RV10-Archive.digest.vol-af
May 04, 2005 - May 12, 2005
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: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
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: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
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: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
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: | Sean Stephens <schmoboy(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Self Contained Strobes |
Deleted the other post on this, but...
Which self contained strobe model from Whelen have you used in your
wingtips? SACF?
Thanks...
Sean #40303 (waiting on wing kit)
http://rv10.stephensville.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
Oh boy!
The Emp kit arrived today. Actually, a buddy from work took me down to the
ABF terminal with his truck and trailer to pick up the two boxes. After
bringing it back to the house I had an agonizingly long day at work until I
could get home and start unpacking that puppy.
Weelll, 7 hours later I'm all done, I was only shorted one nutplate in one
of the bags (of the ones I could count things in; I don't have an accurate
scales). That's an awesome job done by the picking and shipping department
at Van's. No damage in transit, and I'm ready to settle in and read all the
info and get to drilling..
Rob #40392
N524RX reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill McCoy <hoverlover9797(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - Dave Hertner's Reply |
Hello, Mark Lamon here. I would be interested in helping you in any way I can.
"I'm building a -10 #40167. Please let me know. Thanks.
Dave Hertner wrote: 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: | "Mani Ravee" <maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Self Contained Strobes |
If you are referring to my post.... It is the Whelen A490 TSCF. I have them
all around on my C172 and they really light her up.
Mani
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Stephens
Subject: RV10-List: Self Contained Strobes
Deleted the other post on this, but...
Which self contained strobe model from Whelen have you used in your
wingtips? SACF?
Thanks...
Sean #40303 (waiting on wing kit)
http://rv10.stephensville.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Got me that time :>} You are correct of coarse.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Wayne,
Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a Gulfstream
for that kinda money. :D
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Hello Rick - If you remember the Roman Numerals what was did the letter M represent?
You got it thousands :>} Wayne
C100 D500 M1000
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Wayne,
Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a Gulfstream
for that kinda money. :D
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Lewis <rv10(at)tpg.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: empennage extras... |
G'day,
I did the same, however the bit with the black goop in it unscrews from
the main cartridge (at least it did on mine, from Vans). I didn't need
to cut or drill anything. Use the black stick to push the plunger in
each part.
Seeya,
Scott Lewis
RV-10 40172 VH-DRS
Adelaide, South Australia
Randy DeBauw wrote:
> 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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology |
Ok, so that would interest me...since we have 400+ RV-10 builders,
I'd think it would actually soon be practical to start talking
about an RV-10 insurance pool group with those upfront costs
of, say $5,000 (your rough figure) to insure ourselves.
The question then comes....what do you do if you get that guy who
wants an alternative engine....maybe that awesome Turbo Supercharged
3 cylinder Geo Metro engine.....or maybe the GM 6.5 Turbodiesel...
powering his RV-10. Now you start getting back in the same boat as
the insurance companies....I'd never want to insure that guy in the
pool unless his premiums were MUCH higher than the tried and true.
Sad facts for the alternative engine buyers.
But, Rick, since you're the insurance guru, if you ever contemplate
setting up such a group, and work the costs and figures, I might
truly be interested in sending my check that way, because it's
sure not going to make me happy to send it to some other place.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Rick wrote:
> Hey.....bottom line? Risk retention...Scott has chosen to accept the
> cost of his aircraft as his retention...or in laymens terms, he has
> a... lets, say $100,000 deductible. I'm not joking here, get ready
> folks...this is the wave of the future in the insurance biz... How about
> we all set up a risk retention group, we put our premium into an account
> instead of the insurance company's pocket, broker out excess coverage
> for losses over $150,000, manage our "contributions" Pay dividends back
> to the members of the group who have participated for say three years
> with no losses and the group manages it's own destiny to include claims.
> Only have to set up a thrid party administrator to handle reciept of the
> contributions and manage the finacial end for say 15% to include claims
> managment. Might take a $5000+ dollar investment up front depending on
> how many people were interested.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
<000a01c55168$59f5b250$6501a8c0@MainOffice>
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Actually Rick K is a computer term which represent 1024bytes so K is 24 to high
for my notation :>}
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Edgerton
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Got me that time :>} You are correct of coarse.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Wayne,
Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a Gulfstream
for that kinda money. :D
Rick S.
40185
Features Subscriptions
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
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: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Alternative Risk Insurance (long) |
Hi listers...
Since I rambled on about alternative insurance last night I think I'll post some
ideas and see what feedback we get.
First off since 9/11 insurance companys that hardly EVER paid out claims were hit
with many policy limit settlements, these companys had insured the Trade Center
for a portion or layer of protection. It sent some out of business. Those
that remained took a real hard look at what they were insuring as some of you
have found out, new business was not their priority unless of course you pony
up their asking price and sometimes not even that would get you covered. If we
could start a retention group or "captive" program then all the participants
become the insurance company and manage it just like an insurance company. They
would approve new applicants or members but the underwriter would be a person
that has knowledge of experimental aircraft and a pool of knowledge to make
a sound descision whether that applicant would be a good risk for everyone. The
down side to these programs is in order to work each person or member has to
commit to signing a joint and several liability agreement.
This basically puts them on notice that they can be assessed for additional money
should the surplus be deleted below the amount that has been established which
determines the abiltiy of the group to pay it's claims. The group would be
responsible for the first and I'm guessing here because I don't have any actuarial
data $50,000 for each claim. After that the excess insurance would pick
up the additional amount. We may not be interested in taking on the liability
coverage and only offer hull coverage. As the builder I would be glad to get my
kit/engine/avionics money back if I was around to rebuild it, some may not.
Liabilty coverage is cheap enough that we may only want to insure our aircraft
initally until the members surplus is stronger.
Pros-
Owned by the members and managed by the same.
Less premium after intial startup
Dividends returned to the memebers annually based on a ratio of claims filed by
that member and premium paid to the group.
Cons-
Starting capital, my groups have almost always required a members surplus of minimum
$1,000,000 to start
But if you take 3000 interested builders/flyers (I'm targeting RV's) and multiply
that by $5000....it adds up.
Excess coverage...might not be able to get it bound. This is the key to the whole
thing working and my closing of this for now. If via word of mouth ask your
fellow builders, if there would be an interest, it would not see any return for
at least three years but as long as the losses were managed and kept to an
acceptable level surplus would grow, dividends would be returned back to the members.
I can only get a serious response if I have some numbers to approach the
reinsurers with to show there is indeed enough interest in getting this to
work. And for all you anti-capitalist people out there, it's a not for profit
business operated for the sole purpose of self insurance. Any fees paid would
be managment fees, which are usually a percentage of premium, claims managment
costs, reinsurance premuim, standard small business insurance coverages for the
board of directors, most of these equate to 35 to 40 percent of the premium
recieved. Ideally the group would want to maintain a low loss ratio of 5 to 10
percent, Something to think about, how many RV-s were damaged destroyed last
year? I will need to do a loss analysis of lost aircraft by year to see if this
is an achievable ratio, main goal is to not deplete the initial investment
surplus.
Whew....and to think I build my airplane to get away from this stuff. Another route
would be approaching the EAA to poll the membership but I think they are
in pretty tight with a few insurance companys who might just take the idea and
run with it themselves. Who would you rather decide if your a good risk? Another
builder who know his stuff or a guy in a cubicle who turns down a pusher because
the twirly thing is on the wrong end of the vehicle (don't laugh, not far
from the truth). In the insurance market the companys are looking for the insureds
to assume more risk, this is just one way to start doing just that but
with the option of getting some of your investment back.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Time for me to chime in I guess (been out of town). There are several companies
touting the greatness of their new engines and all the wonderful advantages
that they'll have. We have everything from turbines to to diesels to auto conversions
to Lycoming clones. Each has their supporters for various reasons, but
when it comes down to getting more than a small following, it's going to take
proof of claims with independent verification. That independent verification
can be somebody running on a dyno to confirm, or simply putting it in an airplane
and demonstrate the HP and fuel burn. It would also be mandatory to have
a firewall forward package to sell very many and I doubt that you'd be able
to sustain a business selling these engines exclusively to RV-10 owners. The
package would have to be cost competitive with a Lycoming FWF package, otherwise
you're again reducing the number of people that you'll be selling to. Finally,
you'll have to deal with insurance (like it or not). Some of us are fortunate
enough to be able to pay for our planes without financing, most probably
are not. With that said, those folks will be required to obtain hull insurance
to enable that financing. Although I've not been tracking it closely, it
appears that even packages that are "relatively" mature and complete like the
Egg Subaru conversion for the 2 place RVs have insurance challenges.
Bob #40105
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
John,
Latest development is that I did in fact switch to a 9A. Although I also flew
a 7A for the first time yesterday and I have to say it wasn't all that twitchy!
Yes, that's right, I switched my order with Van's twice in one week.
(Surprisingly, they weren't annoyed). Funny thing is the 9 is the first
kitplane I ever wanted and seeing the first one at OSH a number of years ago
was part of what got me into flying. (Awestruck at the sight of it, I think I
turned to my girlfriend and exclaimed something on the order of "Shiny, pretty
plane! Me want fly!!".)
There are guys, some in my EAA chapter, that do fly 6s & 7s regularly in IFR
and honestly I have to say after flying a 7 that it just didn't require that
much attention. It goes where you point it and pitch stability is good! But,
I'll gladly give up 10mph or so in cruise and aerobatics, which I'll most
likely never take advantage of (and, hey, you can roll anything) for an even
more stable platform. I will be the first to admit that even a 152 can be a
handful in the clouds!! And my actual IMC experience at this point is slim!!
You're absolutely right about having a helper.. even a sharp non-pilot. Huge
difference.
Anyway, the 9 is certainly the baby brother of the 10. They are essentially
identical in mission.
~Paul
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Rick, give consideration to the initial setup similar to what Lancair is
doing. 16 hours of initial High Performance Ground School (tailored
specifically to the RV-10) and five hours of initial "In the Air" dual
instruction with an Instructor approved by the Insurance Pool. This
would not qualify for the run of the mill CFI going with you for a $100
hamburger. This would not be a canned Safety Seminar Ground School at a
cheap motel. This would be the hard nuts, review of all RV-10 incident
review, unusual attitudes, maintenance of the Powerplant and
airworthiness inspection procedures. Bring out a VANS rep, book
nationally recognized individuals such as Pete Z or Jeff Edwards and a
veteran RV builder.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Hey.....bottom line? Risk retention...Scott has chosen to accept the
cost of his aircraft as his retention...or in laymens terms, he has a...
lets, say $100,000 deductible. I'm not joking here, get ready
folks...this is the wave of the future in the insurance biz... How about
we all set up a risk retention group, we put our premium into an account
instead of the insurance company's pocket, broker out excess coverage
for losses over $150,000, manage our "contributions" Pay dividends back
to the members of the group who have participated for say three years
with no losses and the group manages it's own destiny to include claims.
Only have to set up a thrid party administrator to handle reciept of the
contributions and manage the finacial end for say 15% to include claims
managment. Might take a $5000+ dollar investment up front depending on
how many people were interested.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
to
and
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | RV-10 MT Propeller group buy |
Hi All,
Enough RV-10 builders seem to be ready now to buy their RV-10 MT Propeller.
Also, some of the RV-10 builders will need to order it now, so it arrives in
time.
My group buy price is $7,100 plus shipping from Germany;
Or $7,400 delivered to the closest certified MT Propeller assembly facility.
(Other shipping arrangements can be made.)
The standard list price is $9,380 plus shipping from Germany.
Van's Aircraft now offers this propeller for $8,060 delivered to the closest
certified MT Propeller assembly facility.
There is a two year materials and workmanship warrantee with this propeller
with a 12 month period for installation before the warrantee period starts.
There is about a 10 to 12 week lead time for delivery.
Again, I am asking for the names of people interested in purchasing the
RV-10 MT Propeller, MTV-12-B/193-53, at this time.
Please respond directly to _CustomACProp(at)aol.com_
(mailto:CustomACProp(at)aol.com)
(This is a new division of Less Drag Products, Inc.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
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: | empennage extras... |
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
That's no fun!! You got to use tools man. Cutting and drilling is what it's all
about. Thanks for supplying a easier way. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott Lewis
Subject: Re: RV10-List: empennage extras...
G'day,
I did the same, however the bit with the black goop in it unscrews from
the main cartridge (at least it did on mine, from Vans). I didn't need
to cut or drill anything. Use the black stick to push the plunger in
each part.
Seeya,
Scott Lewis
RV-10 40172 VH-DRS
Adelaide, South Australia
Randy DeBauw wrote:
> 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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
Paul,
That explains why she is your girlfriend......having trouble deciding whether to
marry her or not?
;)
As always just poking fun, Now are you sure this time???? I think I saw a blurb
in the RVator about people placing orders and still didn't know what airplane
they wanted to order and changing their minds several time over the course of
two weeks. Sorta like a kid in the candy shop staring at the display case and
trying to decide which piece he REALLY wants!!
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "son hoang" <son(at)hoangs.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
it all sounds good until the very first claim (especially if there is death or
substantial $$$ involved)
then the concept will fall apart
insurance company and agents do know what they are doing and do provide a service
(albeit for a fee)
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Hey.....bottom line? Risk retention...Scott has chosen to accept the cost of
his aircraft as his retention...or in laymens terms, he has a... lets, say $100,000
deductible. I'm not joking here, get ready folks...this is the wave of the
future in the insurance biz... How about we all set up a risk retention group,
we put our premium into an account instead of the insurance company's pocket,
broker out excess coverage for losses over $150,000, manage our "contributions"
Pay dividends back to the members of the group who have participated for
say three years with no losses and the group manages it's own destiny to include
claims. Only have to set up a thrid party administrator to handle reciept
of the contributions and manage the finacial end for say 15% to include claims
managment. Might take a $5000+ dollar investment up front depending on how many
people were interested.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology |
I would set it up as a percentage of stated value. I think full replacment cost
on the airframe and actual cash value on the avionics if they were to be covered.
Same on the engne, if your 20 hours from TBO your engine is worth considerably
less then one with 1400 TBO. To keep costs down you would exclude petty
items that were previously mentioned like hanger rash. If you screwed up changing
a tire and bent your gear leg, maybe you shouldn't be filing a claim, but
on the other hand your hanger burns...(well you better not have set the fire)
but otherwise there would be coverage. The policy would have to be written and
that's far away, after checking it looks like it would have to be an offshore
captive just to avoid getting every state to buy off on the group as an insurer.
I'm tabeling this until I see how much interest there is out there...then
act on it if there is. Going to figure out how to netwrok it first. Suggestions
welcome.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | empennage extras... |
lol.....I was going to tell you that it unscrewed but you seemed so proud of surgically
seperating the components I didn't have the heart!!!
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
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: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
report
I just saw in the new SportPilot issue that they are expecting to have the
first user-built RV-10's at Oshkosh this year. I know Randy is almost
flying. We hope to have our flying to Oshkosh as well, but how many others
are expected to be flying by then?
It's starting to happen.
Jesse Saint
#40241 Slowbuild on Finishing Kit
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "son hoang" <son(at)hoangs.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 MT Propeller group buy |
does it come completely assembled ? or do we have to pay more $$ for assembly
----- Original Message -----
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:21 AM
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 MT Propeller group buy
Hi All,
Enough RV-10 builders seem to be ready now to buy their RV-10 MT Propeller.
Also, some of the RV-10 builders will need to order it now, so it arrives in time.
My group buy price is $7,100 plus shipping from Germany;
Or $7,400 delivered to the closest certified MT Propeller assembly facility.
(Other shipping arrangements can be made.)
The standard list price is $9,380 plus shipping from Germany.
Van's Aircraft now offers this propeller for $8,060 delivered to the closest
certified MT Propeller assembly facility.
There is a two year materials and workmanship warrantee with this propeller with
a 12 month period for installation before the warrantee period starts.
There is about a 10 to 12 week lead time for delivery.
Again, I am asking for the names of people interested in purchasing the RV-10
MT Propeller, MTV-12-B/193-53, at this time.
Please respond directly to CustomACProp(at)aol.com
(This is a new division of Less Drag Products, Inc.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darton Steve <sfdarton(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Risk Insurance (long) |
What about having a high deductible, that way we would
be "self insured" to an extent and keep the group's
liability down. I would consider a deductible of
$20,000 not unreasonable.
Steve 40212 building wings
--- Rick wrote:
>
>
> Hi listers...
>
> Since I rambled on about alternative insurance last
> night I think I'll post some ideas and see what
> feedback we get.
>
> First off since 9/11 insurance companys that hardly
> EVER paid out claims were hit with many policy limit
> settlements, these companys had insured the Trade
> Center for a portion or layer of protection. It sent
> some out of business. Those that remained took a
> real hard look at what they were insuring as some of
> you have found out, new business was not their
> priority unless of course you pony up their asking
> price and sometimes not even that would get you
> covered. If we could start a retention group or
> "captive" program then all the participants become
> the insurance company and manage it just like an
> insurance company. They would approve new applicants
> or members but the underwriter would be a person
> that has knowledge of experimental aircraft and a
> pool of knowledge to make a sound descision whether
> that applicant would be a good risk for everyone.
> The down side to these programs is in order to work
> each person or member has to commit to signing a
> joint and several liability ag!
> reement.
>
> This basically puts them on notice that they can be
> assessed for additional money should the surplus be
> deleted below the amount that has been established
> which determines the abiltiy of the group to pay
> it's claims. The group would be responsible for the
> first and I'm guessing here because I don't have any
> actuarial data $50,000 for each claim. After that
> the excess insurance would pick up the additional
> amount. We may not be interested in taking on the
> liability coverage and only offer hull coverage. As
> the builder I would be glad to get my
> kit/engine/avionics money back if I was around to
> rebuild it, some may not. Liabilty coverage is cheap
> enough that we may only want to insure our aircraft
> initally until the members surplus is stronger.
>
> Pros-
> Owned by the members and managed by the same.
> Less premium after intial startup
> Dividends returned to the memebers annually based on
> a ratio of claims filed by that member and premium
> paid to the group.
>
> Cons-
> Starting capital, my groups have almost always
> required a members surplus of minimum $1,000,000 to
> start
> But if you take 3000 interested builders/flyers (I'm
> targeting RV's) and multiply that by $5000....it
> adds up.
> Excess coverage...might not be able to get it bound.
> This is the key to the whole thing working and my
> closing of this for now. If via word of mouth ask
> your fellow builders, if there would be an interest,
> it would not see any return for at least three years
> but as long as the losses were managed and kept to
> an acceptable level surplus would grow, dividends
> would be returned back to the members. I can only
> get a serious response if I have some numbers to
> approach the reinsurers with to show there is indeed
> enough interest in getting this to work. And for all
> you anti-capitalist people out there, it's a not for
> profit business operated for the sole purpose of
> self insurance. Any fees paid would be managment
> fees, which are usually a percentage of premium,
> claims managment costs, reinsurance premuim,
> standard small business insurance coverages for the
> board of directors, most of these equate to 35 to 40
> percent of the premium recieved. Ideally the group
> would want to maintain !
> a low loss ratio of 5 to 10 percent, Something to
> think about, how many RV-s were damaged destroyed
> last year? I will need to do a loss analysis of lost
> aircraft by year to see if this is an achievable
> ratio, main goal is to not deplete the initial
> investment surplus.
>
> Whew....and to think I build my airplane to get away
> from this stuff. Another route would be approaching
> the EAA to poll the membership but I think they are
> in pretty tight with a few insurance companys who
> might just take the idea and run with it themselves.
> Who would you rather decide if your a good risk?
> Another builder who know his stuff or a guy in a
> cubicle who turns down a pusher because the twirly
> thing is on the wrong end of the vehicle (don't
> laugh, not far from the truth). In the insurance
> market the companys are looking for the insureds to
> assume more risk, this is just one way to start
> doing just that but with the option of getting some
> of your investment back.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "brian bollaert" <bbollaert(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
This idea is very interesting , 300 people sign up x $5000 1.5 mil.
hhhmm
Brian B
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Hey.....bottom line? Risk retention...Scott has chosen to accept the cost of
his aircraft as his retention...or in laymens terms, he has a... lets, say $100,000
deductible. I'm not joking here, get ready folks...this is the wave of the
future in the insurance biz... How about we all set up a risk retention group,
we put our premium into an account instead of the insurance company's pocket,
broker out excess coverage for losses over $150,000, manage our "contributions"
Pay dividends back to the members of the group who have participated for
say three years with no losses and the group manages it's own destiny to include
claims. Only have to set up a thrid party administrator to handle reciept
of the contributions and manage the finacial end for say 15% to include claims
managment. Might take a $5000+ dollar investment up front depending on how many
people were interested.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 MT Propeller group buy |
Van's $8,060 price is for delivery disassembled to your closest assembly
facility. The $7,400 group buy price is for the same delivery. A $660 savings
from Van's price.
By comparison, my normal price with delivery to the closest certified MT
Propeller assembly facility is only a $30 savings off of Van's price.
An MT Propeller can be delivered assembled to the closest international
airport directly from Germany.
The RV-10 MT Propeller group buy price would be about $8,100 for delivery in
this manner. The specific cost to an international airports varies by plus
or minus $150.
For assembly in Southern California, I charge $300. I believe I am the
least expensive of the certified MT Propeller assembly facilities in the USA.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/05/2005 10:21:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
son(at)hoangs.com writes:
does it come completely assembled ? or do we have to pay more $$ for
assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Anyone close to flying with MT Prop? |
| From: | "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com> |
Is anyone close to flying installing the MT prop? It would be nice to at least
get some impressions from a builder.
Niko
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
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: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology |
report
I would be interested in this type of a deal.
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 Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology
I would set it up as a percentage of stated value. I think full replacment
cost on the airframe and actual cash value on the avionics if they were to
be covered. Same on the engne, if your 20 hours from TBO your engine is
worth considerably less then one with 1400 TBO. To keep costs down you would
exclude petty items that were previously mentioned like hanger rash. If you
screwed up changing a tire and bent your gear leg, maybe you shouldn't be
filing a claim, but on the other hand your hanger burns...(well you better
not have set the fire) but otherwise there would be coverage. The policy
would have to be written and that's far away, after checking it looks like
it would have to be an offshore captive just to avoid getting every state to
buy off on the group as an insurer. I'm tabeling this until I see how much
interest there is out there...then act on it if there is. Going to figure
out how to netwrok it first. Suggestions welcome.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris , Susie McGough" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel selector valve |
Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when using a fuel
injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure how it all works.
Regards Chris,
----- Original Message -----
From: Mani Ravee
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: My Sun-N-Fun Experience (Long)
Tim, glad that I met you. And all the others....although I did not get to join
you guys for recreation. Was staying with friends and "had to be nice".
I did not get to see all the airshows either. I was more keen on drinkin up all
the info the vendors had to offer.
