can easily be dispensed in whatever
quantity is req. for the job at hand. 
   Two things to note:
   1. Take into account whether the epoxy is measured by weight or volume
    and adjust ratios accordingly.
   2. The plungers in your syringes may swell on contact with the hardener.
    If this happens change to a different brand syringe or even a different
    size.

                                                  Good Luck,
                                                  Mark
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: klingler@pioneer.unm.edu (David Klingler)
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 23:39:53 GMT
Organization: Space and Planetary Image Facility

>>> With our present 1835 VW, climb rate at gross on a hot day is
>>> marginal at best.  Rather than hop the sh%t out of the poor VW,
>>> and risk crank failures, etc, I am hoping to install a very near
>>> stock Subaru.  At OSHKOSH, the gyro guys seemed to love the
>>> powerplant, with many flying examples on hand.
>>

...
>	I feel that there is a much better alternative to Lycoming and
>	Continental. But, it isn't available yet, in fact I do not know 
>	if it is even designed yet.  But, I do know that the only engine
>	that will better (over all, HP vs weight vs reliability) will
>	have to be designed from the oil drain plug up, as an aircraft
>	engine.
>
Check out the Rotax 912 and 914.  They perform well compared to other 
engines in their class (actually much better) and are modern designs as
opposed to Lycoming or Continental.  Also check out the Duncan Rotary Aviation
engines being produced now in Canada.  I have experience with Duncan
and his engines and they are excellent, with very few moving parts and close
to 3000 hour TBOs.  Duncan has around 200 engines in the air.

You can find ads for Duncan Aviation in the back of Kitplanes.

Dave
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt