RV10-Archive.digest.vol-ae
April 21, 2005 - May 04, 2005
paint. Randy
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Schawang, Darrin |
| Subject: | rv10 quick build |
What is a realistic build time for a RV-10 w/ quickbuild wings and fuselage? The
say that the quickbuild wings can be ready in a weakend and a week of evenings.
How much time is left on the fuselage? After that what is the realistic
time involved to complete?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com> |
| Subject: | rv10 quick build |
So, if I have the arithmetic right, and if life were highly regulated, and
one could work 15 hours per week, 48 weeks a year, you'd be done with the
quick build in 2.36 years. Slow build 3.05 years. Ouch. John
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy DeBauw
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
2200 hours slow build 1700 hours quick build. These are complete numbers
including paint. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Schawang, Darrin
Subject: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
What is a realistic build time for a RV-10 w/ quickbuild wings and fuselage?
The say that the quickbuild wings can be ready in a weakend and a week of
evenings. How much time is left on the fuselage? After that what is the
realistic time involved to complete?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | rv10 quick build |
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
If you only could work 15 hours a week it would take a looooog time. Plan 15 hours
on the weekends and 12 hours on the week days. You will be flying 2 - 3 years
and having a lot of fun. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Jessen
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
So, if I have the arithmetic right, and if life were highly regulated, and one
could work 15 hours per week, 48 weeks a year, you'd be done with the quick build
in 2.36 years. Slow build 3.05 years. Ouch. John
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy DeBauw
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
2200 hours slow build 1700 hours quick build. These are complete numbers including
paint. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Schawang, Darrin
Subject: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
What is a realistic build time for a RV-10 w/ quickbuild wings and fuselage? The
say that the quickbuild wings can be ready in a weakend and a week of evenings.
How much time is left on the fuselage? After that what is the realistic
time involved to complete?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | rv10 quick build |
3-4 years (for a slow-build) is exactly what I've been planning on.
And I doubt I'll paint it myself.
--- John Jessen wrote:
> So, if I have the arithmetic right, and if life were highly regulated, and
> one could work 15 hours per week, 48 weeks a year, you'd be done with the
> quick build in 2.36 years. Slow build 3.05 years. Ouch. John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DejaVu" <wvu(at)mail.ameritel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: rv10 quick build |
products.
Re: RV10-List: My Sun-N-Fun Experience (Long)The sooner you get on the road, the
sooner you'll get there. Plus this building thang does wonderful things to
the mind.
Anh
----- Original Message -----
From: John Jessen
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:48 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
So, if I have the arithmetic right, and if life were highly regulated, and one
could work 15 hours per week, 48 weeks a year, you'd be done with the quick
build in 2.36 years. Slow build 3.05 years. Ouch. John
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy DeBauw
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 3:25 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
2200 hours slow build 1700 hours quick build. These are complete numbers including
paint. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Schawang, Darrin
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:51 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
What is a realistic build time for a RV-10 w/ quickbuild wings and fuselage?
The say that the quickbuild wings can be ready in a weakend and a week of
evenings. How much time is left on the fuselage? After that what is the realistic
time involved to complete?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Ordered my Engine today |
Hey Folks,
Today I ordered my engine from Bart and Sue at Aerosport Power.
http://www.aerosportpower.com 250 376-2955
I got the IO-540 D4A5 with a Lightspeed Plasma III ignition. Basically
the same exact thing as Scott Schmidt got and posted about the other
day. If you're coming to OSH, you'll get to see it. It's going
to be the Aerosport demo IO-540 on display, and I'm picking it up
from there. After speaking with Bart, and hearing the great
reputation over the years, I decided to pay a little price premuim
and go with them. They basically do some small tweaks and mods
that go beyond what most places do as part of a standard overhaul,
and they don't line-item the cost.
For those who are shopping for engines on a little tighter budget,
I also have another suggestion for you. I had a VERY hard time
coming to my decision to go with Aerosport, because Richard Fowler
at America's Aircraft Engines was VERY nice to deal with.
http://www.overhaul.com/ (888) 371-1371 (Tulsa OK)
These guys will do everything that Aerosport will do, and I'm sure
you'll end up with just as nice an engine, and probably save
a couple thousand dollars while you're at it. They'll very
fairly price the add-ons, like Lightspeed ignition, sky-tec
starter, and special valve jobs and porting and flow matching.
I got the specs on the cranks that they currently have in stock
and it looks like the next couple of guys who call them for
an engine should get a pretty sweet deal. If you go there,
tell them I referred you. They were so very nice that I actually
feel bad having to choose between the 2 companies. For me though,
I've just had 1st hand experience hearing an aerosport engine run,
and it was smoother than any I'd heard....so I had that extra
push.
Cores...good ones...are becoming more and more in short supply
these days, basically due to US, the RV-10 crowd, buying up
all of the 540's....and with the sales lately, I'm sure the
problem is going to get worse and worse until next year
when the ECI IO-540 becomes available as a *new* engine. So
my advice to those who are thinking they'll finish their kit by
the end of the year would be, shop quick and pin down your engine.
The prices, and core prices, have crept up a couple thousand
since OSH last year. If you're not going to finish for at least
a year, look into the ECI engines. I know that America's Aircraft
Engines will be selling those when they're available.
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: rv10 quick build |
DejaVu wrote:
>
> The sooner you get on the road, the sooner you'll get there. Plus this
> building thang does wonderful things to the mind.
Kinda like LSD...
Addictive, expensive, and changes your whole world view...
*wink*
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: HS Nose Ribs |
Michael,
If I had to do it again I would get somebody to help. My arms were pretty sore
and brusied up after doing those HS skins. When I was almost done fellow -10 builder
John Erickson came over and we finished the rest without even breaking
a sweat. I was lucky not to have made any smileys. Other than the fact I use a
mushroom set with a rubber lip that keeps it in place, It isn't the swivel type,
I have managed to develop a good feel for balancing the bucking bar on top
of the rivet by feel, sorta teeterer tottering while concentrating on the rivet
set. Be careful not to let the bar touch the skin or you'll get the infamous
reverse smiley. You will get de'jevu when you get to the leading edge wing skins
and tanks. Bottom line is take your time, make sure the bar is not touching
the skins and the rivet set is flush on the skin. Don't be in a big hurry to
fire off the gun. Slow taps to start seem to work just as well as a suicide
burst.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | matronix.rv10(at)4sythe.com |
Does anyone have recommendations on fixing a smiley after it is already
there? I have one right near the front HS spar where the bucking bar
slipped off of the rivet. The indention is very noticeable and I'm not
sure if it should be filled in before final priming and painting or if I
should address it before that. How much should I worry about this and
is there any impact on structural integrity?
Thoughts/Ideas?
Kent Forsythe
FORTECH, LLC
8919 Brookside Ave.
Suite 201
West Chester, Ohio 45069
513.759.2000 voice
513.759.2001 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server.at.matronics.com(at)matronix.rv10.at.4sythe.
com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
Michael,
If I had to do it again I would get somebody to help. My arms were
pretty sore and brusied up after doing those HS skins. When I was almost
done fellow -10 builder John Erickson came over and we finished the rest
without even breaking a sweat. I was lucky not to have made any smileys.
Other than the fact I use a mushroom set with a rubber lip that keeps it
in place, It isn't the swivel type, I have managed to develop a good
feel for balancing the bucking bar on top of the rivet by feel, sorta
teeterer tottering while concentrating on the rivet set. Be careful not
to let the bar touch the skin or you'll get the infamous reverse smiley.
You will get de'jevu when you get to the leading edge wing skins and
tanks. Bottom line is take your time, make sure the bar is not touching
the skins and the rivet set is flush on the skin. Don't be in a big
hurry to fire off the gun. Slow taps to start seem to work just as well
as a suicide burst.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
From what I understand as long as it isn't cracked or punctured you should be able
to fill and sand as part of the prep for paint. On other RV's I have seen
smileys just painted over, other who had none visible said that they had used
body filler to cover them up. I would think it would take a heck of a hit to cause
enough damage to be considered structural. I looked it up in the practices
and standards but could not find dents addresed as much as crack and application
of patches over damaged areas. I know there are a few A & P types building
and lurking that might have some more insight. They always look worse than they
are, especially on nice shiny alumium. I have experimented on my VS by fine
sanding, which takes away the look of it being so severe, followed by a dab
of Rage Gold filler, fine sanding and primer ...the dent is history. So...only
you will be the one losing sleep over it. I'm sure there are many more to come
if not from riveting then hanger rash, large bugs and drooling spectators.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
Feather and fill, you will have to do this many times, at least that's
what I have been told, I was really worried about smileys, and everyone
I have talked with says you will fill it, feather it, prime and paint. I
say ok, but what do I fill it with? I have heard bondo contracts and
will eventually crack, What should we use to make minor cosmetic fixes?
Dumb question, I know, but like everything else I have learned building
this plane, there is probably an easier answer then I am coming up with.
Dan 40269
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
matronix.rv10(at)4sythe.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
Does anyone have recommendations on fixing a smiley after it is already
there? I have one right near the front HS spar where the bucking bar
slipped off of the rivet. The indention is very noticeable and I'm not
sure if it should be filled in before final priming and painting or if I
should address it before that. How much should I worry about this and
is there any impact on structural integrity?
Thoughts/Ideas?
Kent Forsythe
FORTECH, LLC
8919 Brookside Ave.
Suite 201
West Chester, Ohio 45069
513.759.2000 voice
513.759.2001 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server.at.matronics.com(at)matronix.rv10.at.4sythe.
com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
Michael,
If I had to do it again I would get somebody to help. My arms were
pretty sore and brusied up after doing those HS skins. When I was almost
done fellow -10 builder John Erickson came over and we finished the rest
without even breaking a sweat. I was lucky not to have made any smileys.
Other than the fact I use a mushroom set with a rubber lip that keeps it
in place, It isn't the swivel type, I have managed to develop a good
feel for balancing the bucking bar on top of the rivet by feel, sorta
teeterer tottering while concentrating on the rivet set. Be careful not
to let the bar touch the skin or you'll get the infamous reverse smiley.
You will get de'jevu when you get to the leading edge wing skins and
tanks. Bottom line is take your time, make sure the bar is not touching
the skins and the rivet set is flush on the skin. Don't be in a big
hurry to fire off the gun. Slow taps to start seem to work just as well
as a suicide burst.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HS Nose Ribs |
Hi Kent,
The only impact is on your ego. Bondo will hide it... or you can just
consider it an RV birth mark.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On Apr 22, 2005, at 9:30 AM, matronix.rv10(at)4sythe.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone have recommendations on fixing a smiley after it is already
> there? I have one right near the front HS spar where the bucking bar
> slipped off of the rivet. The indention is very noticeable and I'm not
> sure if it should be filled in before final priming and painting or if
> I
> should address it before that. How much should I worry about this and
> is there any impact on structural integrity?
>
> Thoughts/Ideas?
>
> Kent Forsythe
> FORTECH, LLC
> 8919 Brookside Ave.
> Suite 201
> West Chester, Ohio 45069
>
> 513.759.2000 voice
> 513.759.2001 fax
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server.at.matronics.com(at)matronix.rv10.at.4sythe.
> com] On Behalf Of Rick
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:16 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
>
>
> Michael,
>
> If I had to do it again I would get somebody to help. My arms were
> pretty sore and brusied up after doing those HS skins. When I was
> almost
> done fellow -10 builder John Erickson came over and we finished the
> rest
> without even breaking a sweat. I was lucky not to have made any
> smileys.
> Other than the fact I use a mushroom set with a rubber lip that keeps
> it
> in place, It isn't the swivel type, I have managed to develop a good
> feel for balancing the bucking bar on top of the rivet by feel, sorta
> teeterer tottering while concentrating on the rivet set. Be careful not
> to let the bar touch the skin or you'll get the infamous reverse
> smiley.
> You will get de'jevu when you get to the leading edge wing skins and
> tanks. Bottom line is take your time, make sure the bar is not touching
> the skins and the rivet set is flush on the skin. Don't be in a big
> hurry to fire off the gun. Slow taps to start seem to work just as well
> as a suicide burst.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
I have used bondo's spot putty over straight body filler or even by itself it should
be OK for a small, shallow ding, it's a finer blend/grade of filling material
and should adhere if the metal is squeaky clean and preped. Regular plastic
body filer is a bit too coarse of a material for small dings. It tends not
to dans to a nice feathered edge you need on a smiley. The final feather should
be accomplished by a filler type of sandable primer wet sanded. I think this
conversation is going to start tiny little flames heading our/my way, everyones
got their own method...I like to hear what others have perfected as well.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
All,
Vans has started inputting all the orders from SNF.
My tail kit went to crating yesterday; it should ship early next week.do I
dare expect local pickup by next Friday???
Rob
#40392
Awaiting tail kit inventory
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Duckworks lights - Is one HID enough? |
John,
I think a great solution is, as you mention, using the Van's RV-10 Tip
Lights connected to an alternating flash device, then using an HID in
the left wing or both wings to get maximum visibility for taxi/landing.
It seems like one would be enough, but some will want 2 HID. Since they
draw so little current (~3.5amps), 2 of them are less than a single 100W
Halogen.
You could install one Round HID and one Round 100W halogen initially,
and upgrading to the second HID later would be a very easy task.
For those who want to locate and try some other lamp, we can supply an
install kit with a rectangular or round mount and all other hardware.
Other than determining how to get your lamp into our mount, this will
save you a ton of effort and ensure a clean installation.
The Duck
________________________________
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Duckworks lights for the 10
As per your suggestion, I've decided to go with the standard wing tip
lights for the -10 to be used as flashers, with HID for taxi, etc. Do
you suggest one or two HID? I've not seen them in use.
John Jessen
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:05 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Duckworks lights for the 10
=09
=09
In case you all have not heard....
Dan Lloyd,
the new RV-10 kits are completed and ready for order now!
I don't have the website updated yet, but any orders I receive
before the update will be at the same prices as for the RV-4/6/7/8 kits.
We will carry the 55w, 100w, and HID for the RV-10, but once the
website is updated the HID will only be available thru Van's, with a
small price increase, due to the increased parts count in the new kits.
The 55w and 100w will continue to be available on our website
for direct order.
Note that the kits are basically the same as for the other RVs,
the primary difference being an improved lens mounting method that will
insure a tighter fit to the skin, and eliminates holes in the lens which
were an occasional source of cracking.
Sincerely,
Duckworks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net> |
Robert,
I sent my order in on the 1st, it was in crating on the 8th, and it was
in my workshop on the 20th, started working on it today, the 22nd. (What
have I gotten myself into?!? )
I live in eastern MA, so it is almost as far from Vans as you can expect.
Also, the freight companies are charging 13.9% fuel surcharge !!!
-Jim (#40384)
Robert G. Wright wrote:
> All,
>
> Vans has started inputting all the orders from SNF.
>
> My tail kit went to crating yesterday; it should ship early next
> weekdo I dare expect local pickup by next Friday???
>
> Rob
>
> #40392
>
> Awaiting tail kit inventory
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HS Nose Ribs |
OK, I'm going to try not to look like an idiot here but...
I've always wondered when people talk about smileys, are they
talking about when the rivet head itself gets the curved marks
on it, or is this when your mushroom set starts to angle a bit
and you end up with a curved ring the size of a quarter around
the rivet area. I've also had it happen when I've bounced off
the edge of a rib when doing a skin, and ended up with a slight
dent where the rib stops supporting the skin.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
matronix.rv10(at)4sythe.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone have recommendations on fixing a smiley after it is already
> there? I have one right near the front HS spar where the bucking bar
> slipped off of the rivet. The indention is very noticeable and I'm not
> sure if it should be filled in before final priming and painting or if I
> should address it before that. How much should I worry about this and
> is there any impact on structural integrity?
>
> Thoughts/Ideas?
>
> Kent Forsythe
> FORTECH, LLC
> 8919 Brookside Ave.
> Suite 201
> West Chester, Ohio 45069
>
> 513.759.2000 voice
> 513.759.2001 fax
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server.at.matronics.com(at)matronix.rv10.at.4sythe.
> com] On Behalf Of Rick
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:16 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
>
>
> Michael,
>
> If I had to do it again I would get somebody to help. My arms were
> pretty sore and brusied up after doing those HS skins. When I was almost
> done fellow -10 builder John Erickson came over and we finished the rest
> without even breaking a sweat. I was lucky not to have made any smileys.
> Other than the fact I use a mushroom set with a rubber lip that keeps it
> in place, It isn't the swivel type, I have managed to develop a good
> feel for balancing the bucking bar on top of the rivet by feel, sorta
> teeterer tottering while concentrating on the rivet set. Be careful not
> to let the bar touch the skin or you'll get the infamous reverse smiley.
> You will get de'jevu when you get to the leading edge wing skins and
> tanks. Bottom line is take your time, make sure the bar is not touching
> the skins and the rivet set is flush on the skin. Don't be in a big
> hurry to fire off the gun. Slow taps to start seem to work just as well
> as a suicide burst.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
It would appear both. Having just generated a few from the mushroom set myself,
I can definatly see how those could be called smileys. I believe the original
term was from the 426 sets not being on center causing the semi-circle on the
rivets themselves.
Just my 2 cents.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
OK, I'm going to try not to look like an idiot here but...
I've always wondered when people talk about smileys, are they talking about when
the rivet head itself gets the curved marks on it, or is this when your mushroom
set starts to angle a bit and you end up with a curved ring the size of a
quarter around the rivet area. I've also had it happen when I've bounced off
the edge of a rib when doing a skin, and ended up with a slight dent where the
rib stops supporting the skin.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
matronix.rv10(at)4sythe.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone have recommendations on fixing a smiley after it is
> already there? I have one right near the front HS spar where the
> bucking bar slipped off of the rivet. The indention is very
> noticeable and I'm not sure if it should be filled in before final
> priming and painting or if I should address it before that. How much
> should I worry about this and is there any impact on structural integrity?
>
> Thoughts/Ideas?
>
> Kent Forsythe
> FORTECH, LLC
> 8919 Brookside Ave.
> Suite 201
> West Chester, Ohio 45069
>
> 513.759.2000 voice
> 513.759.2001 fax
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server.at.matronics.com(at)matronix.rv10.at.4sythe.
> com] On Behalf Of Rick
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:16 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
>
>
> Michael,
>
> If I had to do it again I would get somebody to help. My arms were
> pretty sore and brusied up after doing those HS skins. When I was
> almost done fellow -10 builder John Erickson came over and we finished
> the rest without even breaking a sweat. I was lucky not to have made any smileys.
> Other than the fact I use a mushroom set with a rubber lip that keeps
> it in place, It isn't the swivel type, I have managed to develop a
> good feel for balancing the bucking bar on top of the rivet by feel,
> sorta teeterer tottering while concentrating on the rivet set. Be
> careful not to let the bar touch the skin or you'll get the infamous reverse
smiley.
> You will get de'jevu when you get to the leading edge wing skins and
> tanks. Bottom line is take your time, make sure the bar is not
> touching the skins and the rivet set is flush on the skin. Don't be in
> a big hurry to fire off the gun. Slow taps to start seem to work just
> as well as a suicide burst.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
RE: RV10-List: HS Nose RibsAcutally, "smileys" aren't really known as a
phenomenon on flush rivets at all. Dents from your mushroom set should be
called that, dents. If they happen to be in a semi-cirlce then you have
something like a "giant smiley" on the metal, but not really on the rivet.
"Traditional" smileys are from button head rivets (470's) when you have the
rivet set off to the side when shooting, it leaves a really nice, little
smile on the rivet head. Depending on how bad your screw up was, it may be
a minor smile, or I've seen them where they've almost sliced the rivet head
in half (yikes)!
Anyway, just wanted to clear that up! Been around rivets for awhile now,
from little RV's to 747's (and lot's of stuff in between) and that's what
I've been exposed to.
Cheers,
Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:22 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
It would appear both. Having just generated a few from the mushroom set
myself, I can definatly see how those could be called smileys. I believe
the original term was from the 426 sets not being on center causing the
semi-circle on the rivets themselves.
Just my 2 cents.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 7:06 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
OK, I'm going to try not to look like an idiot here but...
I've always wondered when people talk about smileys, are they talking
about when the rivet head itself gets the curved marks on it, or is this
when your mushroom set starts to angle a bit and you end up with a curved
ring the size of a quarter around the rivet area. I've also had it happen
when I've bounced off the edge of a rib when doing a skin, and ended up with
a slight dent where the rib stops supporting the skin.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
matronix.rv10(at)4sythe.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone have recommendations on fixing a smiley after it is
> already there? I have one right near the front HS spar where the
> bucking bar slipped off of the rivet. The indention is very
> noticeable and I'm not sure if it should be filled in before final
> priming and painting or if I should address it before that. How much
> should I worry about this and is there any impact on structural
integrity?
>
> Thoughts/Ideas?
>
> Kent Forsythe
> FORTECH, LLC
> 8919 Brookside Ave.
> Suite 201
> West Chester, Ohio 45069
>
> 513.759.2000 voice
> 513.759.2001 fax
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server.at.matronics.com(at)matronix.rv10.at.4sythe.
> com] On Behalf Of Rick
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:16 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
>
>
> Michael,
>
> If I had to do it again I would get somebody to help. My arms were
> pretty sore and brusied up after doing those HS skins. When I was
> almost done fellow -10 builder John Erickson came over and we finished
> the rest without even breaking a sweat. I was lucky not to have made any
smileys.
> Other than the fact I use a mushroom set with a rubber lip that keeps
> it in place, It isn't the swivel type, I have managed to develop a
> good feel for balancing the bucking bar on top of the rivet by feel,
> sorta teeterer tottering while concentrating on the rivet set. Be
> careful not to let the bar touch the skin or you'll get the infamous
reverse smiley.
> You will get de'jevu when you get to the leading edge wing skins and
> tanks. Bottom line is take your time, make sure the bar is not
> touching the skins and the rivet set is flush on the skin. Don't be in
> a big hurry to fire off the gun. Slow taps to start seem to work just
> as well as a suicide burst.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
RV10-List Email Forum -
more:
bsp;
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill McCoy <hoverlover9797(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Duckworks lights - Is one HID enough? |
Hello, I saw your post on the list and wonder what it the cost for the install
kit without the hid? I want to build them into the wings now and add the hid's
later. Thanks Mark #167. Also do you take paypal or credit cards? Thanks again
"Wentz, Don" wrote:John,
I think a great solution is, as you mention, using the Van's RV-10 Tip Lights connected
to an alternating flash device, then using an HID in the left wing or
both wings to get maximum visibility for taxi/landing.
It seems like one would be enough, but some will want 2 HID. Since they draw so
little current (~3.5amps), 2 of them are less than a single 100W Halogen.
You could install one Round HID and one Round 100W halogen initially, and upgrading
to the second HID later would be a very easy task.
For those who want to locate and try some other lamp, we can supply an install
kit with a rectangular or round mount and all other hardware. Other than determining
how to get your lamp into our mount, this will save you a ton of effort
and ensure a clean installation.
The Duck
---------------------------------
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Duckworks lights for the 10
As per your suggestion, I've decided to go with the standard wing tip lights for
the -10 to be used as flashers, with HID for taxi, etc. Do you suggest one
or two HID? I've not seen them in use.
John Jessen
---------------------------------
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Subject: RV10-List: Duckworks lights for the 10
In case you all have not heard.
Dan Lloyd,
the new RV-10 kits are completed and ready for order now!
I don't have the website updated yet, but any orders I receive before the update
will be at the same prices as for the RV-4/6/7/8 kits.
We will carry the 55w, 100w, and HID for the RV-10, but once the website is updated
the HID will only be available thru Van's, with a small price increase, due
to the increased parts count in the new kits.
The 55w and 100w will continue to be available on our website for direct order.
Note that the kits are basically the same as for the other RVs, the primary difference
being an improved lens mounting method that will insure a tighter fit
to the skin, and eliminates holes in the lens which were an occasional source
of cracking.
Sincerely,
Duckworks
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HS Nose Ribs |
Ahhh, I forgot about the round head rivets! Yeah, I've done THAT
a hundred times. Some of those dang round head rivets are a pain!
Hard to believe, even though they'd seem self centering. I've had
times riveting alone where I just about screwed up parts of the
kit, and went in the house raving to the wife that if she didn't
get out there and help I was going to mess something up. Those
longer round head rivets really go much better with help sometimes,
depending on the angle and reach you have to do.
Thanks for the info Stein!
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Stein Bruch wrote:
> Acutally, "smileys" aren't really known as a phenomenon on flush rivets
> at all. Dents from your mushroom set should be called that, dents. If
> they happen to be in a semi-cirlce then you have something like a "giant
> smiley" on the metal, but not really on the rivet.
>
> "Traditional" smileys are from button head rivets (470's) when you have
> the rivet set off to the side when shooting, it leaves a really nice,
> little smile on the rivet head. Depending on how bad your screw up was,
> it may be a minor smile, or I've seen them where they've almost sliced
> the rivet head in half (yikes)!
>
> Anyway, just wanted to clear that up! Been around rivets for awhile
> now, from little RV's to 747's (and lot's of stuff in between) and
> that's what I've been exposed to.
>
> Cheers,
> Stein
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]*On Behalf Of *RV
> Builder (Michael Sausen)
> *Sent:* Friday, April 22, 2005 9:22 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
>
> It would appear both. Having just generated a few from the mushroom
> set myself, I can definatly see how those could be called smileys.
> I believe the original term was from the 426 sets not being on
> center causing the semi-circle on the rivets themselves.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 7:06 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
>
>
> OK, I'm going to try not to look like an idiot here but...
>
> I've always wondered when people talk about smileys, are they
> talking about when the rivet head itself gets the curved marks on
> it, or is this when your mushroom set starts to angle a bit and you
> end up with a curved ring the size of a quarter around the rivet
> area. I've also had it happen when I've bounced off the edge of a
> rib when doing a skin, and ended up with a slight dent where the rib
> stops supporting the skin.
>
>
> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
>
>
> matronix.rv10(at)4sythe.com wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have recommendations on fixing a smiley after it is
> > already there? I have one right near the front HS spar where the
> > bucking bar slipped off of the rivet. The indention is very
> > noticeable and I'm not sure if it should be filled in before final
> > priming and painting or if I should address it before that. How much
> > should I worry about this and is there any impact on structural
> integrity?
> >
> > Thoughts/Ideas?
> >
> > Kent Forsythe
> > FORTECH, LLC
> > 8919 Brookside Ave.
> > Suite 201
> > West Chester, Ohio 45069
> >
> > 513.759.2000 voice
> > 513.759.2001 fax
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> >
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server.at.matronics.com(at)matronix.rv10.at.4sythe.
> > com] On Behalf Of Rick
> > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:16 AM
> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
> >
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > If I had to do it again I would get somebody to help. My arms were
> > pretty sore and brusied up after doing those HS skins. When I was
> > almost done fellow -10 builder John Erickson came over and we
> finished
> > the rest without even breaking a sweat. I was lucky not to have
> made any smileys.
> > Other than the fact I use a mushroom set with a rubber lip that keeps
> > it in place, It isn't the swivel type, I have managed to develop a
> > good feel for balancing the bucking bar on top of the rivet by feel,
> > sorta teeterer tottering while concentrating on the rivet set. Be
> > careful not to let the bar touch the skin or you'll get the
> infamous reverse smiley.
> > You will get de'jevu when you get to the leading edge wing skins and
> > tanks. Bottom line is take your time, make sure the bar is not
> > touching the skins and the rivet set is flush on the skin. Don't
> be in
> > a big hurry to fire off the gun. Slow taps to start seem to work just
> > as well as a suicide burst.
> >
> > Rick S.
> > 40185
> > Wings
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ====================================
> RV10-List Email Forum -
> more:
> bsp;
> s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ====================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Trutrak Autopilot |
| From: | "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com> |
I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that everyone is
selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that TruTrak specifys the
price the retailers will sell them at. This just makes me mad and not want
to use their products. Any alternatives to this nonsense they are imposing on
us?
Niko
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <schmoboy(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trutrak Autopilot |
Here's what I'm leaning towards...
http://www.trioavionics.com/
-Sean #40303
Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr) wrote:
>
>I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that everyone is
selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that TruTrak specifys
the price the retailers will sell them at. This just makes me mad and not want
to use their products. Any alternatives to this nonsense they are imposing
on us?
>
>Niko
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trutrak Autopilot |
It may be just the stuff you're finding on the web. In my experience,
I ordered my servos from TruTrak, but then after I was paid up I
found out that the same autopilot, or servos only, would have been
a bunch cheaper from other places. Try http://www.steinair.com/
or http://www.rvtraining.com/ I know that both of those places
sold the stuff at less than TruTrak's price. They may have a
minimum advertized price, or even a minimum sales price or something
but you should be able to at least find them less than buying direct.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr) wrote:
>
> I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that everyone
is selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that TruTrak specifys
the price the retailers will sell them at. This just makes me mad and not want
to use their products. Any alternatives to this nonsense they are imposing
on us?
>
> Niko
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Trutrak Autopilot |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Niko, it's a free market capitalist system. Take your hard earned
dollars to the competition. If the features are less robust, the
alternative may still be to an acceptable level of satisfaction to you.
Why should a manufacturer bypass retailers and price discount to the end
user? I look for the best deal possible, make sure it is of the quality
and feature set desired, then go for it. When I deal with a retailer, I
expect a higher level of service. Tim turned me on to the Sorcerer (and
a higher feature set) and I have patiently waited since he mentioned it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start another thread like the Oregon
Aero seats (which are included in the price of the kit everyone buys -
thus effective ending that discussion).
Can you clarify the Nonsense for me so I can relate?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Napoli,
Nikolaos (Contr)
Subject: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that
everyone is selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that
TruTrak specifys the price the retailers will sell them at. This just
makes me mad and not want to use their products. Any alternatives to
this nonsense they are imposing on us?
Niko
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net> |
| Subject: | Day 2, mistakes no. 1 and 2. |
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list
--- MIME Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting.
NOTE! This error can also occur when the poster of the
message has a specific type of computer virus. This virus
WAS NOT forwarded on to the List. The poster should be
informed of the potential problem with their system as soon
as possible.
--- MIME Errors ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Trutrak Autopilot |
I am not talking about what price a manufacturer charges directly to their customers
or to the retailer. Its their option to charge whatever they want. I am
talking about specifying the minimum price that a retailer has to charge for
that product he just bought and wants to resell. Mind you I am not saying that
I know this is happening for a fact. I do find it strange that a good number
of shops have the same price.
For example if I am a retailer and I just bought product A from a manufacturer
for say $1000 which has a retail price of $2000 the manufacturer tells me that
I can't sell their product for less than $1800. In a free market, if I bought
a product from a manufacturer for $1000 and I want to sell it for $1100 because
it fits my business model its my business not the manufacturers. If I have
a low markup high volume business its my prerogative.
A manufacturer setting a price that an independent retailer has to sell something
at is the exact opposite of a free market system. This would be equivalent
to the oil companies telling the independent gas stations you have to charge
a minimum of 4 dollars per gallon if you want to sell our gas regardless of what
it costs you.
And by the way since, you did bring up the seats again, I don't have a problem
with Van's putting the seats in the kit. Its their kit and if they want to incorporate
them into the kits its their option. What I am talking about is not
related to the seat issue at all.
Check the hot news flash at the following site http://www.homebuiltcentral.com/site/960757/page/45029
Niko
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
Niko, it's a free market capitalist system. Take your hard earned
dollars to the competition. If the features are less robust, the
alternative may still be to an acceptable level of satisfaction to you.
Why should a manufacturer bypass retailers and price discount to the end
user? I look for the best deal possible, make sure it is of the quality
and feature set desired, then go for it. When I deal with a retailer, I
expect a higher level of service. Tim turned me on to the Sorcerer (and
a higher feature set) and I have patiently waited since he mentioned it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start another thread like the Oregon
Aero seats (which are included in the price of the kit everyone buys -
thus effective ending that discussion).
Can you clarify the Nonsense for me so I can relate?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Napoli,
Nikolaos (Contr)
Subject: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that
everyone is selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that
TruTrak specifys the price the retailers will sell them at. This just
makes me mad and not want to use their products. Any alternatives to
this nonsense they are imposing on us?
Niko
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Day 2, mistakes no. 1 and 2. |
| From: | "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com> |
I had a similar problem and contacted Vans. I was told that it should be okay
and that its common to be overly zealous with the countersinking when you first
start out. You might want to send these pictures to Vans.
Niko
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Hein
Subject: RV10-List: Day 2, mistakes no. 1 and 2.
Well folks, I've made my first two mistakes. (Does this mean I can officialy join
the club?)
Mistake #1: Adjusting machine countersink too deep (a small chip was stuck on the
countersink, so I inadvertently adjusted it too deep.)
Result: 1 countersink in the VS-1008 too deep.
Mistake #2: Having too much fun with the countersinking.
Result: 3 extra countersinks above the upper attach bolt holes in the VS-1008
I will probably be ordering a new VS-1008 on Monday since I don't like how it looks,
however I would like to know what you think about this goof . Could you
just use flush rivets in the 3 extra countersunk holes? Is the countersink way
too deep, or just a bit?
I've attached pictures to show the goof; I dropped a flush rivet in the countersink
that went too deep to show it.
-Jim 40384
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Day 2, mistakes no. 1 and 2. |
Jim,
One other solution is to move to the next larger rivet. I did the same thing
you did and the 5/32 flush rivet was my solution. Remember the length of the
rivet unset should be 1.5 times the diameter so you may need a longer rivet
to get the correct shop head. Oh, BTW since we're confessing, I made a couple
of reverse dimples on my rudder skins when I riveted the shear clips with the
pop riveter. Duck tape over the sharp edges on the tool solved that problem.....john
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Day 2, mistakes no. 1 and 2. |
Well, if it's any help...
The countersink too deep doesn't look to be a big deal to me at
all. If there's still plenty of metal there, and it's only
a couple rivets it's probably not worth doing anything.
And, I just checked my VS for you....those 2 extra countersunk
holes....I looked at my VS, and I don't see any issue with
just using countersunk rivets there. My guess is that
there would be no strength issue, and the only reason that
the other once got countersunk was probably due to the way that
VS spar mates up with the tailcone. Then they switched to
the AN470 rivets up higher, but I really don't see any real
difference except for not having to countersink. So, from
the looks of it, if it were mine, I'd leave it and move on.
You'll probably make far worse mistakes along the way....save
the hassle of shipping parts to you for something that's
really a bigger deal.
That's just advice from another person who's never flown a plane
he's built, but, your photos just don't make it look that bad.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
James Hein wrote:
> Well folks, I've made my first two mistakes. (Does this mean I can
> officialy join the club?)
>
> Mistake #1: Adjusting machine countersink too deep (a small chip was
> stuck on the countersink, so I inadvertently adjusted it too deep.)
> Result: 1 countersink in the VS-1008 too deep.
>
> Mistake #2: Having too much fun with the countersinking.
> Result: 3 extra countersinks above the upper attach bolt holes in
> the VS-1008
>
> I will probably be ordering a new VS-1008 on Monday since I don't like
> how it looks, however I would like to know what you think about this
> goof . Could you just use flush rivets in the 3 extra countersunk holes?
> Is the countersink way too deep, or just a bit?
>
> I've attached pictures to show the goof; I dropped a flush rivet in the
> countersink that went too deep to show it.
>
> -Jim 40384
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trutrak Autopilot |
Ok, so I read the newsflash about the minimum advertized price....that's
exactly what I was talking about (I think I did anyway) in my last
email. Minimum ADVERTIZED prices are very common in many industries
from many suppliers. Sure, it might not be viewed as being a good
thing, kind of like price fixing, but there are all kinds of products
that are treated that way. Garmin stuff is often that way I believe.
So the manufacturer says you can't ADVERTIZE the price any lower
than a specific dollar amount...but, you'll find that if you actually
CALL the supplier, they'll sell it cheaper. That's actually why when
you surf the net or read some ads in papers, you'll see them put
the price down as $$ CALL $$....they don't want to list a price that
is $1500, if the real price is going to be $1000....they don't want
to look like the high price guy....they'd rather have you call and
be happy with the deal you get by phone.
So sure, it's maybe something lightly offensive to some done by TruTrak,
but it really is a common thing...many buyers just aren't aware that
it's happening sometimes.
I'd say, call them in person and see what they'll do. I'm betting
you'll get better numbers by phone. When I talked to Steinair,
I know that they aren't making millions on their products. They
seem to be trying to be very fair.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr) wrote:
>
>
> I am not talking about what price a manufacturer charges directly to
> their customers or to the retailer. Its their option to charge
> whatever they want. I am talking about specifying the minimum price
> that a retailer has to charge for that product he just bought and
> wants to resell. Mind you I am not saying that I know this is
> happening for a fact. I do find it strange that a good number of
> shops have the same price.
>
> For example if I am a retailer and I just bought product A from a
> manufacturer for say $1000 which has a retail price of $2000 the
> manufacturer tells me that I can't sell their product for less than
> $1800. In a free market, if I bought a product from a manufacturer
> for $1000 and I want to sell it for $1100 because it fits my business
> model its my business not the manufacturers. If I have a low markup
> high volume business its my prerogative.
>
> A manufacturer setting a price that an independent retailer has to
> sell something at is the exact opposite of a free market system.
> This would be equivalent to the oil companies telling the independent
> gas stations you have to charge a minimum of 4 dollars per gallon if
> you want to sell our gas regardless of what it costs you.
>
> And by the way since, you did bring up the seats again, I don't have
> a problem with Van's putting the seats in the kit. Its their kit and
> if they want to incorporate them into the kits its their option.
> What I am talking about is not related to the seat issue at all.
>
> Check the hot news flash at the following site
> http://www.homebuiltcentral.com/site/960757/page/45029
>
> Niko
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John W.
> Cox Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:49 PM To:
> rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
>
>
>
>
> Niko, it's a free market capitalist system. Take your hard earned
> dollars to the competition. If the features are less robust, the
> alternative may still be to an acceptable level of satisfaction to
> you.
>
> Why should a manufacturer bypass retailers and price discount to the
> end user? I look for the best deal possible, make sure it is of the
> quality and feature set desired, then go for it. When I deal with a
> retailer, I expect a higher level of service. Tim turned me on to the
> Sorcerer (and a higher feature set) and I have patiently waited since
> he mentioned it.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start another thread like the
> Oregon Aero seats (which are included in the price of the kit
> everyone buys - thus effective ending that discussion).
>
> Can you clarify the Nonsense for me so I can relate?
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Napoli,
> Nikolaos (Contr) Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 9:00 AM To: RV10-List
> Digest List Subject: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
>
>
>
> I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that
> everyone is selling them at the same price. What I have heard is
> that TruTrak specifys the price the retailers will sell them at.
> This just makes me mad and not want to use their products. Any
> alternatives to this nonsense they are imposing on us?
>
> Niko
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Trutrak Autopilot |
Niko, if a TT AP sold to a dealer for 1,000 and retailed for 2,000 you would
probably find a lot of difference. A 100% markup or 50% Gross Profit leaves
a lot of room for discounts. On the other hand, if the dealer discount is
more like 10%, how much variance would you think there would be? I can tell
you having shopped the TT's that you can find folks selling these for a
variety of prices particularly if you include harnesses, mounts, etc. which
some charge for and some do not. But, there is no large margin in them for
dealers that would justify large discounts and thus most low volume dealers
end up with pricing pretty close.
If TT chose not to even use a dealer network and charged their normal
retail, they would still be a good value and the discussion would center on
why no dealers. Now that they have thrown in a little margin for a dealer
network, it's a better deal not a worse one. Availability is greater,
service is better and the prices are marginally cheaper.
Try Stark Avionics, SteinAir, Fabian, etc. You will find the big difference
in value is the service added not the small price differential. I have had
good luck with SteinAir, others with Stark, others with Fabian. Pick any
one and you'll do OK. All are better than TT direct.
Good Luck
Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Napoli,
Nikolaos (Contr)
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
I am not talking about what price a manufacturer charges directly to their
customers or to the retailer. Its their option to charge whatever they
want. I am talking about specifying the minimum price that a retailer has
to charge for that product he just bought and wants to resell. Mind you I
am not saying that I know this is happening for a fact. I do find it
strange that a good number of shops have the same price.
For example if I am a retailer and I just bought product A from a
manufacturer for say $1000 which has a retail price of $2000 the
manufacturer tells me that I can't sell their product for less than $1800.
In a free market, if I bought a product from a manufacturer for $1000 and I
want to sell it for $1100 because it fits my business model its my business
not the manufacturers. If I have a low markup high volume business its my
prerogative.
A manufacturer setting a price that an independent retailer has to sell
something at is the exact opposite of a free market system. This would be
equivalent to the oil companies telling the independent gas stations you
have to charge a minimum of 4 dollars per gallon if you want to sell our gas
regardless of what it costs you.
And by the way since, you did bring up the seats again, I don't have a
problem with Van's putting the seats in the kit. Its their kit and if they
want to incorporate them into the kits its their option. What I am talking
about is not related to the seat issue at all.
Check the hot news flash at the following site
http://www.homebuiltcentral.com/site/960757/page/45029
Niko
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
Niko, it's a free market capitalist system. Take your hard earned
dollars to the competition. If the features are less robust, the
alternative may still be to an acceptable level of satisfaction to you.
Why should a manufacturer bypass retailers and price discount to the end
user? I look for the best deal possible, make sure it is of the quality
and feature set desired, then go for it. When I deal with a retailer, I
expect a higher level of service. Tim turned me on to the Sorcerer (and
a higher feature set) and I have patiently waited since he mentioned it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start another thread like the Oregon
Aero seats (which are included in the price of the kit everyone buys -
thus effective ending that discussion).
Can you clarify the Nonsense for me so I can relate?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Napoli,
Nikolaos (Contr)
Subject: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that
everyone is selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that
TruTrak specifys the price the retailers will sell them at. This just
makes me mad and not want to use their products. Any alternatives to
this nonsense they are imposing on us?
Niko
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Trutrak Autopilot |
| From: | "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com> |
Tim
You do have valid points and I have also noticed this phenomena in a lot of other
products. I didn't make the connection to the $$CALL$$ notes though. You
are also correct in that some of the retailers are willing to go below the minimum
advertised price and in this case I had to jump through another hoop.
Having said all that I will most likely end up with one of their autopilots as
they do make good products.
Niko
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trutrak Autopilot |
That sounds strange to me, check:
http://www.steinair.com/trutrak.htm
this prices are as an example lower then trutrak and I believe Van's does
the same.
Otherwise check
http://www.trioavionics.com/
their AP's seems also to be quite advanced.
However I like the way my trutrak/altrak work and how they've treated me
when things were not working as expected and also their upgrade politic.
Werner (still GlaStar bound)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
>
> I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that
everyone is selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that
TruTrak specifys the price the retailers will sell them at. This just makes
me mad and not want to use their products. Any alternatives to this
nonsense they are imposing on us?
>
> Niko
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trutrak Autopilot |
Take a look at this link. It appears they have some Tru Trak prices lower
than retail.
http://www.affordablepanels.com/trutrak_autopilots.htm
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
>
>
> I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that
> everyone is selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that
> TruTrak specifys the price the retailers will sell them at. This just
> makes me mad and not want to use their products. Any alternatives to this
> nonsense they are imposing on us?
>
> Niko
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trutrak Autopilot |
Here's another one you might want to check for a discount.
http://www.rvtraining.com/html/ifr_products.html
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
>
>
> I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that
> everyone is selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that
> TruTrak specifys the price the retailers will sell them at. This just
> makes me mad and not want to use their products. Any alternatives to this
> nonsense they are imposing on us?
>
> Niko
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
>
>I think I almost met this criteria just on the practice kit....
>
>Rob
>40392
>Awaiting emp kit ship
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
>Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 11:02 AM
>To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: HS Nose Ribs
>
>
>This thread is sweet.
>No more skeletons in the closet. Bring em out folks. :)
>Well to fess up I think I have two dents from mushroom sets. And one smiley
>on a rivet head. A small one. Will the gods that be ever forgive me? :)
>Mani
Gawd, you guys SUCK! My -10 is perfect. Smooth as glass. Not a scuff,
ding, boo-boo, fubar, smiley or frownie anywhere.
Now, where did I put that can of Bondo...
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD....complete with smilies to improve boundary layer airflow so it
goes faster than heck and takes off quicker than a prom dress.
RV10 '51 waitin' on it's new hangar/shop.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Trutrak Autopilot |
_www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
Then open the "trutrak autopilot" page.
Jim Ayers
Less Drag Products, Inc.
In a message dated 04/23/2005 9:18:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)"
I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that everyone
is selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that TruTrak
specifys the price the retailers will sell them at. This just makes me mad and
not
want to use their products. Any alternatives to this nonsense they are
imposing on us?
Niko
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> |
Have dealt with Van's, TT direct and Stein Air on the TT AP. Bought the Digitrak
for my Glastar through Van's at a slight discount from list. Install package
came at no charge direct from TT. later traded AP heads for the Pictorial pilot
in the Glastar.
When it was time to build the 10 I called SteinAir and got the aileron servo at
a slight discount and purchased the harness as well. Called TT direct and they
supplied the bracket and pushrod hardware at no charge including the shipping.
To put things in perspective "certified AP" in my Cessna cost $2000 in the mid
70s and would only track a VOR/LOC and that marginally. Today's TT and Trio do
an excellent job of tracking a GPS signal which is overlaid on any airway or
approach segment. The inflation adjusted cost is less than 500 1970s dollars.
Today's APs are excellent values and the bargain is in the capabilities rather
than how much off list one is able to extract.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
Netscape/7.2 (ax)
| Subject: | Re: Trutrak Autopilot |
I bet the FTC would be interested in what sounds like price fixing...
Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr) wrote:
>
>I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that everyone is
selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that TruTrak specifys
the price the retailers will sell them at. This just makes me mad and not want
to use their products. Any alternatives to this nonsense they are imposing
on us?
>
>Niko
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DejaVu" <wvu(at)mail.ameritel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: builder (shipping) |
products.
Make sure what the freightliners charge you is reasonable. Van's is
supposed to get a discount from them, which you inturn benefit.
My finish kit could've been in my garage here in MD in 8 days total. As it
turned out, it took 6 days for it to go accross the country, and 4 days to
go the last 60 miles. !#$%&
#$%%. ABS said they try to call me last Friday
once the driver was on the road and got no answer. So he turned around and
went back. What's the chance of the driver calling on a Friday afternoon
for a 60mile delivery? My caller ID would've also told me that someone
tried to call so I know no one called. I finally got a hold of the
dispatcher who explained what happened and said that they could deliver any
time next week. I asked what was the earliest that they could deliver
hoping that they would work on Sat. He said: ANY TIME next week. That
would be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.... They had the nerv to be
sarcastic.
I'm off the soap box now thank you very much.
Anh
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Hein" <n8vim(at)arrl.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: builder
>
> Robert,
> I sent my order in on the 1st, it was in crating on the 8th, and it was
> in my workshop on the 20th, started working on it today, the 22nd. (What
> have I gotten myself into?!? )
>
> I live in eastern MA, so it is almost as far from Vans as you can expect.
>
> Also, the freight companies are charging 13.9% fuel surcharge !!!
>
> -Jim (#40384)
>
> Robert G. Wright wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Vans has started inputting all the orders from SNF.
> >
> > My tail kit went to crating yesterday; it should ship early next
> > weekdo I dare expect local pickup by next Friday???
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > #40392
> >
> > Awaiting tail kit inventory
> >
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)earthlink.net> |
Is it acceptable practice to trust the GPS overlay to track along the localizer?
I am not instrument rated yet and I don't know much about GPS and IFR, but
I am really interested in being able to allow the AP to help keep me on the localizer/ILS.
Only the DFC-200 says it can actually track a VOR/localizer.
-Chris Lucas
#40072
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:49 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Trutrak AP
Have dealt with Van's, TT direct and Stein Air on the TT AP. Bought the Digitrak
for my Glastar through Van's at a slight discount from list. Install package
came at no charge direct from TT. later traded AP heads for the Pictorial pilot
in the Glastar.
When it was time to build the 10 I called SteinAir and got the aileron servo
at a slight discount and purchased the harness as well. Called TT direct and
they supplied the bracket and pushrod hardware at no charge including the shipping.
To put things in perspective "certified AP" in my Cessna cost $2000 in the mid
70s and would only track a VOR/LOC and that marginally. Today's TT and Trio
do an excellent job of tracking a GPS signal which is overlaid on any airway or
approach segment. The inflation adjusted cost is less than 500 1970s dollars.
Today's APs are excellent values and the bargain is in the capabilities rather
than how much off list one is able to extract.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
It's not technically "legal" to use GPS for guidance if you're supposed to be following
the localizer beam . . .
Anyone know the legalities of using an uncertified autopilot for instrument approach
operations?
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Chris
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Trutrak AP
Is it acceptable practice to trust the GPS overlay to track along the localizer?
I am not instrument rated yet and I don't know much about GPS and IFR, but
I am really interested in being able to allow the AP to help keep me on the localizer/ILS.
Only the DFC-200 says it can actually track a VOR/localizer.
-Chris Lucas
#40072
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill <mailto:dlm46007(at)cox.net>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:49 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Trutrak AP
Have dealt with Van's, TT direct and Stein Air on the TT AP. Bought the
Digitrak for my Glastar through Van's at a slight discount from list. Install
package came at no charge direct from TT. later traded AP heads for the Pictorial
pilot in the Glastar.
When it was time to build the 10 I called SteinAir and got the aileron
servo at a slight discount and purchased the harness as well. Called TT direct
and they supplied the bracket and pushrod hardware at no charge including the
shipping.
To put things in perspective "certified AP" in my Cessna cost $2000 in
the mid 70s and would only track a VOR/LOC and that marginally. Today's TT and
Trio do an excellent job of tracking a GPS signal which is overlaid on any airway
or approach segment. The inflation adjusted cost is less than 500 1970s dollars.
Today's APs are excellent values and the bargain is in the capabilities
rather than how much off list one is able to extract.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Weight & Balance? |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Was someone with a finish kit going to volunteer to post some of the weight & balance
data from Van's, so we can play with numbers?
TDT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list
--- MIME Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting.
NOTE! This error can also occur when the poster of the
message has a specific type of computer virus. This virus
WAS NOT forwarded on to the List. The poster should be
informed of the potential problem with their system as soon
as possible.
--- MIME Errors ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Trutrak Autopilot |
I would think we would best served not to raise the ire of the FTC on a
small innovative company like TT, who is simply trying to make sure they
stay in business as far as I am concerned.
MANY companies have a "suggested" retail price. Most companies know what
margin is required in order for them and their resellers to remain in
business and make a buck or two. They then work to try to establish a
balance.
To be sure, TT could add another 50% to their prices, discount that by 30%
to their dealers and let them have at it. In the end WE end up paying more.
We can very easily put TT (or any company) in a position where it is easier
to just sell the stuff "online" without the support offered by the resellers
... and then not hire enough people to answer the phone because the price
was set too low. Of course they might then go out of business and yes, it is
a tough world out there. But let's give the real innovators a little slack.
In all my dealings with TT, I have found them to be most honorable and
honest as far as I could tell, about EVERYTHING.
There are much bigger windmills out there that could use the attention if
you must.
James
p.s. At some level, **ALL** prices are fixed. By the seller. It is up to the
buyer to decide if (s)he wants to buy at that price. If enough do not, then
the seller often "fixes" it lower. If it is set too high and the seller is
very flexible, you soon enter into the sport of price haggling.
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
| server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of AI Nut
| Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 5:07 PM
| To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: Re: RV10-List: Trutrak Autopilot
|
|
| I bet the FTC would be interested in what sounds like price fixing...
|
|
| Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr) wrote:
|
|
| >
| >I have been checking prices on TruTrak autopilots and it seems that
| everyone is selling them at the same price. What I have heard is that
| TruTrak specifys the price the retailers will sell them at. This just
| makes me mad and not want to use their products. Any alternatives to
| this nonsense they are imposing on us?
| >
| >Niko
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >.
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RobHickman(at)AOL.COM |
I bet the FTC would be interested in what sounds like price fixing...
I have some experience with this and deal with it every week.
This really started when Garmin introduced the 296 and set the price for it.
Any dealer found to be selling a 296 below the set price will get their
dealership canceled. Up to this point they had "Minimum Advertised" pricing that
was fixed and you could call for a lower price. When Garmin did this I had a
friend tell me this is not legal, he was positive! My first thought was that
Garmin is a really big company with a large legal department and they would be
the last one to break the law. The answer is apparently with the "Colgate Act"
and Garmin does know what they are doing.
So why would a manufacturer do it?
Don't blame the manufacturer blame the dealers. I get frequent calls from
dealers complaining about other dealers selling products to cheap. Here is the
complaint I get:
Dealer "A" sells products on-line or by phone as a part time business, they
have a regular full time job with health insurance, vacation pay, retirement.
Dealer "A" can sell products at a very low margin and be very happy.
Dealer "B" sells products full time and have all the overhead that goes with
it, building rent, insurance, employee salaries, advertising. Dealer "B" has
to sell products for more to cover the added costs.
As a manufacturer I really don't care who sells the products, I get the same
amount of money. What happens is that dealer "B" decides to advertise and
push another product that does control dealer pricing.
I wish I had a good answer.
Rob Hickman
N401RH RV-4
N402RH RV-10 (Wings in 5 weeks)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
And if Dealer "A" sells the product as a "loss leader" (to attract buyers
for OTHER products with high margins, Dealer "B" cannot compete. Dealer "B"
gives up and moves on. Dealer A moves to another product as the loss leader
and now the manufacturer has to start the process (expense) all over to set
up a dealer network.
If the prices are too high, one can simply NOT BUY and move on. I for one
have paid Garmin's "high" price and felt I got value for it. Otherwise I
would not have purchased. Another perspective is from a Manufacturer-End
Customer Relationship point of view.
Imagine if I purchased and ACS 2002 for say $3895 but immediately find that
my buddy Joe got it from somewhere for $1800 (even if the dealer COST was
$2800 and the cost to build was $2000) << I am making up these numbers
except for the approx price>>. Now we have a situation where there is a
perception among potential customers that the product can be had for a price
that is NOT realistic. The manufacturer cannot build it for that.
I am all for the cheapest price I can get for something. But I am NOT for
putting the squeeze on these small innovative companies that are trying to
keep the business (and innovations) alive. And Rob, I consider your company
to be one of those innovative companies that I would hate to see having to
worry about FTC inquiries, EVEN THOUGH they are most likely fully innocent.
Takes time away from innovation.
James
. probably too sensitive to things that have the potential to have a
chilling effect on innovation
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
RobHickman(at)aol.com
Subject: RV10-List: Vendor Pricing
I bet the FTC would be interested in what sounds like price fixing...
I have some experience with this and deal with it every week.
This really started when Garmin introduced the 296 and set the price for it.
Any dealer found to be selling a 296 below the set price will get their
dealership canceled. Up to this point they had "Minimum Advertised" pricing
that was fixed and you could call for a lower price. When Garmin did this I
had a friend tell me this is not legal, he was positive! My first thought
was that Garmin is a really big company with a large legal department and
they would be the last one to break the law. The answer is apparently with
the "Colgate Act" and Garmin does know what they are doing.
So why would a manufacturer do it?
Don't blame the manufacturer blame the dealers. I get frequent calls from
dealers complaining about other dealers selling products to cheap. Here is
the complaint I get:
Dealer "A" sells products on-line or by phone as a part time business, they
have a regular full time job with health insurance, vacation pay,
retirement. Dealer "A" can sell products at a very low margin and be very
happy.
Dealer "B" sells products full time and have all the overhead that goes with
it, building rent, insurance, employee salaries, advertising. Dealer "B"
has to sell products for more to cover the added costs.
As a manufacturer I really don't care who sells the products, I get the same
amount of money. What happens is that dealer "B" decides to advertise and
push another product that does control dealer pricing.
I wish I had a good answer.
Rob Hickman
N401RH RV-4
N402RH RV-10 (Wings in 5 weeks)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> |
Just another note and I will let this one drop. The principal "designers at TT
have many years experience in engineering APs for S-TEC, so rest assured they
know what they are about.
From the legality aspect who really knows or cares whether your hand is pushing
the stick and you are watching the LOC needle or the AP is moving the controls
and you are monitoring the GPS moving map and the LOC. Having spent many years
in the computer and airline business I can assure that the really low IFR IMC
approaches are flown by the AP and monitored by the PIC.
________________________________________________________________________________
Not getting into an existential debate on economic theory, keep in mind that the
philosophy of "cheaper is better" is not the best for the long term. Remember
all of your Chinese-made home electronics when the 7th Fleet is fighting 10:1
numbers to help protect Taiwan . . .
TDT
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James E. Clark |
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Vendor Pricing
And if Dealer "A" sells the product as a "loss leader" (to attract buyers for OTHER
products with high margins, Dealer "B" cannot compete. Dealer "B" gives up
and moves on. Dealer A moves to another product as the loss leader and now the
manufacturer has to start the process (expense) all over to set up a dealer
network.
If the prices are too high, one can simply NOT BUY and move on. I for one have
paid Garmin's "high" price and felt I got value for it. Otherwise I would not
have purchased. Another perspective is from a Manufacturer-End Customer Relationship
point of view.