GRT - Spoke to Todd at great length. Their displays are a bit dull/dim when compared
to the blue mountain and chelton displays. But I can see that support
and funtionality will be absolutely top notch. Todd did admit that their processor
was not as fast as the others. But it has EVERYTHING! And at a price that
is very doable. I dont know if you guys checked out the OP Technologies EFIS
and PFD. Crystal clear hi res and extremely versatile. Big ones too. They are
upstarts, broke away from honeywell. Met their president, an extremely nice and
resourceful chap. Pricey! Blue mountain folks were not so friendly and had an
air about them. Displays, especially the big one was awesome. Dont know if I
will buy from them though. Chelton- what can you say? Absolutely the best if
you got the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But, Josh there let me on a lil secre...t soon to
be announced to RV10 builders, believe it or not. I guess they are seeing competition/loss
of market share. :) Even the Avidyne EX500 looked very good. Have
brought back tons of brochures from all of them which I have to peruse.
Agreed! the fiberglass panels that Randy was helping with or "modeling" in front
of, :) were indeed the cats meow. I will also be going that route I think.
They had the warmth of two tone finishes and looked extremely professional -
one would never achieve that degree of detail and good finish with fabbing it
at home. Looks better than the inside of a GM car. So you get the idea. I did
not order yet as I am still a ways from being able to play with panels.
Speaking of panels, met this young man around the RV10 who is putting together
a software to be able to design/play with creating a panel. ( I know about the
other "panel ware", but this is new) He gave me a beta ver on a CD. Have not
yet had time to play eith it but will post feedback. Dont remember his name,
but will post when I get home tonight.
Did some digging in the alternative engines area. Wish I could call them the
mainstream engines. Met Jan Egg and Chuck Nearhoof. Very nice guys, both of them,
took a lot of time to talk with me. Jan's firewall forward kit is impressive.
Lots of detail and looks very finished and nice. He also informed me that
there will be a 3.0 liter version of the H6 with about 245 - 255 HP supercharged
which may suit the RV10 verywell. Although he hastened to add that it is in
the works at Subaru and has not seen the light of day yet. But, Subaru is not
vaporware like many others. Innodyn, awesome. They had, chuck says, started production
at last. Had 4 actual production models there - not prototypes. The
quality of the constuction and finish looked EXTREMELY nice. When asked about
the weight or the lack thereof, he said they are working on a "twinpack" design
which would add adequate weight. It will be two of their smaller turbines with
a common drive, engineered to run even whe n one turbine is lost. Interesting.
If that takes off, they got my money. Think of a ten with turbine engine?
Not the crazy huge stuff that people are retrofitting. Innodyne would be sweet.
Have to wait on that. Spoke to ECI for their 540 kit. Was told that a complete
540 kit will be ready later this year or early next. They are engineering their
cases and some of the other stuff now. They have their own forging plant
for their cranks and use their proprietary metalurgy and treatments for hardening.
Not Lycoming's.
This is long enough, will write more if others are interested.
You are right Tim, lets make a " Show of Force" in OSH this year. It could well
be the
"Year of the 10"
Mani
Tim Olson wrote:
Hi all,
I didn't end up flying the Sundowner down to SNF this year, due
to the higher winds that were on my route, but I did go commercial
and made it there. I'm EXTREMELY glad I did. I was slightly
disappointed as to the size of the event. My guess is that there
are many many more vendors both large and small that show up
at OSH, and much greater attendance by planes flying in.
The layout of the show itself is nicer at OSH too. But, that
said, this show accomplished what I wanted it to.
First of all, I did get to meet maybe 10 or 15 other RV-10 builders.
There were others there that did not meet. I got to have dinner with
Ahn Vu, William Curtis, and Randy DeBauw and associated friends and
family. They're all very nice people.
One highlight of my trip was se eing the Aerocraft RV-10 panels.
Just before the show, when Randy said he'd be hanging out in their
booth, I emailed Randy and told him "Those panels look nice, but I'm
not really a molded fiberglass panel kind of guy." I myself really
like the look of a nice flat metal panel. But, when I walked into
Aerocraft, I was truly amazed. Those panels were beautiful! They
looked nice, felt nice, and truly look professional. They had
I believe 3 or 4 RV-10 panels on display, with at least 2 different
panel variations, and one with the new throttle quadrant in it.
Here are some photos:
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/panel/snfpanels/index.html
The deal at the show was this: Put down a $2500 REFUNDABLE deposit
(30 days refundable) at the show, and the panel itself would be
FREE. (The panel separate was estimated at $1400-1600) Free was
a pretty good price, so I listened on. Then, they'll run through
NUMEROUS revisions with you in picking out you r instruments and layout,
and they'll draw it up in CAD to get your approval and make sure it
all fits. Once you say "GO", your 30 day deposit time starts. They
will sell you all your instruments, laser cut your panel, do the paint
and powdercoat, install/wire/test your avionics, and then ship you
your completed panel. Not only is it wired, but it's extremely
meticulously wired. They showed me how on the heat-shrink wire labels
how they even label the wires to that when you're UNDER the panel
hooking things up, you can read them. If they route a wire on the
top of a bundle at the start of the run, it's still on the top
of the bundle at the end. Everything is straight and clean.
The sad part for me was that electrical stuff is my favorite. I
don't mind banging rivets, I hate deburring and fiberglassing, but
I LOVE wiring. But, when I started to think of the benefits, I
decided this was the right way to go. It saves literally HUNDRED S
of hours in research and wiring components. Not only that, but I
don't have to try to locate and install every last electrical
connector. And I get to spend that time with my kids. By the way,
the Throttle quadrant layout was very awesome. That thing operates
really smoothly.
Next, I got to visit GRT to see their system. I was really impressed.
They have more features than I ever imagined. They can even do
satellite weather now, on their map, for only $1500 as opposed to
the others costing upwards of $5000. The one loss in the whole thing
was that I REALLY liked the display of the ACS2005...I think that's
the nicest, cleanest, EIS that I've ever seen. But, the GRT EIS
only runs an additional $1200 approx for the IO-540, and there was
another benefit. I've now decided on a 3-screen GRT system. An
over/under display on the left side of the panel, and the single
screen on the right. The cool part is that I can now put my
EIS whereve r I want it. If I decide I want a horizon display on the
co-pilot side, a couple of button pushes does it. If I want that
screen to be a moving map with weather, that can be done. It really
gives you some extreme flexibility. In the end, the cost savings
really added up for me, to the point that I could now afford to get
that panel pre-wired and still probably save money. My goal of
the trip was mainly to see GRT, but I ended up making some significant
changes and adding functionality to my panel...at a lower cost.
The other nice show feature for me was being able to see my RV-10
seat at Cleaveland Aircraft Tools. DJ's custom interiors is doing
my seat covers, and their demo cover that was on display looked
really nice. It's not as fancy as the Oregon cover with it's
gusseted (sp?) lumbar pouch, and it wasn't leather, but they'll
do very nicely for me at a good cost savings. I didn't get any
final pricing yet, but they estimated that the rear seats will
cost about the same as an RV-7 seat set, and the front will
probably cost similar, as the stitching is harder, but they don't
need to include the foam. Randy's now also got his RV-10 seats
from Flightline interiors. They price the front set at $650, and
the rear at $675 with foam included, so that shows they also
consider the stitching on the front seat to be a little tougher.
When Mike gets final pricing published, I'll make sure to pass
it out along with photos of my seats. It's nice to know though
that for only in the neighborhood of $1300, a person can have
fully upholstered seats for the RV-10....a far cry from the
OEM standard that was used in the demo planes.
I didn't even take one picture of the RV-10 at the show...sorry. If
someone else has some they want posted, I can do that. I didn't
get to watch any planes fly, but for me, the show was a success.
I can't hardly wait for OSH this year. That show blows SN F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | Fuel selector valve |
report
If you're building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for is the
IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be right.
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 Chris , Susie
McGough
Subject: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when using a
fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure how it all
works.
Regards Chris,
----- Original Message -----
From: Mani <mailto:maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> Ravee
Subject: Re: RV10-List: My Sun-N-Fun Experience (Long)
Tim, glad that I met you. And all the others....although I did not get to
join you guys for recreation. Was staying with friends and "had to be nice".
I did not get to see all the airshows either. I was more keen on drinkin up
all the info the vendors had to offer.
GRT - Spoke to Todd at great length. Their displays are a bit dull/dim when
compared to the blue mountain and chelton displays. But I can see that
support and funtionality will be absolutely top notch. Todd did admit that
their processor was not as fast as the others. But it has EVERYTHING! And at
a price that is very doable. I dont know if you guys checked out the OP
Technologies EFIS and PFD. Crystal clear hi res and extremely versatile. Big
ones too. They are upstarts, broke away from honeywell. Met their president,
an extremely nice and resourceful chap. Pricey! Blue mountain folks were not
so friendly and had an air about them. Displays, especially the big one was
awesome. Dont know if I will buy from them though. Chelton- what can you
say? Absolutely the best if you got the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But, Josh there let
me on a lil secre...t soon to be announced to RV10 builders, believe it or
not. I guess they are seeing competition/loss of market share. :) Even the
Avidyne EX500 looked very good. Have brought back tons of brochures from all
of them which I have to peruse.
Agreed! the fiberglass panels that Randy was helping with or "modeling" in
front of, :) were indeed the cats meow. I will also be going that route I
think. They had the warmth of two tone finishes and looked extremely
professional - one would never achieve that degree of detail and good finish
with fabbing it at home. Looks better than the inside of a GM car. So you
get the idea. I did not order yet as I am still a ways from being able to
play with panels.
Speaking of panels, met this young man around the RV10 who is putting
together a software to be able to design/play with creating a panel. ( I
know about the other "panel ware", but this is new) He gave me a beta ver on
a CD. Have not yet had time to play eith it but will post feedback. Dont
remember his name, but will post when I get home tonight.
Did some digging in the alternative engines area. Wish I could call them the
mainstream engines. Met Jan Egg and Chuck Nearhoof. Very nice guys, both of
them, took a lot of time to talk with me. Jan's firewall forward kit is
impressive. Lots of detail and looks very finished and nice. He also
informed me that there will be a 3.0 liter version of the H6 with about 245
- 255 HP supercharged which may suit the RV10 verywell. Although he hastened
to add that it is in the works at Subaru and has not seen the light of day
yet. But, Subaru is not vaporware like many others. Innodyn, awesome. They
had, chuck says, started production at last. Had 4 actual production models
there - not prototypes. The quality of the constuction and finish looked
EXTREMELY nice. When asked about the weight or the lack thereof, he said
they are working on a "twinpack" design which would add adequate weight. It
will be two of their smaller turbines with a common drive, engineered to run
even whe n one turbine is lost. Interesting. If that takes off, they got my
money. Think of a ten with turbine engine? Not the crazy huge stuff that
people are retrofitting. Innodyne would be sweet. Have to wait on that.
Spoke to ECI for their 540 kit. Was told that a complete 540 kit will be
ready later this year or early next. They are engineering their cases and
some of the other stuff now. They have their own forging plant for their
cranks and use their proprietary metalurgy and treatments for hardening. Not
Lycoming's.
This is long enough, will write more if others are interested.
You are right Tim, lets make a " Show of Force" in OSH this year. It could
well be the
"Year of the 10"
<http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/01.gif> Mani
Tim Olson wrote:
Hi all,
I didn't end up flying the Sundowner down to SNF this year, due
to the higher winds that were on my route, but I did go commercial
and made it there. I'm EXTREMELY glad I did. I was slightly
disappointed as to the size of the event. My guess is that there
are many many more vendors both large and small that show up
at OSH, and much greater attendance by planes flying in.
The layout of the show itself is nicer at OSH too. But, that
said, this show accomplished what I wanted it to.
First of all, I did get to meet maybe 10 or 15 other RV-10 builders.
There were others there that did not meet. I got to have dinner with
Ahn Vu, William Curtis, and Randy DeBauw and associated friends and
family. They're all very nice people.
One highlight of my trip was se eing the Aerocraft RV-10 panels.
Just before the show, when Randy said he'd be hanging out in their
booth, I emailed Randy and told him "Those panels look nice, but I'm
not really a molded fiberglass panel kind of guy." I myself really
like the look of a nice flat metal panel. But, when I walked into
Aerocraft, I was truly amazed. Those panels were beautiful! They
looked nice, felt nice, and truly look professional. They had
I believe 3 or 4 RV-10 panels on display, with at least 2 different
panel variations, and one with the new throttle quadrant in it.
Here are some photos:
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/panel/snfpanels/index.html
The deal at the show was this: Put down a $2500 REFUNDABLE deposit
(30 days refundable) at the show, and the panel itself would be
FREE. (The panel separate was estimated at $1400-1600) Free was
a pretty good price, so I listened on. Then, they'll run through
NUMEROUS revisions with you in picking out you r instruments and layout,
and they'll draw it up in CAD to get your approval and make sure it
all fits. Once you say "GO", your 30 day deposit time starts. They
will sell you all your instruments, laser cut your panel, do the paint
and powdercoat, install/wire/test your avionics, and then ship you
your completed panel. Not only is it wired, but it's extremely
meticulously wired. They showed me how on the heat-shrink wire labels
how they even label the wires to that when you're UNDER the panel
hooking things up, you can read them. If they route a wire on the
top of a bundle at the start of the run, it's still on the top
of the bundle at the end. Everything is straight and clean.
The sad part for me was that electrical stuff is my favorite. I
don't mind banging rivets, I hate deburring and fiberglassing, but
I LOVE wiring. But, when I started to think of the benefits, I
decided this was the right way to go. It saves literally HUNDRED S
of hours in research and wiring components. Not only that, but I
don't have to try to locate and install every last electrical
connector. And I get to spend that time with my kids. By the way,
the Throttle quadrant layout was very awesome. That thing operates
really smoothly.
Next, I got to visit GRT to see their system. I was really impressed.
They have more features than I ever imagined. They can even do
satellite weather now, on their map, for only $1500 as opposed to
the others costing upwards of $5000. The one loss in the whole thing
was that I REALLY liked the display of the ACS2005...I think that's
the nicest, cleanest, EIS that I've ever seen. But, the GRT EIS
only runs an additional $1200 approx for the IO-540, and there was
another benefit. I've now decided on a 3-screen GRT system. An
over/under display on the left side of the panel, and the single
screen on the right. The cool part is that I can now put my
EIS whereve r I want it. If I decide I want a horizon display on the
co-pilot side, a couple of button pushes does it. If I want that
screen to be a moving map with weather, that can be done. It really
gives you some extreme flexibility. In the end, the cost savings
really added up for me, to the point that I could now afford to get
that panel pre-wired and still probably save money. My goal of
the trip was mainly to see GRT, but I ended up making some significant
changes and adding functionality to my panel...at a lower cost.
The other nice show feature for me was being able to see my RV-10
seat at Cleaveland Aircraft Tools. DJ's custom interiors is doing
my seat covers, and their demo cover that was on display looked
really nice. It's not as fancy as the Oregon cover with it's
gusseted (sp?) lumbar pouch, and it wasn't leather, but they'll
do very nicely for me at a good cost savings. I didn't get any
final pricing yet, but they estimated that the rear seats will
cost about the same as an RV-7 seat set, and the front will
probably cost similar, as the stitching is harder, but they don't
need to include the foam. Randy's now also got his RV-10 seats
from Flightline interiors. They price the front set at $650, and
the rear at $675 with foam included, so that shows they also
consider the stitching on the front seat to be a little tougher.
When Mike gets final pricing published, I'll make sure to pass
it out along with photos of my seats. It's nice to know though
that for only in the neighborhood of $1300, a person can have
fully upholstered seats for the RV-10....a far cry from the
OEM standard that was used in the demo planes.
I didn't even take one picture of the RV-10 at the show...sorry. If
someone else has some they want posted, I can do that. I didn't
get to watch any planes fly, but for me, the show was a success.
I can't hardly wait for OSH this year. That show blows SN F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Sargeant" <k5wiv(at)amsat.org> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Though I'm not building yet, may change from a -10 to a -7a, of may never
start (for financial or age reasons), I am very interested in this option.
I will continue to monitor this thread, and when and if I start building,
will follow up again.
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 Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
I think we are just checking out hull coverage right now, liability would be
through standard carriers. The group would be resonsible up to a set value
then excess coverage would indemnify the balance. That's the hook, getting
that coverage in place. I do this type of risk managment for Berkley Risk
www.berkleyrisk.com It can be done, just takes enough interest and capital.
I was feeling out the population to see if there was any interest in getting
involved in this type of program. And no I'm not marketing it for this
company, just thought it would be a way for everyone to get better rates, a
peice of ownership in their investment of premium.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Curtis <wcurtis(at)core.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.
OK, Ill bite, the first time someone said something like this to me, I was a new
pilot and I figured seems to make sense, so I did not explore further. Since
then however, Ive gained a bit more experience and now I think this is totally
bunk. If you can keep a responsive plane upright looking out the window,
then any challenge in keeping it upright in the clouds is a statement about
the pilot, not the plane.
Lets face it, before fly-by-wire, military fighters, which are arguable more responsive
than RVs, were hand flown in IFR. Granted they probably had more training
than the average pilot but I think if this was a huge problem, there would
not have been any all weather interceptors.
Compared to most Cessnas, the Cardinal is very responsive in roll. I dont find
it much harder to fly IFR than say a Skyhawk. Maybe its because I flew it
in the clouds without an autopilot for years before I finally could afford a autopilot.
Its uncommon that great seat of the pants pilots are also good instrument pilots.
I consider myself a poor seat of the pants pilot, but a good instrument
pilot. I think a better statement is that the sportier RVs (4, 6, 7, & 8)
enhance the seat of the pants experience which these same pilots rely on in
IMC to their detriment.
William Curtis
#40237 - wings
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector valve |
This calls to mind a question (maybe a dumb one, but I don't know), is
there a reason to not have a fuel selector that has a "both" position
similar to the Cessna's... is it a low wing thing, a fuel pump thing, or
just a style thing? It seems like one of those things that would be nice
to not have to think about all the time. I'm sure I'd get in the habit,
but on the other hand i've seen plenty of ntsb reports that say
something similar to "fuel selector was set to the left tank. Left tank,
carb, and fuel lines deviod of fuel. X gallons remaining in right tank.
Probable cause: poor fuel management"
James
Jesse Saint wrote:
> If youre building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for
> is the IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be
> right.
>
> 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] *On Behalf Of *Chris ,
> Susie McGough
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:39 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
> Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when
> using a fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure
> how it all works.
>
[snipola]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
I don't want to belabor this thread, so this will be my last input on the
topic, but I wanted to share a post that was made in 2001 on the RV
Matronics list having to do with RV's and IFR. I think Jack does a nice job
of stating what I believe William states, and I happen to agree. These
planes can be flown IFR if properly equipped and if the person flying them
is properly trained and current. I just think that the RV-10 and RV-9 would
be much easier than a quicker responding RV-7 or RV-8. Nuff said.
Here is the post...and thanks to Jack for his input...
I'm instrument rated and always intended to use my RV-6A primarily for IFR
cross country flights. To date I've flown my airplane 82.4 hours, 1.9 in
actual IMC, and have flown seven instrument approaches in actual weather.
With all humility, I can say that my RV-6A is the best equipped for IFR
operations of any RV I have ever seen in real life or photographs. It is
equipped with an S-Tec System 50 two-axis autopilot, among many other
things. I say this because I think that single-pilot IFR is, arguably, the
most difficult of the tasks commonly performed by a pilot, and it's great to
have an airplane equipped and designed in a way that makes IFR operations,
especially instrument approaches, as easy as possible. Admittedly, it all
costs money, adds weight, and diminishes aerobatic capability, so each of us
has to make the choices that are best for himself.
My observations, for what they're worth, are: (a) the RV-6A is more
difficult to fly on instruments than the Piper Archers and Warriors I used
to fly because it will depart from straight and level flight more quickly,
but it is certainly controllable by a proficient pilot; (b) I think it is
especially important for one to maintain one's currency in his/her RV
through frequent practice approaches (something I haven't done
conscientiously in recent months); (c) a two-axis autopilot is great, but I
would say that it's only marginally more useful than a wing leveler; (d)
cockpit organization is more difficult than in an airplane with a control
yoke because one needs to find a different place for the approach plate and
timer; and (e) good panel and cockpit lighting are essential for night IFR
operations, especially approaches flown with your approach plate on a
kneeboard.
Importantly, I deliberately designed my airplane so that everything would be
in my hands to the extent possible, so that I wouldn't have to distract
myself during IFR operations moving my hands and looking for or operating
switches, levers, or whatever. Thus, I have flap, autopilot disconnect, PTT,
and landing light switches in my stick grip along with a coolie hat switch
for roll and pitch trim. My radio stack is directly above my throttle, prop,
carburetor heat, and mixture controls. My transponder is a KT76C so I don't
have to turn a knob for each digit of my squawk code. As I fly the approach
with my right hand on the stick grip and my left on the throttle, everything
I need is at hand, so to speak. I commend this approach to anyone who is
interested in IFR flight with his/her RV.
Finally, I hasten to add that I don't agree with Mike Seager that RVs
shouldn't be equipped for or flown IFR. My airplane is heavy, 1184 basic
weight, but it was a tradeoff I made deliberately, and I'm glad I did. I
agree with the observation made by one of the others who responded to this
posting that an IFR-equipped airplane is a safer one.
I often reflect on the proposition that, if Bill and Jeremy Benedict had had
IFR capability in the RV in which they bought the farm, they might still be
alive. Something to think about, anyway.
Best wishes,
Jack Abell
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Subject: RV10-List: 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.
OK, I'll bite, the first time someone said something like this to me, I was
a new pilot and I figured "seems to make sense", so I did not explore
further. Since then however, I've gained a bit more experience and now I
think this is totally bunk. If you can keep a responsive plane upright
looking out the window, then any challenge in keeping it upright in the
clouds is a statement about the pilot, not the plane.
Let's face it, before fly-by-wire, military fighters, which are arguable
more responsive than RVs, were hand flown in IFR. Granted they probably had
more training than the average pilot but I think if this was a huge problem,
there would not have been any all weather interceptors.
Compared to most Cessnas, the Cardinal is very responsive in roll. I don't
find it much harder to fly IFR than say a Skyhawk. Maybe it's because I flew
it in the clouds without an autopilot for years before I finally could
afford a autopilot.
It's uncommon that great "seat of the pants" pilots are also good instrument
pilots. I consider myself a poor "seat of the pants" pilot, but a good
instrument pilot. I think a better statement is that the sportier RVs (4, 6,
7, & 8) enhance the "seat of the pants" experience which these same pilots
rely on in IMC to their detriment.
