The mail function has been disabled by an administrator.

Deprecated: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in /var/www/rv8/media/foundry/3.1/libraries/cssmin.php on line 2236

I got a bit of free time to head to the hangar Wednesday last week, and attacked the CHT indication problem. I reseated the connectors between the CHT #1 probe and the extension wire that goes to the Engine Indication System. Then I rechecked CHT #1 and #3 in boiling water. Now both were showing the same temperature - about 10 deg F too low. Now that CHT #1 seems to have the same errors as the others again, it will be interesting to see how it compares to the other cylinders next time I get flying.

While I was at the hangar, I made a cardboard template of the area at the rear of the canopy frame. Terry will use the template to make a removable cloth screen that will be part of a scheme to hopefully stop the air drafts coming from under the canopy skirt. Hopefully we can try it out this coming weekend.

I pulled the passenger seat cushions out and brought them home, so I could install a heated seat kit. But, I learned that the leather seat covers are glued to the foam cushion. So, it will not be possible to install the heated seat kit. Terry has a 12v electric blanket that a friend gave her - we will try that next time we go flying.

I was on the road from Thursday until late this afternoon, so nothing got done on the aircraft. I did take the time for an editorial cleanup on the POH.

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

0 / 1000 Character restriction
Your text should be less than 1000 characters
  • Kevin,
    I noticed in your POH the weight and balance envelope diagram is a rectangle. Other aircraft that I have flown (pa-28 and C-172) the diagram is more trapezoidal (acceptable forward c of g moves backward with increased gross weight). Could you comment on why or why not the RV-8 should be square?

  • There are at least three different issues that may drive the location of the forward edge of an aircraft's CG envelope:

    1. Nose up elevator authority during flare and landing. If this is the reason, you'll usually see a straight vertical line on the CG vs weight chart.

    2. Loads on the nose wheel. At a constant CG location, nose gear loads go up as the weight increases. If nose gear load is an issue, you'll see a forward CG line that moves aft as the weight increases. This might explain the top left corner of the C172 or PA-28 CG envelope.

    3. There is no practical need for further forward CGs, so the designer simply does all his testing to define a practical CG range, even though the aircraft structure and flight characteristics could support a further forward CG. The shape of the forward edge iof the declared CG envelope may depend on how the CG moves as fuel is burned.

    The RV-8 is a tail dragger, so issue #2 does not apply. I suspect Van calculated the most forward CG that would be needed, did testing to confirm acceptable handling at that CG, and recommended this CG as the forward limit. For the RV-8A, with nose gear, he probably ensured the nose gear was strong enough to handle loads at the top left corner of the CG envelope.

    Kevin Horton

  • Guest - hosting