Imagine if I purchased and ACS 2002 for say $3895 but immediately find that my
buddy Joe got it from somewhere for $1800 (even if the dealer COST was $2800 and
the cost to build was $2000) << I am making up these numbers except for the
approx price>>. Now we have a situation where there is a perception among potential
customers that the product can be had for a price that is NOT realistic.
The manufacturer cannot build it for that.
I am all for the cheapest price I can get for something. But I am NOT for putting
the squeeze on these small innovative companies that are trying to keep the
business (and innovations) alive. And Rob, I consider your company to be one
of those innovative companies that I would hate to see having to worry about FTC
inquiries, EVEN THOUGH they are most likely fully innocent. Takes time away
from innovation.
James
... probably too sensitive to things that have the potential to have a chilling
effect on innovation
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RobHickman(at)aol.com
Subject: RV10-List: Vendor Pricing
I bet the FTC would be interested in what sounds like price fixing...
I have some experience with this and deal with it every week.
This really started when Garmin introduced the 296 and set the price for it. Any
dealer found to be selling a 296 below the set price will get their dealership
canceled. Up to this point they had "Minimum Advertised" pricing that was
fixed and you could call for a lower price. When Garmin did this I had a friend
tell me this is not legal, he was positive! My first thought was that Garmin
is a really big company with a large legal department and they would be the
last one to break the law. The answer is apparently with the "Colgate Act" and
Garmin does know what they are doing.
So why would a manufacturer do it?
Don't blame the manufacturer blame the dealers. I get frequent calls from dealers
complaining about other dealers selling products to cheap. Here is the complaint
I get:
Dealer "A" sells products on-line or by phone as a part time business, they have
a regular full time job with health insurance, vacation pay, retirement. Dealer
"A" can sell products at a very low margin and be very happy.
Dealer "B" sells products full time and have all the overhead that goes with it,
building rent, insurance, employee salaries, advertising. Dealer "B" has to
sell products for more to cover the added costs.
As a manufacturer I really don't care who sells the products, I get the same amount
of money. What happens is that dealer "B" decides to advertise and push
another product that does control dealer pricing.
I wish I had a good answer.
Rob Hickman
N401RH RV-4
N402RH RV-10 (Wings in 5 weeks)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andrew Barker" <Andrew(at)trutrakap.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vendor Pricing |
Rob is exactly right, as are a few of the other responses on the list. Yes, we
do have minimum advertised pricing, as do most companies. We do NOT however
dictate a minimum selling price. We were asked by several dealers to go to minimum
advertised pricing so that they would be more protected. We are very open
about this policy, and in fact if you spoke with me at Sun-n-Fun I probably
told you to purchase from a dealer because they will be selling at a lower price
than I. I even quoted a few people the price that they could expect from
a dealer. We do not compete with our dealers, we do still sell direct because
some prefer to purchase from the manufacturer. If we run a special, we even
pass the same special on to all of the dealers so that they can offer our special
as well.
Andrew Barker
General Manager
TruTrak Flight Systems
PH: 479-751-0250 Ext.222
Toll Free: 1-866-TruTrak
www.trutrakap.com
----- Original Message -----
From: RobHickman(at)aol.com
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 11:23 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Vendor Pricing
I bet the FTC would be interested in what sounds like price fixing...
I have some experience with this and deal with it every week.
This really started when Garmin introduced the 296 and set the price for it.
Any dealer found to be selling a 296 below the set price will get their dealership
canceled. Up to this point they had "Minimum Advertised" pricing that was
fixed and you could call for a lower price. When Garmin did this I had a friend
tell me this is not legal, he was positive! My first thought was that Garmin
is a really big company with a large legal department and they would be the
last one to break the law. The answer is apparently with the "Colgate Act" and
Garmin does know what they are doing.
So why would a manufacturer do it?
Don't blame the manufacturer blame the dealers. I get frequent calls from dealers
complaining about other dealers selling products to cheap. Here is the
complaint I get:
Dealer "A" sells products on-line or by phone as a part time business, they have
a regular full time job with health insurance, vacation pay, retirement.
Dealer "A" can sell products at a very low margin and be very happy.
Dealer "B" sells products full time and have all the overhead that goes with
it, building rent, insurance, employee salaries, advertising. Dealer "B" has
to sell products for more to cover the added costs.
As a manufacturer I really don't care who sells the products, I get the same
amount of money. What happens is that dealer "B" decides to advertise and push
another product that does control dealer pricing.
I wish I had a good answer.
Rob Hickman
N401RH RV-4
N402RH RV-10 (Wings in 5 weeks)
__________ NOD32 1.1076 (20050424) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.nod32.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
I can attest to Andrew's comments here about suggesting one take a look at
their dealers for the best deal.
Good people. He even went through an analysis with me that led to **LESS**
of their equipment being used! I respect that a lot.
James
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Barker
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Vendor Pricing
Rob is exactly right, as are a few of the other responses on the list. Yes,
we do have minimum advertised pricing, as do most companies. We do NOT
however dictate a minimum selling price. We were asked by several dealers
to go to minimum advertised pricing so that they would be more protected.
We are very open about this policy, and in fact if you spoke with me at
Sun-n-Fun I probably told you to purchase from a dealer because they will be
selling at a lower price than I. I even quoted a few people the price that
they could expect from a dealer. We do not compete with our dealers, we do
still sell direct because some prefer to purchase from the manufacturer. If
we run a special, we even pass the same special on to all of the dealers so
that they can offer our special as well.
Andrew Barker
General Manager
TruTrak Flight Systems
PH: 479-751-0250 Ext.222
Toll Free: 1-866-TruTrak
<http://www.trutrakap.com> www.trutrakap.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Day 2, mistakes no. 1 and 2. |
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list
--- MIME Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting.
NOTE! This error can also occur when the poster of the
message has a specific type of computer virus. This virus
WAS NOT forwarded on to the List. The poster should be
informed of the potential problem with their system as soon
as possible.
--- MIME Errors ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com> |
Good response Rob.
I have to say that the overall cost is small and not really not a big deal as its
an extremely small fraction of the cost of the toys we are building. However,
it is a big deal to the small businesses that are trying to sell these products
at lower prices to compete.
I sure didn't think my post would generate so much interest. I was partly blowing
off some steam.
II gotta go, I have to order myself a TT autopilot.
Niko
[Niko] -----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of RobHickman(at)aol.com
Subject: RV10-List: Vendor Pricing
I bet the FTC would be interested in what sounds like price fixing...
I have some experience with this and deal with it every week.
This really started when Garmin introduced the 296 and set the price for it. Any
dealer found to be selling a 296 below the set price will get their dealership
canceled. Up to this point they had "Minimum Advertised" pricing that was
fixed and you could call for a lower price. When Garmin did this I had a friend
tell me this is not legal, he was positive! My first thought was that Garmin
is a really big company with a large legal department and they would be the
last one to break the law. The answer is apparently with the "Colgate Act" and
Garmin does know what they are doing.
So why would a manufacturer do it?
Don't blame the manufacturer blame the dealers. I get frequent calls from dealers
complaining about other dealers selling products to cheap. Here is the complaint
I get:
Dealer "A" sells products on-line or by phone as a part time business, they have
a regular full time job with health insurance, vacation pay, retirement. Dealer
"A" can sell products at a very low margin and be very happy.
Dealer "B" sells products full time and have all the overhead that goes with it,
building rent, insurance, employee salaries, advertising. Dealer "B" has to
sell products for more to cover the added costs.
As a manufacturer I really don't care who sells the products, I get the same amount
of money. What happens is that dealer "B" decides to advertise and push
another product that does control dealer pricing.
I wish I had a good answer.
Rob Hickman
N401RH RV-4
N402RH RV-10 (Wings in 5 weeks)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
David -
I was thinking exactly the same as you. As long as you're monitoring the approach,
whether you or the auotpilot is running the stick is somewhat irrelevant.
Also I believe that the current owner and CEO of Tru Trak designed the Century
line of auto pilots. I talked to him at Sun-N-Fun and told him that I had flown
quite a bit with a Century IV auto pilot, which could intercept and fly an
ILS approach, and he said their Sorrcer, which I believe I will use in my 10,
is much better and has more features than the Century IV.
You would never want to fly any IFR approach with an auto pilot and not monitor
the guages.
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:48 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Trutrak
Just another note and I will let this one drop. The principal "designers at TT
have many years experience in engineering APs for S-TEC, so rest assured they
know what they are about.
From the legality aspect who really knows or cares whether your hand is pushing
the stick and you are watching the LOC needle or the AP is moving the controls
and you are monitoring the GPS moving map and the LOC. Having spent many years
in the computer and airline business I can assure that the really low IFR
IMC approaches are flown by the AP and monitored by the PIC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: HS Nose Ribs |
Heck I became a member in February 2004, now I have a few dents but most are from
the bucking bar hitting on the inside of the skin. My total is about 7, maybe
8. After paint...NONE!!! I never left a universal rivet in that had the head
smiled. If you peel off that blue plastic the pristine aluminum beneath will
make it look even worse!!! My advice is if you don't have a corrosion issue with
keeping the blue stuff on leave it until the end, that way you will only anguish
ove a dent for a few months vs. years.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
Bob,
LOL....after just finishing the tanks I can relate to THAT worry, I was extra special
double secret probation careful about not doing a double hit on the tank
skins. FWIW, I used a manometer to check for leaks and it worked great, I think
every filler cap has some leakage to it so for those who use a manometer to
check for leaks, tape over your filler holes with plastic tape or be prepared
to lose sleep and valuable time hunting for ghost leaks. Also a change in barometric
pressure can give you some interesting results as well. If the feeling
you get for finishing the tanks is anything like the first flight, I can't wait!!!
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
No kidding,
For those of you not there, the back baffle on the tanks is attached though the
Z-brackets with pop rivets except the end ribs. Sounds easy right?? Let me clue
you in, you mess one of those puppys (luckily I didn't) up especially near
the end of the run of 40 or so rivets you going to be battling to fix it, let
alone getting the already prosealed baffle off so you don't drop the rivet parts
in the tanks. Word of advice...make these pop rivets the best you can because
there's not an easy way to fix it at this point. Riveting the tanks together
is not a real big deal, but I highly recoomend being totally prepared and extra
careful riveting, drilling out a rivet normally is not a problem, add proseal
to the mix and it gets nasty, try picking out the shavings from the sealant,
adding extra time because the proseal is starting to set...prepare, prepare,
prepare, take it in steps, read your steps so you KNOW exactly what you will
be doing and have all your stuff ready like a surgeons tray. You'll be glad when
your finished.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | rv10 quick build |
| From: | "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com> |
The best thing you can do is have a partner helping you 100% of the
time. We will have our (slow build) RV-10 flying in two years. We have
about 6 months left. And I travel with my work a lot. But Randy is
about right on his time estimates. If I am home on a weekend we both
will work between 12-15 hours on the weekend and 2-3 days during the
week. I am planning to be right around 2000 - 2200 hours but that is
only 1000 shop hours with two people.
I really want to write an article about building with a partner. I have
worked about 2 or 3 days without a partner and I just get frustrated at
how slow I go and just quit. It just isn't even worth my time working
on the plane without having someone there. I think it would be very
easy to order a quick build kit, have someone help you and be flying in
less than one year.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
3-4 years (for a slow-build) is exactly what I've been planning on.
And I doubt I'll paint it myself.
--- John Jessen wrote:
> So, if I have the arithmetic right, and if life were highly regulated,
and
> one could work 15 hours per week, 48 weeks a year, you'd be done with
the
> quick build in 2.36 years. Slow build 3.05 years. Ouch. John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | rv10 quick build |
You got that right. I have only been with out a building partner for about 2 months
and it makes a huge difference. Randy
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
The best thing you can do is have a partner helping you 100% of the
time. We will have our (slow build) RV-10 flying in two years. We have
about 6 months left. And I travel with my work a lot. But Randy is
about right on his time estimates. If I am home on a weekend we both
will work between 12-15 hours on the weekend and 2-3 days during the
week. I am planning to be right around 2000 - 2200 hours but that is
only 1000 shop hours with two people.
I really want to write an article about building with a partner. I have
worked about 2 or 3 days without a partner and I just get frustrated at
how slow I go and just quit. It just isn't even worth my time working
on the plane without having someone there. I think it would be very
easy to order a quick build kit, have someone help you and be flying in
less than one year.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
3-4 years (for a slow-build) is exactly what I've been planning on.
And I doubt I'll paint it myself.
--- John Jessen wrote:
> So, if I have the arithmetic right, and if life were highly regulated,
and
> one could work 15 hours per week, 48 weeks a year, you'd be done with
the
> quick build in 2.36 years. Slow build 3.05 years. Ouch. John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com> |
| Subject: | rv10 quick build |
I'm very interested in this "partner" building process. Your article will
be interesting, especially on the topics of how the work is divided, how
decisions are made, what incentive each partner has, etc. One person
recommended that I partner with another builder, working x number of days on
his plane with him/her, then y number of days on mine. There would be many
partnering strategies, of course. But, bottom line, if the kits are now so
advanced that a plane as "complex" as the RV-10 could be built (assuming
fast build) in less than 2 years, that would be simply amazing.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
-->
The best thing you can do is have a partner helping you 100% of the time.
We will have our (slow build) RV-10 flying in two years. We have about 6
months left. And I travel with my work a lot. But Randy is about right on
his time estimates. If I am home on a weekend we both will work between
12-15 hours on the weekend and 2-3 days during the week. I am planning to
be right around 2000 - 2200 hours but that is only 1000 shop hours with two
people.
I really want to write an article about building with a partner. I have
worked about 2 or 3 days without a partner and I just get frustrated at how
slow I go and just quit. It just isn't even worth my time working on the
plane without having someone there. I think it would be very easy to order
a quick build kit, have someone help you and be flying in less than one
year.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Folbrecht
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
3-4 years (for a slow-build) is exactly what I've been planning on.
And I doubt I'll paint it myself.
--- John Jessen wrote:
> So, if I have the arithmetic right, and if life were highly regulated,
and
> one could work 15 hours per week, 48 weeks a year, you'd be done with
the
> quick build in 2.36 years. Slow build 3.05 years. Ouch. John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuselage Wire Routing |
| From: | "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
I finally got a little time in the shop and got the tailcone attached to the main
cabin. How are folks routing cables from the tailcone to the front of the
plane? It looks like some may have to run below the baggage floor and possible
below the rear seat bottoms before transitioning to the side channels. Any
pictures from Randy, Scott or others?
Bob #40105
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuselage Wire Routing |
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
I drilled out some tooling holes in the rear baggage floor bulkhead and put conduit
from there to the holes just outboard of the rear passenger foot well. I
have the photos at home and not with me. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Condrey, Bob
(US SSA)
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
I finally got a little time in the shop and got the tailcone attached to the main
cabin. How are folks routing cables from the tailcone to the front of the
plane? It looks like some may have to run below the baggage floor and possible
below the rear seat bottoms before transitioning to the side channels. Any
pictures from Randy, Scott or others?
Bob #40105
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | Fuselage Wire Routing |
We made the right side closeout panel in the baggage compartment removeable
with nut plates and plan to run all our wiring through there. The conduit
is also a great way to do it in areas that are closed out. We ran conduit
in the wings for wiring runs with a break in the pipe at the inspection
cover(s).
We are just now starting the wiring, which is a daunting task, especially
doing this type of thing for the first time. We are getting a number of
wiring harnesses for specific equipment, but will do all the connecting and
runs to antennas, lights, etc on our own. Any guidance in this area would
be greatly appreciated. If anybody knows of a website that kind of lays out
the procedure for selecting wire sizes, breaker sizes, bus bar stuff, etc,
that would be perfect.
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Condrey, Bob (US
SSA)
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
I finally got a little time in the shop and got the tailcone attached to the
main cabin. How are folks routing cables from the tailcone to the front of
the plane? It looks like some may have to run below the baggage floor and
possible below the rear seat bottoms before transitioning to the side
channels. Any pictures from Randy, Scott or others?
Bob #40105
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DejaVu" <wvu(at)mail.ameritel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: rv10 quick build |
products.
I've had only about 20 hours or so with a partner in 1600hrs total. Things
get interesting real quick if you're not careful, especially when both the
rivet gun and bucking bar are at arms reach and you're squeezing the trigger
with your thumb.
Anh
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
>
> You got that right. I have only been with out a building partner for about
2 months and it makes a huge difference. Randy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:58 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
>
>
>
> The best thing you can do is have a partner helping you 100% of the
> time. We will have our (slow build) RV-10 flying in two years. We have
> about 6 months left. And I travel with my work a lot. But Randy is
> about right on his time estimates. If I am home on a weekend we both
> will work between 12-15 hours on the weekend and 2-3 days during the
> week. I am planning to be right around 2000 - 2200 hours but that is
> only 1000 shop hours with two people.
>
> I really want to write an article about building with a partner. I have
> worked about 2 or 3 days without a partner and I just get frustrated at
> how slow I go and just quit. It just isn't even worth my time working
> on the plane without having someone there. I think it would be very
> easy to order a quick build kit, have someone help you and be flying in
> less than one year.
>
> Scott Schmidt
> sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Folbrecht
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 5:16 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
>
>
>
> 3-4 years (for a slow-build) is exactly what I've been planning on.
>
> And I doubt I'll paint it myself.
>
> --- John Jessen wrote:
> > So, if I have the arithmetic right, and if life were highly regulated,
> and
> > one could work 15 hours per week, 48 weeks a year, you'd be done with
> the
> > quick build in 2.36 years. Slow build 3.05 years. Ouch. John
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DejaVu" <wvu(at)mail.ameritel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage Wire Routing |
products.
They give you one hole on each side at the bulkhead where the rear seat
backs are. I enlarged those and also drilled two extra holes in the O/B
most ribs under the rear seats since there are no lightening holes in those.
I can then run two conduits on each side starting from the tailcone, under
the baggage area, one conduit goes through the hole that they give you and
up to the side channel, the other goes under the rear seat then through the
extra hole in the rear seat rib and up the side channel. Van's OK'ed all of
course. They also suggested to route wires in the the tunnel and use Adel
clamps every so often but I didn't take this route. I also ran one conduit
each from under the pilot and copilot seats, under the floor panels, and up
the lower engine mounting bolt access covers.
Anh
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
>
> I drilled out some tooling holes in the rear baggage floor bulkhead and
put conduit from there to the holes just outboard of the rear passenger foot
well. I have the photos at home and not with me. Randy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Condrey, Bob
> (US SSA)
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 11:52 AM
> To: RV-10 List (E-mail)
> Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
>
>
>
> I finally got a little time in the shop and got the tailcone attached to
the main cabin. How are folks routing cables from the tailcone to the front
of the plane? It looks like some may have to run below the baggage floor
and possible below the rear seat bottoms before transitioning to the side
channels. Any pictures from Randy, Scott or others?
>
> Bob #40105
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paul.folbrecht(at)veribox.net> |
| Subject: | Switching to a 7A |
Well, folks, I'm afraid I have some terrible news: I'm not going to
build an RV-10. At least, not now. I'm going to build an RV-7A
instead, quickbuild. My order (I had ordered and prepaid -10 tail &
wing kits) has been switched at Van's - they didn't charge me any fee
at all.
Ok, on to the long-winded "why". It is mainly an economic decision,
together with me doing some hard & serious analysis of the flying I'm
likely to be doing for the next 10+ years. I believe that the majority
of that flying, the solid majority, will be with 0..1 pax. A four
seater would be wonderful in a perfect world (a Citation X would be
even better, I guess), but I don't really need it.
Economics: 1st is initial cost. While I can afford the $115K I would
likely have into the 10, and planned to build it with no financing, I
was never quite sure that I wanted to invest that much cash in to what
I see as a "luxury" item. I can build a *quickbuild* 7A with
equivalent panel for an easy $25K less than the slow-build 10 I
planned: $9K savings on the kit, $12K+ on the engine, and $4K+ on the
prop (I will do metal fixed pitch on the 7. FP is not really an option
on the 10). I will also have a completed airplane in probably not much
more than half the time a slow-build 10 would take.
The main part of the economics question, though, is operating cost. I
know I can easily cruise at 6 gph with a FI 360, with a 540 sucking at
least 50% more fuel best-case throttled back. I don't really want to
pay that when I don't have those rear seats filled. Add about 50% more
for the engine-overhaul fund as well and these are substantial figures
when flying 200+ hours/year. How much these figures mean is a personal
thing, obviously.
As to the type of flying, I figure that even if I do marry a girl who
loves to fly and have kids that like flying, those full-family trips
are still going to be rare. As in once a month or less rare. For
that, I can rent. I'm getting checked-out right now in a 172RG now
with a Garmin 430 which is not a shabby bird at all, for a spam-can,
IMHO. 130 knots isn't so bad.
I like to fly 2-3 times/week. I like to do the local fly-ins and
breakfast trips and the like, as well as just buzzing around, and
practicing approaches too (nobody told me keeping IFR current is the
challenging part of the rating). For all of this stuff, I'm going to
be flying with 1 pax or by myself, at least most of the time, 4 seats
or no.
For you guys that are building 10s for all the right reasons, awesome.
I may very well do it some day myself.. just not now. I do have a
feeling that this building thing is going to get its hooks in me, and
I'm going to want to do another one before I croak. I'm in my early
30s now and will have plenty of time.
I am going to continue to subscribe to this list because you guys are
awesome - there are so many very knowledgeable people here, and a great
deal of what's discussed is applicable to any RV. Sides, an RV is an
RV, and we're all brothers, right?!
Later,
~Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.com> |
| Subject: | rv10 quick build |
I think Scott is spot on. I built the tail kit solo - with the exception of
the HS nose ribs where I had some help. Rivetting solo is tough - the bar
slipped off one of the first rivets I set on the VS and left an impressive
birth mark. But after some practice, I managed to finish off the tail
without any more trauma. However, it took me a looooong time. I am now
well into the wings, and after getting some help with the wing skins,
particularly the leading edges, I am reluctant to even try it solo. With
two people, the rivetting goes sweetly and (IMHO) dramatically reduces the
time required.
Ron
Tanks
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
The best thing you can do is have a partner helping you 100% of the
time. We will have our (slow build) RV-10 flying in two years. We have
about 6 months left. And I travel with my work a lot. But Randy is
about right on his time estimates. If I am home on a weekend we both
will work between 12-15 hours on the weekend and 2-3 days during the
week. I am planning to be right around 2000 - 2200 hours but that is
only 1000 shop hours with two people.
I really want to write an article about building with a partner. I have
worked about 2 or 3 days without a partner and I just get frustrated at
how slow I go and just quit. It just isn't even worth my time working
on the plane without having someone there. I think it would be very
easy to order a quick build kit, have someone help you and be flying in
less than one year.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
3-4 years (for a slow-build) is exactly what I've been planning on.
And I doubt I'll paint it myself.
--- John Jessen wrote:
> So, if I have the arithmetic right, and if life were highly regulated,
and
> one could work 15 hours per week, 48 weeks a year, you'd be done with
the
> quick build in 2.36 years. Slow build 3.05 years. Ouch. John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.com> |
| Subject: | Countersinking Tank skins |
Spent some time yesterday countersinking the tank skin to the baffle. All
went well. Disassembled the tank and started deburring ALL holes per
instructions - including the holes just countersunk. Noticed after
deburring the bottom row of skin to baffle holes that the skin holes are
enlarged during deburring. Anyone else experience this? For anyone not yet
at this stage, I would recommend against deburring countersunk skin holes.
Just give them a buff with some scothbright. I think there is just enough
material for the rivet head to grip to, and combined with the added strength
of the proseal at the baffle joint I hope the joint should be strong enough.
Has anyone else made this mistake and had to use 1/8" rivets?
cheers,
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Sargeant" <k5wiv(at)amsat.org> |
| Subject: | Fuselage Wire Routing |
Bob's site is very good. You might also want to order his book.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/
Jack Sargeant
1127 Patricia St.
Wichita, KS 67208-2642
316/683-5268
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
We made the right side closeout panel in the baggage compartment removeable
with nut plates and plan to run all our wiring through there. The conduit
is also a great way to do it in areas that are closed out. We ran conduit
in the wings for wiring runs with a break in the pipe at the inspection
cover(s).
We are just now starting the wiring, which is a daunting task, especially
doing this type of thing for the first time. We are getting a number of
wiring harnesses for specific equipment, but will do all the connecting and
runs to antennas, lights, etc on our own. Any guidance in this area would
be greatly appreciated. If anybody knows of a website that kind of lays out
the procedure for selecting wire sizes, breaker sizes, bus bar stuff, etc,
that would be perfect.
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Condrey, Bob (US
SSA)
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
I finally got a little time in the shop and got the tailcone attached to the
main cabin. How are folks routing cables from the tailcone to the front of
the plane? It looks like some may have to run below the baggage floor and
possible below the rear seat bottoms before transitioning to the side
channels. Any pictures from Randy, Scott or others?
Bob #40105
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuselage Wire Routing |
Thanks - I'm going to be out of town for the next couple of days but would appreciate
seeing them when you get time.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy DeBauw
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
I drilled out some tooling holes in the rear baggage floor bulkhead and put conduit
from there to the holes just outboard of the rear passenger foot well. I
have the photos at home and not with me. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Condrey, Bob
(US SSA)
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
I finally got a little time in the shop and got the tailcone attached to the main
cabin. How are folks routing cables from the tailcone to the front of the
plane? It looks like some may have to run below the baggage floor and possible
below the rear seat bottoms before transitioning to the side channels. Any
pictures from Randy, Scott or others?
Bob #40105
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> |
I got my QB fuselage about two weeks ago and am currently planning the wiring.
Having wired an all electric Glastar with a successful smoke test (everything
works and no smoke) I have learned something about it.
First decision is whether it will/should be easy to disconnect the wings after
construction, if so then you want bulkhead connectors and quick disconnects. My
10 will have AMP connectors that will have twist on/off connectors for the wing
bundles. Wing bundles including NL,LL,Strobes,heated pitot,AOA in the left
wing will come into the fuselage aft of the main and through the lightening holes
in the left side panel forward to the buss bar. Where necessary wiring will
be secured with click bond studs for Adel clamps. The right wing will be similarly
routed except that the TT AP harness and NAV wingtip antenna will be routed
through the other lightening.
Flap motor , fuel boost pump, and fuel flow transducer wiring will go into the
center channel again secured with adel clamps and click bond studs.
Static air is in the rear fuselage and will stay there, pitot air is being routed
aft via the left side panel under the baggage area. AHRS and ADC etc. will
be located in the tailcone. Electric trim harness will be routed with the other
AHRS and computer wiring forward along the right side panels. In the second
set of lightening holes. I will be installing a generalized bundle of awg 20 wiring
of both shielded and unshielded and will assign them as needed when wiring
the avionics. Lastly aft starting cable and aft master switch ground will be
routed under the baggage area in the left side lower holes.
A couple of tips (1) always check continuity of any wiring installed. Quite a bummer
to find that after everything is assembled that a bad wire or connection
causes finding and fixing a bad connection. (2) Be aware that heavy/changing
currents in these wires can induced currents into adjacent wiring and cause big
and very difficult problems to fix. Make sure that you ground the shields to
the airframe where appropriate. I have heard of a Seawind here that cause the
VOR indicators to flag on each COM transmission.
The explanation has been a bit lengthy; anyone wishing to discuss email me offline
and arrange to telephone.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Wouldn't you want your AHRS a little closer to your nominal center of gravity?
I wonder if any "tail waggle" would annoy the AHRS . . .
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of David McNeill
Subject: RV10-List: wiring
I got my QB fuselage about two weeks ago and am currently planning the wiring.
Having wired an all electric Glastar with a successful smoke test (everything
works and no smoke) I have learned something about it.
First decision is whether it will/should be easy to disconnect the wings after
construction, if so then you want bulkhead connectors and quick disconnects. My
10 will have AMP connectors that will have twist on/off connectors for the wing
bundles. Wing bundles including NL,LL,Strobes,heated pitot,AOA in the left
wing will come into the fuselage aft of the main and through the lightening holes
in the left side panel forward to the buss bar. Where necessary wiring will
be secured with click bond studs for Adel clamps. The right wing will be similarly
routed except that the TT AP harness and NAV wingtip antenna will be routed
through the other lightening.
Flap motor , fuel boost pump, and fuel flow transducer wiring will go into the
center channel again secured with adel clamps and click bond studs.
Static air is in the rear fuselage and will stay there, pitot air is being routed
aft via the left side panel under the baggage area. AHRS and ADC etc. will
be located in the tailcone. Electric trim harness will be routed with the other
AHRS and computer wiring forward along the right side panels. In the second
set of lightening holes. I will be installing a generalized bundle of awg 20 wiring
of both shielded and unshielded and will assign them as needed when wiring
the avionics. Lastly aft starting cable and aft master switch ground will be
routed under the baggage area in the left side lower holes.