William Curtis
#40237 - wings
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
I agree with William. I had a Piper and was in the process of buying a Bonanza
and they, Piper lovers, kept telling me not to buy one because they are to fast
and slick, you will have a hard time in heavy IFR. I didn't find any of that
to be true as long as I paid attention to the instruments. I flew it about 700
hrs before buying another plane and never felt is was to nimble in IFR. The
Piper was slower, thus giving you more time to think things through, and more
control heavy compared to the Bonanza but once I was used to the difference it
just became second nature.
----- Original Message -----
From: William Curtis
To: RV10-List(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:33 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 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.
OK, I'll bite, the first time someone said something like this to me, I was a
new pilot and I figured "seems to make sense", so I did not explore further.
Since then however, I've gained a bit more experience and now I think this is
totally bunk. If you can keep a responsive plane upright looking out the window,
then any challenge in keeping it upright in the clouds is a statement about
the pilot, not the plane.
Let's face it, before fly-by-wire, military fighters, which are arguable more
responsive than RVs, were hand flown in IFR. Granted they probably had more training
than the average pilot but I think if this was a huge problem, there would
not have been any all weather interceptors.
Compared to most Cessnas, the Cardinal is very responsive in roll. I don't find
it much harder to fly IFR than say a Skyhawk. Maybe it's because I flew it
in the clouds without an autopilot for years before I finally could afford a autopilot.
It's uncommon that great "seat of the pants" pilots are also good instrument
pilots. I consider myself a poor "seat of the pants" pilot, but a good instrument
pilot. I think a better statement is that the sportier RVs (4, 6, 7, & 8)
enhance the "seat of the pants" experience which these same pilots rely on in
IMC to their detriment.
William Curtis
#40237 - wings
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mani Ravee" <maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel selector valve |
Yes, I do have to admit that this one IS one I would do. Why switch tanks
when they can be easily engineered to drain from both. An astute pilot still
would monitor the fuel anyway. Just like I do on my 172. What ideas have we
to accomplish this? Me, I am a poor for invention MD. Let's hear it from the
engineers. This, in my opinion would add to overall safety considerably and
reduce pilot workload in single pilot IFR environments that we all would be
flying. Good thought James!
Mani Ravee, MD MC
Pulmonary Medicine & Critical Care
Maj. US Army Medical Corps
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
This calls to mind a question (maybe a dumb one, but I don't know), is
there a reason to not have a fuel selector that has a "both" position
similar to the Cessna's... is it a low wing thing, a fuel pump thing, or
just a style thing? It seems like one of those things that would be nice
to not have to think about all the time. I'm sure I'd get in the habit,
but on the other hand i've seen plenty of ntsb reports that say
something similar to "fuel selector was set to the left tank. Left tank,
carb, and fuel lines deviod of fuel. X gallons remaining in right tank.
Probable cause: poor fuel management"
James
Jesse Saint wrote:
> If you're building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for
> is the IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be
> right.
>
> 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] *On Behalf Of *Chris ,
> Susie McGough
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:39 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
> Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when
> using a fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure
> how it all works.
>
[snipola]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob.kaufmann" <bob.kaufmann(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
K is also found right smack in the middle between J and M. Go figure. The
risk pool starts a good thought going. Count me in Rick. Bob K
_____
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
"K" is also the type code for heavy wall copper pipe. 8*) KABONG Do Not
Archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne <mailto:weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Actually Rick K is a computer term which represent 1024bytes so K is 24 to
high for my notation :>}
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne <mailto:weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Got me that time :>} You are correct of coarse.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick <mailto:ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Wayne,
Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a
Gulfstream for that kinda money. :D
Rick S.
40185
========================================= Features Subscriptions
====================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Hertner" <effectus(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Mark Lamon #40269 |
1.34 SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID Subject contains a unique ID
Mark,
Contact Dave Hertner at effectus(at)rogers.com Your post didn't include your e-mail
address.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel selector valve |
No, No, No....Don't do it.
There is a reason that most low wing aircraft don't have a "both" position.
Your 172 is ENTIRELY different when it comes to fuel system design. There
are multiple reasons, I'll quickly list a few here.
#1) In a high wing airplane, your fuel is gravity fed, and both wing tanks
are usually vented and plumbed together from a fuel standpoint. This means
the fuel naturally when flowing down heads to the engine on it's own. In
most cases, the fuel in both tanks will remain relatively level.
#2) In your low wing airplane, fuel must be sucked from the tanks and pumped
to the engine. Low wing airplanes with multiple tanks and a "both" position
have a nasty habit of emptying one tank first, then sucking air from the
empy tank whilst you still have another tank that will be perfectly full.
#3) Your RV tanks are vented independently. Any sligh variation in plumbing
without tying the vents together WILL result in one tank emptying before the
other, OR worse yet, fuel being pushed from one tank to the other and
overboard (assuming you ahve the tanks tied together like your high wing).
No matter how you slice it, it's a bad idea. Yes, there are ways to do it,
but messing around with a perfectly good fuel system for no reason is asking
for trouble. This is not something to take lightly, and it's NOT a simple
matter of buying a fuel selector with a "both" position and plopping it in
the middle of your plane. Do that, and you WILL have problems sooner or
later.
Sorry if this note came across harsh, but this subject seems to come up
every once and awhile....a quick search of the archives will give you a
whole pile of information on this issue.
Cheers,
Stein - Airplane Builder & Flier
-----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: Fuel selector valve
Yes, I do have to admit that this one IS one I would do. Why switch tanks
when they can be easily engineered to drain from both. An astute pilot still
would monitor the fuel anyway. Just like I do on my 172. What ideas have we
to accomplish this? Me, I am a poor for invention MD. Let's hear it from the
engineers. This, in my opinion would add to overall safety considerably and
reduce pilot workload in single pilot IFR environments that we all would be
flying. Good thought James!
Mani Ravee, MD MC
Pulmonary Medicine & Critical Care
Maj. US Army Medical Corps
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
This calls to mind a question (maybe a dumb one, but I don't know), is
there a reason to not have a fuel selector that has a "both" position
similar to the Cessna's... is it a low wing thing, a fuel pump thing, or
just a style thing? It seems like one of those things that would be nice
to not have to think about all the time. I'm sure I'd get in the habit,
but on the other hand i've seen plenty of ntsb reports that say
something similar to "fuel selector was set to the left tank. Left tank,
carb, and fuel lines deviod of fuel. X gallons remaining in right tank.
Probable cause: poor fuel management"
James
Jesse Saint wrote:
> If you're building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for
> is the IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be
> right.
>
> 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] *On Behalf Of *Chris ,
> Susie McGough
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:39 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
> Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when
> using a fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure
> how it all works.
>
[snipola]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
I had dinner my Insurance Underwriter this evening just to ask about
Rick's point and he reports the engine used in an RV has not been an
issue in setting rates. End of that discussion with him. Who builds it
is, their specific experience at building does and the hull value
reflects what is done. Put a turbine in it and the company goes "Whoa,
wait a minute". Mega hull coverage. I asked a second time on the issue
of (that dirty word Alternate Powerplant), second reply, no issue. No
change in rate. Now that does not denote encouragement on a topic which
can place me in purgatory with the lurkers on this list about AE. So I
must have my wires crossed.
First question, yes, Lancair has endorsed, encouraged and sponsored
regular High Performance Ground School Training. Both at their annual
picnic in September and at Sun "N Fun. I have done it , its worth it, I
endorse it. I encourage this group to consider it. When the number of
low experience pilots complete a kit built aircraft and do not
coincidentally pursue appropriate advanced training there is a
measurable result. On the Yak list, they had a significant increase in
gear up, prop strike incidents, last fall. They quickly took the
initiative, became proactive and implemented a training syllabus. It
was a shocking reality that numerous Lancair IVP builders were spending
scores of months building beautiful aircraft only to get hit with the
hard statistics of lack of qualified training results in claims which
raise rates or make availability like winning a lottery. I certainly
don't purport to set the bar but it is now a worthy discussion prior to
the flying statistics to soon include RV-10s.
Count me in on a pool for hull coverage if written correctly and with
appropriates checks against frivolous claims.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
John,
All of that would fall into loss control measures. I hadn't even thought
about that portion yet but it would have to be addressed and those ideas
are a great starting place. Does Lancair have a program now? From an
aviation viewpoint I would consider them harder to insure just because
of the higher performance numbers. It would really make sense for that
group of builders although their numbers are smaller and their risk of
higher incurred claims cost is greater.
Rick
to
and
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mani Ravee" <maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel selector valve |
Well, so much for a great idea. Thanks Stein. :)
Mani
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stein Bruch
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
No, No, No....Don't do it.
There is a reason that most low wing aircraft don't have a "both" position.
Your 172 is ENTIRELY different when it comes to fuel system design. There
are multiple reasons, I'll quickly list a few here.
#1) In a high wing airplane, your fuel is gravity fed, and both wing tanks
are usually vented and plumbed together from a fuel standpoint. This means
the fuel naturally when flowing down heads to the engine on it's own. In
most cases, the fuel in both tanks will remain relatively level.
#2) In your low wing airplane, fuel must be sucked from the tanks and pumped
to the engine. Low wing airplanes with multiple tanks and a "both" position
have a nasty habit of emptying one tank first, then sucking air from the
empy tank whilst you still have another tank that will be perfectly full.
#3) Your RV tanks are vented independently. Any sligh variation in plumbing
without tying the vents together WILL result in one tank emptying before the
other, OR worse yet, fuel being pushed from one tank to the other and
overboard (assuming you ahve the tanks tied together like your high wing).
No matter how you slice it, it's a bad idea. Yes, there are ways to do it,
but messing around with a perfectly good fuel system for no reason is asking
for trouble. This is not something to take lightly, and it's NOT a simple
matter of buying a fuel selector with a "both" position and plopping it in
the middle of your plane. Do that, and you WILL have problems sooner or
later.
Sorry if this note came across harsh, but this subject seems to come up
every once and awhile....a quick search of the archives will give you a
whole pile of information on this issue.
Cheers,
Stein - Airplane Builder & Flier
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector valve |
Hi Stein - You know I had George Orendorff tell me the same thing as you
just submitted and I believe both of you guys. I've never owned a Cessna,
but I've flown a few and I noticed on the 172SP, for instance, on a long
cross country I made that it didn't burn very evenly when on both. I thought
the gauge was broke because one was empting much quicker than the other but
the mechanic told me that they just don't burn off that evenly.
However on the Beechcraft that I've owned there was a both selection which
seemed to work great.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
> No, No, No....Don't do it.
>
> There is a reason that most low wing aircraft don't have a "both"
> position.
> Your 172 is ENTIRELY different when it comes to fuel system design. There
> are multiple reasons, I'll quickly list a few here.
>
> #1) In a high wing airplane, your fuel is gravity fed, and both wing tanks
> are usually vented and plumbed together from a fuel standpoint. This
> means
> the fuel naturally when flowing down heads to the engine on it's own. In
> most cases, the fuel in both tanks will remain relatively level.
>
> #2) In your low wing airplane, fuel must be sucked from the tanks and
> pumped
> to the engine. Low wing airplanes with multiple tanks and a "both"
> position
> have a nasty habit of emptying one tank first, then sucking air from the
> empy tank whilst you still have another tank that will be perfectly full.
>
> #3) Your RV tanks are vented independently. Any sligh variation in
> plumbing
> without tying the vents together WILL result in one tank emptying before
> the
> other, OR worse yet, fuel being pushed from one tank to the other and
> overboard (assuming you ahve the tanks tied together like your high wing).
>
> No matter how you slice it, it's a bad idea. Yes, there are ways to do
> it,
> but messing around with a perfectly good fuel system for no reason is
> asking
> for trouble. This is not something to take lightly, and it's NOT a simple
> matter of buying a fuel selector with a "both" position and plopping it in
> the middle of your plane. Do that, and you WILL have problems sooner or
> later.
>
> Sorry if this note came across harsh, but this subject seems to come up
> every once and awhile....a quick search of the archives will give you a
> whole pile of information on this issue.
>
> Cheers,
> Stein - Airplane Builder & Flier
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:51 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
>
> Yes, I do have to admit that this one IS one I would do. Why switch tanks
> when they can be easily engineered to drain from both. An astute pilot
> still
> would monitor the fuel anyway. Just like I do on my 172. What ideas have
> we
> to accomplish this? Me, I am a poor for invention MD. Let's hear it from
> the
> engineers. This, in my opinion would add to overall safety considerably
> and
> reduce pilot workload in single pilot IFR environments that we all would
> be
> flying. Good thought James!
>
> Mani Ravee, MD MC
> Pulmonary Medicine & Critical Care
> Maj. US Army Medical Corps
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Ochs
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:17 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
>
> This calls to mind a question (maybe a dumb one, but I don't know), is
> there a reason to not have a fuel selector that has a "both" position
> similar to the Cessna's... is it a low wing thing, a fuel pump thing, or
> just a style thing? It seems like one of those things that would be nice
> to not have to think about all the time. I'm sure I'd get in the habit,
> but on the other hand i've seen plenty of ntsb reports that say
> something similar to "fuel selector was set to the left tank. Left tank,
> carb, and fuel lines deviod of fuel. X gallons remaining in right tank.
> Probable cause: poor fuel management"
>
> James
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>
>> If you're building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for
>> is the IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be
>> right.
>>
>> 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] *On Behalf Of *Chris ,
>> Susie McGough
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:39 PM
>> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>>
>> Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when
>> using a fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure
>> how it all works.
>>
> [snipola]
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | Fuel selector valve |
report
It seems that the issue must be more that the tanks are vented independently
than that they are low-wing. High wing airplanes would cross-flow also,
even though the valve is below the level of either tank. Take two buckets 4
feet in the air and run a hose down to the ground and to the other bucket
(one filled with water and the other empty) and they would crossfeed to
level. If, however, they were sealed buckets and one had more pressure than
the other, you are exactly right, the one with more pressure would empty
into the other one. The only way that it might work would be to have a
one-way valve in each line that would only let fuel out of the tank, and not
into it through the fuel line. Even doing it this way, if you had more
pressure in one tank from the vent, that tank would drain first. It's best
to keep the separate or to join the vents. I know which one is easier.
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 Stein Bruch
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
No, No, No....Don't do it.
There is a reason that most low wing aircraft don't have a "both" position.
Your 172 is ENTIRELY different when it comes to fuel system design. There
are multiple reasons, I'll quickly list a few here.
#1) In a high wing airplane, your fuel is gravity fed, and both wing tanks
are usually vented and plumbed together from a fuel standpoint. This means
the fuel naturally when flowing down heads to the engine on it's own. In
most cases, the fuel in both tanks will remain relatively level.
#2) In your low wing airplane, fuel must be sucked from the tanks and pumped
to the engine. Low wing airplanes with multiple tanks and a "both" position
have a nasty habit of emptying one tank first, then sucking air from the
empy tank whilst you still have another tank that will be perfectly full.
#3) Your RV tanks are vented independently. Any sligh variation in plumbing
without tying the vents together WILL result in one tank emptying before the
other, OR worse yet, fuel being pushed from one tank to the other and
overboard (assuming you ahve the tanks tied together like your high wing).
No matter how you slice it, it's a bad idea. Yes, there are ways to do it,
but messing around with a perfectly good fuel system for no reason is asking
for trouble. This is not something to take lightly, and it's NOT a simple
matter of buying a fuel selector with a "both" position and plopping it in
the middle of your plane. Do that, and you WILL have problems sooner or
later.
Sorry if this note came across harsh, but this subject seems to come up
every once and awhile....a quick search of the archives will give you a
whole pile of information on this issue.
Cheers,
Stein - Airplane Builder & Flier
-----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: Fuel selector valve
Yes, I do have to admit that this one IS one I would do. Why switch tanks
when they can be easily engineered to drain from both. An astute pilot still
would monitor the fuel anyway. Just like I do on my 172. What ideas have we
to accomplish this? Me, I am a poor for invention MD. Let's hear it from the
engineers. This, in my opinion would add to overall safety considerably and
reduce pilot workload in single pilot IFR environments that we all would be
flying. Good thought James!
Mani Ravee, MD MC
Pulmonary Medicine & Critical Care
Maj. US Army Medical Corps
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
This calls to mind a question (maybe a dumb one, but I don't know), is
there a reason to not have a fuel selector that has a "both" position
similar to the Cessna's... is it a low wing thing, a fuel pump thing, or
just a style thing? It seems like one of those things that would be nice
to not have to think about all the time. I'm sure I'd get in the habit,
but on the other hand i've seen plenty of ntsb reports that say
something similar to "fuel selector was set to the left tank. Left tank,
carb, and fuel lines deviod of fuel. X gallons remaining in right tank.
Probable cause: poor fuel management"
James
Jesse Saint wrote:
> If you're building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for
> is the IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be
> right.
>
> 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] *On Behalf Of *Chris ,
> Susie McGough
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:39 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
> Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when
> using a fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure
> how it all works.
>
[snipola]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
report
Wow! It's amazing how long this thing keeps going.
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 bob.kaufmann
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
K is also found right smack in the middle between J and M. Go figure. The
risk pool starts a good thought going. Count me in Rick. Bob K
_____
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
"K" is also the type code for heavy wall copper pipe. 8*) KABONG Do Not
Archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne <mailto:weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Actually Rick K is a computer term which represent 1024bytes so K is 24 to
high for my notation :>}
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne <mailto:weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Got me that time :>} You are correct of coarse.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick <mailto:ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Wayne,
Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a
Gulfstream for that kinda money. :D
Rick S.
40185
========================================= Features Subscriptions
====================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
report
Is it just me, or is the issue not that you can't see the ground but rather
the issue of turbulence? When bouncing around in a J3 where you have to
move the stick a ton to bank hard, getting bounced with your hand on the
stick won't cause you to roll 45% before you realize it. In the RV-7A I
flew, moving the stick less than 1 inch seemed to put it in a least a 45%
bank. If you got bumped hard with your hand on the stick there, it would
make a much bigger difference. I am not arguing one way or the other, but
just trying to clarify that it seems the arguments are not the issue of
being in the clouds and not seeing the ground or horizon, but air
turbulence. It does make sense that the more responsive the plane is, the
more careful you would have to be on the controls to keep it level.
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 William Curtis
Subject: RV10-List: 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.
OK, I'll bite, the first time someone said something like this to me, I was
a new pilot and I figured "seems to make sense", so I did not explore
further. Since then however, I've gained a bit more experience and now I
think this is totally bunk. If you can keep a responsive plane upright
looking out the window, then any challenge in keeping it upright in the
clouds is a statement about the pilot, not the plane.
Let's face it, before fly-by-wire, military fighters, which are arguable
more responsive than RVs, were hand flown in IFR. Granted they probably had
more training than the average pilot but I think if this was a huge problem,
there would not have been any all weather interceptors.
Compared to most Cessnas, the Cardinal is very responsive in roll. I don't
find it much harder to fly IFR than say a Skyhawk. Maybe it's because I flew
it in the clouds without an autopilot for years before I finally could
afford a autopilot.
It's uncommon that great "seat of the pants" pilots are also good instrument
pilots. I consider myself a poor "seat of the pants" pilot, but a good
instrument pilot. I think a better statement is that the sportier RVs (4, 6,
7, & 8) enhance the "seat of the pants" experience which these same pilots
rely on in IMC to their detriment.
William Curtis
#40237 - wings
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mark Lamon #40269 |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
Dave
If you are looking for builder #40269 that is me Dan Lloyd you can
contact me danlloyd(at)wernerco.com , but if you are looking for Mark I do
not have his contact info.
Dan 40269
Slo build wings....
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Hertner
Subject: RV10-List: Mark Lamon #40269
Mark,
Contact Dave Hertner at effectus(at)rogers.com Your post didn't include
your e-mail address.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mani Ravee" <maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel selector valve |
>> However on the Beechcraft that I've owned there was a both selection
which seemed to work great. <<
Now how did they do it in the Beech? Were the tanks vented separately? How
about when you have tip tanks? Does it flow into the tanks of the same side
as they get empty? Sorry about my ignorance.
Mani
-----Original Message-----
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: Fuel selector valve
Hi Stein - You know I had George Orendorff tell me the same thing as you
just submitted and I believe both of you guys. I've never owned a Cessna,
but I've flown a few and I noticed on the 172SP, for instance, on a long
cross country I made that it didn't burn very evenly when on both. I thought
the gauge was broke because one was empting much quicker than the other but
the mechanic told me that they just don't burn off that evenly.
However on the Beechcraft that I've owned there was a both selection which
seemed to work great.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
> No, No, No....Don't do it.
>
> There is a reason that most low wing aircraft don't have a "both"
> position.
> Your 172 is ENTIRELY different when it comes to fuel system design. There
> are multiple reasons, I'll quickly list a few here.
>
> #1) In a high wing airplane, your fuel is gravity fed, and both wing tanks
> are usually vented and plumbed together from a fuel standpoint. This
> means
> the fuel naturally when flowing down heads to the engine on it's own. In
> most cases, the fuel in both tanks will remain relatively level.
>
> #2) In your low wing airplane, fuel must be sucked from the tanks and
> pumped
> to the engine. Low wing airplanes with multiple tanks and a "both"
> position
> have a nasty habit of emptying one tank first, then sucking air from the
> empy tank whilst you still have another tank that will be perfectly full.
>
> #3) Your RV tanks are vented independently. Any sligh variation in
> plumbing
> without tying the vents together WILL result in one tank emptying before
> the
> other, OR worse yet, fuel being pushed from one tank to the other and
> overboard (assuming you ahve the tanks tied together like your high wing).
>
> No matter how you slice it, it's a bad idea. Yes, there are ways to do
> it,
> but messing around with a perfectly good fuel system for no reason is
> asking
> for trouble. This is not something to take lightly, and it's NOT a simple
> matter of buying a fuel selector with a "both" position and plopping it in
> the middle of your plane. Do that, and you WILL have problems sooner or
> later.
>
> Sorry if this note came across harsh, but this subject seems to come up
> every once and awhile....a quick search of the archives will give you a
> whole pile of information on this issue.
>
> Cheers,
> Stein - Airplane Builder & Flier
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:51 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
>
>
> Yes, I do have to admit that this one IS one I would do. Why switch tanks
> when they can be easily engineered to drain from both. An astute pilot
> still
> would monitor the fuel anyway. Just like I do on my 172. What ideas have
> we
> to accomplish this? Me, I am a poor for invention MD. Let's hear it from
> the
> engineers. This, in my opinion would add to overall safety considerably
> and
> reduce pilot workload in single pilot IFR environments that we all would
> be
> flying. Good thought James!
>
> Mani Ravee, MD MC
> Pulmonary Medicine & Critical Care
> Maj. US Army Medical Corps
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Ochs
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:17 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
>
> This calls to mind a question (maybe a dumb one, but I don't know), is
> there a reason to not have a fuel selector that has a "both" position
> similar to the Cessna's... is it a low wing thing, a fuel pump thing, or
> just a style thing? It seems like one of those things that would be nice
> to not have to think about all the time. I'm sure I'd get in the habit,
> but on the other hand i've seen plenty of ntsb reports that say
> something similar to "fuel selector was set to the left tank. Left tank,
> carb, and fuel lines deviod of fuel. X gallons remaining in right tank.
> Probable cause: poor fuel management"
>
> James
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>
>> If you're building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for
>> is the IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be
>> right.
>>
>> 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] *On Behalf Of *Chris ,
>> Susie McGough
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:39 PM
>> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>>
>> Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when
>> using a fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure
>> how it all works.
>>
> [snipola]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
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: | 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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
Another good thing would be re-current training in type, that is now a
requirement for Cirrus, and allot of us are putting in the same type of
avionics, and annual training helps everyone. Plus it is a good excuse
for us all to get together for an annual RV-10 flyin or such.
Dan
40269
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
One of my thoughts was to make it easier for the alternate engine users,
I think most of us agree that the folks using these engines are having
success and ingnorance of the insurance gurus are the stumbling block.
With John's suggestion of inspecting each potential pool aircraft for
workmanship and airworthiness it would be a vital step to protect each
members interest in "their" program. A network for transition training
and ground school referesher to include first flight education would all
contribute to the lowering the chance of paying for an airplane. I am
getting information put together now and am going to build a website to
put it on. I expect to have a pilot program for review in the next 30
days. I still need to get some legal counsel on the whole operation
before I get too much invested, that will be next week.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
to
and
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Can we have a fly-in more centrally-located than Oregon, though?!?
TDT
east-coaster
-----Original Message-----
| 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: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Another good thing would be re-current training in type, that is now a requirement
for Cirrus, and allot of us are putting in the same type of avionics, and
annual training helps everyone. Plus it is a good excuse for us all to get together
for an annual RV-10 flyin or such.
Dan
40269
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
One of my thoughts was to make it easier for the alternate engine users, I think
most of us agree that the folks using these engines are having success and ingnorance
of the insurance gurus are the stumbling block. With John's suggestion
of inspecting each potential pool aircraft for workmanship and airworthiness
it would be a vital step to protect each members interest in "their" program.
A network for transition training and ground school referesher to include first
flight education would all contribute to the lowering the chance of paying
for an airplane. I am getting information put together now and am going to build
a website to put it on. I expect to have a pilot program for review in the
next 30 days. I still need to get some legal counsel on the whole operation before
I get too much invested, that will be next week.
Rick S.
40185
Features Navigator Photoshare, and much
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
I am in PA, and somewhere in the middle would be nice!
_____
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Can we have a fly-in more centrally-located than Oregon, though?!?
TDT
east-coaster
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 1:18 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it
take?
=09
=09
Another good thing would be re-current training in type, that is
now a requirement for Cirrus, and allot of us are putting in the same
type of avionics, and annual training helps everyone. Plus it is a good
excuse for us all to get together for an annual RV-10 flyin or such.
Dan
40269
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 12:22 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it
take?
=09
=09
One of my thoughts was to make it easier for the alternate
engine users, I think most of us agree that the folks using these
engines are having success and ingnorance of the insurance gurus are the
stumbling block. With John's suggestion of inspecting each potential
pool aircraft for workmanship and airworthiness it would be a vital step
to protect each members interest in "their" program. A network for
transition training and ground school referesher to include first flight
education would all contribute to the lowering the chance of paying for
an airplane. I am getting information put together now and am going to
build a website to put it on. I expect to have a pilot program for
review in the next 30 days. I still need to get some legal counsel on
the whole operation before I get too much invested, that will be next
week.
Rick S.
40185
Features Navigator
Photoshare, and much
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Curtis <wcurtis(at)core.com> |
| Subject: | Missing wing spare rivet(s) |
I was finishing up riveting the top skins on my right wing and noticed a missing
rivet on the wing spare. I checked the same position on the left wing and that
hole was filled. Anyone else have this or any other missing rivet(s)?
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/wings89.html
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/images/wings89.jpg
William Curtis
#40237
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DejaVu" <wvu(at)mail.ameritel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Missing wing spare rivet(s) |
products.
William, I didn't have any on mine but remember discussions regarding missing rivets,
or holes that were not supposed to have rivets but did.
Anh
#141
Fitting Doors
----- Original Message -----
From: William Curtis
To: RV10-List(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 12:08 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Missing wing spare rivet(s)
I was finishing up riveting the top skins on my right wing and noticed a missing
rivet on the wing spare. I checked the same position on the left wing and
that hole was filled. Anyone else have this or any other missing rivet(s)?
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/wings89.html
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/images/wings89.jpg
William Curtis
#40237
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mani Ravee" <maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Missing wing spare rivet(s) |
Are you guys talking about QB wings?
Mani
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Subject: RV10-List: Missing wing spare rivet(s)
I was finishing up riveting the top skins on my right wing and noticed a
missing rivet on the wing spare. I checked the same position on the left
wing and that hole was filled. Anyone else have this or any other missing
rivet(s)?
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/wings89.html
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/images/wings89.jpg
William Curtis
#40237
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Missing wing spare rivet(s) |
I brought it up way back when I was doing my first steps of the wing
spar. I had holes filled with rivets that shouldn't have had them...
I think the ones that get the bolts for the tiedown or bellcrank
brackets. So I had to drill them out.
In your case, if you have a hole that should be filled, I'd suggest
sticking a bolt in it.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
William Curtis wrote:
> I was finishing up riveting the top skins on my right wing and noticed a
> missing rivet on the wing spare. I checked the same position on the left
> wing and that hole was filled. Anyone else have this or any other
> missing rivet(s)?
>
> http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/wings89.html
> http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/images/wings89.jpg
> William Curtis
> #40237
> http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | RV10 MT Propeller group buy |
Hi All,
I am going into Phase Two for the RV10 MT propeller group buy. This is
where I collect enough information from each customer to be able to correctly
place the order for their propeller.
If you are interested in being included, please provide your shipping
address, and phone number(s)?
If it is all right with you, I would like to call so we can discuss some of
the (no additional cost) propeller choices, and some of the shipping options
available.
BTW, Phase Three is where I ask for the money. This is when the actual
group buy can occur.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
Custom Aircraft Propeller - A division of Less Drag Products, Inc.
_CustomACProp(at)aol.com_ (mailto:CustomACProp(at)aol.com)
(805) 795-5377
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robin Wessel" <robin.wessel(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started on the QB Fuse |
Regarding the QB fuse-
Anyone find that the front floor panels don't match up very well to the
F-1041 lower fuse channel? The rivet holes are so far off that it misses the
channel completely.
Any suggestions?
Another interesting tidbit I found in the manual is that it says for the
"standard kit only" to install the TG vents for the NACA slots in the front.
Does this mean that the QB builders must buy this part, but not the standard
kit builders?
Robin Wessel
Tigard, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Curtis <wcurtis(at)core.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Missing wing spare rivet(s) |
Mani,
No, these are the SB wings, between ribs 4 & 5.
Tim/Ahn,
Yes, I vaguely remember the discussion about having extra rivets, in my case however,
I have a missing rivet.
William
> Are you guys talking about QB wings?
> Mani
>From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of >William Curtis
>Subject: RV10-List: Missing wing spare rivet(s)
>
>
>I was finishing up riveting the top skins on my right wing and noticed a
>missing rivet on the wing spare. I checked the same position >on the left
>wing and that hole was filled. Anyone else have this or any other missing
>rivet(s)?
>http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/wings89.html
>http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/images/wings89.jpg
>William Curtis
>#40237
>http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "brian bollaert" <bbollaert(at)comcast.net> |
Message-Id for external message added locally
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started on the QB Fuse |
----- Hello Robin:
the floor panels are a real tight fit which i think is a good thing , mine are
also difficult to line up , however i am able to do it by starting in one corner
with the cleco's and work your way down the line (however without seeing
yours its diff to say for shure ), i believe the vents for the qb come in the
finish kit .
brian
Original Message -----
From: Robin Wessel
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 6:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Getting Started on the QB Fuse
Regarding the QB fuse-
Anyone find that the front floor panels don't match up very well to the F-1041
lower fuse channel? The rivet holes are so far off that it misses the channel
completely.
Any suggestions?
Another interesting tidbit I found in the manual is that it says for the "standard
kit only" to install the TG vents for the NACA slots in the front. Does
this mean that the QB builders must buy this part, but not the standard kit builders?
Robin Wessel
Tigard, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Weight of Randy's RV610RV |
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
Well the weight that everyone was interested in is... 1593 lbs. As pictured on www.myrv10.com under 40006. Very nice weight if I say so myself. Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <schmoboy(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Weighed in and almost ready for flight |
Randy,
Does the 1593 include the ox tanks and the back seats? Just curious if
you'll be closer to the demo weight when all is said and done.
Sean
#40303
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Randy sent some new pictures that you'll definitely want to check out.
> Man is this guy getting CLOSE!!
>
> His RV-10 is now all weighed in and ready for flight. 1593 lbs, believe
> it or not. Isn't that less than the factory demo, despite the
> additional primer and stuff that he did?
>
> Here's a link to his page. Check out the last link on it.
>
> http://www.myrv10.com/N610RV/index.html
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Weight of Randy's RV610RV |
CONGRATULATIONS RANDY. A LOT OF US ENVY U. WE JUST STARTED A FEW WEEKS AGO.
GOOD LUCK ON THE FIRST FLIGHT AND HOPE U HAVE MANY HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF
PLEASURE FOR YOUR EFFORTS.
REGARDS,
DOUG PRESTON
RV7 N731RV
RV10 TAIL CONE.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.com> |
| Subject: | Missing wing spare rivet(s) |
William,
I had precisely the same problem as Tim. If your problem was the same as
ours, you would not have been able to install the tie down because the tie
down bolt holes would have contained rivets. The holes on the opposite edge
that should have been rivetted were empty. Vans instructions to me were to
remove the incorrect rivets, and fill the unriveted holes with AN bolts.
I would suggest you just fill the hole with a bolt - stronger than a rivet
anyway :-).
cheers,
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of William Curtis
Subject: RV10-List: Missing wing spare rivet(s)
I was finishing up riveting the top skins on my right wing and noticed a
missing rivet on the wing spare. I checked the same position on the left
wing and that hole was filled. Anyone else have this or any other missing
rivet(s)?
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/wings89.html
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/images/wings89.jpg
William Curtis
#40237
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-10 Weighed in and almost ready for flight |
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
Everything except the ox tank. It will be installed after the fly off. It only
weighs about lbs.. Carbon fiber tank. Everything else was in just like you
would fly it. No wheel pants yet. I will reweigh it after but I am guessing that
the final weight will be about 1627. We will see. Randy
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Sean Stephens
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Weighed in and almost ready for flight
Randy,
Does the 1593 include the ox tanks and the back seats? Just curious if
you'll be closer to the demo weight when all is said and done.
Sean
#40303
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Randy sent some new pictures that you'll definitely want to check out.
> Man is this guy getting CLOSE!!
>
> His RV-10 is now all weighed in and ready for flight. 1593 lbs, believe
> it or not. Isn't that less than the factory demo, despite the
> additional primer and stuff that he did?
>
> Here's a link to his page. Check out the last link on it.
>
> http://www.myrv10.com/N610RV/index.html
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <schmoboy(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Weighed in and almost ready for flight |
Thanks Randy,
Carbon Fiber tanks? Sweet. Which Mountain High system did you get?
I also noticed in the pictures that it looks like you have a pair of
landing lights in each wingtip. You have one pair angled for taxi and
the other for landing?
The bird looks good. Thanks for being a pioneer ahead of us so our kits
are all the more better.
-Sean
#40303 (Waiting for wing kit to arrive)
Randy DeBauw wrote:
>Everything except the ox tank. It will be installed after the fly off. It only
weighs about lbs.. Carbon fiber tank. Everything else was in just like you
would fly it. No wheel pants yet. I will reweigh it after but I am guessing
that the final weight will be about 1627. We will see. Randy
>
>________________________________
>
>From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Sean Stephens
>Sent: Sun 5/8/2005 11:54 AM
>To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Weighed in and almost ready for flight
>
>
>Randy,
>
>Does the 1593 include the ox tanks and the back seats? Just curious if
>you'll be closer to the demo weight when all is said and done.
>
>Sean
>#40303
>
>Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Randy sent some new pictures that you'll definitely want to check out.
>> Man is this guy getting CLOSE!!
>>
>>His RV-10 is now all weighed in and ready for flight. 1593 lbs, believe
>>it or not. Isn't that less than the factory demo, despite the
>>additional primer and stuff that he did?
>>
>>Here's a link to his page. Check out the last link on it.
>>
>>http://www.myrv10.com/N610RV/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>====================================
>====================================
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Starter solenoid location |
Hi All,
I have recently had the opportunity to disassembly the firewall forward
electrical wiring on a RV-6A and a RV-6.
In both installations, the starter solenoid was mounted on the front side of
the firewall.
In both cases, the large wire from the master solenoid going to the starter
solenoid was chaffing against the corner of an aluminum bracket. The wire
insulation was worn more than half way through to the copper wire. (48 hours
TT on one installation, and the copper was visible through the insulation.)
Please, take a little extra care with this large wire. With the master
switch on, it's always hot until it gets to the starter solenoid.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
PS I relocated the master and starter solenoids directly over the battery
box in my RV-6A. The starter wire going through the firewall is only hot when
the starter is engaged.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | RV-10 Duckworks Light Kit Installed |
Hey all,
I hadn't had a chance to get the page all completed to post until now,
but I wanted to make sure you all get to see this bit of info. You're
gonna like this...
For those wanting to go right to the link, here you go:
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/wing/duckworksHIDS/index.html
After hearing my plea a couple months ago regarding better landing light
options for the RV-10, Don from Duckworks got a hold of an RV-10 and
designed a wing-leading-edge landing light kit for our RV-10's. That
REALLY made my day, because I had been adamant that I wanted HID's,
(really super bright, low power draw (3A) lights that have a normal
lifetime of something like 3000 hours...very durable) and now I had the
option to use either their rectangular, round aircraft standard or
halogen, or round HID's. Having seen Duckworks kits on other RV's over
the years, I was always really impressed with how good they looked.
As far as functionality goes too, I don't think these can be beat.
Sorry to those (Randy and others) who have those MR-16's in the
wingtips, but I really think those are not that fantastic. For one,
they sit on the back wall of the sheared tip, so they may not radiate
as well towards the centerline. As for power, they'll draw 75W each,
so you'll be pulling plenty of amps if you outfit your tips with
one or two on each side...and that light comes with a very high
heat also. They are cheap though, so they were pretty hard to beat
in that regard. In general though, with putting the Nav lights
and strobes into the tips too, I really didn't want those little
landing lights to be my main lighting...they'd make better wig-wags
or something else like that.
So once the Duckworks kit was available, that made up my mind as to
HOW I was going to mount them. I still didn't know what to do about
the bulbs. I wanted at least one HID, but they're pricey, so I didn't
know if I wanted 2. I shopped Ebay, and educated myself on the various
types of HID bulbs. I found out that the really good HID's are D1S
type bulbs....but most of what you see on Ebay is D2S (or R). The "R"
bulbs have a shielding that would cut some light output, so I knew
I wanted an "S". The D1 bulbs also have another big benefit for
us in aviation...the D2S has the bulb igniter in the ballast. The D1S
has the igniter in the bulb. The difference is that the D2S bulbs will
then at times have over 20Kv of signal going over that cable between
the bulb and the ballast....which can cause interference. So, not
wanting to sacrifice my radio's clarity, I decided D1S "Third
Generation" was the only way to go. When you limit yourself to
that option, there is no super low cost way to go. Bulbs and ballasts
will just be expensive. In fact, there is an aviation conversion
kit I found online to replace standard round bulbs with HIDs (the
SAME HIDs as Duckworks uses) for $535!! Duckworks HIDs were a
significantly better deal, considering that theirs came with all
the mounting stuff you'd need too! I was sold....rather than have
one high-power-draw bulb, and one nice efficient and super bright HID,
I'd just get 2 and have it all.
The understandably scary part of the duckworks kit was the idea of
having to cut a hole in the wing...especially with the wing completed.
But, this turned out to be a real non-issue. The completed wing
is nice and stiff, and cuts very easily...in fact, if I had my choice
I would rather install the kit after the leading edge was completed,
rather than do it when the skins weren't riveted up. Besides that,
the kit came with excellent templates with exactly...EXACTLY where
you want to cut. It also contained everything else you need to do
the install. As a bonus, they just redesigned the lens attachment
method to eliminate issues with cracking from drilling holes through
the lens. So, if you were looking for a landing light kit for your
RV-10, or actually any RV, you're really going to find that this kit
is a pretty easy install.
As far as benefits... I think that if you mounted them in the
wheel pants, you'd get much more vibration upon landing. You also
want your lights out way towards the tips, so you don't get the
strobe effect of the light on your prop. And, with the nice
full-size lights mounted in these areas of the wing, you can aim
them to get the light exactly where you want it.
So, I was really impressed, and I decided that I'd try to ease some of
the worry about cutting wing holes and throw together a page that
showed the install. It was my first time with these kits, so
I'm no pro.
That link again: http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/wing/duckworksHIDS/index.html
Oh, and even if you can't put the cash into HID's, you can buy the
kit very cheaply with standard rectangular or round bulbs, and upgrade
to the HIDs later using the same mounting.
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-10 Weighed in and almost ready for flight |
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
EDS 4ip. Yes I have one of them set for landing and the other for taxi all on
the same 3 position switch. I finish my third and last hour in the 410RV last
week. You are going to love your plane. What a great plane it is to fly. Randy
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Sean Stephens
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Weighed in and almost ready for flight
Thanks Randy,
Carbon Fiber tanks? Sweet. Which Mountain High system did you get?
I also noticed in the pictures that it looks like you have a pair of
landing lights in each wingtip. You have one pair angled for taxi and
the other for landing?
The bird looks good. Thanks for being a pioneer ahead of us so our kits
are all the more better.
-Sean
#40303 (Waiting for wing kit to arrive)
Randy DeBauw wrote:
>Everything except the ox tank. It will be installed after the fly off. It only
weighs about lbs.. Carbon fiber tank. Everything else was in just like you
would fly it. No wheel pants yet. I will reweigh it after but I am guessing
that the final weight will be about 1627. We will see. Randy
>
>________________________________
>
>From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Sean Stephens
>Sent: Sun 5/8/2005 11:54 AM
>To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Weighed in and almost ready for flight
>
>
>Randy,
>
>Does the 1593 include the ox tanks and the back seats? Just curious if
>you'll be closer to the demo weight when all is said and done.
>
>Sean
>#40303
>
>Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Randy sent some new pictures that you'll definitely want to check out.
>> Man is this guy getting CLOSE!!
>>
>>His RV-10 is now all weighed in and ready for flight. 1593 lbs, believe
>>it or not. Isn't that less than the factory demo, despite the
>>additional primer and stuff that he did?
>>
>>Here's a link to his page. Check out the last link on it.
>>
>>http://www.myrv10.com/N610RV/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Weight of Randy's RV610RV |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Randy:
First flight with or without pants? I mean on the airplane . . . : )
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Randy DeBauw
Subject: RV10-List: Weight of Randy's RV610RV
Well the weight that everyone was interested in is... 1593 lbs. As pictured on www.myrv10.com under 40006. Very nice weight if I say so myself. Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darton Steve <sfdarton(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi all!
How many 3/32 Clecos is a good number to assemble the
wings? I would like to build them both at the same
time because I have the room. However after installing
two spars worth of nutplates and all of the
countersinking I wonder if that is a good idea?
Steve 40212
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Starter solenoid location |
Or, just don't use fat wire at all between the solenoids....use a nice fat
piece of copper or brass (cover with heavy heatshrink) to run between the
two (no reason to have them mounted far apart after all).
I stole the idea from some other old graybeard builder....no chance of any
fat wires vibrating around or chafing through....you'd be surprised to know
this is more common than you may think!
If you do have to use a fat wire (because your solenoids may be mounted too
far apart for the buss bar method), common standard practice is to use a
cushioned adel clamp wherever the wire runs near to any sort of metal or
brackets, or over long runs of any type. A few bucks and few minutes
installing adel clamps really will make your installations safer & better
when running any types of wire, spark plug leads, control cables, etc..
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 8:28 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Starter solenoid location
Hi All,
I have recently had the opportunity to disassembly the firewall forward
electrical wiring on a RV-6A and a RV-6.
In both installations, the starter solenoid was mounted on the front side
of the firewall.
In both cases, the large wire from the master solenoid going to the
starter solenoid was chaffing against the corner of an aluminum bracket.
The wire insulation was worn more than half way through to the copper wire.
(48 hours TT on one installation, and the copper was visible through the
insulation.)
Please, take a little extra care with this large wire. With the master
switch on, it's always hot until it gets to the starter solenoid.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
PS I relocated the master and starter solenoids directly over the battery
box in my RV-6A. The starter wire going through the firewall is only hot
when the starter is engaged.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
700-750 should be good for the tailcone and the wings. I did both wings
at the same time too, and I had this quantity, and it worked out for me.
I think building them at the same time is a good way to go, because then
you can have them both laid out and verify that they both look good and
are mirror images of eachother....and that you didn't accidently use
parts from one wing in the other wing. I don't think I'd do it any
other way unless you just didn't have the room.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Darton Steve wrote:
>
> Hi all!
> How many 3/32 Clecos is a good number to assemble the
> wings? I would like to build them both at the same
> time because I have the room. However after installing
> two spars worth of nutplates and all of the
> countersinking I wonder if that is a good idea?
> Steve 40212
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Weight of Randy's RV610RV |
Without. I need the added drag for engine break-in.
________________________________
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Tim Dawson-Townsend |
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weight of Randy's RV610RV
Randy:
First flight with or without pants? I mean on the airplane . . . : )
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Randy DeBauw
Subject: RV10-List: Weight of Randy's RV610RV
Well the weight that everyone was interested in is... 1593 lbs. As pictured on www.myrv10.com under 40006. Very nice weight if I say so myself. Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine start today N610RV |
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
Well it runs and has oil pressure. I stated and ran the engine for a couple of
minutes today. What a feeling. I just can't wait for the full throttle run
later this week to set the prop gov. I will take the engine cowl off tomorrow
and give the engine a good look. Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
Steve,
735...exactly...I had 635 and borrowed 100.
Rick S.
40185
Flaps
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Starter solenoid location |
Hi Stein,
Great suggestion.
I should have mentioned that both the RV-6 and RV-6A where purchased
aircraft.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/08/2005 7:24:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
stein(at)steinair.com writes:
Or, just don't use fat wire at all between the solenoids....use a nice fat
piece of copper or brass (cover with heavy heatshrink) to run between the two
(no reason to have them mounted far apart after all).