A couple of tips (1) always check continuity of any wiring installed. Quite a bummer
to find that after everything is assembled that a bad wire or connection
causes finding and fixing a bad connection. (2) Be aware that heavy/changing
currents in these wires can induced currents into adjacent wiring and cause big
and very difficult problems to fix. Make sure that you ground the shields to
the airframe where appropriate. I have heard of a Seawind here that cause the
VOR indicators to flag on each COM transmission.
The explanation has been a bit lengthy; anyone wishing to discuss email me offline
and arrange to telephone.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Countersinking Tank skins |
Right or wrong, my procedure to do countersunk holes is this:
Final drill, deburr, countersink....then you're done. If you don't
final drill first, the countersink's nose doesn't fit the hole
well, and the countersunk hole is cleaner than the deburring that
you'd do on the top too...plus there won't be much material left
on the bottom.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
McGANN, Ron wrote:
>
> Spent some time yesterday countersinking the tank skin to the baffle. All
> went well. Disassembled the tank and started deburring ALL holes per
> instructions - including the holes just countersunk. Noticed after
> deburring the bottom row of skin to baffle holes that the skin holes are
> enlarged during deburring. Anyone else experience this? For anyone not yet
> at this stage, I would recommend against deburring countersunk skin holes.
> Just give them a buff with some scothbright. I think there is just enough
> material for the rivet head to grip to, and combined with the added strength
> of the proseal at the baffle joint I hope the joint should be strong enough.
> Has anyone else made this mistake and had to use 1/8" rivets?
>
> cheers,
> Ron
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Countersinking Tank skins |
Ron,
I had the same thing and I looked a few other tanks and they were the same. I believe
that's the reason that you don't countersink every 10th hole so the clecos
can hold the baffle in place in better it's final position during riveting.
You should not have to deburr the back side of that countersink on the skin,
if the cutter the right depth the cutter will "just" get to the baffle and should
leave a clean edge on the back side of the skin. A wipe with a scotchbrite
pad to clean and roughen for proseal will take care of any tiny burrs. Tank
tip: make sure you use plenty of proseal on the inside corners by the 470 rivets
and end ribs, apply the proseal just like Vans says, just forward of the holes
in a 3/16" bead. It worked out perfect for me, if you look inside with flashlight
after they are sealed you can see how the baffle rolled the seal into
a nice bead right up against the skin and baffle.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuselage Wire Routing |
You can always ask an avionic tech at Lancair avionics, me, via e-mail.
. . . andreae@lancair-kits.com
I have only built one RV panel so far, but I hope to make more.
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
We made the right side closeout panel in the baggage compartment
removeable with nut plates and plan to run all our wiring through there.
The conduit is also a great way to do it in areas that are closed out.
We ran conduit in the wings for wiring runs with a break in the pipe at
the inspection cover(s).
We are just now starting the wiring, which is a daunting task,
especially doing this type of thing for the first time. We are getting
a number of wiring harnesses for specific equipment, but will do all the
connecting and runs to antennas, lights, etc on our own. Any guidance
in this area would be greatly appreciated. If anybody knows of a
website that kind of lays out the procedure for selecting wire sizes,
breaker sizes, bus bar stuff, etc, that would be perfect.
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Condrey, Bob
(US
SSA)
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
I finally got a little time in the shop and got the tailcone attached to
the main cabin. How are folks routing cables from the tailcone to the
front of the plane? It looks like some may have to run below the
baggage floor and possible below the rear seat bottoms before
transitioning to the side channels. Any pictures from Randy, Scott or
others?
Bob #40105
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Fuselage Wire Routing |
Wow,
Great offer for you to make by providing your expertise, and you might just be
adding my panel to your list of RV-10's you have built as well. It all depends
if I can get real good with these crimpers I picked up at Pep Boys, they should
work good on avionics connectors, they even strip and cut the wire too!!! :D
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mani Ravee" <maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | OT - what to do with politicians |
I did not include all of the story. So here it is:
Free Wx Under Threat...
Making Users Pay
The National Weather Service <http://www.nws.noaa.gov> (NWS) would be
restricted from offering any products to the public that are or could be
provided by the commercial weather industry, under legislation introduced in
the U.S. Senate recently by Sen. Rick Santorum
<http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.View&Con
tentRecord_id=1180&CFID=11501317&CFTOKEN=83234716> (R-Pa.). The "National
Weather Services Duties Act of 2005
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&do
cid=f:s786is.txt.pdf> " would "modernize the description of the National
Weather Service's roles within the national weather enterprise," Santorum
said, and essentially it would yank the popular NWS Web site off the
Internet. The bill already has attracted opposition among those who value
NWS products. "The weather service proved so instrumental and popular and
helpful in the wake of the hurricanes. How can you make an argument that we
should pull it off the Net now?" said Dan McLaughlin, spokesman for Sen.
Bill Nelson, (D-Fla.), in The Palm Beach Post
<http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/epaper/2005/04/21/m1a_wx_042
1.html> . "What are you going to do, charge hurricane victims to go online,
or give them a pop-up ad?"
...As Providers Seek Payment For Service
The effort seems to be driven by the NWS's recently revamped Web site, which
makes weather data more easily available. AccuWeather, a private weather
provider based in Pennsylvania, has been critical of the NWS and supportive
of the bill to change it. AccuWeather spokesman Barry Myers told the Post
the bill would improve public safety by making the weather service devote
its efforts to hurricanes, tsunamis and other dangers, rather than
duplicating products already available from the private sector. But NWS
spokesman Ed Johnson said it doesn't work that way. "If someone claims that
our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that's
really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time. You don't
just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is."
This is cut and pasted from the AV web.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | oil filter mounting |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Anybody using one of those fancy aftermarket oil filter adaptors, or is the plenty
of space for a conventional one?
TDT
40025
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | oil filter mounting |
Plenty of space for the std. one. Randy
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Subject: RE: RV10-List: oil filter mounting
Anybody using one of those fancy aftermarket oil filter adaptors, or is the plenty
of space for a conventional one?
TDT
40025
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Duckworks lights - Pricing? |
| From: | "Wentz, Don" <don.wentz(at)intel.com> |
Bill,
please send specific Duckworks questions to Duckworks(at)yahoo.com.
thx!
dw
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill McCoy
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Duckworks lights - Is one HID enough?
Hello, I saw your post on the list and wonder what it the cost for the
install kit without the hid? I want to build them into the wings now and
add the hid's later. Thanks Mark #167. Also do you take paypal or credit
cards? Thanks again
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DejaVu" <wvu(at)mail.ameritel.net> |
products.
Many have installed it out on the wing tips. You would think the same effect happens
there but I have not heard of any ill results.
Anh
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Dawson-Townsend
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:40 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: wiring
Wouldn't you want your AHRS a little closer to your nominal center of gravity?
I wonder if any "tail waggle" would annoy the AHRS . . .
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:29 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: wiring
I got my QB fuselage about two weeks ago and am currently planning the wiring.
Having wired an all electric Glastar with a successful smoke test (everything
works and no smoke) I have learned something about it.
First decision is whether it will/should be easy to disconnect the wings after
construction, if so then you want bulkhead connectors and quick disconnects.
My 10 will have AMP connectors that will have twist on/off connectors for the
wing bundles. Wing bundles including NL,LL,Strobes,heated pitot,AOA in the
left wing will come into the fuselage aft of the main and through the lightening
holes in the left side panel forward to the buss bar. Where necessary wiring
will be secured with click bond studs for Adel clamps. The right wing will be
similarly routed except that the TT AP harness and NAV wingtip antenna will
be routed through the other lightening.
Flap motor , fuel boost pump, and fuel flow transducer wiring will go into
the center channel again secured with adel clamps and click bond studs.
Static air is in the rear fuselage and will stay there, pitot air is being
routed aft via the left side panel under the baggage area. AHRS and ADC etc. will
be located in the tailcone. Electric trim harness will be routed with the
other AHRS and computer wiring forward along the right side panels. In the second
set of lightening holes. I will be installing a generalized bundle of awg
20 wiring of both shielded and unshielded and will assign them as needed when
wiring the avionics. Lastly aft starting cable and aft master switch ground will
be routed under the baggage area in the left side lower holes.
A couple of tips (1) always check continuity of any wiring installed. Quite
a bummer to find that after everything is assembled that a bad wire or connection
causes finding and fixing a bad connection. (2) Be aware that heavy/changing
currents in these wires can induced currents into adjacent wiring and cause
big and very difficult problems to fix. Make sure that you ground the shields
to the airframe where appropriate. I have heard of a Seawind here that cause
the VOR indicators to flag on each COM transmission.
The explanation has been a bit lengthy; anyone wishing to discuss email me
offline and arrange to telephone.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Interesting. I'm putting mine right behind the panel . . .
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of DejaVu
Subject: Re: RV10-List: wiring
Many have installed it out on the wing tips. You would think the same effect happens
there but I have not heard of any ill results.
Anh
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Dawson-Townsend <mailto:Tdawson(at)avidyne.com>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:40 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: wiring
Wouldn't you want your AHRS a little closer to your nominal center of gravity?
I wonder if any "tail waggle" would annoy the AHRS . . .
TDT
=09
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:29 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: wiring
=09
=09
I got my QB fuselage about two weeks ago and am currently planning
the wiring. Having wired an all electric Glastar with a successful smoke test
(everything works and no smoke) I have learned something about it.
First decision is whether it will/should be easy to disconnect
the wings after construction, if so then you want bulkhead connectors and quick
disconnects. My 10 will have AMP connectors that will have twist on/off connectors
for the wing bundles. Wing bundles including NL,LL,Strobes,heated pitot,AOA
in the left wing will come into the fuselage aft of the main and through
the lightening holes in the left side panel forward to the buss bar. Where necessary
wiring will be secured with click bond studs for Adel clamps. The right
wing will be similarly routed except that the TT AP harness and NAV wingtip antenna
will be routed through the other lightening.
Flap motor , fuel boost pump, and fuel flow transducer wiring will
go into the center channel again secured with adel clamps and click bond studs.
Static air is in the rear fuselage and will stay there, pitot air
is being routed aft via the left side panel under the baggage area. AHRS and
ADC etc. will be located in the tailcone. Electric trim harness will be routed
with the other AHRS and computer wiring forward along the right side panels.
In the second set of lightening holes. I will be installing a generalized bundle
of awg 20 wiring of both shielded and unshielded and will assign them as
needed when wiring the avionics. Lastly aft starting cable and aft master switch
ground will be routed under the baggage area in the left side lower holes.
A couple of tips (1) always check continuity of any wiring installed.
Quite a bummer to find that after everything is assembled that a bad wire
or connection causes finding and fixing a bad connection. (2) Be aware that
heavy/changing currents in these wires can induced currents into adjacent wiring
and cause big and very difficult problems to fix. Make sure that you ground
the shields to the airframe where appropriate. I have heard of a Seawind here
that cause the VOR indicators to flag on each COM transmission.
The explanation has been a bit lengthy; anyone wishing to discuss
email me offline and arrange to telephone.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Tami Britton" <william(at)gbta.net> |
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices |
spamd4.ruraltel.net
* -2.0 RCVD_FROM_NEXTECH_8 Message came from 65.167.220-223.x network
I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but I have
to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP Subaru H-6 that Jan
Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was completely sold on the Egg motors
when I was going to build a -7. Then I switched to a -10 and unfortunately
none of his motors that he currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking
for. Earlier this year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them
in late 2005. However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps
some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard something
related to this engine???
I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or Continentals
are the only engines that should be used in planes but I have several reasons
why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just curious what
others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their stuff together
pretty quick because I think they require different venting in the tank.
(Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to accomodate the larger nozzles
that most JetA pumps have) Any other thoughts on this???
Thanks,
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Fuselage Wire Routing |
Go here, get the book, answers to questions you haven't even thought of ;o)
Read it and you will know enough to ask the right questions.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/
Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
We made the right side closeout panel in the baggage compartment removeable
with nut plates and plan to run all our wiring through there. The conduit
is also a great way to do it in areas that are closed out. We ran conduit
in the wings for wiring runs with a break in the pipe at the inspection
cover(s).
We are just now starting the wiring, which is a daunting task, especially
doing this type of thing for the first time. We are getting a number of
wiring harnesses for specific equipment, but will do all the connecting and
runs to antennas, lights, etc on our own. Any guidance in this area would
be greatly appreciated. If anybody knows of a website that kind of lays out
the procedure for selecting wire sizes, breaker sizes, bus bar stuff, etc,
that would be perfect.
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Condrey, Bob (US
SSA)
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage Wire Routing
I finally got a little time in the shop and got the tailcone attached to the
main cabin. How are folks routing cables from the tailcone to the front of
the plane? It looks like some may have to run below the baggage floor and
possible below the rear seat bottoms before transitioning to the side
channels. Any pictures from Randy, Scott or others?
Bob #40105
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ersandall(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Q-Build Kit 4 Sale |
Hi All,
I am forced to sell my RV-10 QB Kit #40148. I have developed AIDS (aircraft
induced divorce syndrome) and either the -10 goes, the -8 goes or I go.
So, the tail/cone is complete through primer (good workmanship), the wings
are in the hanger (uncrated, inventoried and untouched), the fuselage is in the
process of being shipped from Van's. Barb has told me that the finish kit
would be available to me by mid August, 05. I have not ordered it yet.
Price is $33,000. Location is French Valley airport in Temecula, CA. Great way
to get started quick!
If anyone is interested call me at 760-505-9701 and I will return all calls.
Evan Sandall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
Netscape/7.2 (ax)
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine choices |
You might want to look into the Chevy LS1/6/7 engines. May not even
need a PSRU.
Bill and Tami Britton wrote:
> I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over,
> but I have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255
> HP Subaru H-6 that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was
> completely sold on the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7.
> Then I switched to a -10 and unfortunately none of his motors that he
> currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking for. Earlier this
> year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them in late 2005.
> However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps
> some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard
> something related to this engine???
>
> I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or
> Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I
> have several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
>
> I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just
> curious what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
>
> Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their
> stuff together pretty quick because I think they require different
> venting in the tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to
> accomodate the larger nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other
> thoughts on this???
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Britton
> RV-10 Emp #40137
> VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
"That thing got a HEMI?"
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of AI Nut
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
You might want to look into the Chevy LS1/6/7 engines. May not even
need a PSRU.
Bill and Tami Britton wrote:
> I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over,
> but I have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255
> HP Subaru H-6 that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was
> completely sold on the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7.
> Then I switched to a -10 and unfortunately none of his motors that he
> currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking for. Earlier this
> year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them in late 2005.
> However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps
> some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard
> something related to this engine???
>
> I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or
> Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I
> have several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
>
> I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just
> curious what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
>
> Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their
> stuff together pretty quick because I think they require different
> venting in the tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to
> accomodate the larger nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other
> thoughts on this???
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Britton
> RV-10 Emp #40137
> VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
What do folks think about having an engine per-oiler on their -10?
TDT
40025
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Randy #006 latest photos are up |
I am putting a pre-oiler on my RV-10. I bought the following pump:
GP301-12 -- 12 VDC / 60 PSI / 3 GPM - 11.4 LPM / 10 AMP CB / weight 3 lbs. Gear
Pump for use as a Intermittent Duty Pre-Oiler and Back-Up Oil Pump; or for the
transfer of Lube Oil, Diesel Fuel, Antifreeze and Water; bronze gears/stainless
shafts, brass pump body with lip seal; -6 fittings -- $230.00
from http://www.infinityaerospace.com/
I am going to use it strictly as a pre-start and post-shutdown oiler, with a direct
wire switch to turn on and off seperate from the Master switch.
Russ Daves
RV-10 #40044 (installing the baggage door)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "stevenflys1(at)juno.com" <stevenflys1(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine choices |
Bill,
I have not ordered my RV-10 kit yet (middle of nasty divorce) but I have been
contemplating the engine issue also. Two forced landings with well maintained
Lycoming engines makes me reluctant to put one on my RV-10. Eggenfellner
and Delta Hawk are also my top choices. I read that Eggenfellner is actually
waiting for Subaru to release the higher horsepower H-6. Once Subaru starts
producing the engine (maybe the 2006 models?) he will make a FWF package for the
10.
Delta Hawk diesel would actually be my first choice. The inverted V-8 "light"
that is currently under development is intriguing. 300 horsepower up to 20,000
feet or greater gives a lot of capability. My big question is how much
work is required to develop the FWF package once the engine is available? The
engine mounts must be developed, exhaust, and cowling. Anything else that I
am forgetting? I know some very capable engineers that might be able to help
with some of the FWF.
Rambled enough. Hope to join the building ranks by the middle or end of 2005.
Just depends on how the divorce progresses.
Steven Morris
WannaBe RV-10 Builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine choices |
The Subaru is not a 260 hp aircraft engine and Deltahawk has yet to make
even a 160 hp engine available.
The story may change in 2-4 years.
Again,
Why not consider the IO(F)-550 from TCM?
Full FADEC available and up to 310bhp!
Interfaces with several EFIS systems for full engine diagnotisics included.
Similar weight & installation to IO-540 Lyc.
One drawback is a 2000 hr TBO and planning for a top overhaul at 1000 hrs
($6000).
IO-550 cost is $43,000; $49,000 with FADEC. (IO-540 Lyc is $40,000)
The (T)IO(F)-550 is used in:
Cirrus SR22
Lancair Columbia 300, 350, 400; ES, IV, IVP, Legacy.
Mooney Ovation
Cessna Fastlane STC
Express 2000
Adam 500
Beech Bonanza, Baron
+
If a Full FWF installation kit was available would it change your mind?
ERic--
RV-8A
RV-10 in planning stage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
I think your IO-550 is too heavy. And more HP than necssary.
Anybody heard anything out of Bombardier lately? Or did they pull the plug on
their V-engines?
TDT
40025
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Parlow
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
The Subaru is not a 260 hp aircraft engine and Deltahawk has yet to make
even a 160 hp engine available.
The story may change in 2-4 years.
Again,
Why not consider the IO(F)-550 from TCM?
Full FADEC available and up to 310bhp!
Interfaces with several EFIS systems for full engine diagnotisics included.
Similar weight & installation to IO-540 Lyc.
One drawback is a 2000 hr TBO and planning for a top overhaul at 1000 hrs
($6000).
IO-550 cost is $43,000; $49,000 with FADEC. (IO-540 Lyc is $40,000)
The (T)IO(F)-550 is used in:
Cirrus SR22
Lancair Columbia 300, 350, 400; ES, IV, IVP, Legacy.
Mooney Ovation
Cessna Fastlane STC
Express 2000
Adam 500
Beech Bonanza, Baron
+
If a Full FWF installation kit was available would it change your mind?
ERic--
RV-8A
RV-10 in planning stage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
To let you know, I have been following Jan's product for years, and it
just keeps getting better. I was in the same situation as you, I had
given my deposit for a Eggenfellner while building a 7, I have switched
to the 10, and I still have the deposit with Jan. I have talked with him
several times, and he says that by next year he should have a FWF for
the 10. I am keeping my fingers crossed that he will out pace me, and it
will be ready as I am.
Have you been down to the factory in FL, and taken a demo flight? It
will seal your fate once you have ridden in one with the MT prop. This
is the engine I want to use, I just hope it is available in time, if not
I will buy a Lyc and sell it ASAP when the Eggenfellner is avail.
Jan recommends using the GRT EIS, so I am going that route, with a 3
screen GRT. Should be as close to plug in play as possible. I talked
with Tony at Lancair and they said they have done one Egg panel for the
smaller RV, and it should not be a problem to do a panel for a 10 with
the EGG. So, both the engine and panel will be as easy as possible to
install.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill and Tami
Britton
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but
I have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP
Subaru H-6 that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was
completely sold on the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7. Then
I switched to a -10 and unfortunately none of his motors that he
currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking for. Earlier this
year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them in late 2005.
However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps
some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard
something related to this engine???
I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or
Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I
have several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just
curious what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their
stuff together pretty quick because I think they require different
venting in the tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to
accomodate the larger nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other
thoughts on this???
Thanks,
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
Tim Olson wrote:
> This was scanned in and fed thru OCR, and into OpenOffice 1.9.5 to be
> converted to a .PDF It came out very respectable, but I wouldn't
> trust that every character came out perfect.
Ha! *grin* You know, scanning it directly into
a .jpg would have worked just fine... *wink*
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices |
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
I think it would take at least a FWF package for the 550 in addition to a few successful
installs. Last I checked there were many issues around using that engine
in a -10 along with many issues with the FADEC itself. Velocity finally
yanked that engine off of their demonstrator because of ongoing problems. Weight,
size, power output are the first things that come to mind to conspire against
install in a -10. Not to mention that sucking sound of money from my wallet
for a large thirsty engine. ;-)
Michael
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Eric Parlow
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
The Subaru is not a 260 hp aircraft engine and Deltahawk has yet to make
even a 160 hp engine available.
The story may change in 2-4 years.
Again,
Why not consider the IO(F)-550 from TCM?
Full FADEC available and up to 310bhp!
Interfaces with several EFIS systems for full engine diagnotisics included.
Similar weight & installation to IO-540 Lyc.
One drawback is a 2000 hr TBO and planning for a top overhaul at 1000 hrs
($6000).
IO-550 cost is $43,000; $49,000 with FADEC. (IO-540 Lyc is $40,000)
The (T)IO(F)-550 is used in:
Cirrus SR22
Lancair Columbia 300, 350, 400; ES, IV, IVP, Legacy.
Mooney Ovation
Cessna Fastlane STC
Express 2000
Adam 500
Beech Bonanza, Baron
+
If a Full FWF installation kit was available would it change your mind?
ERic--
RV-8A
RV-10 in planning stage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mani Ravee" <maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices - Egg |
Lloyd, please keep us/me informed about the egg engine as it happens. I met
Jan at Sun&fun and he was very upfront. I would like to use the 250 hp
version of the H6 when avail. Meanwhile will keep building.
Mani
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
To let you know, I have been following Jan's product for years, and it just
keeps getting better. I was in the same situation as you, I had given my
deposit for a Eggenfellner while building a 7, I have switched to the 10,
and I still have the deposit with Jan. I have talked with him several times,
and he says that by next year he should have a FWF for the 10. I am keeping
my fingers crossed that he will out pace me, and it will be ready as I am.
Have you been down to the factory in FL, and taken a demo flight? It will
seal your fate once you have ridden in one with the MT prop. This is the
engine I want to use, I just hope it is available in time, if not I will buy
a Lyc and sell it ASAP when the Eggenfellner is avail.
Jan recommends using the GRT EIS, so I am going that route, with a 3 screen
GRT. Should be as close to plug in play as possible. I talked with Tony at
Lancair and they said they have done one Egg panel for the smaller RV, and
it should not be a problem to do a panel for a 10 with the EGG. So, both the
engine and panel will be as easy as possible to install.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill and Tami
Britton
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but I
have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP Subaru H-6
that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was completely sold on
the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7. Then I switched to a -10 and
unfortunately none of his motors that he currently produces are in the HP
range I'm looking for. Earlier this year he stated that he thought they'd
be releasing them in late 2005. However, I've not heard anything else about
them since then. Perhaps some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might
have seen or heard something related to this engine???
I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or
Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I have
several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just curious
what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their stuff
together pretty quick because I think they require different venting in the
tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to accomodate the larger
nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other thoughts on this???
Thanks,
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices - Egg |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
There's always CrossFlow . . . : ) ha ha
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Mani Ravee
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices - Egg
Lloyd, please keep us/me informed about the egg engine as it happens. I met Jan
at Sun&fun and he was very upfront. I would like to use the 250 hp version of
the H6 when avail. Meanwhile will keep building.
Mani
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
To let you know, I have been following Jan's product for years, and it just keeps
getting better. I was in the same situation as you, I had given my deposit
for a Eggenfellner while building a 7, I have switched to the 10, and I still
have the deposit with Jan. I have talked with him several times, and he says that
by next year he should have a FWF for the 10. I am keeping my fingers crossed
that he will out pace me, and it will be ready as I am.
Have you been down to the factory in FL, and taken a demo flight? It will seal
your fate once you have ridden in one with the MT prop. This is the engine I want
to use, I just hope it is available in time, if not I will buy a Lyc and sell
it ASAP when the Eggenfellner is avail.
Jan recommends using the GRT EIS, so I am going that route, with a 3 screen GRT.
Should be as close to plug in play as possible. I talked with Tony at Lancair
and they said they have done one Egg panel for the smaller RV, and it should
not be a problem to do a panel for a 10 with the EGG. So, both the engine and
panel will be as easy as possible to install.
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill and Tami Britton
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but I have
to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP Subaru H-6 that Jan
Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was completely sold on the Egg motors
when I was going to build a -7. Then I switched to a -10 and unfortunately
none of his motors that he currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking
for. Earlier this year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them
in late 2005. However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps
some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard something
related to this engine???
I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or Continentals
are the only engines that should be used in planes but I have several reasons
why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just curious what
others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their stuff together
pretty quick because I think they require different venting in the tank.
(Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to accomodate the larger nozzles
that most JetA pumps have) Any other thoughts on this???
Thanks,
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darton Steve <sfdarton(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Wing kit damaged in shipping |
Hello all,
I picked up my wing kit at the FedEx dock at Salt Lake
City last Friday. It appears that a fork lift pierced
the side of the box! Attached are photos that were
e-mailed to me from the FedEx employee who took them.
I will take my own camera next time just in case. The
box was obviously mishandled. On top and bottom 4 out
of 6 of the 1x2's were ripped off and not to be found.
I suppose the 1x2's served their purpose and took the
damage instead of the remaining box and its contents.
I will finish the inventory tonight. So far damage was
surprisingly minimal, tank baffles bent (shown in
picture) and the edge of the big top wing skin W-1002?
dinged (not pictured). It reminded me of that magic
trick where the magician slides a sword through the
box that his assistant is packed inside.
Steve #40212 working on shipping claim for wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Egg Subaru engine. |
All,
For those of you who have talked to Eggenfellner, maybe you could answer
some qusetions for me. The Egg website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine from
Subaru that makes 178 HP @ 4550 engine RPM and 370 ft/lbs of torque.
Subaru's website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine that produces 219 ft/lbs of
torque @ 4200 RPM with a max HP of 250 @ 6600 RPM. Forgetting HP for a
moment and for the sake of a better comparison, how is Egg getting 151
ft/lbs of torque more than Subaru from what I assume is the same engine? Do
they modify the engine and in what way? How much torque does a Lycoming
O/IO-540 produce at max? Seems to me torque is more important than HP not
just in amount but where it occurs in the power band. If an engineer were
given the requirements for an aircraft engine and a blank sheet of paper
would he/she design it more like the Subie or a Lycoming? Just asking,
after all part the the building process is education.
John Hasbrouck
#40264
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darton Steve <sfdarton(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Wing kit damaged in shipping |
Hello all'
I picked up my wing kit last Friday at the Salt Lake
City FedEx dock. The box appears to have been skewered
by a fork lift! Attached are the photos the FedEx
employee E-mailed to me. Next time I will take my own
camera with me just in case. 4 out of 6 of the 1x2's
were ripped off the box. I suppose the 1x2's took the
damage instead of the box and its contents. Damage
includes bent fuel tank rear baffles (pictured) and
dinged large top wing skin, W-10002? It reminds me of
the magic trick where the magician puts his sword
through the box that his assistant is folded up
inside!
Steve #40212 working on damage claim for wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Egg Subaru engine. |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
I asked the same question on both HP and torque, the max HP issue at
prop is less than rated engine HP because of the PSRU and the max engine
RPM that is developed because of the prop limit. So that is why a H6
that has 210HP in the car is rated at 190HP in the plane. As for torque
it was explained the gearing in the PSRU account for the net add, if I
remember right the ratio is around 1.87:1
The interesting thing is that the STI motor with the SC/ intercooler on
it seems to be developing more than 200HP which means it might be a
viable engine for the 10, but better yet Subaru is coming out with a H6
with 250+ which will fall right into the middle of the power curve for
us. I hope it is done in time, as I will be using this engine once it is
available.
I have watched the progress of this engine/FWF package, and the
customers that Jan has to support. It is a great package at an OK price,
and the customer support is outstanding. Sometimes communication does
not happen the way customers expect, as often or as quick, allot of
times I think people are used to the internet and instant communication,
and have unrealistic expectations. If people would remember just 5-10
years ago how long it took to communicate, expectations would be
different, but such is progress. Jan's company is small, and when they
go on vacation, there is not as many available to answer questions on
products, or orders. But conversely to that, there has been many times
builders have asked questions at 3am and had an online response within
minutes. It is all about setting the correct expectations, and allowing
leeway from both sides. Yes, I have seen production slide from expected
delivery dates, but if you build that into your expectations then you
can live with it. Order early and know it will take 4 months longer.
Track history is there, you will get what you ordered and paid for.
I think it is a great package that is getting closer to plug and play
with each new iteration.
Of course I am being verbose because I want the package, but I have
looked at most other options, including doing my own conversion, and it
just does not make sense for me.