I stole the idea from some other old graybeard builder....no chance of any
fat wires vibrating around or chafing through....you'd be surprised to know
this is more common than you may think!
If you do have to use a fat wire (because your solenoids may be mounted too
far apart for the buss bar method), common standard practice is to use a
cushioned adel clamp wherever the wire runs near to any sort of metal or
brackets, or over long runs of any type. A few bucks and few minutes installing
adel
clamps really will make your installations safer & better when running any
types of wire, spark plug leads, control cables, etc..
Cheers,
Stein.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org> |
| Subject: | Pneumatic rivet squeezers |
Hi all,
Quick question about the pneumatic rivet squeezers. Whats the
disadvantages / advantages of the alligator style as opposed to the
cp214 style? Secondly is there a significant difference between the 214
model and the 314 model from Chicago Pneu? What do people recommend as
the best one to get while spending less than 4 or 500 dollars?
Spent the weekend dimpling with the hand squeezer, using clecos, spray
bottles, etc. Haven't even gotten to riveting my VS yet and already I
can see how the pneumatic squeezer is going to be invaluable...
Probably going to start riveting the VS together tonight.
James
#40400
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pneumatic rivet squeezers |
James,
I have the clone 214 model from airrivettools.com, link is on Van's site under
tool suppliers. I am VERY happy with it, I have a 4" no hole, a 3" standard and
a 2.5 longeron yoke. It was on special with a complete set of dimple dies which
I highly recommend, all the screw sizes plus standard and small diameter rivet
sets, don't forget you will need a 3/32 universal set for the tail kit. I
don't own a hand squeezer, although there have been a few times when the compressor
was drained for the night it would have been nice, I am almost done with
the wings and have made without the hand powered model. Mine has enough pressure
to set all the rivets I have tried as long as you use a full size air hose
and not the mini/light hose when doing some of the larger -4 rivets, the other
model has 6000 psi where the 214 is rated at 3000. I have no experience using
the alligator I yet to come across a rivet where I though it would have helped.
Some have had luck getting these off E-bay but be careful, they may be in
need of rebuild or have worn out parts. While your at it don't forget the adjustable
set, it is invaluable but will not work with the 4" yoke, I use washers/shims
to set the 4" yoke, quick change pins are pretty good to have as well.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pneumatic rivet squeezers |
James,
I have the clone 214 model from airrivettools.com, link is on Van's site under
tool suppliers. I am VERY happy with it, I have a 4" no hole, a 3" standard and
a 2.5 longeron yoke. It was on special with a complete set of dimple dies which
I highly recommend, all the screw sizes plus standard and small diameter rivet
sets, don't forget you will need a 3/32 universal set for the tail kit. I
don't own a hand squeezer, although there have been a few times when the compressor
was drained for the night it would have been nice, I am almost done with
the wings and have made without the hand powered model. Mine has enough pressure
to set all the rivets I have tried as long as you use a full size air hose
and not the mini/light hose when doing some of the larger -4 rivets, the other
model has 6000 psi where the 214 is rated at 3000. I have no experience using
the alligator I yet to come across a rivet where I though it would have helped.
Some have had luck getting these off E-bay but be careful, they may be in
need of rebuild or have worn out parts. While your at it don't forget the adjustable
set, it is invaluable but will not work with the 4" yoke, I use washers/shims
to set the 4" yoke, quick change pins are pretty good to have as well.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pneumatic rivet squeezers |
James,
I have the clone 214 model from airrivettools.com, link is on Van's site under
tool suppliers. I am VERY happy with it, I have a 4" no hole, a 3" standard and
a 2.5 longeron yoke. It was on special with a complete set of dimple dies which
I highly recommend, all the screw sizes plus standard and small diameter rivet
sets, don't forget you will need a 3/32 universal set for the tail kit. I
don't own a hand squeezer, although there have been a few times when the compressor
was drained for the night it would have been nice, I am almost done with
the wings and have made without the hand powered model. Mine has enough pressure
to set all the rivets I have tried as long as you use a full size air hose
and not the mini/light hose when doing some of the larger -4 rivets, the other
model has 6000 psi where the 214 is rated at 3000. I have no experience using
the alligator I yet to come across a rivet where I though it would have helped.
Some have had luck getting these off E-bay but be careful, they may be in
need of rebuild or have worn out parts. While your at it don't forget the adjustable
set, it is invaluable but will not work with the 4" yoke, I use washers/shims
to set the 4" yoke, quick change pins are pretty good to have as well.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com> |
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
I'm thinking of ordering one or the other quick builds soon, either the wing
or fuselage. I'm trying to save both time and money, so thought I'd
compromise. Any opinions as to which would be "easier" to build from pieces
and which would be best bought as a quick build? My apologies if this has
all been hashed out before, but thought since many have now been down this
road there might be new thoughts.
John Jessen
Empcone 1%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darton Steve <sfdarton(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pneumatic rivet squeezers |
James,
I highly recommend a pneumatic squeezer as a must have
item. I bought mine from a local RV-6 builder who no
longer needed it. It was about 1/3rd the price of new.
I also have seen many good deals on Ebay. Just do a
search for "rivet squeezer" and don't bid on anything
old.
Steve
--- James Ochs wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Quick question about the pneumatic rivet squeezers.
> Whats the
> disadvantages / advantages of the alligator style as
> opposed to the
> cp214 style? Secondly is there a significant
> difference between the 214
> model and the 314 model from Chicago Pneu? What do
> people recommend as
> the best one to get while spending less than 4 or
> 500 dollars?
>
> Spent the weekend dimpling with the hand squeezer,
> using clecos, spray
> bottles, etc. Haven't even gotten to riveting my VS
> yet and already I
> can see how the pneumatic squeezer is going to be
> invaluable...
>
> Probably going to start riveting the VS together
> tonight.
>
> James
> #40400
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "son hoang" <son(at)hoangs.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Quickbuild Purchase Question |
I just faxed in the order for the standard fuse and QB wings
my reasons:
the fuse is more fun to build
I do not want to for the long lead time of the QB
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
>
> I'm thinking of ordering one or the other quick builds soon, either the
wing
> or fuselage. I'm trying to save both time and money, so thought I'd
> compromise. Any opinions as to which would be "easier" to build from
pieces
> and which would be best bought as a quick build? My apologies if this has
> all been hashed out before, but thought since many have now been down this
> road there might be new thoughts.
>
> John Jessen
> Empcone 1%
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
Another good reason to do the QB wings and regular fuselage is you don't
have to build the fuel tanks! Also, you only have to build one of
everything, the wings can get a little tiresome.
Marcus
QB all the way after a slow build RV-6 and 7
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of son hoang
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
I just faxed in the order for the standard fuse and QB wings
my reasons:
the fuse is more fun to build
I do not want to for the long lead time of the QB
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
>
> I'm thinking of ordering one or the other quick builds soon, either the
wing
> or fuselage. I'm trying to save both time and money, so thought I'd
> compromise. Any opinions as to which would be "easier" to build from
pieces
> and which would be best bought as a quick build? My apologies if this has
> all been hashed out before, but thought since many have now been down this
> road there might be new thoughts.
>
> John Jessen
> Empcone 1%
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
>
>I'm thinking of ordering one or the other quick builds soon, either the
>wing
>or fuselage. I'm trying to save both time and money, so thought I'd
>compromise. Any opinions as to which would be "easier" to build from
>pieces
>and which would be best bought as a quick build? My apologies if this has
>all been hashed out before, but thought since many have now been down this
>road there might be new thoughts.
>
>John Jessen
> Empcone 1%
For me, it's QB wings and slowbuild fuse. The fuse is interesting to build,
and seldom gets boring. The wings, well, they ARE boring! Lot's of
repetition and proseal too. I've already proved my mettle (or is it
"metal"?) by building a slowbuild, non-matched hole RV8 so I'll let the
Phillippine folks do those big ole wing planks for me this time.
To each his own, but this just makes the most sense for me this time around.
For the next RV (RV3), I'll de-evolve back to raw bauxite and bailing wire
just for nostalgia's sake!
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
RV10 '51 waitin' in the wings....for the wings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Yippee! RV10 #406 |
26, 2003) at
05/09/2005 08:29:22 PM,
Serialize complete at 05/09/2005 08:29:22 PM
I've been quietly lurking on this list (and the old one) since the 1st of
the year. I needed to get some surgery and rehab out of the way before
ordering, With that done (well almost) I faxed my order Fri. and got
confirmation and my builder number via e-mail today. I expect to get
delivery of emp kit the end of next week. I bought a copy of the plans
and have been studying those, now looking for tools (anybody want to part
with theirs?) and getting the 'shop' ready.
This list is an awesome source of information, I hope I can remember 1/10
of what I've read so far, so get ready for another 'newbie' set of
questions.
Deems Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "brian bollaert" <bbollaert(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yippee! RV10 #406 |
Welcome to the -10 world DD , its a very interseting one !!
Brian B
----- Original Message -----
From: ddavis@virtual-corp.net
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 5:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Yippee! RV10 #406
I've been quietly lurking on this list (and the old one) since the 1st of the
year. I needed to get some surgery and rehab out of the way before ordering,
With that done (well almost) I faxed my order Fri. and got confirmation and my
builder number via e-mail today. I expect to get delivery of emp kit the end
of next week. I bought a copy of the plans and have been studying those, now
looking for tools (anybody want to part with theirs?) and getting the 'shop'
ready.
This list is an awesome source of information, I hope I can remember 1/10 of
what I've read so far, so get ready for another 'newbie' set of questions.
Deems Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Merems" <merems(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yippee! RV10 #406 |
Deems,
Congratulations and welcome to the world of RV building. Since you are looking
for tools I recommend you check out the DRDT-2 dimpling tool from ExperimentalAero
(experimentalaero.com).
It will make dimpling all those holes on your RV-10 easy, fast, safe, consistent,
less fatiguing and noise free then using the impact c-frame dimpling tool.
I wish I had one when building my RV-4.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: ddavis@virtual-corp.net
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 5:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Yippee! RV10 #406
I've been quietly lurking on this list (and the old one) since the 1st of the
year. I needed to get some surgery and rehab out of the way before ordering,
With that done (well almost) I faxed my order Fri. and got confirmation and my
builder number via e-mail today. I expect to get delivery of emp kit the end
of next week. I bought a copy of the plans and have been studying those, now
looking for tools (anybody want to part with theirs?) and getting the 'shop'
ready.
This list is an awesome source of information, I hope I can remember 1/10 of
what I've read so far, so get ready for another 'newbie' set of questions.
Deems Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
spamd1.ruraltel.net
* -4.0 RCVD_FROM_NEXTECH_5 Message came from 204.96.144-152.x network
* 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay
* lines
| From: | "Bill and Tami Britton" <william(at)gbta.net> |
I've got my pneumatic squeezer bought. Now I need a 2.5" longeron yoke, 4" pneumatic
yoke, quick change pins and the adjustable set holder. Also, what does
it mean to use a 1/2" long flat set with the longeron yoke (evidently if you
don't you'll overextend the plunger)???
Thanks,
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob.kaufmann" <bob.kaufmann(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Yippee! RV10 #406 |
Welcome to this group that's about half a bubble off. Tools, heck get them
anywhere you can, and buy a little more clecos than you think you'll need.
Have fun, turn the TV off and enjoy the experience. You'll love it.
Bob K
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Merems
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Yippee! RV10 #406
Deems,
Congratulations and welcome to the world of RV building. Since you are
looking for tools I recommend you check out the DRDT-2 dimpling tool from
ExperimentalAero (experimentalaero.com <http://www.experimentalaero.com> ).
It will make dimpling all those holes on your RV-10 easy, fast, safe,
consistent, less fatiguing and noise free then using the impact c-frame
dimpling tool. I wish I had one when building my RV-4.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: ddavis@virtual-corp.net
Subject: RV10-List: Yippee! RV10 #406
I've been quietly lurking on this list (and the old one) since the 1st of
the year. I needed to get some surgery and rehab out of the way before
ordering, With that done (well almost) I faxed my order Fri. and got
confirmation and my builder number via e-mail today. I expect to get
delivery of emp kit the end of next week. I bought a copy of the plans and
have been studying those, now looking for tools (anybody want to part with
theirs?) and getting the 'shop' ready.
This list is an awesome source of information, I hope I can remember 1/10 of
what I've read so far, so get ready for another 'newbie' set of questions.
Deems Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yippee! RV10 #406 |
<012201c554fd$82760980$7f00a8c0@fastburner>
I agree. I unsed the DRDT-1 at Alexander Technical Center through their
tail program. Great tool, and when you are done you will be able to
resell it easily.
Merems wrote:
> Deems,
>
> Congratulations and welcome to the world of RV building. Since you
> are looking for tools I recommend you check out the DRDT-2 dimpling
> tool from ExperimentalAero (experimentalaero.com
> <http://www.experimentalaero.com>).
> It will make dimpling all those holes on your RV-10 easy, fast, safe,
> consistent, less fatiguing and noise free then using the impact
> c-frame dimpling tool. I wish I had one when building my RV-4.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* ddavis@virtual-corp.net
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2005 5:29 PM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Yippee! RV10 #406
>
>
> I've been quietly lurking on this list (and the old one) since the
> 1st of the year. I needed to get some surgery and rehab out of the
> way before ordering, With that done (well almost) I faxed my order
> Fri. and got confirmation and my builder number via e-mail today.
> I expect to get delivery of emp kit the end of next week. I
> bought a copy of the plans and have been studying those, now
> looking for tools (anybody want to part with theirs?) and getting
> the 'shop' ready.
> This list is an awesome source of information, I hope I can
> remember 1/10 of what I've read so far, so get ready for another
> 'newbie' set of questions.
>
>
> Deems Davis
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net> |
Any suggestions on how many clecos will be needed for the quickbuild
wings and fuse?
Larry Rosen
RV10 #356
Emp complete, waiting on QB wings
Rick wrote:
>
>Steve,
>
>735...exactly...I had 635 and borrowed 100.
>
>Rick S.
>40185
>Flaps
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
<42801588.5040707(at)comcast.net>
For the QB fuse, and wings you could get by with probably lots less.
Maybe 1/2 of the slowbuild. (300-400ish). I am in the process of
joining my tailcone right now, and you need a bunch of 3/32", but
not an overwhelming number. I imagine the fiberglass top will
require quite a few too, but I'm sure nowhere near 700-750. On the
QB wings, you would use a ton of them if you do both wings at the
same time, but if you do one at a time, I'm sure the same 300-400
would be pretty good too.
Those counts are only for the 3/32". The 1/8" you don't need all
that many for from what it looks like while doing the QB wings
and QB fuse. You can use a ton of them on the empennage though.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Larry wrote:
>
> Any suggestions on how many clecos will be needed for the quickbuild
> wings and fuse?
>
> Larry Rosen
> RV10 #356
> Emp complete, waiting on QB wings
>
> Rick wrote:
>
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> 735...exactly...I had 635 and borrowed 100.
>>
>> Rick S.
>> 40185
>> Flaps
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mani Ravee" <maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
Well, I have ordered the SB wing kit. Will go with QB fuse. My reasoning is
that there is more to be customized in the building of the wings. Wires,
conduits, HIDs, AOA, etc, etc. Plus I will be able to epoxy (AKZO) the
material. I find that in the 30 yr ole Cessnas, the corrosion usually is
apparent and more in the wings than anywhere else. My delivery date is in
August for the slow build wings.
Mani
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Denk
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
>
>I'm thinking of ordering one or the other quick builds soon, either the
>wing
>or fuselage. I'm trying to save both time and money, so thought I'd
>compromise. Any opinions as to which would be "easier" to build from
>pieces
>and which would be best bought as a quick build? My apologies if this has
>all been hashed out before, but thought since many have now been down this
>road there might be new thoughts.
>
>John Jessen
> Empcone 1%
For me, it's QB wings and slowbuild fuse. The fuse is interesting to build,
and seldom gets boring. The wings, well, they ARE boring! Lot's of
repetition and proseal too. I've already proved my mettle (or is it
"metal"?) by building a slowbuild, non-matched hole RV8 so I'll let the
Phillippine folks do those big ole wing planks for me this time.
To each his own, but this just makes the most sense for me this time around.
For the next RV (RV3), I'll de-evolve back to raw bauxite and bailing wire
just for nostalgia's sake!
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
RV10 '51 waitin' in the wings....for the wings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
Mani,
Not much time dimpling? he he he....have you passed the tail cone yet? Cause there
are these big ole wing skins waiting for you after you get done dimpling the
tailcone.. ;) All in jest of course...
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pneumatic rivet squeezers |
They will make an extra hole in ANY part....just have to pay attention while your
doing it, or as Brian says..."your head in the game"
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
I had no choice as in France, QB are not allowed BUT if I had a choice, I
would QB the wing and slow build the fuse. The wing is boring and standard -
there is not much one can do to customize it. The fuse on the other hand can
incorporate personal touches such as platenuts for floors, sound proofing,
battery fixture...
Michle
RV8 - just starting on the fuselage, at last.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:09 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
>
>
> I'm thinking of ordering one or the other quick builds soon, either the
> wing
> or fuselage. I'm trying to save both time and money, so thought I'd
> compromise. Any opinions as to which would be "easier" to build from
> pieces
> and which would be best bought as a quick build? My apologies if this has
> all been hashed out before, but thought since many have now been down this
> road there might be new thoughts.
>
> John Jessen
> Empcone 1%
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
I'll second the tiresome or at times boring part of the wings...finish a part...then
do it again. Anyone noticed that the right wing parts come out a tad better
than the left wing?...I guess practice makes perfect. I must admit though
that finishing the tanks really felt good!!
Rick S.
40185
Flaps
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mani Ravee <maniravee(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its the tedious deburring of the
holes which get me. I really hate that.
Mani
Rick wrote:
Mani,
Not much time dimpling? he he he....have you passed the tail cone yet? Cause there
are these big ole wing skins waiting for you after you get done dimpling the
tailcone.. ;) All in jest of course...
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org> |
Hi all,
Well, moving right along, I got all my corrosion protection done on the
VS parts and started riveting last night. Went great, and being the
first time I had been using 1/8" rivets I grabbed my trusty rivet gauge
to make sure my shop heads were right. Well, it helps if you use the #4
gauge instead of the #6 gauge.
So now my question is this... the rivets I completed last night are the
AN426AD4-7 rivets along the rear spar that hold the rear spar doubler to
to the rear spar. I actually ran out of them as apparently they didn't
include enough with my kit, so I havent done the ones that attach the
lower rudder hinge to the spar. The shop heads should be 3/16" but
since I'm an idiot I drove them to 1/4". It doesn't seem like this is a
high load area ( I would think most of the stress is on the hinge
brackets and the bolts that attach the VS to the fuse, and not the
rivets that hold the doubler and stiffeners to the spar - please correct
me if I'm wrong ;) but then again, I'm not an ME so what do I know? Do
I need to drill out all of them or are they ok as long as I get the rest
of the rivets right? What I am really afraid of is that drilling out
rivets seems to invariably create more problems...
Thanks,
James
#40400.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com> |
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
Thanks, everyone, for helping me on this task. I am a little more confused
than before, but that's the beauty of getting everyone's opinion. Here's
what I have so far, along with questions.
In favor of slow wing:
You get to add wiring, do other modifications that maybe you couldn't with
the QB. Downside is that you get to do repetitious work and have to deal
with the tanks. Questions: Does going with QB wings really eliminate being
able to put wiring in that you'd like to have for antennae, HID lights,
flasher lights, heated pitot, AOA, etc? Is the ability to add edge lighting
in the wing taken away by going with the QB? Also, can you not have (and
why would you?) capacitance fuel sensors with the QB?
In favor of the slow fuselage:
You don't get as bored as with the wings, you don't have to deal with the
tanks, you can do modifications that you wouldn't be able to do with the QB,
such as battery placement, storage areas, etc. Questions: What are folks
averaging in hours to put together the slow build fuselage? Is it
significantly greater than for the wings? Are there jigs or special tools
required, or is it just as "straight forward" as doing the Empcone? What
modifications are people doing that really require you to go the Slow Build
route?
I figure that the answers here will help out not only myself, but a few
others who have purchased the Empcone, but who are wondering what build
strategy to adopt next.
Thanks in advance
John Jessen
-> Empcone 1%
-----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: Quickbuild Purchase Question
I'll second the tiresome or at times boring part of the wings...finish a
part...then do it again. Anyone noticed that the right wing parts come out a
tad better than the left wing?...I guess practice makes perfect. I must
admit though that finishing the tanks really felt good!!
Rick S.
40185
Flaps
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com> |
I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any day....of course I am just
starting on my wings.
Rene'
N423CF
40322
-----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: WTB:
Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its the tedious deburring of
the holes which get me. I really hate that.
Mani
Rick wrote:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com> |
OK, what is a longeron yoke?
Rene'
N423CF
40322
-----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: WTB:
Bill,
As I near completion of the wings I found these yokes all had a place at
some point of the build so far. The quick change pins are cheap and really
came in handy as I swapped yokes about four times during the ailerons and
aileron/flap braces. The dimple die set that came with my squeezer was very
complete and had all the dies to include long, short, small diameter,
universal, screws everything. The longeron yoke is by far the most used on
my project followed by the standard then the no hole. The no hole gets right
into the ribs on the elevator, rudder, ailerons and flaps. It also allowed
me to squeeze the entire aft row of rivets on the wing skins. The down side
is they are not cheap.
Rick
to
and much
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
James, do you have the rivet gauges with a hole on one end and a notch in the other?
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: RV10-List: Oops. Grrr. ;)
Hi all,
Well, moving right along, I got all my corrosion protection done on the
VS parts and started riveting last night. Went great, and being the
first time I had been using 1/8" rivets I grabbed my trusty rivet gauge
to make sure my shop heads were right. Well, it helps if you use the #4
gauge instead of the #6 gauge.
So now my question is this... the rivets I completed last night are the
AN426AD4-7 rivets along the rear spar that hold the rear spar doubler to
to the rear spar. I actually ran out of them as apparently they didn't
include enough with my kit, so I havent done the ones that attach the
lower rudder hinge to the spar. The shop heads should be 3/16" but
since I'm an idiot I drove them to 1/4". It doesn't seem like this is a
high load area ( I would think most of the stress is on the hinge
brackets and the bolts that attach the VS to the fuse, and not the
rivets that hold the doubler and stiffeners to the spar - please correct
me if I'm wrong ;) but then again, I'm not an ME so what do I know? Do
I need to drill out all of them or are they ok as long as I get the rest
of the rivets right? What I am really afraid of is that drilling out
rivets seems to invariably create more problems...