YMMV
Dan 40269
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Hasbrouck
Subject: RV10-List: Egg Subaru engine.
All,
For those of you who have talked to Eggenfellner, maybe you could
answer
some qusetions for me. The Egg website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine
from
Subaru that makes 178 HP @ 4550 engine RPM and 370 ft/lbs of torque.
Subaru's website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine that produces 219 ft/lbs
of
torque @ 4200 RPM with a max HP of 250 @ 6600 RPM. Forgetting HP for a
moment and for the sake of a better comparison, how is Egg getting 151
ft/lbs of torque more than Subaru from what I assume is the same engine?
Do
they modify the engine and in what way? How much torque does a Lycoming
O/IO-540 produce at max? Seems to me torque is more important than HP
not
just in amount but where it occurs in the power band. If an engineer
were
given the requirements for an aircraft engine and a blank sheet of paper
would he/she design it more like the Subie or a Lycoming? Just asking,
after all part the the building process is education.
John Hasbrouck
#40264
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Tami Britton" <william(at)gbta.net> |
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine Options |
spamd4.ruraltel.net
* -2.0 RCVD_FROM_NEXTECH_2 Message came from 24.225.10-29.x network
Eric. Thanks for the info on the TCM 550. I have not made up my mind yet for
a motor as I'm probably 2-3 years from even thinking about needing it (atleast
at the rate I'm building at now). I do want something in the 260 HP range.
There was a post a couple weeks ago that Jans new Egg H6 will produce btwn. 245-255
HP. That's close enough to 260 for me. Anyway, we'll just wait and see
how his new motor does. Hopefully there will be a few flying before I need to
purchase. I like the smoothness, quietness, ability to run high octane pump
gasoline, ease of starting and not having to worry about shock cooling that the
Egg offers. I have not ruled out the air cooled lycs and cont's either. I'm
just looking at all options.
I also hope and think that in the next couple years that there will be more choices
out there for us -10 builders as some of the kits become completed and the
engine companies realize this opportunity.
Bill Britton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Combs" <jimc(at)mail.infra-read.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Egg Subaru engine. |
My Guess:
370 Ft/lbs of Torgue = Output of the PSRU gearbox, not engine torgue.
HP would remain constant (Ignoring some loss in the PSRU)
Jim Combs
#40192
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:29:35 -0400
All,
For those of you who have talked to Eggenfellner, maybe you could answer
some qusetions for me. The Egg website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine from
Subaru that makes 178 HP @ 4550 engine RPM and 370 ft/lbs of torque.
Subaru's website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine that produces 219 ft/lbs of
torque @ 4200 RPM with a max HP of 250 @ 6600 RPM. Forgetting HP for a
moment and for the sake of a better comparison, how is Egg getting 151
ft/lbs of torque more than Subaru from what I assume is the same engine? Do
they modify the engine and in what way? How much torque does a Lycoming
O/IO-540 produce at max? Seems to me torque is more important than HP not
just in amount but where it occurs in the power band. If an engineer were
given the requirements for an aircraft engine and a blank sheet of paper
would he/she design it more like the Subie or a Lycoming? Just asking,
after all part the the building process is education.
John Hasbrouck
#40264
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine Options |
report
I can't wait until Innodyne gets their 255HP turbine in a -10. It's cheaper
than the Lyc, 5,000+ TBO, burns home heating oil (diesel without the taxes)
and should be nice and quiet. The battery and a bunch of other stuff will
probably have to go in the nose, but useful load should go up quite a bit
with a couple of hundred pounds saved in the engine compartment. We'll see
how they do with production engines in the other RV's.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill and Tami
Britton
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine Options
Eric. Thanks for the info on the TCM 550. I have not made up my mind yet
for a motor as I'm probably 2-3 years from even thinking about needing it
(atleast at the rate I'm building at now). I do want something in the 260
HP range. There was a post a couple weeks ago that Jans new Egg H6 will
produce btwn. 245-255 HP. That's close enough to 260 for me. Anyway, we'll
just wait and see how his new motor does. Hopefully there will be a few
flying before I need to purchase. I like the smoothness, quietness, ability
to run high octane pump gasoline, ease of starting and not having to worry
about shock cooling that the Egg offers. I have not ruled out the air
cooled lycs and cont's either. I'm just looking at all options.
I also hope and think that in the next couple years that there will be more
choices out there for us -10 builders as some of the kits become completed
and the engine companies realize this opportunity.
Bill Britton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <schmoboy(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine Options |
Along with useful load, insurance should go up too?
-Sean #40303 (Emp done -paint, waiting for wing kit)
Jesse Saint wrote:
> I cant wait until Innodyne gets their 255HP turbine in a -10. Its
> cheaper than the Lyc, 5,000+ TBO, burns home heating oil (diesel
> without the taxes) and should be nice and quiet. The battery and a
> bunch of other stuff will probably have to go in the nose, but useful
> load should go up quite a bit with a couple of hundred pounds saved in
> the engine compartment. Well see how they do with production engines
> in the other RVs.
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse(at)itecusa.org
>
> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> F: 815-377-3694
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine Options |
Jesse,
Everything I have read and heard about Innodyne leads me to believe
that this will never happen.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On Apr 27, 2005, at 2:34 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> I can=92t wait until Innodyne gets their 255HP turbine in a -10.=A0 It=92s
> cheaper than the Lyc, 5,000+ TBO, burns home heating oil (diesel
> without the taxes) and should be nice and quiet.=A0 The battery and a
> bunch of other stuff will probably have to go in the nose, but useful
> load should go up quite a bit with a couple of hundred pounds saved in
> the engine compartment.=A0 We=92ll see how they do with production engines
> in the other RV=92s.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse(at)itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
> W: 352-465-4545
> C: 352-427-0285
> F:=A0815-377-3694
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill and
> Tami Britton
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 3:46 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine Options
>
> Eric.=A0 Thanks for the info on the TCM 550.=A0 I have not made up my mind
> yet for a motor as I'm probably 2-3 years from even thinking about
> needing it (atleast at the rate I'm building at now).=A0 I do want
> something in the 260 HP range.=A0 There was a post a couple weeks ago
> that Jans new Egg H6 will produce btwn. 245-255 HP.=A0 That's close
> enough to 260 for me.=A0 Anyway, we'll just wait and see how his new
> motor does.=A0 Hopefully there will be a few flying before I need to
> purchase.=A0 I like the smoothness, quietness, ability to run high
> octane pump gasoline, ease of starting and not having to worry about
> shock cooling that the Egg offers.=A0 I have not=A0ruled out=A0the air
> cooled lycs and cont's either.=A0 I'm just looking at all options.
>
> I also hope and think that in the next couple years that there will be
> more choices out there for us -10 builders as some of the kits become
> completed and the engine companies realize this opportunity.
>
> Bill Britton
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eberhart <steve(at)newtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
McGANN, Ron wrote:
>
>My wife doesn't like the two seaters either - too small and claustrophobic
>for her. Regardless what they say, size really does matter ;-).
>
>Ron
>
>
I took my wife to a KR flyin. When she looked down into the canopy of
one she headed back to the car. We are building an RV-7A and she is
quite content with the "large" size.
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A, working on wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robin Wessel" <robin.wessel(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing kit damaged in shipping |
...And here was my scariest thought while coming home.... I had a QB
fuse, so my wing center section had to be pulled out and shipped
to the Philippines....match drilled set. So if my QB fuse would
have been wrecked, then what??? I can order a new one and wait
MANY MANY month, but now my wing center section (if damaged)
wouldn't match perfectly....
I am picking up my QB fuse this Friday from Van's. This is after I already
past up two earlier offers to receive earlier shipments.
According to Van's the RV-10 spar centers all interchangeable.
Robin Wessel
Tigard, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | re: engine options |
I would love to see a turboprop engine for experimentals; however the cheap solution
is not going to happen. The most recent explanation I have seen of the Innodyne
which was ATP before that is that it is a rework of a Solarz APU. These
APUs are designed or a high constant turbine RPM with commensurate fuel flows.
It appears to be very much like the APU powering the Luscomb here in AZ. fuel
flow was the same whether you are using max power or idle. Thrust is controlled
by adjusting the pitch of the prop. Hopefully without going to Beta. We
had a Walter in a Lancair 4P burn after a flat spin after inadvertently getting
into Beta in flight.
Some other considerations: Any money saved by purchasing an alternative engine
will be cancelled by the increased costs in time and money to "engineer" the FF
package.
Read the accident reports. Most experimental aircraft (kits) crashes involve power
failure in some form.
Even if your install is good, insurance will be expensive or unavailable.
Consider resale. If someone is going to buy your aircraft sometime later. Which
aircraft will sell easily at a good price? One where there are thousands of
like engines operating or where there is a population of 50-100.
Having flown my Glastar around for some time, Most FBOs will not want to touch
your experimental for any maintenance. You might get them to work on a Lycoming
or TCM but good luck on Innodyne or others.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> |
All the discussions I have had with Van's is that any QB wing will match any QB
fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Wing kit damaged in shipping |
I just got mine delivered last week....to Ogden. They took the end off the
spar box, but so far I have not found any damage. I received it Friday
afternoon right before I went to Oregon for a couple of days off. I just
got back this afternoon and was able to open the box and do some checking.
I do not know about these guys.....Fedx.
Got a ride in the -10 while I was in Oregon....I will provide a full report
later. It may not be much, I was like a kid in a candy store, I ate a lot
but can't remember what I ate.
Rene'
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Darton Steve
Subject: RV10-List: Wing kit damaged in shipping
Hello all'
I picked up my wing kit last Friday at the Salt Lake
City FedEx dock. The box appears to have been skewered
by a fork lift! Attached are the photos the FedEx
employee E-mailed to me. Next time I will take my own
camera with me just in case. 4 out of 6 of the 1x2's
were ripped off the box. I suppose the 1x2's took the
damage instead of the box and its contents. Damage
includes bent fuel tank rear baffles (pictured) and
dinged large top wing skin, W-10002? It reminds me of
the magic trick where the magician puts his sword
through the box that his assistant is folded up
inside!
Steve #40212 working on damage claim for wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | re: engine options |
report
It is my understanding that while the Innodyne is very similar to a Solarz,
it is a completely new engine, all new machined parts. It is a constant RPM
turbine, so you adjust the prop pitch for thrust. They claim that the fuel
flow at 0 pitch is 3 gph, but a lot of people claim a lot of things. I
would imagine that avoiding getting into Beta in flight would be something
that would have to be learned. I am new to airplanes, but am I right that
not all props can go fully into Beta? Again, that cannot be a very common
issue since turboprops are getting more and more popular on certified
aircraft and I don't hear of a whole lot of them crashing for that reason.
On the FF kit, Innodyne claims that they will have a FF kit for the -10 for
about $7,500. True? Who knows. When? Who knows.
I am certainly not going to be the first to try an Innodyne in a -10, but I
think Turboprops are the future of aviation. I am very interested in
Missionary aviation. In an increasing number of countries around the world
the only fuel available is Diesel. I understand Diesel engines are starting
to come on the market, but the one I have seen is $65,000 for 135HP and
after 2,500 hours you hit TBR (Time Before Removal) and have to replace it.
That starts getting a whole lot more expensive per hour. The burn in a
turboprop will be higher than in a Lycoming, but it would allow you to go
higher and thus faster, which, along with the lower cost of fuel, may make
up for the difference in burn. Also, there are very few things on an
airplane that sound better then the whine of a turbine, in my opinion.
I guess, on the resale front, the Innodyne would fit in with the Egg and any
other engine besides a Lyc or Cont. I think that any engine that can prove
itself in the -10 will start getting fairly popular. Lycomings are getting
harder and harder to find used and cost a fortune new.
We are putting an overhauled Lyc in our -10. I think it is a great engine.
The one we have has been overhauled once before. It has now run 4,000 hours
twice before needing to be overhauled (being flown very regularly). This
definitely makes the engine less costly per hour to operate. I just like to
see the little guy innovating and bucking the competition of the big guy.
That's why I started buying AMD instead of Intel. That's why I like Dynon.
That's why I bought headsets from the guy who designed an ANR retrofit for
non-ANR headsets instead of a Bose (which is more comfortable than the Bose,
in my 25-hour-Washington-to-Florida-in-a-Supercub experience). That's why I
shop almost exclusively at Wal-mart (wait, that one doesn't fit). That's
why I am building a VAN's (I don't think that fits either). OK, well I do
like the little innovative guys for some stuff.
Thanks for all the input. Anybody else know much (or anything) about the
Innodyne that looks promising?
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Subject: RV10-List: re: engine options
I would love to see a turboprop engine for experimentals; however the cheap
solution is not going to happen. The most recent explanation I have seen of
the Innodyne which was ATP before that is that it is a rework of a Solarz
APU. These APUs are designed or a high constant turbine RPM with
commensurate fuel flows. It appears to be very much like the APU powering
the Luscomb here in AZ. fuel flow was the same whether you are using max
power or idle. Thrust is controlled by adjusting the pitch of the prop.
Hopefully without going to Beta. We had a Walter in a Lancair 4P burn after
a flat spin after inadvertently getting into Beta in flight.
Some other considerations: Any money saved by purchasing an alternative
engine will be cancelled by the increased costs in time and money to
"engineer" the FF package.
Read the accident reports. Most experimental aircraft (kits) crashes involve
power failure in some form.
Even if your install is good, insurance will be expensive or unavailable.
Consider resale. If someone is going to buy your aircraft sometime later.
Which aircraft will sell easily at a good price? One where there are
thousands of like engines operating or where there is a population of
50-100.
Having flown my Glastar around for some time, Most FBOs will not want to
touch your experimental for any maintenance. You might get them to work on a
Lycoming or TCM but good luck on Innodyne or others.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | re: engine options |
I thought a telling event was when Innodyn's partner Rivers Aviation dropped out
of the project. They were to develop and distribute all of the fire-wall forward
kits for the Innodyn engine, then suddenly they were out of the picture
and Innodyn was doing it in-house. My spider-sense started tingling after that
. . .
BTW, turboprops are great if the majority of your flying is at 17 to 25,000 feet.
If you're below that, reciprocating is probably more efficient, diesel or
conventional.
TDT
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jesse Saint |
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
It is my understanding that while the Innodyne is very similar to a Solarz, it
is a completely new engine, all new machined parts. It is a constant RPM turbine,
so you adjust the prop pitch for thrust. They claim that the fuel flow at
0 pitch is 3 gph, but a lot of people claim a lot of things. I would imagine
that avoiding getting into Beta in flight would be something that would have
to be learned. I am new to airplanes, but am I right that not all props can
go fully into Beta? Again, that cannot be a very common issue since turboprops
are getting more and more popular on certified aircraft and I don't hear of
a whole lot of them crashing for that reason.
On the FF kit, Innodyne claims that they will have a FF kit for the -10 for about
$7,500. True? Who knows. When? Who knows.
I am certainly not going to be the first to try an Innodyne in a -10, but I think
Turboprops are the future of aviation. I am very interested in Missionary
aviation. In an increasing number of countries around the world the only fuel
available is Diesel. I understand Diesel engines are starting to come on the
market, but the one I have seen is $65,000 for 135HP and after 2,500 hours you
hit TBR (Time Before Removal) and have to replace it. That starts getting a
whole lot more expensive per hour. The burn in a turboprop will be higher than
in a Lycoming, but it would allow you to go higher and thus faster, which,
along with the lower cost of fuel, may make up for the difference in burn. Also,
there are very few things on an airplane that sound better then the whine
of a turbine, in my opinion.
I guess, on the resale front, the Innodyne would fit in with the Egg and any other
engine besides a Lyc or Cont. I think that any engine that can prove itself
in the -10 will start getting fairly popular. Lycomings are getting harder
and harder to find used and cost a fortune new.
We are putting an overhauled Lyc in our -10. I think it is a great engine. The
one we have has been overhauled once before. It has now run 4,000 hours twice
before needing to be overhauled (being flown very regularly). This definitely
makes the engine less costly per hour to operate. I just like to see the
little guy innovating and bucking the competition of the big guy. That's why
I started buying AMD instead of Intel. That's why I like Dynon. That's why I
bought headsets from the guy who designed an ANR retrofit for non-ANR headsets
instead of a Bose (which is more comfortable than the Bose, in my 25-hour-Washington-to-Florida-in-a-Supercub
experience). That's why I shop almost exclusively
at Wal-mart (wait, that one doesn't fit). That's why I am building a VAN's
(I don't think that fits either). OK, well I do like the little innovative
guys for some stuff.
Thanks for all the input. Anybody else know much (or anything) about the Innodyne
that looks promising?
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Subject: RV10-List: re: engine options
I would love to see a turboprop engine for experimentals; however the cheap solution
is not going to happen. The most recent explanation I have seen of the Innodyne
which was ATP before that is that it is a rework of a Solarz APU. These
APUs are designed or a high constant turbine RPM with commensurate fuel flows.
It appears to be very much like the APU powering the Luscomb here in AZ. fuel
flow was the same whether you are using max power or idle. Thrust is controlled
by adjusting the pitch of the prop. Hopefully without going to Beta. We
had a Walter in a Lancair 4P burn after a flat spin after inadvertently getting
into Beta in flight.
Some other considerations: Any money saved by purchasing an alternative engine
will be cancelled by the increased costs in time and money to "engineer" the FF
package.
Read the accident reports. Most experimental aircraft (kits) crashes involve power
failure in some form.
Even if your install is good, insurance will be expensive or unavailable.
Consider resale. If someone is going to buy your aircraft sometime later. Which
aircraft will sell easily at a good price? One where there are thousands of
like engines operating or where there is a population of 50-100.
Having flown my Glastar around for some time, Most FBOs will not want to touch
your experimental for any maintenance. You might get them to work on a Lycoming
or TCM but good luck on Innodyne or others.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | re: engine options |
You can expect a 250hp turbine to burn at least 30 gph.
That's gives 2 hour endurance in a std RV10 with no speed increase.
The Rivers/Innodyne RV6 conversion was heavier than the IO-360 it replaced.
Also, Jet A weighs 6.84lb/gal vs. 6lb/gal for Avgas, at 60 gal the
difference is +50.4lbs
I too was excited to use it in my RV-8 until I ran the numbers!
ERic--
RV-8
RV-10 planning stage
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)Avidyne.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:53:49 -0400
I thought a telling event was when Innodyn's partner Rivers Aviation dropped
out of the project. They were to develop and distribute all of the
fire-wall forward kits for the Innodyn engine, then suddenly they were out
of the picture and Innodyn was doing it in-house. My spider-sense started
tingling after that . . .
BTW, turboprops are great if the majority of your flying is at 17 to 25,000
feet. If you're below that, reciprocating is probably more efficient,
diesel or conventional.
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
It is my understanding that while the Innodyne is very similar to a Solarz,
it is a completely new engine, all new machined parts. It is a constant RPM
turbine, so you adjust the prop pitch for thrust. They claim that the fuel
flow at 0 pitch is 3 gph, but a lot of people claim a lot of things. I
would imagine that avoiding getting into Beta in flight would be something
that would have to be learned. I am new to airplanes, but am I right that
not all props can go fully into Beta? Again, that cannot be a very common
issue since turboprops are getting more and more popular on certified
aircraft and I don't hear of a whole lot of them crashing for that reason.
On the FF kit, Innodyne claims that they will have a FF kit for the -10 for
about $7,500. True? Who knows. When? Who knows.
I am certainly not going to be the first to try an Innodyne in a -10, but I
think Turboprops are the future of aviation. I am very interested in
Missionary aviation. In an increasing number of countries around the world
the only fuel available is Diesel. I understand Diesel engines are starting
to come on the market, but the one I have seen is $65,000 for 135HP and
after 2,500 hours you hit TBR (Time Before Removal) and have to replace it.
That starts getting a whole lot more expensive per hour. The burn in a
turboprop will be higher than in a Lycoming, but it would allow you to go
higher and thus faster, which, along with the lower cost of fuel, may make
up for the difference in burn. Also, there are very few things on an
airplane that sound better then the whine of a turbine, in my opinion.
I guess, on the resale front, the Innodyne would fit in with the Egg and any
other engine besides a Lyc or Cont. I think that any engine that can prove
itself in the -10 will start getting fairly popular. Lycomings are getting
harder and harder to find used and cost a fortune new.
We are putting an overhauled Lyc in our -10. I think it is a great engine.
The one we have has been overhauled once before. It has now run 4,000 hours
twice before needing to be overhauled (being flown very regularly). This
definitely makes the engine less costly per hour to operate. I just like to
see the little guy innovating and bucking the competition of the big guy.
That's why I started buying AMD instead of Intel. That's why I like Dynon.
That's why I bought headsets from the guy who designed an ANR retrofit for
non-ANR headsets instead of a Bose (which is more comfortable than the Bose,
in my 25-hour-Washington-to-Florida-in-a-Supercub experience). That's why I
shop almost exclusively at Wal-mart (wait, that one doesn't fit). That's
why I am building a VAN's (I don't think that fits either). OK, well I do
like the little innovative guys for some stuff.
Thanks for all the input. Anybody else know much (or anything) about the
Innodyne that looks promising?
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Subject: RV10-List: re: engine options
I would love to see a turboprop engine for experimentals; however the cheap
solution is not going to happen. The most recent explanation I have seen of
the Innodyne which was ATP before that is that it is a rework of a Solarz
APU. These APUs are designed or a high constant turbine RPM with
commensurate fuel flows. It appears to be very much like the APU powering
the Luscomb here in AZ. fuel flow was the same whether you are using max
power or idle. Thrust is controlled by adjusting the pitch of the prop.
Hopefully without going to Beta. We had a Walter in a Lancair 4P burn after
a flat spin after inadvertently getting into Beta in flight.
Some other considerations: Any money saved by purchasing an alternative
engine will be cancelled by the increased costs in time and money to
"engineer" the FF package.
Read the accident reports. Most experimental aircraft (kits) crashes involve
power failure in some form.
Even if your install is good, insurance will be expensive or unavailable.
Consider resale. If someone is going to buy your aircraft sometime later.
Which aircraft will sell easily at a good price? One where there are
thousands of like engines operating or where there is a population of
50-100.
Having flown my Glastar around for some time, Most FBOs will not want to
touch your experimental for any maintenance. You might get them to work on a
Lycoming or TCM but good luck on Innodyne or others.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Standley" <taildragon(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: re: engine options |
So maybe now we add a "belly torpedo tank". That would look cool! Or maybe pontoons
with tanks! What is our mission again?
Roger
#40291
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Parlow<mailto:ericparlow(at)hotmail.com>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
You can expect a 250hp turbine to burn at least 30 gph.
That's gives 2 hour endurance in a std RV10 with no speed increase.
The Rivers/Innodyne RV6 conversion was heavier than the IO-360 it replaced.
Also, Jet A weighs 6.84lb/gal vs. 6lb/gal for Avgas, at 60 gal the
difference is +50.4lbs
I too was excited to use it in my RV-8 until I ran the numbers!
ERic--
RV-8
RV-10 planning stage
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)Avidyne.com<mailto:Tdawson(at)Avidyne.com>>
Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
To: >
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:53:49 -0400
I thought a telling event was when Innodyn's partner Rivers Aviation dropped
out of the project. They were to develop and distribute all of the
fire-wall forward kits for the Innodyn engine, then suddenly they were out
of the picture and Innodyn was doing it in-house. My spider-sense started
tingling after that . . .
BTW, turboprops are great if the majority of your flying is at 17 to 25,000
feet. If you're below that, reciprocating is probably more efficient,
diesel or conventional.
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:14 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
It is my understanding that while the Innodyne is very similar to a Solarz,
it is a completely new engine, all new machined parts. It is a constant RPM
turbine, so you adjust the prop pitch for thrust. They claim that the fuel
flow at 0 pitch is 3 gph, but a lot of people claim a lot of things. I
would imagine that avoiding getting into Beta in flight would be something
that would have to be learned. I am new to airplanes, but am I right that
not all props can go fully into Beta? Again, that cannot be a very common
issue since turboprops are getting more and more popular on certified
aircraft and I don't hear of a whole lot of them crashing for that reason.
On the FF kit, Innodyne claims that they will have a FF kit for the -10 for
about $7,500. True? Who knows. When? Who knows.
I am certainly not going to be the first to try an Innodyne in a -10, but I
think Turboprops are the future of aviation. I am very interested in
Missionary aviation. In an increasing number of countries around the world
the only fuel available is Diesel. I understand Diesel engines are starting
to come on the market, but the one I have seen is $65,000 for 135HP and
after 2,500 hours you hit TBR (Time Before Removal) and have to replace it.
That starts getting a whole lot more expensive per hour. The burn in a
turboprop will be higher than in a Lycoming, but it would allow you to go
higher and thus faster, which, along with the lower cost of fuel, may make
up for the difference in burn. Also, there are very few things on an
airplane that sound better then the whine of a turbine, in my opinion.
I guess, on the resale front, the Innodyne would fit in with the Egg and any
other engine besides a Lyc or Cont. I think that any engine that can prove
itself in the -10 will start getting fairly popular. Lycomings are getting
harder and harder to find used and cost a fortune new.
We are putting an overhauled Lyc in our -10. I think it is a great engine.
The one we have has been overhauled once before. It has now run 4,000 hours
twice before needing to be overhauled (being flown very regularly). This
definitely makes the engine less costly per hour to operate. I just like to
see the little guy innovating and bucking the competition of the big guy.
That's why I started buying AMD instead of Intel. That's why I like Dynon.
That's why I bought headsets from the guy who designed an ANR retrofit for
non-ANR headsets instead of a Bose (which is more comfortable than the Bose,
in my 25-hour-Washington-to-Florida-in-a-Supercub experience). That's why I
shop almost exclusively at Wal-mart (wait, that one doesn't fit). That's
why I am building a VAN's (I don't think that fits either). OK, well I do
like the little innovative guys for some stuff.
Thanks for all the input. Anybody else know much (or anything) about the
Innodyne that looks promising?
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org<http://www.itecusa.org/>
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:19 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: re: engine options
I would love to see a turboprop engine for experimentals; however the cheap
solution is not going to happen. The most recent explanation I have seen of
the Innodyne which was ATP before that is that it is a rework of a Solarz
APU. These APUs are designed or a high constant turbine RPM with
commensurate fuel flows. It appears to be very much like the APU powering
the Luscomb here in AZ. fuel flow was the same whether you are using max
power or idle. Thrust is controlled by adjusting the pitch of the prop.
Hopefully without going to Beta. We had a Walter in a Lancair 4P burn after
a flat spin after inadvertently getting into Beta in flight.
Some other considerations: Any money saved by purchasing an alternative
engine will be cancelled by the increased costs in time and money to
"engineer" the FF package.
Read the accident reports. Most experimental aircraft (kits) crashes involve
power failure in some form.
Even if your install is good, insurance will be expensive or unavailable.
Consider resale. If someone is going to buy your aircraft sometime later.
Which aircraft will sell easily at a good price? One where there are
thousands of like engines operating or where there is a population of
50-100.
Having flown my Glastar around for some time, Most FBOs will not want to
touch your experimental for any maintenance. You might get them to work on a
Lycoming or TCM but good luck on Innodyne or others.
igator?RV10-List>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | re: engine options |
| From: | "Schawang, Darrin" <SchawangD(at)macequipment.com> |
Has anyone checked into Cool Jugs, from Liquidcooledairpower.com ? They have a
kit to convert IO540 to liquid cooled.
#####################################################################################
The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use
of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive
it. If you have received this communication in error, you must notify
us immediately by responding to this e-mail and then deleting it from your system,
and further you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information without
written permission from MAC Equipment, Inc. is strictly prohibited and may
be unlawful. Any views, opinions, or authorizations contained in this email
are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of MAC
Equipment, Inc.
#####################################################################################
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: re: engine options |
I haven't seen anyone mention the other liquid cooled alternative. The LS1
Corvette engine. :-)
Two different companies that I have talked with recently are developing FWF
packages. At least one of the companies is developing a FWF package spe
cifically for the RV-10 (i.e., on a RV-10).
I am trying to keep in touch with these developments. As hard data becomes
available, I'll pass it along.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 04/28/2005 9:45:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SchawangD(at)macequipment.com writes:
Has anyone checked into Cool Jugs, from Liquidcooledairpower.com ? They
have a kit to convert IO540 to liquid cooled.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: re: engine options |
Maybe a silly question, but why would you want to do that?
----- Original Message -----
From: Schawang, Darrin
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: re: engine options
Has anyone checked into Cool Jugs, from Liquidcooledairpower.com ? They have
a kit to convert IO540 to liquid cooled.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Kirkland" <jskirkland(at)webpipe.net> |
| Subject: | Edge Rolling Pipe |
I'd like to ask the people who have finished their ailerons and flaps: how
long of a piece of 1 1/4 inch pipe should I get to roll my edges? I've got
my emp kit, so I know what's needed for the rudder and elevators, just want
to be sure its not too short when I start my wings kit. Thanks.