Thanks,
James
#40400.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org> |
I just can't say enough about the cogsdill deburring bits. For me,
deburring and dimpling are now about the same level of annoyance, and
deburring takes about the same amount of time as dimpling does with
those bits, and the holes actually come out cleaner on the first try
than they do with the hand deburring tool. The drawback is that they are
expensive ;)
Now, if I only had a magic wand scotchbrite / prep / cleaning tool!
James
Rene Felker wrote:
> I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any day..of course I am just
> starting on my wings.
>
> Rene'
>
> N423CF
>
> 40322
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Mani Ravee
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:11 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: WTB:
>
> Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its the tedious
> deburring of the holes which get me. I really hate that.
>
> Mani
>
> */Rick /* wrote:
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Oops. Grrr. ;) |
Yes, I just grabbed the wrong one because somewhere i got the number six
stuck in my head instead of 4 which is the size rivet... I have no idea
why I did that. Vapor lock in the brain or something ;)
James
Randy DeBauw wrote:
>
>James, do you have the rivet gauges with a hole on one end and a notch in the
other? Randy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Ochs
>Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:10 AM
>To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Oops. Grrr. ;)
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>Well, moving right along, I got all my corrosion protection done on the
>VS parts and started riveting last night. Went great, and being the
>first time I had been using 1/8" rivets I grabbed my trusty rivet gauge
>to make sure my shop heads were right. Well, it helps if you use the #4
>gauge instead of the #6 gauge.
>
>So now my question is this... the rivets I completed last night are the
>AN426AD4-7 rivets along the rear spar that hold the rear spar doubler to
>to the rear spar. I actually ran out of them as apparently they didn't
>include enough with my kit, so I havent done the ones that attach the
>lower rudder hinge to the spar. The shop heads should be 3/16" but
>since I'm an idiot I drove them to 1/4". It doesn't seem like this is a
>high load area ( I would think most of the stress is on the hinge
>brackets and the bolts that attach the VS to the fuse, and not the
>rivets that hold the doubler and stiffeners to the spar - please correct
>me if I'm wrong ;) but then again, I'm not an ME so what do I know? Do
>I need to drill out all of them or are they ok as long as I get the rest
>of the rivets right? What I am really afraid of is that drilling out
>rivets seems to invariably create more problems...
>
>Thanks,
>James
>#40400.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | matronix.rv10(at)4sythe.com |
A longeron yoke is a somewhat squared off yoke that at the top, comes
back toward the plunger so it will reach around and still be able to
squeeze without damaging or getting caught on any other parts. By far,
I use this yoke the most. Worth it's weight in gasoline... :-)
Kent
Elevators
40338
________________________________
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 Rene Felker
Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
OK, what is a longeron yoke?
Rene'
N423CF
40322
-----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: WTB:
Bill,
As I near completion of the wings I found these yokes all had a place at
some point of the build so far. The quick change pins are cheap and
really came in handy as I swapped yokes about four times during the
ailerons and aileron/flap braces. The dimple die set that came with my
squeezer was very complete and had all the dies to include long, short,
small diameter, universal, screws everything. The longeron yoke is by
far the most used on my project followed by the standard then the no
hole. The no hole gets right into the ribs on the elevator, rudder,
ailerons and flaps. It also allowed me to squeeze the entire aft row of
rivets on the wing skins. The down side is they are not cheap.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org> |
Just came across this a few minutes ago, Just an FYI:
http://planenews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=528
*Marathon Oil Warns Pilots Using Auto Gas in West Virginia.*
Safety and Warnings
<http://planenews.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=52>Marathon
Ashland Petroleum officials are warning pilots in West Virginia, and
parts of Ohio and Kentucky, who use 87 or 89 octane auto fuel in their
aircraft that the company has detected the presence of foreign materials
in some of that fuel. Pilots using auto fuel in airplanes in those areas
are asked to call 800-892-3418.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com> |
My guess is that you will want to drill those out. Get use to it. There will be
more. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Oops. Grrr. ;)
Yes, I just grabbed the wrong one because somewhere i got the number six
stuck in my head instead of 4 which is the size rivet... I have no idea
why I did that. Vapor lock in the brain or something ;)
James
Randy DeBauw wrote:
>
>James, do you have the rivet gauges with a hole on one end and a notch in the
other? Randy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Ochs
>Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:10 AM
>To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Oops. Grrr. ;)
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>Well, moving right along, I got all my corrosion protection done on the
>VS parts and started riveting last night. Went great, and being the
>first time I had been using 1/8" rivets I grabbed my trusty rivet gauge
>to make sure my shop heads were right. Well, it helps if you use the #4
>gauge instead of the #6 gauge.
>
>So now my question is this... the rivets I completed last night are the
>AN426AD4-7 rivets along the rear spar that hold the rear spar doubler to
>to the rear spar. I actually ran out of them as apparently they didn't
>include enough with my kit, so I havent done the ones that attach the
>lower rudder hinge to the spar. The shop heads should be 3/16" but
>since I'm an idiot I drove them to 1/4". It doesn't seem like this is a
>high load area ( I would think most of the stress is on the hinge
>brackets and the bolts that attach the VS to the fuse, and not the
>rivets that hold the doubler and stiffeners to the spar - please correct
>me if I'm wrong ;) but then again, I'm not an ME so what do I know? Do
>I need to drill out all of them or are they ok as long as I get the rest
>of the rivets right? What I am really afraid of is that drilling out
>rivets seems to invariably create more problems...
>
>Thanks,
>James
>#40400.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com> |
Deburring is much more pleasant with the Cogsdill Burraway tool.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On May 10, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
> I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any day=85=85..of course I am
> just starting on my wings.
>
>
> Rene'
>
> N423CF
>
> 40322
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:11 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
>
>
> Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its the tedious
> deburring of the holes which get me. I really hate that.
>
> Mani
>
> Rick wrote:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PJ Seipel <seipel(at)seznam.cz> |
| Subject: | Re: Oops. Grrr. ;) |
My tech counselor's view was that it is better to over drive the rivets
than to under drive them. Something about an over driven rivet still
retains 80% of its strength. Maybe someone else here has more concrete
info or a reference you can check.
PJ
40032
James Ochs wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Well, moving right along, I got all my corrosion protection done on
> the VS parts and started riveting last night. Went great, and being
> the first time I had been using 1/8" rivets I grabbed my trusty rivet
> gauge to make sure my shop heads were right. Well, it helps if you
> use the #4 gauge instead of the #6 gauge.
>
> So now my question is this... the rivets I completed last night are
> the AN426AD4-7 rivets along the rear spar that hold the rear spar
> doubler to to the rear spar. I actually ran out of them as apparently
> they didn't include enough with my kit, so I havent done the ones that
> attach the lower rudder hinge to the spar. The shop heads should be
> 3/16" but since I'm an idiot I drove them to 1/4". It doesn't seem
> like this is a high load area ( I would think most of the stress is on
> the hinge brackets and the bolts that attach the VS to the fuse, and
> not the rivets that hold the doubler and stiffeners to the spar -
> please correct me if I'm wrong ;) but then again, I'm not an ME so
> what do I know? Do I need to drill out all of them or are they ok as
> long as I get the rest of the rivets right? What I am really afraid
> of is that drilling out rivets seems to invariably create more
> problems...
>
> Thanks,
> James
> #40400.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com> |
James,
I would do two things:
1-Since there appear to be a lot of rivets involved I would get Vans opinion on
it.
2-I would replace at least some of the rivets, maybe every third rivet, so that
you have at least some with a good tail.
Niko
40188
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: RV10-List: Oops. Grrr. ;)
Hi all,
Well, moving right along, I got all my corrosion protection done on the
VS parts and started riveting last night. Went great, and being the
first time I had been using 1/8" rivets I grabbed my trusty rivet gauge
to make sure my shop heads were right. Well, it helps if you use the #4
gauge instead of the #6 gauge.
So now my question is this... the rivets I completed last night are the
AN426AD4-7 rivets along the rear spar that hold the rear spar doubler to
to the rear spar. I actually ran out of them as apparently they didn't
include enough with my kit, so I havent done the ones that attach the
lower rudder hinge to the spar. The shop heads should be 3/16" but
since I'm an idiot I drove them to 1/4". It doesn't seem like this is a
high load area ( I would think most of the stress is on the hinge
brackets and the bolts that attach the VS to the fuse, and not the
rivets that hold the doubler and stiffeners to the spar - please correct
me if I'm wrong ;) but then again, I'm not an ME so what do I know? Do
I need to drill out all of them or are they ok as long as I get the rest
of the rivets right? What I am really afraid of is that drilling out
rivets seems to invariably create more problems...
Thanks,
James
#40400.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com> |
I suppose you can get these at Avery's and the usual other places? Any good
pricing out there?
John Jessen
-> Empcone 1% (40328)
_____
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: WTB:
A longeron yoke is a somewhat squared off yoke that at the top, comes back
toward the plunger so it will reach around and still be able to squeeze
without damaging or getting caught on any other parts. By far, I use this
yoke the most. Worth it's weight in gasoline. :-)
Kent
Elevators
40338
_____
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 Rene Felker
Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
OK, what is a longeron yoke?
Rene'
N423CF
40322
-----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: WTB:
Bill,
As I near completion of the wings I found these yokes all had a place at
some point of the build so far. The quick change pins are cheap and really
came in handy as I swapped yokes about four times during the ailerons and
aileron/flap braces. The dimple die set that came with my squeezer was very
complete and had all the dies to include long, short, small diameter,
universal, screws everything. The longeron yoke is by far the most used on
my project followed by the standard then the no hole. The no hole gets right
into the ribs on the elevator, rudder, ailerons and flaps. It also allowed
me to squeeze the entire aft row of rivets on the wing skins. The down side
is they are not cheap.
Rick
==================================== ====================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com> |
Where did you get your Burraway tool?
Rene'
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter
Subject: Re: RV10-List: WTB:
Deburring is much more pleasant with the Cogsdill Burraway tool.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On May 10, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any day....of course I am just
starting on my wings.
Rene'
N423CF
40322
-----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: WTB:
Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its the tedious deburring of
the holes which get me. I really hate that.
Mani
Rick wrote:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darton Steve <sfdarton(at)yahoo.com> |
Try Brown tools
http://www.browntool.com/productselect.asp?ProductID=718
Steve 40212
--- John Jessen wrote:
> I suppose you can get these at Avery's and the usual
> other places? Any good
> pricing out there?
>
> John Jessen
> -> Empcone 1% (40328)
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of
> matronix.rv10(at)4sythe.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:48 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
>
>
>
>
>
> A longeron yoke is a somewhat squared off yoke that
> at the top, comes back
> toward the plunger so it will reach around and still
> be able to squeeze
> without damaging or getting caught on any other
> parts. By far, I use this
> yoke the most. Worth it's weight in gasoline. :-)
>
>
>
> Kent
>
> Elevators
>
> 40338
>
>
> _____
>
>
> 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 Rene Felker
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:03 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
>
>
>
> OK, what is a longeron yoke?
>
>
>
> Rene'
>
> N423CF
>
> 40322
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Rick
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:27 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: WTB:
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
>
>
> As I near completion of the wings I found these
> yokes all had a place at
> some point of the build so far. The quick change
> pins are cheap and really
> came in handy as I swapped yokes about four times
> during the ailerons and
> aileron/flap braces. The dimple die set that came
> with my squeezer was very
> complete and had all the dies to include long,
> short, small diameter,
> universal, screws everything. The longeron yoke is
> by far the most used on
> my project followed by the standard then the no
> hole. The no hole gets right
> into the ribs on the elevator, rudder, ailerons and
> flaps. It also allowed
> me to squeeze the entire aft row of rivets on the
> wing skins. The down side
> is they are not cheap.
>
>
>
> Rick
>
> ====================================
> ====================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oops. Grrr. ;) |
Quoting PJ Seipel :
> My tech counselor's view was that it is better to over drive the rivets
> than to under drive them. Something about an over driven rivet still
> retains 80% of its strength. Maybe someone else here has more concrete
> info or a reference you can check.
G'day all,
For everyone's reference I have copied a message from Bill Marvel in 2002 that
I found on the RV-Lis
about exactly this.
Interesting reading.
Have fun,
Scott Lewis
----------------------SNIP!!!!------------------------------------
Hi all:
A couple of months ago I sent the following post to the So. Cal RV
group. At the time I was not
subscribed to the matronics list. Since the subject is real life
testing I had done to determine the strengh of improperly set rivets, I
think you will be interested in the results. And since the bill just
arrived ($280), I need to share the knowledge with a lot of people to
get my money's worth!! Here's the post:
Two days ago I got around to doing something that I had planned last
year -- actual pull tests on riveted aluminum coupons to see how
critical it is to drive rivets to the correct height. All of us
building or with completed RVs (as will those those planning on it in
the future) have had to wonder which imperfect rivets to drill out and
which are OK. The answer is obvious when there is a severe cosmetic
problem, but
when strength is at issue, how much does a slightly under or overdriven
rivet affect strength? How much does a grossly under or overdriven
rivet affect it? Frankly, I had made the decision that the risk of
damage from drilling out a flush rivet is greater than the benefit of
doing so, unless an obvious cosmetic defect or really bad rivet is at
issue. Now I have some hard data to go by.
What I did was to make up 10 test coupons. Each of these consisted of
two pieces of .032 2024-T3 sheet 1.5 inches wide and 4 inches long.
These two pieces were overlapped by 1.5 inches and riveted together with
two parallel rows of 3 rivets each. Of the 10
total coupons, five involved the use of universal head AN 470 AD3 rivets
and the other 5 used AN 426 AD3 flush rivets. In the latter case, both
pieces of aluminum were dimpled at each rivet location, as is routinely
done in Van's airplanes. In fact, the coupon construction is similar to
the double rivet line where the lower outboard wing skin overlaps the
lower inboard wing skin. This joint is loaded in tension normally for
positive G flight and gave me the idea to mimic it for the pull tests.
Before getting into the results, let me ask you a question. Please
think about the answer before proceeding. Just how many pounds of force
do you think it would take to destroy one of the sheets used in making
up the coupons? Remember this is .032, 2024-T3 sheet 4 inches long and
1.5 inches wide with no holes or rivets in it. Think about grabbing and
suspending it at one end with some sort of clamp across the entire 1.5
inch width and then hanging weights on the other end from another
clamp. How much weight would it take to break this .032 inch thick
sheet? Would a 100 pound set of barbells do it? A 500 pound set? A
1200 pound small car? A gross weight RV8 at 1800 pounds? A gross
weight Grumman Tiger at 2400 pounds? More than that? Come up with some
sort of gut feel before proceeding. I was surprised by the answer. You
may or may not be, depending on your knowledge in this area.
Since some of you will cheat and read on, I'll hold the answer for a
moment! Each of the 5 test coupons, both with the universal head rivets
and the flush head rivets, was riveted to a different degree. One was
grossly under driven, one was slightly under driven, one was correct per
the rivet gauge, one was slightly over driven and the last was grossly
over driven. The slightly under driven and slightly over driven rivets
were such that you would probably need a rivet gauge to detect them -- I
did this because I suspect that most of the rivets in our planes fall
into this category. The grossly over and under driven rivets were
really gross. The over driven were squashed nearly flat and the under
driven were barely set at all. I did this to see just how poorly a
joint make of this sort of gross error would hold up. You would easily
see these and know there was a problem immediately. You'll find the
results interesting.........
The idea was to put each coupon in a pull test machine and expose the
riveted joint to a slowly increasing force until it yielded. This was
done at a structural test lab in Paramount (Southern CA city) that works
mostly with civil
engineering construction materials. A stress/strain graph was running
and we monitored it to see the first indication of joint failure as
indicated by a decrease in force required as the coupon stretched,
cracked, broke in two, sheared or tipped rivets, etc. I was interested
in the force required to cause the initial failure, as well as the
nature and appearance of that initial failure; ie, what actually
happened first. We agreed to stop the machine at the incipient
indication of failure, thus preserving the coupon in its early failure
state without destroying the joint completely. I was very curious as to
how things would fail and really had no idea other than the thought that
the dimpled, flush riveted joint would probably be stronger than the
undimpled one with the 470 universal head rivets. In contrast, one of
the owners of the lab came in to watch and thought the opposite would be
true. In his 50 years in the business, he had never seen this test
done. What do you think would hold best?
That said, here is the answer to my prior question. A force of 2300
pounds was required to break the test material with no rivets or holes
in it. It failed catastrophically shortly after some initial stretching
was noted. I had no idea that a cross section of this 2024 T3 sheet,
.032 inches thick and 1.5 inches wide, would sustain anywhere near that
load. Frankly, I was surprised when it passed 1000 pounds and still
going strong.
Before showing you the numbers, I will give a brief summary of them:
1. The dimpled, flush riveted construction was stronger, but not by as
much as I had thought. However, and this is really important, initial
failure of the dimpled construction was generally not catastrophic and
occurred as rivet tipping and rivet head distortion. In contrast,
initial failure of the AN 470 undimpled construction was generally
catastrophic by rivet shear. I am really happy Van uses the flush
riveted, double dimpled joints throughout most of the airplane!
2. Slightly under driving or slightly over driving a rivet makes an
observable and thus measurable difference in the joint strength.
3. Slightly over driving is stronger than slightly under driving and
results (in my opinion) in an insignificant difference in strength as
compared to properly driven rivets.
4. In the one test of slightly over driven AN 470 rivets, the joint was
actually stronger than with properly driven rivets. This may have just
been the luck of the draw for this single sample, so I wouldn't put any
real faith in it.
5. A joint made of grossly over driven rivets is stronger joint than a
joint make of grossly under driven ones.
6. A grossly under driven AN 470 joint is much weaker than a grossly
under driven AN 426 joint.
7. No joint was as strong as the parent material itself.
To summarize the summary, try for properly driven rivets but realize
that minor over driving is preferable to minor under driving and results
in nearly the same strength as does the condition of properly driven
rivets.
AN 426 AD 3 Table
Condition Force at failure Nature of failure
Gross under 1650 Rivet tipping, head distortion
Slight under 1775 Same
Correct 2025 Same
Slight over 1975 Same
Gross over 1825 Sheet tear at rivet line
AN 470 AD 3 Table
Gross under 1100 Rivet tip plus one sheared rivet
Slight under 1600 5 sheared rivets!
Correct 1625 6 sheared rivets!
Slight over 1750 6 sheared rivets!
Gross over 1500 Rivet tip plus sheet tear at
rivet line
Anyway, those are some real numbers for an area we have undoubtedly
thought about at one time or another. My opinions, FWIW: I think an
occasional rivet that is slightly under driven or slightly over driven
is utterly no big deal and can safely be ignored. We all have some of
these flying in formation in our airplanes. A line of them would be
another matter. Even an occasional grossly over driven rivet is
probably OK, especially if getting rid of it could cause damage. And if
underdriven too much, just whack it again. Hope you learned something
from this. I certainly did.
Bill Marvel
--
Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832
7617
P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darton Steve <sfdarton(at)yahoo.com> |
Rene,
Give me a call if you would like to discuss or come by
and try out a Cogsdill deburring tool. Mike Howe's web
site shows it in the wing section. I turned him onto
them and he also likes them.
Steve #40212 (801)971-1009
--- Rene Felker wrote:
> I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any
> day....of course I am just
> starting on my wings.
>
>
>
> Rene'
>
> N423CF
>
> 40322
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Mani Ravee
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:11 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
>
>
>
> Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its
> the tedious deburring of
> the holes which get me. I really hate that.
>
> Mani
>
> Rick wrote:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
Tech info for deburring tool found at
http://www.cogsdill.com/deburring.html
Rene Felker wrote:
> Where did you get your Burraway tool?
>
>
>
> Rene'
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:51 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: WTB:
>
>
>
> Deburring is much more pleasant with the Cogsdill Burraway tool.
>
>
>
> Jeff Carpenter
>
> 40304
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
>
>
> I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any day........of course I am
> just starting on my wings.
>
>
>
> Rene'
>
> N423CF
>
> 40322
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:11 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
>
>
>
> Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its the tedious
> deburring of the holes which get me. I really hate that.
>
> Mani
>
> Rick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
--
Carlos Hernandez
Structural Engineers, LLC
2111 E. Broadway Rd. - Suite 3
Tempe, AZ 85282
Phone: 480.968.8600
Fax: 480.968.8608
www.sec-engr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com> |
Try Cogsdill at (803) 438-4000. Product #YA-00938 is the tool for
the 3/32 hole and YA-01250 is for the 1/8" hole. I believe they run
around $40.00 each... but they''re worth their weight in gold.
They work with a two sided retracting blade in a shaft. You mount it
in a hand held drill. As it goes through the hole, it deburrs one
side, the blade retracts and opens up again on the other side of the
hole. As you pull the shaft out of the hole, the other side is
deburred.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On May 10, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Rene Felker wrote:
> Where did you get your Burraway tool?
>
>
> Rene'
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:51 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: WTB:
>
>
> Deburring is much more pleasant with the Cogsdill Burraway tool.
>
>
> Jeff Carpenter
>
> 40304
>
>
> On May 10, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
>
>
> I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any day=85=85..of course I am
> just starting on my wings.
>
>
> Rene'
>
> N423CF
>
> 40322
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:11 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
>
>
> Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its the tedious
> deburring of the holes which get me. I really hate that.
>
> Mani
>
> Rick wrote:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com> |
Nice work.
MIL-HNDBK-5 is one of the standards by which metal aircraft structures are designed.
If one checks it for a 3/32" AD rivet, the allowable single shear strength
is given as 217lbs. Thus with 6 rivets the maximum design load you could
have is 6x217=1302lb as in this test case the rivet strength is less than the
bearing strength of the skin. Thus the only joint that was not acceptable was
the "gross under".
These results would be considerably different for tension loads on the rivets.
I think the tension loads which develop from things like the pressure distribution
on the skins are low compared to the tensile strength of the rivets. However,
one does have to be carefull at local details which might introduce significant
tensile loads in the rivets.
Niko
40188
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
rv10(at)tpg.com.au
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Oops. Grrr. ;)
Quoting PJ Seipel :
> My tech counselor's view was that it is better to over drive the rivets
> than to under drive them. Something about an over driven rivet still
> retains 80% of its strength. Maybe someone else here has more concrete
> info or a reference you can check.
G'day all,
For everyone's reference I have copied a message from Bill Marvel in 2002 that
I found on the RV-Lis
about exactly this.
Interesting reading.
Have fun,
Scott Lewis
----------------------SNIP!!!!------------------------------------
Hi all:
A couple of months ago I sent the following post to the So. Cal RV
group. At the time I was not
subscribed to the matronics list. Since the subject is real life
testing I had done to determine the strengh of improperly set rivets, I
think you will be interested in the results. And since the bill just
arrived ($280), I need to share the knowledge with a lot of people to
get my money's worth!! Here's the post:
Two days ago I got around to doing something that I had planned last
year -- actual pull tests on riveted aluminum coupons to see how
critical it is to drive rivets to the correct height. All of us
building or with completed RVs (as will those those planning on it in
the future) have had to wonder which imperfect rivets to drill out and
which are OK. The answer is obvious when there is a severe cosmetic
problem, but
when strength is at issue, how much does a slightly under or overdriven
rivet affect strength? How much does a grossly under or overdriven
rivet affect it? Frankly, I had made the decision that the risk of
damage from drilling out a flush rivet is greater than the benefit of
doing so, unless an obvious cosmetic defect or really bad rivet is at
issue. Now I have some hard data to go by.
What I did was to make up 10 test coupons. Each of these consisted of
two pieces of .032 2024-T3 sheet 1.5 inches wide and 4 inches long.
These two pieces were overlapped by 1.5 inches and riveted together with
two parallel rows of 3 rivets each. Of the 10
total coupons, five involved the use of universal head AN 470 AD3 rivets
and the other 5 used AN 426 AD3 flush rivets. In the latter case, both
pieces of aluminum were dimpled at each rivet location, as is routinely
done in Van's airplanes. In fact, the coupon construction is similar to
the double rivet line where the lower outboard wing skin overlaps the
lower inboard wing skin. This joint is loaded in tension normally for
positive G flight and gave me the idea to mimic it for the pull tests.
Before getting into the results, let me ask you a question. Please
think about the answer before proceeding. Just how many pounds of force
do you think it would take to destroy one of the sheets used in making
up the coupons? Remember this is .032, 2024-T3 sheet 4 inches long and
1.5 inches wide with no holes or rivets in it. Think about grabbing and
suspending it at one end with some sort of clamp across the entire 1.5
inch width and then hanging weights on the other end from another
clamp. How much weight would it take to break this .032 inch thick
sheet? Would a 100 pound set of barbells do it? A 500 pound set? A
1200 pound small car? A gross weight RV8 at 1800 pounds? A gross
weight Grumman Tiger at 2400 pounds? More than that? Come up with some
sort of gut feel before proceeding. I was surprised by the answer. You
may or may not be, depending on your knowledge in this area.
Since some of you will cheat and read on, I'll hold the answer for a
moment! Each of the 5 test coupons, both with the universal head rivets
and the flush head rivets, was riveted to a different degree. One was
grossly under driven, one was slightly under driven, one was correct per
the rivet gauge, one was slightly over driven and the last was grossly
over driven. The slightly under driven and slightly over driven rivets
were such that you would probably need a rivet gauge to detect them -- I
did this because I suspect that most of the rivets in our planes fall
into this category. The grossly over and under driven rivets were
really gross. The over driven were squashed nearly flat and the under
driven were barely set at all. I did this to see just how poorly a
joint make of this sort of gross error would hold up. You would easily
see these and know there was a problem immediately. You'll find the
results interesting.........
The idea was to put each coupon in a pull test machine and expose the
riveted joint to a slowly increasing force until it yielded. This was
done at a structural test lab in Paramount (Southern CA city) that works
mostly with civil
engineering construction materials. A stress/strain graph was running
and we monitored it to see the first indication of joint failure as
indicated by a decrease in force required as the coupon stretched,
cracked, broke in two, sheared or tipped rivets, etc. I was interested
in the force required to cause the initial failure, as well as the
nature and appearance of that initial failure; ie, what actually
happened first. We agreed to stop the machine at the incipient
indication of failure, thus preserving the coupon in its early failure
state without destroying the joint completely. I was very curious as to
how things would fail and really had no idea other than the thought that
the dimpled, flush riveted joint would probably be stronger than the
undimpled one with the 470 universal head rivets. In contrast, one of
the owners of the lab came in to watch and thought the opposite would be
true. In his 50 years in the business, he had never seen this test
done. What do you think would hold best?
That said, here is the answer to my prior question. A force of 2300
pounds was required to break the test material with no rivets or holes
in it. It failed catastrophically shortly after some initial stretching
was noted. I had no idea that a cross section of this 2024 T3 sheet,
.032 inches thick and 1.5 inches wide, would sustain anywhere near that
load. Frankly, I was surprised when it passed 1000 pounds and still
going strong.
Before showing you the numbers, I will give a brief summary of them:
1. The dimpled, flush riveted construction was stronger, but not by as
much as I had thought. However, and this is really important, initial
failure of the dimpled construction was generally not catastrophic and
occurred as rivet tipping and rivet head distortion. In contrast,
initial failure of the AN 470 undimpled construction was generally
catastrophic by rivet shear. I am really happy Van uses the flush
riveted, double dimpled joints throughout most of the airplane!
2. Slightly under driving or slightly over driving a rivet makes an
observable and thus measurable difference in the joint strength.
3. Slightly over driving is stronger than slightly under driving and
results (in my opinion) in an insignificant difference in strength as
compared to properly driven rivets.
4. In the one test of slightly over driven AN 470 rivets, the joint was
actually stronger than with properly driven rivets. This may have just
been the luck of the draw for this single sample, so I wouldn't put any
real faith in it.
5. A joint made of grossly over driven rivets is stronger joint than a
joint make of grossly under driven ones.
6. A grossly under driven AN 470 joint is much weaker than a grossly
under driven AN 426 joint.
7. No joint was as strong as the parent material itself.
To summarize the summary, try for properly driven rivets but realize
that minor over driving is preferable to minor under driving and results
in nearly the same strength as does the condition of properly driven
rivets.
AN 426 AD 3 Table
Condition Force at failure Nature of failure
Gross under 1650 Rivet tipping, head distortion
Slight under 1775 Same
Correct 2025 Same
Slight over 1975 Same
Gross over 1825 Sheet tear at rivet line
AN 470 AD 3 Table
Gross under 1100 Rivet tip plus one sheared rivet
Slight under 1600 5 sheared rivets!
Correct 1625 6 sheared rivets!
Slight over 1750 6 sheared rivets!
Gross over 1500 Rivet tip plus sheet tear at
rivet line
Anyway, those are some real numbers for an area we have undoubtedly
thought about at one time or another. My opinions, FWIW: I think an
occasional rivet that is slightly under driven or slightly over driven
is utterly no big deal and can safely be ignored. We all have some of
these flying in formation in our airplanes. A line of them would be
another matter. Even an occasional grossly over driven rivet is
probably OK, especially if getting rid of it could cause damage. And if
underdriven too much, just whack it again. Hope you learned something
from this. I certainly did.
Bill Marvel
--
Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832
7617
P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
Not sure if you've got your answers yet, but here's my $.02:
Wing:
I believe that the QB does not have the bottom skins installed - at least the outboard
skin. That makes everything accessible. In fact, that's the stage that
most people would be running their wiring, installing the AP servo, pitot tube,
etc. I notice that in Tim's write-up on the Duckworth HID lights, his take
was that it was easier to install with the leading edge already assembled.
Same is true of the PSS AOA system pressure ports. Van's does not yet have the
capacitance fuel senders available for the -10. There are other probes that
could be adapted but since the QB has the tank sealed up (rear baffle installed)
there's no access to do anything except install the float senders. If you
go with the SB (I did) I concur with what others have said, there are two wings
and therefore all of the work is duplicated, upside is that it frequently
goes much faster the second time. It is however very straight forward, just lots
of it! While sealing the fuel tanks wasn't my favorite job, it wasn't really
all that bad. Other memorable part was countersinking the main spars (a lot
of holes!). Last comment - it's probably faster to build both wings at the
same time rather than in a serial fashion.
Fuselage:
I also have the slow build fuselage and am at about the stage of where the quickbuild
is when delivered. My observation is that it's more complicated and somewhat
more difficult than either the wings or tail kits. Things that come to
mind are the bending and twisting of the longerons (hopefully later versions
of the manual have correct measurements...), there's a few rivets that are very
difficult to get to, etc. I don't really see how the QB would limit battery
location - standard location is in the tailcone and the parts are delivered
with that part of the kit. Not sure what additional storage you might want -
the only places that come to mind would be below the baggage floor (ala Dan Checkoway)
or in the tailcone. The QB baggage floors won't be attached yet because
access is needed to attach the tailcone so you've got access to run conduit,
etc. The rear baggage bulkhead is also part of the tail kit so nothing will
have been done on that either. A couple things that come to mind that would
potentially cause a little extra work:
- If the instrument subpanel and associated ribs are installed as part of the QB
(don't know if they are - can somebody with a QB fuselage confirm?). It is
a virtual certainty that you'll have to cut out & reinforce part of the subpanel
for avionics clearance. This would be much easier to do on a workbench.
- I installed my bent whip comm antennas below the rear seats. I put in doublers
for the bottom skin and made small access panels in the seat bottoms for access
to the connectors in the future. This would be much more difficult if the
rear seat bottoms were already installed.
If I was set on getting part of the kit QB and could only pick one I'd probably
go with the fuselage. I elected to go SB for both wings and fuselage just because
I'm enjoying the process so much!
Bob #40105
-----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: Quickbuild Purchase Question
Thanks, everyone, for helping me on this task. I am a little more confused
than before, but that's the beauty of getting everyone's opinion. Here's
what I have so far, along with questions.
In favor of slow wing:
You get to add wiring, do other modifications that maybe you couldn't with
the QB. Downside is that you get to do repetitious work and have to deal
with the tanks. Questions: Does going with QB wings really eliminate being
able to put wiring in that you'd like to have for antennae, HID lights,
flasher lights, heated pitot, AOA, etc? Is the ability to add edge lighting
in the wing taken away by going with the QB? Also, can you not have (and
why would you?) capacitance fuel sensors with the QB?
In favor of the slow fuselage:
You don't get as bored as with the wings, you don't have to deal with the
tanks, you can do modifications that you wouldn't be able to do with the QB,
such as battery placement, storage areas, etc. Questions: What are folks
averaging in hours to put together the slow build fuselage? Is it
significantly greater than for the wings? Are there jigs or special tools
required, or is it just as "straight forward" as doing the Empcone? What
modifications are people doing that really require you to go the Slow Build
route?
I figure that the answers here will help out not only myself, but a few
others who have purchased the Empcone, but who are wondering what build
strategy to adopt next.
Thanks in advance
John Jessen
-> Empcone 1%
-----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: Quickbuild Purchase Question
I'll second the tiresome or at times boring part of the wings...finish a
part...then do it again. Anyone noticed that the right wing parts come out a
tad better than the left wing?...I guess practice makes perfect. I must
admit though that finishing the tanks really felt good!!
Rick S.
40185
Flaps
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli(at)ngc.com> |
Make sure you tell them you are using them on aluminum as their standard blades
are for steel.
Niko
40188
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter
Subject: Re: RV10-List: WTB:
Try Cogsdill at (803) 438-4000. Product #YA-00938 is the tool for the 3/32 hole
and YA-01250 is for the 1/8" hole. I believe they run around $40.00 each...
but they''re worth their weight in gold.
They work with a two sided retracting blade in a shaft. You mount it in a hand
held drill. As it goes through the hole, it deburrs one side, the blade retracts
and opens up again on the other side of the hole. As you pull the shaft
out of the hole, the other side is deburred.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On May 10, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Rene Felker wrote:
Where did you get your Burraway tool?
Rene'
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [ mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter
Subject: Re: RV10-List: WTB:
Deburring is much more pleasant with the Cogsdill Burraway tool.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On May 10, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any day=85=85..of course I am just starting
on my wings.
Rene'
N423CF
40322
-----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 Mani Ravee
Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its the tedious deburring of the
holes which get me. I really hate that.
Mani
Rick < ricksked(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> |
Anyone considering Ameri-King AK450? These units are inexpensive (they declare)
and should be.I am completing the annual on My C177RG and find that for the second
year in a row the ELT fails to transmit. The original Sharc 7 lasted 26
years and the AK450 failed twice in less than three years. The company replaced
the original failure with another unit which again failed. They now refuse to
repair without charge. Their response was that ELTs are not expensive. Mine
was they certainly given theirs failed twice sometime in less than 36 months.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darton Steve <sfdarton(at)yahoo.com> |
Rene'
Here is a link where I demonstrate using a 3/32
Burraway tool.
https://home.comcast.net/~sfdarton/RV10_movies/Burraway_2.avi
This is deburring both sides of the hole in one pass
and the back side of this rear elevator spar would be
very difficult to deburr by conventional means. You
can see how quick it is. I deburr nearly every single
hole with these tools. They are expensive for such a
small tool but I would never want to build a metal
airplane without one. I have some extra larger size
burraway tools I would part with very reasonably.
Steve #40212 (801)0971-1009
--- Rene Felker wrote:
> Where did you get your Burraway tool?
>
>
>
> Rene'
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:51 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: WTB:
>
>
>
> Deburring is much more pleasant with the Cogsdill
> Burraway tool.
>
>
>
> Jeff Carpenter
>
> 40304
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any
> day....of course I am just
> starting on my wings.
>
>
>
> Rene'
>
> N423CF
>
> 40322
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Mani Ravee
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:11 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
>
>
>
> Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its
> the tedious deburring of
> the holes which get me. I really hate that.
>
> Mani
>
> Rick wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Quickbuild Purchase Question |
I just got the QB fuse and from the looks of it, the instrument panel
ribs are all in place, but, the panel and top skin are only in
with temporary rivets, so it should be easy (I think) to remove the
entire panel assembly and rework the ribs as necessary.
Bob, thanks for reminding me about the bent-whip antenna's under the
rear seats. That's what I plan to do too....I'll need to get my
stuff together and get those access panels cut. I assume you did
one under each side, with maximum side-to-side spacing, but staying
on the flat part of the fuse. Did you just do skin doublers or tied
into the ribs?
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
>
>
> Not sure if you've got your answers yet, but here's my $.02:
>
> Wing: I believe that the QB does not have the bottom skins installed
> - at least the outboard skin. That makes everything accessible. In
> fact, that's the stage that most people would be running their
> wiring, installing the AP servo, pitot tube, etc. I notice that in
> Tim's write-up on the Duckworth HID lights, his take was that it was
> easier to install with the leading edge already assembled. Same is
> true of the PSS AOA system pressure ports. Van's does not yet have
> the capacitance fuel senders available for the -10. There are other
> probes that could be adapted but since the QB has the tank sealed up
> (rear baffle installed) there's no access to do anything except
> install the float senders. If you go with the SB (I did) I concur
> with what others have said, there are two wings and therefore all of
> the work is duplicated, upside is that it frequently goes much faster
> the second time. It is however very straight forward, just lots of
> it! While sealing the fuel tanks wasn't my f! avorite job, it wasn't
> really all that bad. Other memorable part was countersinking the
> main spars (a lot of holes!). Last comment - it's probably faster to
> build both wings at the same time rather than in a serial fashion.
>
> Fuselage: I also have the slow build fuselage and am at about the
> stage of where the quickbuild is when delivered. My observation is
> that it's more complicated and somewhat more difficult than either
> the wings or tail kits. Things that come to mind are the bending
> and twisting of the longerons (hopefully later versions of the manual
> have correct measurements...), there's a few rivets that are very
> difficult to get to, etc. I don't really see how the QB would limit
> battery location - standard location is in the tailcone and the parts
> are delivered with that part of the kit. Not sure what additional
> storage you might want - the only places that come to mind would be
> below the baggage floor (ala Dan Checkoway) or in the tailcone. The
> QB baggage floors won't be attached yet because access is needed to
> attach the tailcone so you've got access to run conduit, etc. The
> rear baggage bulkhead is also part of the tail kit so nothing will
> have been done on that either. A couple things th! at come to mind
> that would potentially cause a little extra work: - If the instrument
> subpanel and associated ribs are installed as part of the QB (don't
> know if they are - can somebody with a QB fuselage confirm?). It is
> a virtual certainty that you'll have to cut out & reinforce part of
> the subpanel for avionics clearance. This would be much easier to do
> on a workbench. - I installed my bent whip comm antennas below the
> rear seats. I put in doublers for the bottom skin and made small
> access panels in the seat bottoms for access to the connectors in the
> future. This would be much more difficult if the rear seat bottoms
> were already installed.
>
> If I was set on getting part of the kit QB and could only pick one
> I'd probably go with the fuselage. I elected to go SB for both wings
> and fuselage just because I'm enjoying the process so much!
>
> Bob #40105
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
> Jessen Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:49 PM To:
> rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase
> Question
>
>
>
> Thanks, everyone, for helping me on this task. I am a little more
> confused than before, but that's the beauty of getting everyone's
> opinion. Here's what I have so far, along with questions.
>
> In favor of slow wing:
>
> You get to add wiring, do other modifications that maybe you couldn't
> with the QB. Downside is that you get to do repetitious work and
> have to deal with the tanks. Questions: Does going with QB wings
> really eliminate being able to put wiring in that you'd like to have
> for antennae, HID lights, flasher lights, heated pitot, AOA, etc? Is
> the ability to add edge lighting in the wing taken away by going with
> the QB? Also, can you not have (and why would you?) capacitance fuel
> sensors with the QB?
>
> In favor of the slow fuselage:
>
> You don't get as bored as with the wings, you don't have to deal with
> the tanks, you can do modifications that you wouldn't be able to do
> with the QB, such as battery placement, storage areas, etc.
> Questions: What are folks averaging in hours to put together the
> slow build fuselage? Is it significantly greater than for the wings?
> Are there jigs or special tools required, or is it just as "straight
> forward" as doing the Empcone? What modifications are people doing
> that really require you to go the Slow Build route?
>
> I figure that the answers here will help out not only myself, but a
> few others who have purchased the Empcone, but who are wondering what
> build strategy to adopt next.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> John Jessen -> Empcone 1%
>
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:42 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
>
>
>
>
> I'll second the tiresome or at times boring part of the
> wings...finish a part...then do it again. Anyone noticed that the
> right wing parts come out a tad better than the left wing?...I guess
> practice makes perfect. I must admit though that finishing the tanks
> really felt good!!
>
> Rick S. 40185 Flaps
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Bob, do you have any photos of your antenna doublers? I look forward to
QB Fuselage owners commenting on the instrument panel rib modifications
when they get there.
John
-----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: RE: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
Not sure if you've got your answers yet, but here's my $.02:
Wing:
I believe that the QB does not have the bottom skins installed - at
least the outboard skin. That makes everything accessible. In fact,
that's the stage that most people would be running their wiring,
installing the AP servo, pitot tube, etc. I notice that in Tim's
write-up on the Duckworth HID lights, his take was that it was easier to
install with the leading edge already assembled. Same is true of the
PSS AOA system pressure ports. Van's does not yet have the capacitance
fuel senders available for the -10. There are other probes that could
be adapted but since the QB has the tank sealed up (rear baffle
installed) there's no access to do anything except install the float
senders. If you go with the SB (I did) I concur with what others have
said, there are two wings and therefore all of the work is duplicated,
upside is that it frequently goes much faster the second time. It is
however very straight forward, just lots of it! While sealing the fuel
tanks wasn't my f!
avorite job, it wasn't really all that bad. Other memorable part was
countersinking the main spars (a lot of holes!). Last comment - it's
probably faster to build both wings at the same time rather than in a
serial fashion.
Fuselage:
I also have the slow build fuselage and am at about the stage of where
the quickbuild is when delivered. My observation is that it's more
complicated and somewhat more difficult than either the wings or tail
kits. Things that come to mind are the bending and twisting of the
longerons (hopefully later versions of the manual have correct
measurements...), there's a few rivets that are very difficult to get
to, etc. I don't really see how the QB would limit battery location -
standard location is in the tailcone and the parts are delivered with
that part of the kit. Not sure what additional storage you might want -
the only places that come to mind would be below the baggage floor (ala
Dan Checkoway) or in the tailcone. The QB baggage floors won't be
attached yet because access is needed to attach the tailcone so you've
got access to run conduit, etc. The rear baggage bulkhead is also part
of the tail kit so nothing will have been done on that either. A couple
things th!
at come to mind that would potentially cause a little extra work:
- If the instrument subpanel and associated ribs are installed as part
of the QB (don't know if they are - can somebody with a QB fuselage
confirm?). It is a virtual certainty that you'll have to cut out &
reinforce part of the subpanel for avionics clearance. This would be
much easier to do on a workbench.
- I installed my bent whip comm antennas below the rear seats. I put in
doublers for the bottom skin and made small access panels in the seat
bottoms for access to the connectors in the future. This would be much
more difficult if the rear seat bottoms were already installed.
If I was set on getting part of the kit QB and could only pick one I'd
probably go with the fuselage. I elected to go SB for both wings and
fuselage just because I'm enjoying the process so much!
Bob #40105
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Cogsdill Tool Products, Inc.
PO Box 7007
Camden, SC 29020-7007
803-438-4000 or
803-438-5263
Email cogsdill(at)cogsdill.com
Catalog # 100 U.S. 1-04, "Burraway" Pages 6-11
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene Felker
Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
Where did you get your Burraway tool?
Rene'
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Carpenter
Subject: Re: RV10-List: WTB:
Deburring is much more pleasant with the Cogsdill Burraway tool.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On May 10, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any day........of course I am
just starting on my wings.
Rene'
N423CF
40322
-----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: WTB:
Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its the tedious deburring
of the holes which get me. I really hate that.
Mani
Rick wrote:
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
A properly prepared doubler (compliant with AC 43.13-2A) is usually tied
into the adjacent ribs and or J stiffeners. That is a feature which
might get addressed sooner in the antenna selection (location) process
for the SB guys. The tie-in is to relieve skin stress, flex and oil
canning from the antennae drag coefficient. Let me know how you and the
rest of the QB guys solve it Tim.
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: Quickbuild Purchase Question
I just got the QB fuse and from the looks of it, the instrument panel
ribs are all in place, but, the panel and top skin are only in
with temporary rivets, so it should be easy (I think) to remove the
entire panel assembly and rework the ribs as necessary.
Bob, thanks for reminding me about the bent-whip antenna's under the
rear seats. That's what I plan to do too....I'll need to get my
stuff together and get those access panels cut. I assume you did
one under each side, with maximum side-to-side spacing, but staying
on the flat part of the fuse. Did you just do skin doublers or tied
into the ribs?
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PJ Seipel <seipel(at)seznam.cz> |
| Subject: | Re: Oops. Grrr. ;) |
Excellent info. I should probably mention that my tech counselor is an
airframes contractor hired by the USMC to provide maintenance advice to
the Marines who work on the AV-8B. I'm glad to see that his info is
correct.
PJ
RV-10 # 40032
rv10(at)tpg.com.au wrote:
>
>Quoting PJ Seipel :
>
>
>>My tech counselor's view was that it is better to over drive the rivets
>>than to under drive them. Something about an over driven rivet still
>>retains 80% of its strength. Maybe someone else here has more concrete
>>info or a reference you can check.