John Kirkland
#40333
N540XP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Edge Rolling Pipe |
I just got a few various sized pieces of 10' long PVC pipe....3/4", 1",
1.25", 1.5". It's so cheap, you can just buy one of each size, and cut
it to the most convenient length to work with at the time.
Tim
John Kirkland wrote:
>
> I'd like to ask the people who have finished their ailerons and flaps:
> how long of a piece of 1 1/4 inch pipe should I get to roll my edges?
> I've got my emp kit, so I know what's needed for the rudder and
> elevators, just want to be sure its not too short when I start my wings
> kit. Thanks.
> John Kirkland
> #40333
> N540XP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mani Ravee" <maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Edge Rolling Pipe |
I had good results with a 1" dia steel pipe. I think I am gonna stick with
that. I tried 1 1/4 and the radius was not good. Just my .02$
Be sure to pull down and into it while a helper is given the task of
rotating it with a pair of vice grips. Works well.
Mani
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Kirkland
Subject: RV10-List: Edge Rolling Pipe
I'd like to ask the people who have finished their ailerons and flaps: how
long of a piece of 1 1/4 inch pipe should I get to roll my edges? I've got
my emp kit, so I know what's needed for the rudder and elevators, just want
to be sure its not too short when I start my wings kit. Thanks.
John Kirkland
#40333
N540XP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DejaVu" <wvu(at)mail.ameritel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Edge Rolling Pipe |
products.
Don't have to roll the edges on the flaps and ailerons.
Anh
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kirkland" <jskirkland(at)webpipe.net>
Subject: RV10-List: Edge Rolling Pipe
>
> I'd like to ask the people who have finished their ailerons and flaps: how
> long of a piece of 1 1/4 inch pipe should I get to roll my edges? I've got
> my emp kit, so I know what's needed for the rudder and elevators, just
want
> to be sure its not too short when I start my wings kit. Thanks.
>
> John Kirkland
> #40333
> N540XP
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com> |
Just got my wing kit and was wondering about build order. Any reason why I
would not want to build the fuel tanks, flaps and ailerons first?
Rene' Felker
40322
N423CF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
No.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rene Felker
Subject: RV10-List: Build Order
Just got my wing kit and was wondering about build order. Any reason why I would
not want to build the fuel tanks, flaps and ailerons first?
Rene' Felker
40322
N423CF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Edge Rolling Pipe |
The leading edges are preformed on the flaps and ailerons. No pipe required, getting
ready to build flaps, ailerons were quite fun after the tanks!! Never thought
I would be glad to prime again.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
Randy are you related to John Harmon ?? KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy DeBauw
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 7:28 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Build Order
No.
Just got my wing kit and was wondering about build order. Any reason why I
would not want to build the fuel tanks, flaps and ailerons first?
Rene' Felker
40322
N423CF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
I don't know John so I didn't get the joke. I can only assume that he has short
responses. I am not getting much sleep these days. Hooking up antenna's, nav
lights and strobe lights. It's taking it's toll on me. Back to the hanger.
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Build Order
Randy are you related to John Harmon ?? KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy DeBauw <mailto:Randy(at)abros.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Build Order
No.
Just got my wing kit and was wondering about build order. Any reason why I would
not want to build the fuel tanks, flaps and ailerons first?
Rene' Felker
40322
N423CF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list
--- MIME Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting.
NOTE! This error can also occur when the poster of the
message has a specific type of computer virus. This virus
WAS NOT forwarded on to the List. The poster should be
informed of the potential problem with their system as soon
as possible.
--- MIME Errors ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Curtis <wcurtis(at)core.com> |
Rene'
I don't see any reason not to. I did somewhat the same thing. I completed the
chapters on the spar, ribs, then while I decided what I would do with the top
skins (thicker 0.032 single sheet), I moved on and completed the outboard, leading
edges, fuel tanks and ailerons before moving back to the top skins. Now
Im back to the top skins. New 2024 T-3 0.032X144 top skins match drilled
ready for cleaning, priming and dimpling.
Anyone need replacement RV-10 inboard and outboard top skins? :-)
William Curtis
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
report
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one
with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the
expensive and complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend?
What kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated
is the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
Ya got it, John Harmon (Harmon Rockets fame) is infamous for his very, VERY short
simple answers to complex questions. Unlike me he cuts right to the point.
A possible suggestion, when we ran the wires in N561FS I insisted on running two
extra wires in the wing runs. Totally different colors with looped ends at
both ends. Have used one set so far. Beats removing the tip & fuel tanks to add
and/or repair wires. We added strobes 2 years after of flying.
Keeping one nose to the grind store, stiff upper lip, shoulder to the wheel, head
down & eyes on the horizon may get things done but can be hard in that position.
8*) KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy DeBauw
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Build Order
I don't know John so I didn't get the joke. I can only assume that he has short
responses. I am not getting much sleep these days. Hooking up antenna's, nav
lights and strobe lights. It's taking it's toll on me. Back to the hanger.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
I thought that was it. Back to work. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Build Order
Ya got it, John Harmon (Harmon Rockets fame) is infamous for his very, VERY short
simple answers to complex questions. Unlike me he cuts right to the point.
A possible suggestion, when we ran the wires in N561FS I insisted on running two
extra wires in the wing runs. Totally different colors with looped ends at
both ends. Have used one set so far. Beats removing the tip & fuel tanks to add
and/or repair wires. We added strobes 2 years after of flying.
Keeping one nose to the grind store, stiff upper lip, shoulder to the wheel, head
down & eyes on the horizon may get things done but can be hard in that position.
8*) KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy DeBauw <mailto:Randy(at)abros.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Build Order
I don't know John so I didn't get the joke. I can only assume that he has short
responses. I am not getting much sleep these days. Hooking up antenna's, nav
lights and strobe lights. It's taking it's toll on me. Back to the hanger.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want to
take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them and
they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540. It appears
to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot better
than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is complicated to
install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages but as you noted
much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he recommended, for
what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed Plasma II Plus would be
what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you will have better performance,
because of hotter spark, better fuel efficiency and starting and your
spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and learning
mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:52 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one with
a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the expensive and
complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend? What
kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated is
the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Too Quiet for the Weekend |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
You guys have been all too quiet today, so here is some trivia.
From the time Richard VanGrunsven teased everyone back in May 2003 with
the first maiden flight of N410RV and then double teased them with the
first airshow at the Arlington, WA NWEAA Fly-In the first week of July,
2003 it was pent up demand to place orders for the four place RV-10.
Then at OSH '03 everyone packed into the big tent to hear VAN and to
witness the gates of opportunity opened as deposits were written.
Remember that day Randy. Yesterday there have now been 400 kits
ordered.
It took till September 1, 2003 to sell the first 100, then on to March
7, 2004 (just before SNF 2004) the number passed 200. On November 10,
2004 the number went over 300. Now on April 28th,2005 - James Ochs from
out here on the Left Coast is the proud owner of kit 400. What a neat
number 40400 and beyond. "Do I hear 500 before the end of the first two
years?"
OSH-05 Should indeed be, the Year of the RV-10. Two months, Three weeks
and Five days.....You guys have a great weekend!
John - KUAO
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Randy:
Have you weighed your plane yet? How close to Van's empty weight and/or CG were
you?
TDT
40025
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want to
take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them and
they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540. It appears
to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot better
than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is complicated to
install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages but as you noted
much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he recommended, for
what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed Plasma II Plus would be
what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you will have better performance,
because of hotter spark, better fuel efficiency and starting and your
spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and learning
mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse(at)itecusa.org>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:52 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace
one with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the expensive
and complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend?
What kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated
is the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Too Quiet for the Weekend |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Since it's so quiet, I typed in some of the numbers from the Weight & Balance information
into the attached spreadsheet. The second page calculates your empty
cg based on scale weights. The front sheet does some weight & balance and
has a simple graph of cg envelope and gross weight. Enjoy!
TDT
40025
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of John W. Cox
Subject: RV10-List: Too Quiet for the Weekend
You guys have been all too quiet today, so here is some trivia.
From the time Richard VanGrunsven teased everyone back in May 2003 with
the first maiden flight of N410RV and then double teased them with the
first airshow at the Arlington, WA NWEAA Fly-In the first week of July,
2003 it was pent up demand to place orders for the four place RV-10.
Then at OSH '03 everyone packed into the big tent to hear VAN and to
witness the gates of opportunity opened as deposits were written.
Remember that day Randy. Yesterday there have now been 400 kits
ordered.
It took till September 1, 2003 to sell the first 100, then on to March
7, 2004 (just before SNF 2004) the number passed 200. On November 10,
2004 the number went over 300. Now on April 28th,2005 - James Ochs from
out here on the Left Coast is the proud owner of kit 400. What a neat
number 40400 and beyond. "Do I hear 500 before the end of the first two
years?"
OSH-05 Should indeed be, the Year of the RV-10. Two months, Three weeks
and Five days.....You guys have a great weekend!
John - KUAO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
Can't do IFR in a 7A? Well, Van's will not "endorse" IFR flying in any RV
*including the 10*. Many people fly 6's and 7's IFR. The only difference
between one of those and a 10 is the 10's somewhat better "stability".. if
you're spending too much time on the stick in IMC, put the AP on.
I'm curious as to what the reasoning was of the anti-IFR RV owners.
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Switching to a 7A
Actually, I believe that this thread is both interesting and of importance.
Mission is everything in flying, thanks to those damnable laws of physics
and all the compromises that must be made. I went through a long and drawn
out quest several years ago when this bug first bit me. I flew the
Velocity, Lancair IV and ES, RV 7, 8, 9, Glasair, Glastar, even a Searay. I
love low and slow and think that my last plane will be something like the
Sportsman on floats. However, my first choice was to satisfy speed and
responsiveness, and thus I finally settled for the RV-7. It had the speed I
wanted without the expense and risk of the Lancairs. It also seemed fairly
easy to build. Yet I also wanted IFR, and was told that although you could
do IFR in something like an RV-7, it was not recommended, and this by
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shawn Moon <moons1999(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | rv10 quick build |
I started riveting my VS together, and had a real hard time with the first couple
of rivets. So I decided to get my wife to help me. That was a huge difference.
I don't intend to pound any other rivets where she is not helping me.
The riveting went very fast and the quality was very good. The bonus is that
she was able to take pictures to work and prove to her co-workers that we are
actually doing this. Since she works for an airline, those pictures were apparently
quite the subject of conversation this week.
--Shawn
40366
"McGANN, Ron" wrote:
I think Scott is spot on. I built the tail kit solo - with the exception of
the HS nose ribs where I had some help. Rivetting solo is tough - the bar
slipped off one of the first rivets I set on the VS and left an impressive
birth mark. But after some practice, I managed to finish off the tail
without any more trauma. However, it took me a looooong time. I am now
well into the wings, and after getting some help with the wing skins,
particularly the leading edges, I am reluctant to even try it solo. With
two people, the rivetting goes sweetly and (IMHO) dramatically reduces the
time required.
Ron
Tanks
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
The best thing you can do is have a partner helping you 100% of the
time. We will have our (slow build) RV-10 flying in two years. We have
about 6 months left. And I travel with my work a lot. But Randy is
about right on his time estimates. If I am home on a weekend we both
will work between 12-15 hours on the weekend and 2-3 days during the
week. I am planning to be right around 2000 - 2200 hours but that is
only 1000 shop hours with two people.
I really want to write an article about building with a partner. I have
worked about 2 or 3 days without a partner and I just get frustrated at
how slow I go and just quit. It just isn't even worth my time working
on the plane without having someone there. I think it would be very
easy to order a quick build kit, have someone help you and be flying in
less than one year.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: RE: RV10-List: rv10 quick build
3-4 years (for a slow-build) is exactly what I've been planning on.
And I doubt I'll paint it myself.
--- John Jessen wrote:
> So, if I have the arithmetic right, and if life were highly regulated,
and
> one could work 15 hours per week, 48 weeks a year, you'd be done with
the
> quick build in 2.36 years. Slow build 3.05 years. Ouch. John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Ochs" <jochs(at)froody.org> |
post]
| Subject: | reports from my trip to vans, and joining the madness ;) [long |
post]
Hi all,
Just got home from my trip up to Van's this week. What a Blast!
I decided to rent the 182T at my local FBO, hijack my instructor (of course,
once I told him that we were going to visit Vans and take a demo ride in the
-10 there wasn't much "hijacking" about it - one of the guys at the FBO has
built two Vans) and do my long x-country for my IFR ticket during the trip.
So during this trip I got a lot of firsts in:
1) first time in high performance aircraft ( I had "complex" since I
started training in the katana w/ a variable pitch prop)
2) first time flying out of California
3) first real x-country under IFR
4) first time riding in a Vans
I wound up with 9.2 hours of x-country time and got that long x-country
requirement out of the way, and even got somewhere around 1.5 hours of
actual on the flight(s).
The 182 was giving us about 140kts true and climb rates in the neighborhood
of 7 - 800 fpm (of course we weren't really pushing it to see what the climb
rates were. At 140kts cruise and 6 - 7000' we were seeing fuel flow rates
in the neighborhood of 13 or 14 gph.
So. jumped into 410RV with Ken as the pilot. We taxied over to the fuel
island and he filled the tanks (he had flown several flights that day and it
was getting low ;). In taking the active he turned to centerline and gave
it full throttle. I think the roll was something in the neighborhood of
300' before we were airborne. It may have been a little longer, or a little
shorter, I was kind of busy with trying to peel myself out of the seat at
the time. You really feel that thrust when you go to full power with that
lyco up there. Looking at the VSI we were getting almost 1500'/min nearly
immediately. That tells me you can get out of some REALLY short fields ;)
A couple of minutes later we were at 3000' and he put it into (I think)
about a 55% power cruise and we were doing ~160 MPH with a fuel flow of 10 -
11 gph. We then did a few turns left and right, and he turned the controls
over to me. One thing I had a lot of trouble with in the plane at first is
that the visibility is so good over the nose that the sight picture makes
you immediately put the plane in a climb. And boy does it climb. That
plane can get away from you fast.
Next he did some steep turns and rolled directly from steep turns to the
left to turns to the right and back. The plane just rolled in and out and
back and forth with no complaining or weirdness or slop in the transitions.
It was just amazingly responsive.
The next step was slow flight, and the controls forces are very light
compared to the 182, even in slow flight. Very good aileron response even
at very low airspeeds. He then took it to the edge of the stall and the
buffeting was very pronounced. There were only two of us in the airplane
and he was able to only get it to barely break into a stall with two on
board. I think that while it's a good thing for a four seat x-country plane
to be difficult to stall it does kind of indicate that there might be a
small problem that I'll get to in a second.
The last part of the flight was bringing the airplane up to cruise from
160MPH. Ken advanced the throttle and, and once again, I had to peel myself
out of the seat. It took about 60 seconds to accelerate to 200MPH and it
looked like fuel flow was in the neighborhood of 13GPH. This plane just
kicked the crap out of the 182 on about every front. Ken throttled back and
let me fly to the downwind in the pattern (although I think he was a little
annoyed because I tend to be pretty conservative when I'm at the controls of
a new machine ;) Once again I did have some issues with the sight picture
as far as maintaining straight and level, but I think if I had an hour or
two in the plane that would not be an issue. It is really due to the fact
that the visibility out the front is just incredible. it is much better than
in the 182/172s and very comparable to the visibility out the canopy of the
Katana.
On downwind, Ken once again took over and brought the plane in to land.
Approach speeds were in the low 60's and the landing was very smooth. The
problem that I alluded to earlier was that it seems with two people that it
is difficult to get the nose up to the point where the stall happens. as a
corollary I noticed that ken had both hands on the stick and it was pulled
fully back in the flare. I don't think there was much, if any elevator
left. Roll out was pretty standard and he didn't use much brake, just kept
the elevator back and let the speed bleed off.
One thing that I asked about, and liked the answer to, is that he needed
very little braking for taxi. The prop wash on the rudder is adequate to
perform most normal steering maneuvers on the ground and you only need a
touch of brakes for the tight turns. This also indicates that there is very
good rudder authority at low airspeeds. On the flip side, you need very
very little rudder during normal flight.
So those of you who were paying attention will notice that I said that my
instructor was going to ride with us in the -10 and then later mentioned
that there were only Ken and I in the plane during the demo flight. My
instructor decided that since he was there he was going to do a demo in the
9A instead ;) He's pretty fired up about helping me to build and I think we
may have another RV builder shortly ;)
Well, once out of the plane I went directly to the car, grabbed the order
form I had filled out two weeks ago and marched straight up to the front
desk. After taking the form and running the credit card, she came back with
a copy of my order form, told me it would be about 10 - 14 days before the
emp kit showed up at my door and gave me my builder number -- 40400. I was
wondering when they were going to hit 400 ;)
As far as the elevator authority problem is concerned I think it is pretty
easily solved by using ballast if there are only two people in the plane.
If you don't already have baggage in the baggage compartment, just drop a
couple of bags of shot in there and it should help with the balance. A
little bit of a pia, but I think a very small price to pay for the
performance you get out of the plane. The other problem people have noticed
with weight and balance is the example in the W&B sheets that were posted
the other day with the aft cg being a bit past the limit with 5 gallons of
fuel and four people and 150lbs of baggage. While I could see getting to
this point, I am not sure that it is "smart" flying in the first place. 150
lbs of baggage is the supposed structural limit of the floor, so that's
about as much as you can put back there, and, in my plane at least, the
pilot hasn't seen 170lbs in quite some time ;), so I do see that it is not
totally out of the question to get that aft loading. The thing that strikes
me as "not smart" is that at a 12 - 13 gph fuel burn in normal cruise if all
you have in the tanks is 5 gallons you are really starting to push the 30
minutes of fuel requirements, and you are basically busted on the IFR
requirements. Personally, I'm getting pretty nervous if I am down to an
hours worth of fuel, but that is just me. As such, it is just a question of
being aware of what the limits are and adhering to them. As a comparison
point for certified, if you put four people into a 172SP and fill the tanks
you are most likely over gross and definitely at a CG that is way aft of the
limit. in the 182, you are within 2" of the aft cg with 4 "standard people"
and full fuel and 150 lbs of baggage. I am guessing that with the -10 that
the fuel is pretty much ahead of the cg and in the 182 its right on the cg.
So maybe that is one point in favor of the 182, but I don't think it makes
up for the performance characteristics of the 10. John Cox had a good
suggestion to fix it. use a depleted U-238 disk for a prop spinner ;)
Seriously, if it does turn out to be a problem once a few of these are
flying I will probably figure out some sort of ballast to compensate if
possible. If not, then it's just a question of knowing the limits and
adhering to them.
I have to say that the visit to Van's and the demo flight was maybe 25% of
what I got out of my trip up there. I have to say that it was awesome to
have John drive us around and introduce us to a large number of builders on
the airport, including several who were in various stages of projects other
than Vans. Especially thanks to Randy for letting us poke and prod at his
-10 and between my instructor and I, I believe we probably logged at least
.5 hours of hangar flying ;) It was a big help to see the various stages
people were in too. Another builder on the airport is building a 9 and
spent a couple of hours just chatting with us and showing us what he was
doing (he was working on the control linkages for the fuse) and letting us
ask lots of questions and be generally nosy. I was really attracted to
building a vans just by the community I saw on the mailing list, and now
that I have met a number of you, I have to say that the list doesn't even
begin to describe how great the community is. So again, thanks to everybody
for everything you did for us while we were up there!!!
James Ochs, #40400
(im)patiently waiting on the emp kit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
I would guess liability. If you say it's not for IFR and someone flies IFR
and has a mishap they can put their hands up and say "Don't look at me, I
told them not to do it" The only other reason I can think of is that
possible many at Vans people are not instrument pilots. I talked to Ken at
Vans and he said he doesn't see why anyone even needs a attitude indicator,
you can just look out the window, which says he only thinks as a VFR pilot.
I guess to some life is much simpler and safer in VFR conditions. I can see
that logic but you're probably going to be setting on the ground waiting to
get somewhere a lot more times.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Switching to a 7A
>
> Can't do IFR in a 7A? Well, Van's will not "endorse" IFR flying in any RV
> *including the 10*. Many people fly 6's and 7's IFR. The only difference
> between one of those and a 10 is the 10's somewhat better "stability".. if
> you're spending too much time on the stick in IMC, put the AP on.
>
> I'm curious as to what the reasoning was of the anti-IFR RV owners.
>
>
> From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Switching to a 7A
>
>
> Actually, I believe that this thread is both interesting and of
> importance.
>
>
> Mission is everything in flying, thanks to those damnable laws of physics
> and all the compromises that must be made. I went through a long and
> drawn
> out quest several years ago when this bug first bit me. I flew the
> Velocity, Lancair IV and ES, RV 7, 8, 9, Glasair, Glastar, even a Searay.
> I
> love low and slow and think that my last plane will be something like the
> Sportsman on floats. However, my first choice was to satisfy speed and
> responsiveness, and thus I finally settled for the RV-7. It had the speed
> I
> wanted without the expense and risk of the Lancairs. It also seemed
> fairly
> easy to build. Yet I also wanted IFR, and was told that although you
> could
> do IFR in something like an RV-7, it was not recommended, and this by
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> |
Anyone try to remove the front floors that are temp riveted in place? My kit arrived
with the gear weldments in place but the forward support was not match drilled
to the floor and Z channel beneath it nor were nutplates installed. As
a result to follow the plans one would have to remove the gear weldment (which
will be a daunting task) to remove the floor.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Brogley <mikebrogley(at)ieee.org> |
;) [long post]
| Subject: | Re: reports from my trip to vans, and joining the madness |
;) [long post]
Great trip report.
Just a datapoint from the spam-can world, but on the elevator issue I
recall being drafted as human ballast to sit in the back seat of a Piper
Saratoga so the CFI could get a good stall out of the thing - with just
pilot and instructor up front they could pull full up elevator all day
long and not get a break.
--
Mike
James Ochs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just got home from my trip up to Vans this week. What a Blast!
>
> I decided to rent the 182T at my local FBO, hijack my instructor (of
> course, once I told him that we were going to visit Vans and take a
> demo ride in the -10 there wasnt much hijacking about it one of
> the guys at the FBO has built two Vans) and do my long x-country for
> my IFR ticket during the trip So during this trip I got a lot of
> firsts in:
>
> 1) first time in high performance aircraft ( I had complex since I
> started training in the katana w/ a variable pitch prop)
>
> 2) first time flying out of California
>
> 3) first real x-country under IFR
>
> 4) first time riding in a Vans
>
> I wound up with 9.2 hours of x-country time and got that long
> x-country requirement out of the way, and even got somewhere around
> 1.5 hours of actual on the flight(s).
>
> The 182 was giving us about 140kts true and climb rates in the
> neighborhood of 7 800 fpm (of course we werent really pushing it to
> see what the climb rates were. At 140kts cruise and 6 7000 we were
> seeing fuel flow rates in the neighborhood of 13 or 14 gph.
>
> So jumped into 410RV with Ken as the pilot. We taxied over to the
> fuel island and he filled the tanks (he had flown several flights that
> day and it was getting low ;). In taking the active he turned to
> centerline and gave it full throttle. I think the roll was something
> in the neighborhood of 300 before we were airborne. It may have been
> a little longer, or a little shorter, I was kind of busy with trying
> to peel myself out of the seat at the time. You really feel that
> thrust when you go to full power with that lyco up there. Looking at
> the VSI we were getting almost 1500/min nearly immediately. That
> tells me you can get out of some REALLY short fields ;)
>
> A couple of minutes later we were at 3000 and he put it into (I
> think) about a 55% power cruise and we were doing ~160 MPH with a fuel
> flow of 10 11 gph. We then did a few turns left and right, and he
> turned the controls over to me. One thing I had a lot of trouble with
> in the plane at first is that the visibility is so good over the nose
> that the sight picture makes you immediately put the plane in a climb.
> And boy does it climb. That plane can get away from you fast
>
> Next he did some steep turns and rolled directly from steep turns to
> the left to turns to the right and back. The plane just rolled in and
> out and back and forth with no complaining or weirdness or slop in the
> transitions. It was just amazingly responsive.
>
> The next step was slow flight, and the controls forces are very light
> compared to the 182, even in slow flight. Very good aileron response
> even at very low airspeeds. He then took it to the edge of the stall
> and the buffeting was very pronounced. There were only two of us in
> the airplane and he was able to only get it to barely break into a
> stall with two on board. I think that while its a good thing for a
> four seat x-country plane to be difficult to stall it does kind of
> indicate that there might be a small problem that Ill get to in a second
>
> The last part of the flight was bringing the airplane up to cruise
> from 160MPH. Ken advanced the throttle and, and once again, I had to
> peel myself out of the seat. It took about 60 seconds to accelerate to
> 200MPH and it looked like fuel flow was in the neighborhood of 13GPH.
> This plane just kicked the crap out of the 182 on about every front.
> Ken throttled back and let me fly to the downwind in the pattern
> (although I think he was a little annoyed because I tend to be pretty
> conservative when Im at the controls of a new machine ;) Once again I
> did have some issues with the sight picture as far as maintaining
> straight and level, but I think if I had an hour or two in the plane
> that would not be an issue. It is really due to the fact that the
> visibility out the front is just incredible it is much better than in
> the 182/172s and very comparable to the visibility out the canopy of
> the Katana.
>
> On downwind, Ken once again took over and brought the plane in to
> land. Approach speeds were in the low 60s and the landing was very
> smooth. The problem that I alluded to earlier was that it seems with
> two people that it is difficult to get the nose up to the point where
> the stall happens as a corollary I noticed that ken had both hands on
> the stick and it was pulled fully back in the flare. I dont think
> there was much, if any elevator left. Roll out was pretty standard and
> he didnt use much brake, just kept the elevator back and let the
> speed bleed off.
>
> One thing that I asked about, and liked the answer to, is that he
> needed very little braking for taxi. The prop wash on the rudder is
> adequate to perform most normal steering maneuvers on the ground and
> you only need a touch of brakes for the tight turns. This also
> indicates that there is very good rudder authority at low airspeeds.
> On the flip side, you need very very little rudder during normal flight.
>
> So those of you who were paying attention will notice that I said that
> my instructor was going to ride with us in the -10 and then later
> mentioned that there were only Ken and I in the plane during the demo
> flight My instructor decided that since he was there he was going to
> do a demo in the 9A instead ;) Hes pretty fired up about helping me
> to build and I think we may have another RV builder shortly ;)
>
> Well, once out of the plane I went directly to the car, grabbed the
> order form I had filled out two weeks ago and marched straight up to
> the front desk. After taking the form and running the credit card, she
> came back with a copy of my order form, told me it would be about 10
> 14 days before the emp kit showed up at my door and gave me my builder
> number -- 40400. I was wondering when they were going to hit 400 ;)
>
> As far as the elevator authority problem is concerned I think it is
> pretty easily solved by using ballast if there are only two people in
> the plane. If you dont already have baggage in the baggage
> compartment, just drop a couple of bags of shot in there and it should
> help with the balance. A little bit of a pia, but I think a very small
> price to pay for the performance you get out of the plane. The other
> problem people have noticed with weight and balance is the example in
> the W&B sheets that were posted the other day with the aft cg being a
> bit past the limit with 5 gallons of fuel and four people and 150lbs
> of baggage. While I could see getting to this point, I am not sure
> that it is smart flying in the first place 150 lbs of baggage is
> the supposed structural limit of the floor, so thats about as much as
> you can put back there, and, in my plane at least, the pilot hasnt
> seen 170lbs in quite some time ;), so I do see that it is not totally
> out of the question to get that aft loading. The thing that strikes me
> as not smart is that at a 12 13 gph fuel burn in normal cruise if
> all you have in the tanks is 5 gallons you are really starting to push
> the 30 minutes of fuel requirements, and you are basically busted on
> the IFR requirements. Personally, Im getting pretty nervous if I am
> down to an hours worth of fuel, but that is just me. As such, it is
> just a question of being aware of what the limits are and adhering to
> them. As a comparison point for certified, if you put four people into
> a 172SP and fill the tanks you are most likely over gross and
> definitely at a CG that is way aft of the limit in the 182, you are
> within 2 of the aft cg with 4 standard people and full fuel and 150
> lbs of baggage. I am guessing that with the -10 that the fuel is
> pretty much ahead of the cg and in the 182 its right on the cg. So
> maybe that is one point in favor of the 182, but I dont think it
> makes up for the performance characteristics of the 10. John Cox had a
> good suggestion to fix it use a depleted U-238 disk for a prop
> spinner ;) Seriously, if it does turn out to be a problem once a few
> of these are flying I will probably figure out some sort of ballast to
> compensate if possible. If not, then its just a question of knowing
> the limits and adhering to them.
>
> I have to say that the visit to Vans and the demo flight was maybe
> 25% of what I got out of my trip up there. I have to say that it was
> awesome to have John drive us around and introduce us to a large
> number of builders on the airport, including several who were in
> various stages of projects other than Vans. Especially thanks to Randy
> for letting us poke and prod at his -10 and between my instructor and
> I, I believe we probably logged at least .5 hours of hangar flying ;)
> It was a big help to see the various stages people were in too.
> Another builder on the airport is building a 9 and spent a couple of
> hours just chatting with us and showing us what he was doing (he was
> working on the control linkages for the fuse) and letting us ask lots
> of questions and be generally nosy. I was really attracted to building
> a vans just by the community I saw on the mailing list, and now that I
> have met a number of you, I have to say that the list doesnt even
> begin to describe how great the community is. So again, thanks to
> everybody for everything you did for us while we were up there!!!
>
> James Ochs, #40400
>
> (im)patiently waiting on the emp kit
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition, etc. |
report
Does anybody know what the claims are for percentage saving on fuel burn
with LASAR, Lightspeed and E-MAG? Does Van's use one? It looks like they
claim that they burn about 10.56gph at 55% and 14.32gph at 75% power, both
at gross weight at takeoff. I understand that Jon Johanson said he got a
total of about 15% fuel burn savings when he had the Lightspeed in. Would
this hold for the 540? If so, then it would be burning about 9gph at 55%
which would give it a range of just under 1,000sm with an hour of reserve
and 12.2gph at 75% which would give it a range of 771sm with an hour of
reserve.
All of this is to help decide whether we are going to go with extended range
tanks or not. Our goal is to be able to get the claimed 1,000 mile range
but have an hour of reserve. One group is making tip tanks for the -10 that
hold a total of 15 gallons for $2300 + crating and shipping. It sure would
be nice to have a range of 1,000 miles instead of 800, but I would rather do
it by burning less fuel than by adding more fuel capacity, cheaper all the
way around.
Again, on the same note, any insight on GAMIjectors? I hear they give more
of a benefit on Cont engines than on Lyc's, although they do claim added
fuel economy, power and smoothness on the Lyc's as well.
Thanks as always!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want
to take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them
and they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540.
It appears to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of
problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot
better than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is
complicated to install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages
but as you noted much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he
recommended, for what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed Plasma
II Plus would be what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you
will have better performance, because of hotter spark, better fuel
efficiency and starting and your spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and
learning mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one
with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the
expensive and complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend?
What kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated
is the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition, etc. |
I had GAMI injectors on my Baron, Cont IO550, and they work very well. However
having said that you had to be very careful and understand what you were doing
because what is done is that you lean to the lean side of peak and when you do
that it's a very tight window to play with. If I leaned to the normal 50 to
75deg rich of peak I would burn about 32 to 33 GPH. When I leaned to the lean
side I would burn about 26GPH, but I would also lose some speed because of leaning
so far, less gas loss of power. As I'm sure you know when they install the
GAMI's they give you, at least on the Cont, larger injectors for the rear cylinders
because they are not getting as much air flow and burn hotter so they
need more fuel to cool them down, while the front cylinders would have smaller
injectors.
It took a lot of reading and soul searching, because of all my original training
on gas is cheaper than engines mantra, to lean the engines to the lean side
of peak. But it does work but like I've said you have to understand what it is
you are doing or you could end up with some burnt values.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
Does anybody know what the claims are for percentage saving on fuel burn with
LASAR, Lightspeed and E-MAG? Does Van's use one? It looks like they claim that
they burn about 10.56gph at 55% and 14.32gph at 75% power, both at gross weight
at takeoff. I understand that Jon Johanson said he got a total of about
15% fuel burn savings when he had the Lightspeed in. Would this hold for the
540? If so, then it would be burning about 9gph at 55% which would give it a
range of just under 1,000sm with an hour of reserve and 12.2gph at 75% which
would give it a range of 771sm with an hour of reserve.
All of this is to help decide whether we are going to go with extended range
tanks or not. Our goal is to be able to get the claimed 1,000 mile range but
have an hour of reserve. One group is making tip tanks for the -10 that hold
a total of 15 gallons for $2300 + crating and shipping. It sure would be nice
to have a range of 1,000 miles instead of 800, but I would rather do it by burning
less fuel than by adding more fuel capacity, cheaper all the way around.
Again, on the same note, any insight on GAMIjectors? I hear they give more of
a benefit on Cont engines than on Lyc's, although they do claim added fuel economy,
power and smoothness on the Lyc's as well.
Thanks as always!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 8:13 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want
to take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them and
they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540. It
appears to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot better
than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is complicated
to install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages but as you noted
much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he recommended,
for what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed Plasma II Plus would
be what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you will have better performance,
because of hotter spark, better fuel efficiency and starting and your
spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and learning
mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:52 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one
with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the expensive
and complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend?
What kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated
is the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition, etc. |
I've done some work with Beech and Lancair powerplants running GAMI on a Continental
IO-520/IO-550 and TSIO-550. The Lancair group has covered it in their archive
files - in depth. The concept is balanced injectors (balanced to the exact
volumetric capacity of each cylinder) then custom matched flow to provide
identical Fuel Air Ratio. It is critical in my opinion that you have an engine
analyzer capable of monitoring both CHT and EGT. Some will tell you contrary
FWIW. The key is to do their GAMI lean test which is too much data at this
point. The art comes with flying the engine beyond 100 degrees Lean of Peak.
This black magic does not apply to high pressure levels such as takeoff power
or climb when the additional Rich of Peak is needed to extract excessive cylinder
heat. The objective is fuel savings, lower operating temperatures and better
performance from the engine.
The physics is based on the impending failure of aluminum when subjected to sustained
temperatures in excess of 420 degrees for extended periods. In an air-cooled
engine, baffling becomes critical, control of the high pressure plenum
airflow is more important and an eagle's eye monitoring of the CHT temperatures.
I can provide horror stories of TSIO-550 which go less than 500 hours before
overhaul because temperatures become too great for the oil film around the
exhaust valve stem and then aluminum looses its properties. With engines running
$70K+ and a top end running $16K+ you can appreciate the Lycoming sodium filled
valve stem real quick. Some guys just pour the avgas on the problem to
lower the temperatures and avoid the precision engine monitoring technique.
In concept, a properly balanced Fuel Air Ratio to each cylinder with correct head
temperatures are good for both Lycoming and Continental. Don't lose sight
of the fact that on climb out you can be burning in excess of 20 gph till trimming
back the throttle and setting 100 LOP to get that 55% cruise.
George Braley at GAMI has two valuable seminars that shoots holes in the Ole Wives Tales. These are "Running LOP" and the second seminar is "The proper technique of baffle design and placement". GAMI is in Ada, OK. http://www.gami.com/frames.htm
John Cox - KUAO
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint |
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
Does anybody know what the claims are for percentage saving on fuel burn with LASAR,
Lightspeed and E-MAG? Does Van's use one? It looks like they claim that
they burn about 10.56gph at 55% and 14.32gph at 75% power, both at gross weight
at takeoff. I understand that Jon Johanson said he got a total of about 15%
fuel burn savings when he had the Lightspeed in. Would this hold for the 540?
If so, then it would be burning about 9gph at 55% which would give it a range
of just under 1,000sm with an hour of reserve and 12.2gph at 75% which would
give it a range of 771sm with an hour of reserve.
All of this is to help decide whether we are going to go with extended range tanks
or not. Our goal is to be able to get the claimed 1,000 mile range but have
an hour of reserve. One group is making tip tanks for the -10 that hold a
total of 15 gallons for $2300 + crating and shipping. It sure would be nice to
have a range of 1,000 miles instead of 800, but I would rather do it by burning
less fuel than by adding more fuel capacity, cheaper all the way around.
Again, on the same note, any insight on GAMIjectors? I hear they give more of
a benefit on Cont engines than on Lyc's, although they do claim added fuel economy,
power and smoothness on the Lyc's as well.
Thanks as always!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F:815-377-3694
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want to
take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them and
they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540. It appears
to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot better
than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is complicated to
install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages but as you noted
much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he recommended, forwhat
my needs are for my10, that theLight Speed Plasma II Plus would be
what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you will have better performance,
because of hotterspark, better fuel efficiency and starting and your
spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and learning
mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one with
a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the expensive and
complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend? What
kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated is the
installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F:815-377-3694
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition, etc. |
report
How did this fuel burn compare to normal injectors? Is the main thing about
GAMI's that it allows you to lean more without damaging the cylinders?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
I had GAMI injectors on my Baron, Cont IO550, and they work very well.
However having said that you had to be very careful and understand what you
were doing because what is done is that you lean to the lean side of peak
and when you do that it's a very tight window to play with. If I leaned to
the normal 50 to 75deg rich of peak I would burn about 32 to 33 GPH. When I
leaned to the lean side I would burn about 26GPH, but I would also lose some
speed because of leaning so far, less gas = loss of power. As I'm sure you
know when they install the GAMI's they give you, at least on the Cont,
larger injectors for the rear cylinders because they are not getting as much
air flow and burn hotter so they need more fuel to cool them down, while the
front cylinders would have smaller injectors.
It took a lot of reading and soul searching, because of all my original
training on gas is cheaper than engines mantra, to lean the engines to the
lean side of peak. But it does work but like I've said you have to
understand what it is you are doing or you could end up with some burnt
values.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
Does anybody know what the claims are for percentage saving on fuel burn
with LASAR, Lightspeed and E-MAG? Does Van's use one? It looks like they
claim that they burn about 10.56gph at 55% and 14.32gph at 75% power, both
at gross weight at takeoff. I understand that Jon Johanson said he got a
total of about 15% fuel burn savings when he had the Lightspeed in. Would
this hold for the 540? If so, then it would be burning about 9gph at 55%
which would give it a range of just under 1,000sm with an hour of reserve
and 12.2gph at 75% which would give it a range of 771sm with an hour of
reserve.
All of this is to help decide whether we are going to go with extended range
tanks or not. Our goal is to be able to get the claimed 1,000 mile range
but have an hour of reserve. One group is making tip tanks for the -10 that
hold a total of 15 gallons for $2300 + crating and shipping. It sure would
be nice to have a range of 1,000 miles instead of 800, but I would rather do
it by burning less fuel than by adding more fuel capacity, cheaper all the
way around.
Again, on the same note, any insight on GAMIjectors? I hear they give more
of a benefit on Cont engines than on Lyc's, although they do claim added
fuel economy, power and smoothness on the Lyc's as well.
Thanks as always!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want
to take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them
and they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540.
It appears to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of
problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot
better than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is
complicated to install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages
but as you noted much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he
recommended, for what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed Plasma
II Plus would be what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you
will have better performance, because of hotter spark, better fuel
efficiency and starting and your spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and
learning mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one
with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the
expensive and complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend?
What kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated
is the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition, etc. |
With normal injectors I would burn the 32 to 33 gph. Unless you did the lean of
peak drill I didn't notice much if any saving. And as John Cox pointed out much
better than me, you need a good engine monitoring system to make sure everything
stays in check and you can see each cylinders temperature.
The main thing with GAMI's is to balance the flow to the cylinders, as John pointed
out, and because you have the fuel flow balance to each cylinder you can
lean it beyond peak, because they should all lean evenly. If you would do this
with normal injectors when you leaned the rear cylinders to the correct temperature
the front cylinders would still be burning more fuel than needed because
you leaned to the hottest cylinder, which would in most cases be the rear ones.
And if you tried to lean the front cylinders to the ideal temperature the
rear cylinders would be way to hot because all the injectors would be the same
size and you normally wouldn't have as much air flow to the rear cylinders, as
compared to GAMI's which would normally have larger injectors in the rear and
smaller in the front.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:55 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
How did this fuel burn compare to normal injectors? Is the main thing about
GAMI's that it allows you to lean more without damaging the cylinders?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 9:32 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
I had GAMI injectors on my Baron, Cont IO550, and they work very well. However
having said that you had to be very careful and understand what you were doing
because what is done is that you lean to the lean side of peak and when you
do that it's a very tight window to play with. If I leaned to the normal 50 to
75deg rich of peak I would burn about 32 to 33 GPH. When I leaned to the lean
side I would burn about 26GPH, but I would also lose some speed because of leaning
so far, less gas loss of power. As I'm sure you know when they install
the GAMI's they give you, at least on the Cont, larger injectors for the rear
cylinders because they are not getting as much air flow and burn hotter so they
need more fuel to cool them down, while the front cylinders would have smaller
injectors.
It took a lot of reading and soul searching, because of all my original training
on gas is cheaper than engines mantra, to lean the engines to the lean side
of peak. But it does work but like I've said you have to understand what it
is you are doing or you could end up with some burnt values.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
Does anybody know what the claims are for percentage saving on fuel burn with
LASAR, Lightspeed and E-MAG? Does Van's use one? It looks like they claim
that they burn about 10.56gph at 55% and 14.32gph at 75% power, both at gross
weight at takeoff. I understand that Jon Johanson said he got a total of about
15% fuel burn savings when he had the Lightspeed in. Would this hold for the
540? If so, then it would be burning about 9gph at 55% which would give it
a range of just under 1,000sm with an hour of reserve and 12.2gph at 75% which
would give it a range of 771sm with an hour of reserve.
All of this is to help decide whether we are going to go with extended range
tanks or not. Our goal is to be able to get the claimed 1,000 mile range but
have an hour of reserve. One group is making tip tanks for the -10 that hold
a total of 15 gallons for $2300 + crating and shipping. It sure would be nice
to have a range of 1,000 miles instead of 800, but I would rather do it by
burning less fuel than by adding more fuel capacity, cheaper all the way around.
Again, on the same note, any insight on GAMIjectors? I hear they give more
of a benefit on Cont engines than on Lyc's, although they do claim added fuel
economy, power and smoothness on the Lyc's as well.
Thanks as always!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 8:13 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want
to take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them
and they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540. It
appears to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot better
than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is complicated
to install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages but as you
noted much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he recommended,
for what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed Plasma II Plus would
be what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you will have better performance,
because of hotter spark, better fuel efficiency and starting and your
spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and learning
mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:52 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one
with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the expensive
and complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend?
What kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated
is the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Ochs" <jochs(at)froody.org> |
| Subject: | empennage extras... |
Hi All,
Getting ready for delivery of my emp kit. and had a few questions.
Is the elevator trim mechanically actuated or electrically in the tail
section? I see there is an accessory for electric elevator trim for some of
the other models on vans site. I don't remember seeing any manual trim in
the demo 10. If I'm planning on putting an autopilot in do I need to get an
electric actuator for the trim? Is there a manual control option? For
example in the 172/182 there's a big fat trim wheel, and it the autopilot
drives a motor somewhere that controls it. If I need to put a motor in the
elevator, I'd like to it before closing up all the elevator bits.
Is the 3.5 oz bottle of proseal enough for the trailing edges on the emp
kit?
Does anyone have a comparison of the aftermarket static ports and the van's
method as far as installation error is concerned? Is it negligible?
Anybody thought about a cockpit adjustable rudder trim? Or does the
autopilot take care of that by just moving the whole rudder a bit?
Thanks,
James
#40400
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "brian bollaert" <bbollaert(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: QB fuselage & electric schematic |
Hi David:
We recieved our qb fuse aprox 3 weeks ago , our front floor panels were not even
in the kit ! , we called vans & they sent them out , we also did not have the
drilling done , actually it is not that difficult to do( gear weldments) (
it is more annoying & and they could have easilly done that over there ) probably
in an hour, for me probably 10 when i am done . while you have all that
out put your brake lines in (easier that way).
Also as a side note , i don't know how many of you guys are scratching your heads
over the wireing on this plane (i am) i mentioned this to vans this friday
and (Tom) said that they just put togeather a set, needless to say i have ordered
it $25 as i recall , he mentioned that it is just the basics , that should
put us on the right track though.
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 9:58 AM
Subject: RV10-List: QB fuselage
Anyone try to remove the front floors that are temp riveted in place? My kit
arrived with the gear weldments in place but the forward support was not match
drilled to the floor and Z channel beneath it nor were nutplates installed. As
a result to follow the plans one would have to remove the gear weldment (which
will be a daunting task) to remove the floor.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: empennage extras... |
James,
The elevator trim is electric and is supplied with the emp./tailcone kit.
There is no mechanical backup nor do I think one is possible given the design
of the trim. Altitude functions of the autopilot ( assuming you use Tru-Trak
) are taken care of by direct connection of the servo to the elevator bellcrank.
Roll control is by servo in the wing driving an aileron bellcrank. I used
Cleaveland Tools static ports 'cause I liked the look. Doubt there would be any
diffrence in installation error since they are in the same place on the tailcone
as Vans's pop rivet ports. Check the proseal when you buy it for working
time. I bought mine in the 3.5 oz cartridge and it has a 1/2 hour working time.
Not long enough for your first try at the rudder trailing edge. I didn't
use proseal at all on any trailing edges only for the foam ribs in the elevators
and trim tabs. Check Mike Howes website for alternate method to proseal
in the trailing edges. You'll have a great time with this kit, take your time
and read the directions, it's is extremely well done.....john
john hasbrouck
#40264
wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: empennage extras... |
Hi All,
Getting ready for delivery of my emp kit. and had a few questions.
Is the elevator trim mechanically actuated or electrically in the tail section?
I see there is an accessory for electric elevator trim for some of the other
models on vans site. I don't remember seeing any manual trim in the demo 10.
If I'm planning on putting an autopilot in do I need to get an electric actuator
for the trim? Is there a manual control option? For example in the 172/182
there's a big fat trim wheel, and it the autopilot drives a motor somewhere
that controls it. If I need to put a motor in the elevator, I'd like to it
before closing up all the elevator bits.
Is the 3.5 oz bottle of proseal enough for the trailing edges on the emp kit?
Does anyone have a comparison of the aftermarket static ports and the van's method
as far as installation error is concerned? Is it negligible?
Anybody thought about a cockpit adjustable rudder trim? Or does the autopilot
take care of that by just moving the whole rudder a bit?
Thanks,
James
#40400
James:
I'll take a stab at these.
The only elevator trim I am aware of on the 10 is electrical. Everything you
need for it is in the kit. Autopilot control of the elevator is a direct connection
of the servo to the elevator linkage in the forward section of aft fuselage.
TruTrak, I believe offers an automatic trim option on their higher end
autopilots but this is usually not necessary.
Directional control is via a roll servo connected directly to the aileron linkage.
Again, TruTrak offers a yaw damper feature on their top end autopilots
which controls the rudder but for all normal operations the roll and pitch servos
will accomplish everything you might want to do.
The 3.5 oz bottle of pro-seal should be more than enough for the trailing edges.
Look in the achieves and other builders web sites for good ideas on techniques
to do the trailing edges.
Dick Sipp
RV4 250DS
RV10 40065 110DV
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: [RV10] weight and Balance sheeW |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
VANS did provide it in the shipped Finish Kits. In the PDF provided by
Tim Olson (over on Matronics) last week, VANS defined the forward and
aft C.G. as 15% (forward) and 30% (aft) along the 56" wing chord line.
In simple terms that's 8.4" from the leading edge (defined to be at
99.4" aft of datum and continuing to a point 16.8" from the leading
edge. That works out from 99.4" aft of the datum for the LE location
to get a (15%) of 107.8" Maximum Forward CG limit and then the Maximum
Aft CG works out to 116.24" aft of datum. Long as you stay in those
Loading parameters, you can pack just about anything up to your DAR
approved Gross Weight. The Lancair boys were looking all over for the
name of which DAR would approve higher and higher gross weights. Let's
all get a grip! The only limitation is loss of minimum safe performance
margins. VAN has always provided a safe, stable platform and as James
Ochs and Randy can attest. It will plant your butt "dyno" firmly in
those OA seat cushions on max take-off throttle, depart Terra-firma in
about 300 feet give or take, then give you an eye-poppin 1500+/- fpm
climb-out with the Lycoming IO-540.
To get esoteric, you can even calculate the weight-arm of those
hypothetical 5 gallon matched Dual Tip Tanks and what that does for
lateral stability along the longitudinal axis so far from your hard
centerline?
If I get caught up, I will take Ken Scott's advice (I was serious about
wanting to know) and list every component on the panel of N410RV and its
associated weight. Remember that the individual components have
different depths and their respective datum distances differ from the
actual panel distance installed.
Van's did a great job with the Seven unique loading scenarios in the
documents (dated 2/4/05). It drives home the importance of Load
Planning. I would think future builders would want that information
much sooner than the finish kit and then process the differences
installed into yours, Scott's and Randy's variants. Not everyone will
want the IFR enhanced panels that Tim and I dream of installing. Some
may still embrace the installation of used (pre-owned) Steam gages to
keep the budget low. Each to his own. I know several builders curious
as to the numbers on Randy's O2 system. On the subject of cockpit
acoustics, Ken responded that all you need is a great $900 Bose headset
to deal with the background noise. I would like to think that 30 pounds
of acoustics and an 8db reduction level merit discussion. In my aviation
club (most of the guys are way beyond 65 - you should see the number of
hearing aides).
On the Lancair IVP, the first device turned ON at startup is the
air-conditioning and the last to come OFF. When the composite door and
canopy warm the interior, that fabulous solar heat load through the
exceptional LP Aero windscreen can get your attention quick in the lower
latitudes. Maybe Brian can pipe in on the RV-8 in sunny New Mexico
going to OSH.
Up here in the temperate, overcast, drizzly NW it's just not the same
solar collector as AZ, Southern CA, NM or TX.
Doug, do spend some time with Tim's PDF, it was and remains a great
planning tool. Maybe Boeing Surplus (up in Renton) actually has some
surplus U-238 along with their supply of surplus titanium. Can't you
just see a few pounds mounted to the aft tie down eyelet to counter the
weight of that TSIO-550 ;-) The Lancair guys actually have a name for
their lower cowl "It's the Dolly Pardon". I have heard a story of one
guy who used all titanium hardware in an attempt to cut ounces, which
add to pounds which when divided by the horsepower gives us that VANS
GRIN.
Hope its been a productive weekend. Doug I am curious how far beyond
the Vetterman system you are now? I spoke to Chris Stepp on those hot
collectors.
John - KUAO
________________________________
From: RV10(at)yahoogroups.com [mailto:RV10(at)yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Doug Peterson
Subject: RE: [RV10] weight and Balance sheeW
Thank you John,
Isn't Vans supposed to provide a designed envelope (fore and aft) based
from
a designated datum, to not exceed when loading the aircraft?
You know stay between two values take off and landing?
Doug
_____
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Demo Flight and Questions |
OK, I just got some free time (I should be sleeping) and here is my quick
report on the demo flight. I have to admit that I was way to excited to
remember all the details.
First I have to take my hat off to Vans, I was in Oregon for my wife's
birthday and really only had one chance to drop by. I was in route between
Coos Bay and Astoria with a pregnant wife and an 18 month old. We had to
stop to see other people on the way and as you would expect we were running
late. I called Vans on the phone and asked if I could get a late demo
flight, they said if I could make it there by 3:30, ok. The GPS showed me
making it there at 3:33, so I gave it a little more gas and just made it
there in time. They had the plane pulled out and ready to go.
I had never flown in any RV before, so this was a treat.
As reported before, acceleration put me in the seat and the climb out was at
1500 FPM and what looked like 110 MPH. We were not at max power, once the
climb was established he reduced the power. I think this has all been
reported before.
Pitch forces (movement of the stick) greater than roll, but I found it very
comfortable. I was being way to gentle with the turns, so he had me do a
couple hard right to hard left turns.
The stall demo only went to a buffet and it appeared to not have any
noticeable wing drop. He did say that if we had more weight in the back the
airplane would break and not just buffet.
I can not remember who, but someone asked about turbulence. He did pass
through a very small area of very light turbulence and it did feel like the
tail wondered a little. But, I was looking for that so it might have been
my over active imagination.
I followed a twin back into the strip and we had to pull back on the power
to keep the speed down during a very slow decent.
Landing was great, ~500 feet with moderate braking.
Someone was asking about antennas on the Vans A/C, I looked and all I saw
was one com and one transponder (My guess) on the belly. The ELT was in the
tail.
I am really motivated to get my built and in the air, I still have a grin on
my face and know I have made the right decision.
I do have a couple of questions for those of you who have blazed the trail
ahead of me. I am just finishing up the Emp kit and have received my wing
kit. Here are the questions.
I know that some of my decisions affect how I build the wings, but I am not
sure I know all the decisions I have to make. Here is a list of what I
think affects the wing build process, are there any others.
Things I have decided.
IFR A/C
Heated Pitot Tube
AOA
Low Fuel Warning Light
(Have not decided on fuel gage sensor, don't really understand the pros and
cons)
Went with Vans light package 6
Went with Vans landing light
(Have not made the antenna decision, need more input)
Is there anything else I need to think about before I go head long into the
wings?
Thanks in advance for inputs.
Rene'
40322
N423CF
801-721-6080
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Demo Flight and Questions |
Rene,
More to consider:
strobe power supply in wing tips or in fuselage?
Antennae location =96 forget which is OK in the wings tips, but either Comm or
VOR is OK.
Magnotemeter location.
Aileron Servo
Mich=E8le
RV8 - fuselage
_____
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene
Subject: RV10-List: Demo Flight and Questions
OK, I just got some free time (I should be sleeping) and here is my quick
report on the demo flight. I have to admit that I was way to excited to
remember all the details.
First I have to take my hat off to Vans, I was in Oregon for my wife=92s
birthday and really only had one chance to drop by. I was in route between
Coos Bay and Astoria with a pregnant wife and an 18 month old. We had to
stop to see other people on the way and as you would expect we were running
late. I called Vans on the phone and asked if I could get a late demo
flight, they said if I could make it there by 3:30, ok. The GPS showed me
making it there at 3:33, so I gave it a little more gas and just made it
there in time. They had the plane pulled out and ready to go.
I had never flown in any RV before, so this was a treat.
As reported before, acceleration put me in the seat and the climb out was at
1500 FPM and what looked like 110 MPH. We were not at max power, once the
climb was established he reduced the power. I think this has all been
reported before.
Pitch forces (movement of the stick) greater than roll, but I found it very
comfortable. I was being way to gentle with the turns, so he had me do a
couple hard right to hard left turns.
The stall demo only went to a buffet and it appeared to not have any
noticeable wing drop. He did say that if we had more weight in the back the
airplane would break and not just buffet.
I can not remember who, but someone asked about turbulence. He did pass
through a very small area of very light turbulence and it did feel like the
tail wondered a little. But, I was looking for that so it might have been
my over active imagination.
I followed a twin back into the strip and we had to pull back on the power
to keep the speed down during a very slow decent.
Landing was great, ~500 feet with moderate braking.
Someone was asking about antennas on the Vans A/C, I looked and all I saw
was one com and one transponder (My guess) on the belly. The ELT was in the
tail.
I am really motivated to get my built and in the air, I still have a grin on
my face and know I have made the right decision.
I do have a couple of questions for those of you who have blazed the trail
ahead of me. I am just finishing up the Emp kit and have received my wing
kit. Here are the questions.
I know that some of my decisions affect how I build the wings, but I am not
sure I know all the decisions I have to make. Here is a list of what I
think affects the wing build process, are there any others.
Things I have decided.
IFR A/C
Heated Pitot Tube
AOA
Low Fuel Warning Light
(Have not decided on fuel gage sensor, don=92t really understand the pros and
cons)
Went with Vans light package 6
Went with Vans landing light
(Have not made the antenna decision, need more input)
Is there anything else I need to think about before I go head long into the
wings?
Thanks in advance for inputs.
Rene'
40322
N423CF
801-721-6080
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Demo Flight and Questions |
The Sportcraft wingtip VOR antenna is the best NAV antenna available.
It's the Sportcraft wingtip COM antenna that just works OK.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/02/2005 7:18:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr writes:
Rene,
(Stuff Cut)Antennae location =E2=80=93 forget which is OK in the wings tips, but
either Comm or VOR is OK.
(Stuff Cut)
Mich=C3=A8le
RV8 - fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Demo Flight and Questions |
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
Looks like you have it covered as far as the wings. When you make the decision
on the wing antennas I may be able to help you out. I have 3 antennas in my wing
tips. All of them are Bob Archers. I will know in next few weeks about the
quality and range of the antennas in the tips. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rene
Subject: RV10-List: Demo Flight and Questions
OK, I just got some free time (I should be sleeping) and here is my quick report
on the demo flight. I have to admit that I was way to excited to remember all
the details.
First I have to take my hat off to Vans, I was in Oregon for my wife's birthday
and really only had one chance to drop by. I was in route between Coos Bay and
Astoria with a pregnant wife and an 18 month old. We had to stop to see other
people on the way and as you would expect we were running late. I called
Vans on the phone and asked if I could get a late demo flight, they said if I
could make it there by 3:30, ok. The GPS showed me making it there at 3:33, so
I gave it a little more gas and just made it there in time. They had the plane
pulled out and ready to go.
I had never flown in any RV before, so this was a treat.
As reported before, acceleration put me in the seat and the climb out was at 1500
FPM and what looked like 110 MPH. We were not at max power, once the climb
was established he reduced the power. I think this has all been reported before.
Pitch forces (movement of the stick) greater than roll, but I found it very comfortable.
I was being way to gentle with the turns, so he had me do a couple
hard right to hard left turns.
The stall demo only went to a buffet and it appeared to not have any noticeable
wing drop. He did say that if we had more weight in the back the airplane would
break and not just buffet.
I can not remember who, but someone asked about turbulence. He did pass through
a very small area of very light turbulence and it did feel like the tail wondered
a little. But, I was looking for that so it might have been my over active
imagination.
I followed a twin back into the strip and we had to pull back on the power to keep
the speed down during a very slow decent.
Landing was great, ~500 feet with moderate braking.
Someone was asking about antennas on the Vans A/C, I looked and all I saw was one
com and one transponder (My guess) on the belly. The ELT was in the tail.
I am really motivated to get my built and in the air, I still have a grin on my
face and know I have made the right decision.
I do have a couple of questions for those of you who have blazed the trail ahead
of me. I am just finishing up the Emp kit and have received my wing kit. Here
are the questions.
I know that some of my decisions affect how I build the wings, but I am not sure
I know all the decisions I have to make. Here is a list of what I think affects
the wing build process, are there any others.
Things I have decided.
IFR A/C
Heated Pitot Tube
AOA
Low Fuel Warning Light
(Have not decided on fuel gage sensor, don't really understand the pros and cons)
Went with Vans light package 6
Went with Vans landing light
(Have not made the antenna decision, need more input)
Is there anything else I need to think about before I go head long into the wings?
Thanks in advance for inputs.
Rene'
40322
N423CF
801-721-6080
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
I have to finish the doors before weight. I have everything in primer as of Sunday
night. Paint by the end of the week. Weights by this weekend and inspection
late next week hopefully. It has been said before that you are 90% done and
90% to go but what a ride. Randy
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend |
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
Randy:
Have you weighed your plane yet? How close to Van's empty weight and/or CG were
you?
TDT
40025
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want to
take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them and
they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540. It appears
to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot better
than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is complicated to
install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages but as you noted
much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he recommended, for
what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed Plasma II Plus would be
what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you will have better performance,
because of hotter spark, better fuel efficiency and starting and your
spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and learning
mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one with
a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the expensive and
complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend? What
kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated is the
installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
| From: | "Wentz, Don" <don.wentz(at)intel.com> |
I am just installing an Emag in my RV-6.
Couldn't be easier.
They even have a built in timing beep. You merely apply 12v to the
unit, turn the gear until you get a steady tone, then install in the mag
location, adjust to keep the tone, and tighten the clamps.
I haven't flown it yet, but so far it's very attractive, clean, least
cost, and simple to install.
Don't discount the LASAR setup. When you compare it to 2 of the
aftermarket units, it's not that much more $$ and is a nice unit with
double redundancy.
dw
RV-6, 858hrs
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might
want to take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic
Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to
them and they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for
the 540. It appears to be a very straight forward system and solves a
lot of problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot
better than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is
complicated to install. The LASAR was easier to install with more
advantages but as you noted much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he
recommended, for what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed
Plasma II Plus would be what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They
say you will have better performance, because of hotter spark, better
fuel efficiency and starting and your spark plugs will supposedly last
longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and
learning mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse(at)itecusa.org>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:52 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to
replace one with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a
little on the expensive and complicated side, so we would rather stay
away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you
recommend? What kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540?
How complicated is the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Q-Build Kit 4 Sale |
As per our phone conversation: We drove around Temecula area in February
looking for potential winter "nesting" sites. Liked the area but, as it
seems to be throughout CA, looks to be getting crowded----and expensive. I
am a retired MD (and former Navy flight surgeon) currently working on the
tail cone of the 10. Will live in Maine for 7-8 months but need better
flying and golf weather for the winters plus my wife has family in the Bay
Area. As I mentioned, we would be interested in a town house or large
condo that would be maintained when we are not there. Send along some
listings when you get a chance. We will, for sure, be back out there in
late summer or early fall to look in ernest---will give you good lead time.
Jay and Gail Rowe, PO Box 309, Manchester, ME 04351
-------Original Message-------
From: Ersandall(at)aol.com
Date: 04/26/05 23:12:43
Subject: RV10-List: Q-Build Kit 4 Sale
Hi All,
I am forced to sell my RV-10 QB Kit #40148. I have developed AIDS (aircraft
induced divorce syndrome) and either the -10 goes, the -8 goes or I go.
So, the tail/cone is complete through primer (good workmanship), the wings
are in the hanger (uncrated, inventoried and untouched), the fuselage is in
the process of being shipped from Van's. Barb has told me that the finish
kit would be available to me by mid August, 05. I have not ordered it yet.
Price is $33,000. Location is French Valley airport in Temecula, CA. Great
way to get started quick!
If anyone is interested call me at 760-505-9701 and I will return all calls.
Evan Sandall
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | empennage extras... |
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
Do you want a hot tip James. Take the 3.5 oz container and look at it close. The
product is separated when you get it and if you keep it separated you can use
it in small amounts as you need it. I took the small rod end and cut it off.
Then I drilled a 1/4" hole in the large tube end and made pushed out as much
as I needed. You then can push out the black part to get a 10 to 1 mix. I
used this method for all of the trailing edges and then some with just 1 3.5
oz tube. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard Sipp
Subject: Re: RV10-List: empennage extras...
Hi All,
Getting ready for delivery of my emp kit... and had a few questions...
Is the elevator trim mechanically actuated or electrically in the tail section?
I see there is an accessory for electric elevator trim for some of the other
models on vans site. I don't remember seeing any manual trim in the demo 10.
If I'm planning on putting an autopilot in do I need to get an electric actuator
for the trim? Is there a manual control option? For example in the 172/182
there's a big fat trim wheel, and it the autopilot drives a motor somewhere
that controls it. If I need to put a motor in the elevator, I'd like to it
before closing up all the elevator bits.
Is the 3.5 oz bottle of proseal enough for the trailing edges on the emp kit?
Does anyone have a comparison of the aftermarket static ports and the van's method
as far as installation error is concerned? Is it negligible?
Anybody thought about a cockpit adjustable rudder trim? Or does the autopilot take
care of that by just moving the whole rudder a bit?
Thanks,
James
#40400
James:
I'll take a stab at these.
The only elevator trim I am aware of on the 10 is electrical. Everything you need
for it is in the kit. Autopilot control of the elevator is a direct connection
of the servo to the elevator linkage in the forward section of aft fuselage.
TruTrak, I believe offers an automatic trim option on their higher end autopilots
but this is usually not necessary.
Directional control is via a roll servo connected directly to the aileron linkage.
Again, TruTrak offers a yaw damper feature on their top end autopilots which
controls the rudder but for all normal operations the roll and pitch servos
will accomplish everything you might want to do.
The 3.5 oz bottle of pro-seal should be more than enough for the trailing edges.
Look in the achieves and other builders web sites for good ideas on techniques
to do the trailing edges.
Dick Sipp
RV4 250DS
RV10 40065 110DV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Chamberlain" <10flyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
Randy, What are you doing about electric aileron trim?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
Hello Mark. Nothing yet. I want to fly it and see what is needed. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mark Chamberlain
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
Randy, What are you doing about electric aileron trim?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robin Wessel" <robin.wessel(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Opinion of flap positioning systems |
All-
Anyone have an opinion on Van's flap positioning system VS. the FPS system
from AircraftExtras?
For the extra $100 all said and done with the FPS you get automatic trim
adjustment when the flap moves. I am not sure how much trim is needed on a
RV-10 but in my RV-6, the tweaking the trim was no big deal. I am not sure
if the extra cost and complexity is worth it.
Any thoughts appreciated,
Robin Wessel
Tigard, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Mike Holland ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Mike Holland
Lists: RV-List,RV6-List,RV7-List,RV8-List,RV9-List,RV10-List
Subject: Quickbuild Fuel Pickup Issue
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/hollandm@pacbell.net.05.02.2005/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Demo Flight and Questions |
There's not a whole lot that you have to immediately decide on. Most
you can put off for most of the time you're doing the wings.
A) IFR A/C: Just make sure you get the heated pitot
B) Heated pitot: A dely here may be a good idea. Gretz isn't out with
his GA-1000 yet. Let the new choices start to come out.
B) AOA: You can decide at any time to install the AOA. If you think
you'll do it, just at least buy the first 1/2 of the kit so
you can pull the tubing out to the wingtips.
C) Low Fuel Warning: Right now you only have the option of float
sensors...and the low fuel warning is really a function of the
instruments you choose.
D) NAV lights: LED's or standard? You got the pkg 6...you're set.
E) Strobes: Whelen or other (CreativAir?) Just choose and buy them.
F) Landing lights: Get the standard, or, do what I did and get the
duckworks kit....HIGHLY recommended! Photos coming soon.
G) Antennas: To each his own. The archers have been popular Nav's for
inside the tips. For Com's, I'm going with belly mounted whips.
No others would go into the wings anyway.
H) Conduit: To run it, or not to run it. Do it about 1/3 the way into
the wings, before you do the wing ribs.
I) Diesel or 100LL?: If diesel, vent your tanks differently.
J) Autopilot Servos: If you're mounting a TruTrak, it can be installed
anytime but will be much easier before the bottom skin is on.
K) Enough wire run space?: If you pull AOA and tons of stuff, you may
want to run a 2nd set of snap bushings out to the tips. I also
ran a set on the right wing for the autopilot servo wires.
That's really about it for doing the wings. None of it needs to be
purchased day one. Most things can wait for at least a while. In fact,
by waiting on some things, you're likely to have more choices available
as new things come to market.
Tim
>
> I know that some of my decisions affect how I build the wings, but I am
> not sure I know all the decisions I have to make. Here is a list of
> what I think affects the wing build process, are there any others.
>
>
>
> Things I have decided.
>
>
>
> IFR A/C
>
> Heated Pitot Tube
>
> AOA
>
> Low Fuel Warning Light
>
> (Have not decided on fuel gage sensor, dont really understand the pros
> and cons)
>
> Went with Vans light package 6
>
> Went with Vans landing light
>
> (Have not made the antenna decision, need more input)
>
>
>
> Is there anything else I need to think about before I go head long into
> the wings?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for inputs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rene'
>
> 40322
>
> N423CF
>
> 801-721-6080
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Opinion of flap positioning systems |
Message-Id for external message added locally
Message-Id for external message added locally
That's unknown territory for the RV-10 so far. You may find people
who've built other RV's that can tell you if it's nice. I myself
think that while convenient, I'd like to keep mine separate. I did
order and receive the Van's FPS last week though.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Robin Wessel wrote:
> All-
>
>
>
> Anyone have an opinion on Vans flap positioning system VS. the FPS
> system from AircraftExtras?
>
>
>
> For the extra $100 all said and done with the FPS you get automatic trim
> adjustment when the flap moves. I am not sure how much trim is needed on
> a RV-10 but in my RV-6, the tweaking the trim was no big deal. I am not
> sure if the extra cost and complexity is worth it.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts appreciated,
>
>
>
> Robin Wessel
>
> Tigard, OR
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Opinion of flap positioning systems |
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
I have the flap position system in mine. I didn't notice the trimming at the time
the flaps dropped to be a big deal. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robin Wessel
Subject: RV10-List: Opinion of flap positioning systems
All-
Anyone have an opinion on Van's flap positioning system VS. the FPS system from
AircraftExtras?
For the extra $100 all said and done with the FPS you get automatic trim adjustment
when the flap moves. I am not sure how much trim is needed on a RV-10 but
in my RV-6, the tweaking the trim was no big deal. I am not sure if the extra
cost and complexity is worth it.
Any thoughts appreciated,
Robin Wessel
Tigard, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)earthlink.net> |
Randy,
I was just wondering what the RTV looking stuff is that is running along your scat
tubes in the engine bay. Is that just the brand of scat tube?
curious
Chris Lucas
#40072
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Strobe wiring (and a tip) |
Hello
Does anyone have some good numbers for the length of strobe wire required if my
strobe power supply is mounted on the floor behind the aft baggage bulkhead next
to the AP pitch servo. I don't plan on making a connection at the wing root,
but I need to allow for some extra wire in that area and on the ends.
thanks
Chris Lucas
#40072
Tip,
I was having issues with J-channel rubbing against the wing ribs so I increased
the hole center line dimension down the j-channel just a hair (1/32 inch) to
move the J-end of the channel away from the rib a bit instead of filing more out
of each rib. I also took a little material of the j-end of the channel with
a belt sander.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
It is what Van's tells you to do in the firewall forward plans. The recommend you
doing it on the hose that runs from the front inlet to the muffler heater.
We decide to see if it helps and did it to all of them. It is just high heat
RTV. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
Subject: RV10-List: Randy's Engine
Randy,
I was just wondering what the RTV looking stuff is that is running along your scat
tubes in the engine bay. Is that just the brand of scat tube?
curious
Chris Lucas
#40072
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Hertner" <effectus(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was developed
by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name. Let's also say
that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber technology is double
what is currently available. This is to say that an engine that used this
combustion chamber technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to
.20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the torque curve
would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not need a constant speed
propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
It wouldn't need an ignition system and it doesn't retain much heat so a small
liquid cooling system would allow you to have heat in the cabin. It is NOT a
rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor is it a axial turbine. The
engine would be compact and be available in the exact horsepower you require
for your airframe. The engine would only be available as a part of a complete
firewall forward package.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you with
regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information. What would you have
to see in place. What would you have to see demonstrated. What level of comfort
would you have to have with the company before you would place your order?
Hypothetically!
Dave Hertner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Malwitz" <dmalwitz(at)toast.net> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Dave
Sounds like an amazing engine.
Fly it in an RV-10 from New York to Paris, non-stop.
Have an ISO-9000 quality system in place and the financial backing to
survive for decades.
Regards,
Dan Malwitz
[Looking for a workshop]
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Hertner
Subject: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name.
Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber
technology is double what is currently available. This is to say that an
engine that used this combustion chamber technology would operate with a
BSFC in the order of .15 to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the torque
curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not need a
constant speed propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM range from
~300 to 3000rpm. It wouldn't need an ignition system and it doesn't retain
much heat so a small liquid cooling system would allow you to have heat in
the cabin. It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor
is it a axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in the
exact horsepower you require for your airframe. The engine would only be
available as a part of a complete firewall forward package.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you
with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information. What would
you have to see in place. What would you have to see demonstrated. What
level of comfort would you have to have with the company before you would
place your order? Hypothetically!
Dave Hertner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DejaVu" <wvu(at)mail.ameritel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe wiring (and a tip) |
products.
It took all 15' to get from the wing tip to root. I have not ran the rest but
I'm sure another 10' for a total of 25' will get you there with some to spare.
Anh
Maryland
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Hello
Does anyone have some good numbers for the length of strobe wire required if
my strobe power supply is mounted on the floor behind the aft baggage bulkhead
next to the AP pitch servo. I don't plan on making a connection at the wing root,
but I need to allow for some extra wire in that area and on the ends.
thanks
Chris Lucas
#40072
Tip,
I was having issues with J-channel rubbing against the wing ribs so I increased
the hole center line dimension down the j-channel just a hair (1/32 inch) to
move the J-end of the channel away from the rib a bit instead of filing more
out of each rib. I also took a little material of the j-end of the channel with
a belt sander.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Ah Yes. The old magic engine powered the airplane.
Unfortunately, the propeller pulls the airplane, and the physics of the
propeller says it likes to do this at 2000 RPM.
Ever wonder where the word propeller came from? As in "to propel"?
The engine only serves to power the "propeller".
The hypothetical engine you suggest is a little strange. Constant torque?
A fixed torque at zero RPM equals zero horsepower. Therefore, no work
accomplished.
A propeller blade has a single design point for propulsion, i.e., peak
propeller efficiency at a particular airspeed. This implies a specific power
input and a specific drag being overcome.
When you are off of this design point the constant speed pitch change
capability helps to compensate for the propeller efficiency. Why even suggest
that
you can throw away the efficiency available with the constant speed
propeller just because you are proposing a hypothetical efficient power source.
BTW, electric motors tend to burn out at zero RPM at full load. :-)
But you really didn't mention the Sterling cycle, did you?
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/03/2005 4:29:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
effectus(at)rogers.com writes:
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name. Let's
also
say that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber technology
is double what is currently available. This is to say that an engine that used
this combustion chamber technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of
.15 to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the torque
curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not need a constant
speed propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to
3000rpm. It wouldn't need an ignition system and it doesn't retain much heat so
a
small liquid cooling system would allow you to have heat in the cabin. It is
NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor is it a axial
turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in the exact horsepower
you require for your airframe. The engine would only be available as a part of
a complete firewall forward package.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you
with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information. What would
you have to see in place. What would you have to see demonstrated. What level
of comfort would you have to have with the company before you would place your
order? Hypothetically!
Dave Hertner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mani Ravee" <maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Strobe wiring (and a tip) |
Just a thought. What about those Whelan strobes with individual power
supplies that can be mounted in the wing tips. They have more power like
higher joules. They only require a 18g wire to supply power to them. Anyone
plan on using them?
Mani
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
It took all 15' to get from the wing tip to root. I have not ran the rest
but I'm sure another 10' for a total of 25' will get you there with some to
spare.
Anh
Maryland
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris <mailto:toaster73(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Hello
Does anyone have some good numbers for the length of strobe wire required if
my strobe power supply is mounted on the floor behind the aft baggage
bulkhead next to the AP pitch servo. I don't plan on making a connection at
the wing root, but I need to allow for some extra wire in that area and on
the ends.
thanks
Chris Lucas
#40072
Tip,
I was having issues with J-channel rubbing against the wing ribs so I
increased the hole center line dimension down the j-channel just a hair
(1/32 inch) to move the J-end of the channel away from the rib a bit instead
of filing more out of each rib. I also took a little material of the j-end
of the channel with a belt sander.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Perry Casson <pcasson(at)sasktel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
If someone actually got the BSFC down to the .15 to .20 range this would
be of such huge significance to the much larger industries such as
automotive (and economies of nations) there is no way any real company
would be wasting their time with an aircraft installation.
..just my opinion
Perry Casson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list
--- MIME Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting.
NOTE! This error can also occur when the poster of the
message has a specific type of computer virus. This virus
WAS NOT forwarded on to the List. The poster should be
informed of the potential problem with their system as soon
as possible.
--- MIME Errors ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Strobe wiring (and a tip) |
Several people I know do just that. Mainly it is to keep the high voltage away
from any fuel. Randy
-----Original Message-----
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mani Ravee |
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Just a thought. What about those Whelan strobes with individual power supplies
that can be mounted in the wing tips. They have more power like higher joules.
They only require a 18g wire to supply power to them. Anyone plan on using them?
Mani
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
It took all 15' to get from the wing tip to root. I have not ran the rest but
I'm sure another 10' for a total of 25' will get you there with some to spare.
Anh
Maryland
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris <mailto:toaster73(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Hello
Does anyone have some good numbers for the length of strobe wire required if my
strobe power supply is mounted on the floor behind the aft baggage bulkhead next
to the AP pitch servo. I don't plan on making a connection at the wing root,
but I need to allow for some extra wire in that area and on the ends.
thanks
Chris Lucas
#40072
Tip,
I was having issues with J-channel rubbing against the wing ribs so I increased
the hole center line dimension down the j-channel just a hair (1/32 inch) to
move the J-end of the channel away from the rib a bit instead of filing more out
of each rib. I also took a little material of the j-end of the channel with
a belt sander.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Randy's Engine |
I thought it was to stiffen the tube a bit so it doesn't sag as much...
Tim
Rick wrote:
> It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it fails so it
> won't unravel.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
This came from a builder/owner of an RV-8, who also is a CFI. He felt that
the plane was so quick in both roll and pitch that flying it hard IFR, in a
busy scenario, could very well overwhelm even the best, leading to over
corrections, etc, etc. In short, he felt that if you were planning on many
IFR trips, then an RV-7 or RV-8 was the wrong plane for the mission. Best
to get an RV-9.
I also heard this from many others, and probably have their correspondences
still, if you're interested. Of course, heard it from Van's. However, I do
know of folks flying RV-6's IFR, and recommend it. I even know of one
person who got his IFR ticket in an RV-6. I think it's all in planning for
the extremes. Best to have a mechanical helper if you're doing single pilot
IFR in the soup at night with minimums a possibility. Given that and LOTS
of practice, I'm certain that an RV-7A would be doable. It's all a risk at
some point, and for the RV-8 owner it was so much of a risk that he almost
shouted out me his warning. In fact I think he did shout it.
John Jessen
- RV-10 Empcone
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Folbrecht
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Switching to a 7A
-->
Can't do IFR in a 7A? Well, Van's will not "endorse" IFR flying in any RV
*including the 10*. Many people fly 6's and 7's IFR. The only difference
between one of those and a 10 is the 10's somewhat better "stability".. if
you're spending too much time on the stick in IMC, put the AP on.
I'm curious as to what the reasoning was of the anti-IFR RV owners.
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Switching to a 7A
Actually, I believe that this thread is both interesting and of importance.
Mission is everything in flying, thanks to those damnable laws of physics
and all the compromises that must be made. I went through a long and drawn
out quest several years ago when this bug first bit me. I flew the
Velocity, Lancair IV and ES, RV 7, 8, 9, Glasair, Glastar, even a Searay. I
love low and slow and think that my last plane will be something like the
Sportsman on floats. However, my first choice was to satisfy speed and
responsiveness, and thus I finally settled for the RV-7. It had the speed I
wanted without the expense and risk of the Lancairs. It also seemed fairly
easy to build. Yet I also wanted IFR, and was told that although you could
do IFR in something like an RV-7, it was not recommended, and this by
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
Well that may be it as well. I haven't asked the boys at Van's yet. I have been
spending a lot of time at the beach (Sands somore).
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Randy's Engine
I thought it was to stiffen the tube a bit so it doesn't sag as much...
Tim
Rick wrote:
> It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it fails so it
> won't unravel.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
The doctor said that was my problem . . . : )
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Randy's Engine
I thought it was to stiffen the tube a bit so it doesn't sag as much...
Tim
Rick wrote:
> It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it fails so it
> won't unravel.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
Randy & Tim,
I read about doing this in the 21 years of RV-ator, page 173 by Ken, "If the cord
on the outside breaks it can only unravel a half turn instead of all the way
down the hose"
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Combs" <jimc(at)mail.infra-read.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Yep, sounds like one or more laws of physics is being broken!
Not going to happen.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Perry Casson <pcasson(at)sasktel.net>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 07:15:57 -0600
If someone actually got the BSFC down to the .15 to .20 range this would
be of such huge significance to the much larger industries such as
automotive (and economies of nations) there is no way any real company
would be wasting their time with an aircraft installation.
..just my opinion
Perry Casson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
Great answer. Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Randy's Engine
Randy & Tim,
I read about doing this in the 21 years of RV-ator, page 173 by Ken, "If the cord
on the outside breaks it can only unravel a half turn instead of all the way
down the hose"
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Combs" <jimc(at)mail.infra-read.com> |
Rick,
Any wire in it or just a bead of silicone?
Jim Combs
#40192
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:01:45 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it failssoit won't
unravel.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
Jim,
It only say a bead of silicone, no reason you couldn't place a .020 run of safety
wire for some more strength but it's not mentioned in the tip from Ken, he
credits Scott for the info so I assume it's on all the Van's demonstrators and
their personal aircraft as well. I think I read a bit about this on Dan Checkoways
too. It doesn't make a lot of sense reading about it but when you see the
tube with the silicone on it you can see how practical and simple the solution
is. Considering the consequences if it became unraveled it looks like cheap
insurance.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Haven't read the directive from Van's but the application does both...
enhance retaining the cloth string wrapped around the scat tube which
likes to separate by unraveling and it did a remarkable job of
stiffening the tube while following a three dimensional routing path.
Not too Soft, Not too Hard, Just Right. The creator should be credited
appropriately cause its another clear stroke of genius. Around the
exhaust stacks, it will prove invaluable.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Randy's Engine
I thought it was to stiffen the tube a bit so it doesn't sag as much...
Tim
Rick wrote:
> It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it fails so it
> won't unravel.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
This old trick of putting a bead of RTV down the tubing is as previously
mentioned, to keep if from unraveling. Commonly, when a Scat tube is cut,
the little cloth re-enforcing string will start to un-wind. Add vibration,
heat and movement, and it will go on it's own. Many years ago, some bright
mechanic realized that a bead of RTV keeps this little string from
unraveling and ruining the tubing. That being said, typically we don't run
it the entire length of the tubing anymore, but a couple inches on each end
will suffice, but many people still choose to do the whole thing.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Randy's Engine
I thought it was to stiffen the tube a bit so it doesn't sag as much...
Tim
Rick wrote:
> It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it fails so it
> won't unravel.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com> |
All,
Does anyone know if there is a difference in the three conductor
Whelen cable Vans sells for hookup of strobes and the three conductor Whelen
cable available from auto electric suppliers and e-bay? From what I can see
the only difference is price with the auto supply being about half the cost.
Both are from Whelen and I think both are 18AWG and shielded....john
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Combs" <jimc(at)mail.infra-read.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
>> This is to say that an engine that used this combustion chamber
>> technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20
>> lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
So what conditions would have to be met to get this low of a BSFC?
- Slower running? (Aircraft vs automotive engines)
- Extracting more energy from the burn before loosing it out the exhaust?
- Slower burn? (Less volatile fuel?)
Would be interesting to find out.
Jim C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Hertner" <effectus(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - Dave Hertner's Reply |
RV-10 Listers,
Thank you to everyone who posted a reply to my question. For those who only
commented on the hypothetical engine, I would still like to hear your reply to
the question posed at the bottom of the post. I am in the process of designing
an engine around this patented and proven (there are working prototypes) combustion
chamber technology.
Some of you think that I am smoking something that I shouldn't and that is
fair considering the fact that I haven't given you all of the details. I did get
some interest though and that was ultimately my goal.
I am looking to go into business designing and building aircraft engines. Clean
sheet of paper stuff. As such, I have spent a great deal of time researching
engines that "propel" aircraft through the air. I came upon this new technology
and it can be adapted easily into an aircraft engine architecture. I am
working with an aeronautical engineer who specializes in propulsion and our first
order of business is to validate the technology and the claims made by its
inventor (PhD nuclear physicist).
Part of the process in preparing the business plan is to establish what the
customer actually wants rather than trying to ram something down their throats.
This is why I put out the question to you folks. I am a pilot and a RV-10 builder
and I know what I think. The problem is that it may not be what you are
all thinking. I am going to build my engine manufacturing company around the
wishes of the community that I want to serve. No more unsecured deposits that
you don't get returned when the engine isn't ready on time!! No more unsubstantiated
claims when it comes to horsepower and fuel consumption.
I was at Oshkosh last year and I heard all of the pitches. I watched people
write cheques for certain turbine engines. One couple was there all the way from
Australia. I wonder how they feel about writing that cheque now!! From the
inception, this company will be an aircraft engine manufacturer with all of the
proper practices you would expect in place before the first engine is sold.
I would love to explain this thing in more detail but I haven't secured the
license to use it yet and I don't want some other enterprising individual to
somehow get in there ahead of me. Suffice it to say that it is not a sterling
cycle engine and it is not and Otto cycle diesel engine. More than that I cannot
say.
Again, thanks for the comments on how you think the builder should be treated
and what information should be made available. Also, thanks for the offer to
be a Beta tester Dan I appreciate that. If anyone is interested in the bigger
picture here and might want to be a part of it, I would be happy to talk about
it off-line and after a non-disclosure agreement is signed.
Regards,
Dave Hertner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DejaVu" <wvu(at)mail.ameritel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe wiring (and a tip) |
products.
Mani, I have them in my -6. They work fine.
Anh
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy DeBauw
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Several people I know do just that. Mainly it is to keep the high voltage away
from any fuel. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 5:09 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Just a thought. What about those Whelan strobes with individual power supplies
that can be mounted in the wing tips. They have more power like higher joules.
They only require a 18g wire to supply power to them. Anyone plan on using
them?
Mani
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:21 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
It took all 15' to get from the wing tip to root. I have not ran the rest
but I'm sure another 10' for a total of 25' will get you there with some to spare.
Anh
Maryland
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Hello
April 21, 2005 - May 04, 2005
RV10-Archive.digest.vol-ae