>>
>>
>
>G'day all,
>
>For everyone's reference I have copied a message from Bill Marvel in 2002 that
I found on the RV-Lis
>about exactly this.
>
>Interesting reading.
>
>Have fun,
>Scott Lewis
>
>----------------------SNIP!!!!------------------------------------
>
>
>Hi all:
>
>A couple of months ago I sent the following post to the So. Cal RV
>group. At the time I was not
>subscribed to the matronics list. Since the subject is real life
>testing I had done to determine the strengh of improperly set rivets, I
>think you will be interested in the results. And since the bill just
>arrived ($280), I need to share the knowledge with a lot of people to
>get my money's worth!! Here's the post:
>
>
>Two days ago I got around to doing something that I had planned last
>year -- actual pull tests on riveted aluminum coupons to see how
>critical it is to drive rivets to the correct height. All of us
>building or with completed RVs (as will those those planning on it in
>the future) have had to wonder which imperfect rivets to drill out and
>which are OK. The answer is obvious when there is a severe cosmetic
>problem, but
>when strength is at issue, how much does a slightly under or overdriven
>rivet affect strength? How much does a grossly under or overdriven
>rivet affect it? Frankly, I had made the decision that the risk of
>damage from drilling out a flush rivet is greater than the benefit of
>doing so, unless an obvious cosmetic defect or really bad rivet is at
>issue. Now I have some hard data to go by.
>
>What I did was to make up 10 test coupons. Each of these consisted of
>two pieces of .032 2024-T3 sheet 1.5 inches wide and 4 inches long.
>These two pieces were overlapped by 1.5 inches and riveted together with
>two parallel rows of 3 rivets each. Of the 10
>total coupons, five involved the use of universal head AN 470 AD3 rivets
>and the other 5 used AN 426 AD3 flush rivets. In the latter case, both
>pieces of aluminum were dimpled at each rivet location, as is routinely
>done in Van's airplanes. In fact, the coupon construction is similar to
>the double rivet line where the lower outboard wing skin overlaps the
>lower inboard wing skin. This joint is loaded in tension normally for
>positive G flight and gave me the idea to mimic it for the pull tests.
>
>Before getting into the results, let me ask you a question. Please
>think about the answer before proceeding. Just how many pounds of force
>do you think it would take to destroy one of the sheets used in making
>up the coupons? Remember this is .032, 2024-T3 sheet 4 inches long and
>1.5 inches wide with no holes or rivets in it. Think about grabbing and
>suspending it at one end with some sort of clamp across the entire 1.5
>inch width and then hanging weights on the other end from another
>clamp. How much weight would it take to break this .032 inch thick
>sheet? Would a 100 pound set of barbells do it? A 500 pound set? A
>1200 pound small car? A gross weight RV8 at 1800 pounds? A gross
>weight Grumman Tiger at 2400 pounds? More than that? Come up with some
>sort of gut feel before proceeding. I was surprised by the answer. You
>may or may not be, depending on your knowledge in this area.
>
>Since some of you will cheat and read on, I'll hold the answer for a
>moment! Each of the 5 test coupons, both with the universal head rivets
>and the flush head rivets, was riveted to a different degree. One was
>grossly under driven, one was slightly under driven, one was correct per
>the rivet gauge, one was slightly over driven and the last was grossly
>over driven. The slightly under driven and slightly over driven rivets
>were such that you would probably need a rivet gauge to detect them -- I
>did this because I suspect that most of the rivets in our planes fall
>into this category. The grossly over and under driven rivets were
>really gross. The over driven were squashed nearly flat and the under
>driven were barely set at all. I did this to see just how poorly a
>joint make of this sort of gross error would hold up. You would easily
>see these and know there was a problem immediately. You'll find the
>results interesting.........
>
>The idea was to put each coupon in a pull test machine and expose the
>riveted joint to a slowly increasing force until it yielded. This was
>done at a structural test lab in Paramount (Southern CA city) that works
>mostly with civil
>engineering construction materials. A stress/strain graph was running
>and we monitored it to see the first indication of joint failure as
>indicated by a decrease in force required as the coupon stretched,
>cracked, broke in two, sheared or tipped rivets, etc. I was interested
>in the force required to cause the initial failure, as well as the
>nature and appearance of that initial failure; ie, what actually
>happened first. We agreed to stop the machine at the incipient
>indication of failure, thus preserving the coupon in its early failure
>state without destroying the joint completely. I was very curious as to
>how things would fail and really had no idea other than the thought that
>the dimpled, flush riveted joint would probably be stronger than the
>undimpled one with the 470 universal head rivets. In contrast, one of
>the owners of the lab came in to watch and thought the opposite would be
>true. In his 50 years in the business, he had never seen this test
>done. What do you think would hold best?
>
>That said, here is the answer to my prior question. A force of 2300
>pounds was required to break the test material with no rivets or holes
>in it. It failed catastrophically shortly after some initial stretching
>was noted. I had no idea that a cross section of this 2024 T3 sheet,
>.032 inches thick and 1.5 inches wide, would sustain anywhere near that
>load. Frankly, I was surprised when it passed 1000 pounds and still
>going strong.
>
>Before showing you the numbers, I will give a brief summary of them:
>
>1. The dimpled, flush riveted construction was stronger, but not by as
>much as I had thought. However, and this is really important, initial
>failure of the dimpled construction was generally not catastrophic and
>occurred as rivet tipping and rivet head distortion. In contrast,
>initial failure of the AN 470 undimpled construction was generally
>catastrophic by rivet shear. I am really happy Van uses the flush
>riveted, double dimpled joints throughout most of the airplane!
>
>2. Slightly under driving or slightly over driving a rivet makes an
>observable and thus measurable difference in the joint strength.
>
>3. Slightly over driving is stronger than slightly under driving and
>results (in my opinion) in an insignificant difference in strength as
>compared to properly driven rivets.
>
>4. In the one test of slightly over driven AN 470 rivets, the joint was
>actually stronger than with properly driven rivets. This may have just
>been the luck of the draw for this single sample, so I wouldn't put any
>real faith in it.
>
>5. A joint made of grossly over driven rivets is stronger joint than a
>joint make of grossly under driven ones.
>
>6. A grossly under driven AN 470 joint is much weaker than a grossly
>under driven AN 426 joint.
>
>7. No joint was as strong as the parent material itself.
>
>To summarize the summary, try for properly driven rivets but realize
>that minor over driving is preferable to minor under driving and results
>in nearly the same strength as does the condition of properly driven
>rivets.
>
>AN 426 AD 3 Table
>
>Condition Force at failure Nature of failure
>
>Gross under 1650 Rivet tipping, head distortion
>Slight under 1775 Same
>Correct 2025 Same
>Slight over 1975 Same
>Gross over 1825 Sheet tear at rivet line
>
>
>AN 470 AD 3 Table
>
>Gross under 1100 Rivet tip plus one sheared rivet
>Slight under 1600 5 sheared rivets!
>Correct 1625 6 sheared rivets!
>Slight over 1750 6 sheared rivets!
>Gross over 1500 Rivet tip plus sheet tear at
>rivet line
>
>Anyway, those are some real numbers for an area we have undoubtedly
>thought about at one time or another. My opinions, FWIW: I think an
>occasional rivet that is slightly under driven or slightly over driven
>is utterly no big deal and can safely be ignored. We all have some of
>these flying in formation in our airplanes. A line of them would be
>another matter. Even an occasional grossly over driven rivet is
>probably OK, especially if getting rid of it could cause damage. And if
>underdriven too much, just whack it again. Hope you learned something
>from this. I certainly did.
>
>Bill Marvel
>
>
>--
>Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832
>7617
>P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
>San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
>
>One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
| From: | "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
Tim,
I just did doublers on the skin between the ribs and didn't tie them into the ribs.
I put nutplates on the doublers and attached them to the skin via the nutplate
mounting rivets that were covered by the antennas. Here's a link on the
freedomflyers.com site and my locations match those shown (for comm and transponder).
You can't really move the antennas to the next bay outboard because
the aft ends will extend beyond the fuselage. The access panels in the seat
bottoms are just large enough to get a hand in to reach the cable for whatever
reason. I considered just anchoring it, but figured it wouldn't take long to
make the panels and I'd regret it later if I didn't.
Bob #40105
-----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: Quickbuild Purchase Question
I just got the QB fuse and from the looks of it, the instrument panel
ribs are all in place, but, the panel and top skin are only in
with temporary rivets, so it should be easy (I think) to remove the
entire panel assembly and rework the ribs as necessary.
Bob, thanks for reminding me about the bent-whip antenna's under the
rear seats. That's what I plan to do too....I'll need to get my
stuff together and get those access panels cut. I assume you did
one under each side, with maximum side-to-side spacing, but staying
on the flat part of the fuse. Did you just do skin doublers or tied
into the ribs?
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
>
>
> Not sure if you've got your answers yet, but here's my $.02:
>
> Wing: I believe that the QB does not have the bottom skins installed
> - at least the outboard skin. That makes everything accessible. In
> fact, that's the stage that most people would be running their
> wiring, installing the AP servo, pitot tube, etc. I notice that in
> Tim's write-up on the Duckworth HID lights, his take was that it was
> easier to install with the leading edge already assembled. Same is
> true of the PSS AOA system pressure ports. Van's does not yet have
> the capacitance fuel senders available for the -10. There are other
> probes that could be adapted but since the QB has the tank sealed up
> (rear baffle installed) there's no access to do anything except
> install the float senders. If you go with the SB (I did) I concur
> with what others have said, there are two wings and therefore all of
> the work is duplicated, upside is that it frequently goes much faster
> the second time. It is however very straight forward, just lots of
> it! While sealing the fuel tanks wasn't my f! avorite job, it wasn't
> really all that bad. Other memorable part was countersinking the
> main spars (a lot of holes!). Last comment - it's probably faster to
> build both wings at the same time rather than in a serial fashion.
>
> Fuselage: I also have the slow build fuselage and am at about the
> stage of where the quickbuild is when delivered. My observation is
> that it's more complicated and somewhat more difficult than either
> the wings or tail kits. Things that come to mind are the bending
> and twisting of the longerons (hopefully later versions of the manual
> have correct measurements...), there's a few rivets that are very
> difficult to get to, etc. I don't really see how the QB would limit
> battery location - standard location is in the tailcone and the parts
> are delivered with that part of the kit. Not sure what additional
> storage you might want - the only places that come to mind would be
> below the baggage floor (ala Dan Checkoway) or in the tailcone. The
> QB baggage floors won't be attached yet because access is needed to
> attach the tailcone so you've got access to run conduit, etc. The
> rear baggage bulkhead is also part of the tail kit so nothing will
> have been done on that either. A couple things th! at come to mind
> that would potentially cause a little extra work: - If the instrument
> subpanel and associated ribs are installed as part of the QB (don't
> know if they are - can somebody with a QB fuselage confirm?). It is
> a virtual certainty that you'll have to cut out & reinforce part of
> the subpanel for avionics clearance. This would be much easier to do
> on a workbench. - I installed my bent whip comm antennas below the
> rear seats. I put in doublers for the bottom skin and made small
> access panels in the seat bottoms for access to the connectors in the
> future. This would be much more difficult if the rear seat bottoms
> were already installed.
>
> If I was set on getting part of the kit QB and could only pick one
> I'd probably go with the fuselage. I elected to go SB for both wings
> and fuselage just because I'm enjoying the process so much!
>
> Bob #40105
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
> Jessen Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:49 PM To:
> rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase
> Question
>
>
>
> Thanks, everyone, for helping me on this task. I am a little more
> confused than before, but that's the beauty of getting everyone's
> opinion. Here's what I have so far, along with questions.
>
> In favor of slow wing:
>
> You get to add wiring, do other modifications that maybe you couldn't
> with the QB. Downside is that you get to do repetitious work and
> have to deal with the tanks. Questions: Does going with QB wings
> really eliminate being able to put wiring in that you'd like to have
> for antennae, HID lights, flasher lights, heated pitot, AOA, etc? Is
> the ability to add edge lighting in the wing taken away by going with
> the QB? Also, can you not have (and why would you?) capacitance fuel
> sensors with the QB?
>
> In favor of the slow fuselage:
>
> You don't get as bored as with the wings, you don't have to deal with
> the tanks, you can do modifications that you wouldn't be able to do
> with the QB, such as battery placement, storage areas, etc.
> Questions: What are folks averaging in hours to put together the
> slow build fuselage? Is it significantly greater than for the wings?
> Are there jigs or special tools required, or is it just as "straight
> forward" as doing the Empcone? What modifications are people doing
> that really require you to go the Slow Build route?
>
> I figure that the answers here will help out not only myself, but a
> few others who have purchased the Empcone, but who are wondering what
> build strategy to adopt next.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> John Jessen -> Empcone 1%
>
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:42 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
>
>
>
>
> I'll second the tiresome or at times boring part of the
> wings...finish a part...then do it again. Anyone noticed that the
> right wing parts come out a tad better than the left wing?...I guess
> practice makes perfect. I must admit though that finishing the tanks
> really felt good!!
>
> Rick S. 40185 Flaps
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
Forgot the link:
http://freedomflyers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60
-----Original Message-----
| From: | Condrey, Bob (US SSA) |
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
Tim,
I just did doublers on the skin between the ribs and didn't tie them into the ribs.
I put nutplates on the doublers and attached them to the skin via the nutplate
mounting rivets that were covered by the antennas. Here's a link on the
freedomflyers.com site and my locations match those shown (for comm and transponder).
You can't really move the antennas to the next bay outboard because
the aft ends will extend beyond the fuselage. The access panels in the seat
bottoms are just large enough to get a hand in to reach the cable for whatever
reason. I considered just anchoring it, but figured it wouldn't take long to
make the panels and I'd regret it later if I didn't.
Bob #40105
-----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: Quickbuild Purchase Question
I just got the QB fuse and from the looks of it, the instrument panel
ribs are all in place, but, the panel and top skin are only in
with temporary rivets, so it should be easy (I think) to remove the
entire panel assembly and rework the ribs as necessary.
Bob, thanks for reminding me about the bent-whip antenna's under the
rear seats. That's what I plan to do too....I'll need to get my
stuff together and get those access panels cut. I assume you did
one under each side, with maximum side-to-side spacing, but staying
on the flat part of the fuse. Did you just do skin doublers or tied
into the ribs?
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
>
>
> Not sure if you've got your answers yet, but here's my $.02:
>
> Wing: I believe that the QB does not have the bottom skins installed
> - at least the outboard skin. That makes everything accessible. In
> fact, that's the stage that most people would be running their
> wiring, installing the AP servo, pitot tube, etc. I notice that in
> Tim's write-up on the Duckworth HID lights, his take was that it was
> easier to install with the leading edge already assembled. Same is
> true of the PSS AOA system pressure ports. Van's does not yet have
> the capacitance fuel senders available for the -10. There are other
> probes that could be adapted but since the QB has the tank sealed up
> (rear baffle installed) there's no access to do anything except
> install the float senders. If you go with the SB (I did) I concur
> with what others have said, there are two wings and therefore all of
> the work is duplicated, upside is that it frequently goes much faster
> the second time. It is however very straight forward, just lots of
> it! While sealing the fuel tanks wasn't my f! avorite job, it wasn't
> really all that bad. Other memorable part was countersinking the
> main spars (a lot of holes!). Last comment - it's probably faster to
> build both wings at the same time rather than in a serial fashion.
>
> Fuselage: I also have the slow build fuselage and am at about the
> stage of where the quickbuild is when delivered. My observation is
> that it's more complicated and somewhat more difficult than either
> the wings or tail kits. Things that come to mind are the bending
> and twisting of the longerons (hopefully later versions of the manual
> have correct measurements...), there's a few rivets that are very
> difficult to get to, etc. I don't really see how the QB would limit
> battery location - standard location is in the tailcone and the parts
> are delivered with that part of the kit. Not sure what additional
> storage you might want - the only places that come to mind would be
> below the baggage floor (ala Dan Checkoway) or in the tailcone. The
> QB baggage floors won't be attached yet because access is needed to
> attach the tailcone so you've got access to run conduit, etc. The
> rear baggage bulkhead is also part of the tail kit so nothing will
> have been done on that either. A couple things th! at come to mind
> that would potentially cause a little extra work: - If the instrument
> subpanel and associated ribs are installed as part of the QB (don't
> know if they are - can somebody with a QB fuselage confirm?). It is
> a virtual certainty that you'll have to cut out & reinforce part of
> the subpanel for avionics clearance. This would be much easier to do
> on a workbench. - I installed my bent whip comm antennas below the
> rear seats. I put in doublers for the bottom skin and made small
> access panels in the seat bottoms for access to the connectors in the
> future. This would be much more difficult if the rear seat bottoms
> were already installed.
>
> If I was set on getting part of the kit QB and could only pick one
> I'd probably go with the fuselage. I elected to go SB for both wings
> and fuselage just because I'm enjoying the process so much!
>
> Bob #40105
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
> Jessen Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:49 PM To:
> rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase
> Question
>
>
>
> Thanks, everyone, for helping me on this task. I am a little more
> confused than before, but that's the beauty of getting everyone's
> opinion. Here's what I have so far, along with questions.
>
> In favor of slow wing:
>
> You get to add wiring, do other modifications that maybe you couldn't
> with the QB. Downside is that you get to do repetitious work and
> have to deal with the tanks. Questions: Does going with QB wings
> really eliminate being able to put wiring in that you'd like to have
> for antennae, HID lights, flasher lights, heated pitot, AOA, etc? Is
> the ability to add edge lighting in the wing taken away by going with
> the QB? Also, can you not have (and why would you?) capacitance fuel
> sensors with the QB?
>
> In favor of the slow fuselage:
>
> You don't get as bored as with the wings, you don't have to deal with
> the tanks, you can do modifications that you wouldn't be able to do
> with the QB, such as battery placement, storage areas, etc.
> Questions: What are folks averaging in hours to put together the
> slow build fuselage? Is it significantly greater than for the wings?
> Are there jigs or special tools required, or is it just as "straight
> forward" as doing the Empcone? What modifications are people doing
> that really require you to go the Slow Build route?
>
> I figure that the answers here will help out not only myself, but a
> few others who have purchased the Empcone, but who are wondering what
> build strategy to adopt next.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> John Jessen -> Empcone 1%
>
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:42 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
>
>
>
>
> I'll second the tiresome or at times boring part of the
> wings...finish a part...then do it again. Anyone noticed that the
> right wing parts come out a tad better than the left wing?...I guess
> practice makes perfect. I must admit though that finishing the tanks
> really felt good!!
>
> Rick S. 40185 Flaps
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
| From: | "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
Mine are very similar to those shown on this web site:
http://freedomflyers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60
No reason they couldn't be tied in to the adjacent ribs if desired.
Bob #40105
-----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: Quickbuild Purchase Question
Bob, do you have any photos of your antenna doublers? I look forward to
QB Fuselage owners commenting on the instrument panel rib modifications
when they get there.
John
-----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: RE: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
Not sure if you've got your answers yet, but here's my $.02:
Wing:
I believe that the QB does not have the bottom skins installed - at
least the outboard skin. That makes everything accessible. In fact,
that's the stage that most people would be running their wiring,
installing the AP servo, pitot tube, etc. I notice that in Tim's
write-up on the Duckworth HID lights, his take was that it was easier to
install with the leading edge already assembled. Same is true of the
PSS AOA system pressure ports. Van's does not yet have the capacitance
fuel senders available for the -10. There are other probes that could
be adapted but since the QB has the tank sealed up (rear baffle
installed) there's no access to do anything except install the float
senders. If you go with the SB (I did) I concur with what others have
said, there are two wings and therefore all of the work is duplicated,
upside is that it frequently goes much faster the second time. It is
however very straight forward, just lots of it! While sealing the fuel
tanks wasn't my f!
avorite job, it wasn't really all that bad. Other memorable part was
countersinking the main spars (a lot of holes!). Last comment - it's
probably faster to build both wings at the same time rather than in a
serial fashion.
Fuselage:
I also have the slow build fuselage and am at about the stage of where
the quickbuild is when delivered. My observation is that it's more
complicated and somewhat more difficult than either the wings or tail
kits. Things that come to mind are the bending and twisting of the
longerons (hopefully later versions of the manual have correct
measurements...), there's a few rivets that are very difficult to get
to, etc. I don't really see how the QB would limit battery location -
standard location is in the tailcone and the parts are delivered with
that part of the kit. Not sure what additional storage you might want -
the only places that come to mind would be below the baggage floor (ala
Dan Checkoway) or in the tailcone. The QB baggage floors won't be
attached yet because access is needed to attach the tailcone so you've
got access to run conduit, etc. The rear baggage bulkhead is also part
of the tail kit so nothing will have been done on that either. A couple
things th!
at come to mind that would potentially cause a little extra work:
- If the instrument subpanel and associated ribs are installed as part
of the QB (don't know if they are - can somebody with a QB fuselage
confirm?). It is a virtual certainty that you'll have to cut out &
reinforce part of the subpanel for avionics clearance. This would be
much easier to do on a workbench.
- I installed my bent whip comm antennas below the rear seats. I put in
doublers for the bottom skin and made small access panels in the seat
bottoms for access to the connectors in the future. This would be much
more difficult if the rear seat bottoms were already installed.
If I was set on getting part of the kit QB and could only pick one I'd
probably go with the fuselage. I elected to go SB for both wings and
fuselage just because I'm enjoying the process so much!
Bob #40105
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Pneumatic rivet squeezers |
I had one of my few brain children on the practice kit, and wondering if any
of you have used it on the real thing:
I drilled a hole in one of my workbench tops, put one side of a dimple die
in the hole, and used the post from my C-frame with the other end of the
dimple die in it. Then I dimpled as normal on skins that wouldn't fit into
the C-frame. I just had to be careful to hold the post perpendicular to the
workbench when I whacked it, and support the skin as I slid it over the die.
-----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: Pneumatic rivet squeezers
They will make an extra hole in ANY part....just have to pay attention while
your doing it, or as Brian says..."your head in the game"
Rick S.
40185
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
There is also a good possibility of skin fatigue cracking if you don't tie the
doubler to the surrounding structure.
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: Quickbuild Purchase Question
A properly prepared doubler (compliant with AC 43.13-2A) is usually tied
into the adjacent ribs and or J stiffeners. That is a feature which
might get addressed sooner in the antenna selection (location) process
for the SB guys. The tie-in is to relieve skin stress, flex and oil
canning from the antennae drag coefficient. Let me know how you and the
rest of the QB guys solve it Tim.
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: Quickbuild Purchase Question
I just got the QB fuse and from the looks of it, the instrument panel
ribs are all in place, but, the panel and top skin are only in
with temporary rivets, so it should be easy (I think) to remove the
entire panel assembly and rework the ribs as necessary.
Bob, thanks for reminding me about the bent-whip antenna's under the
rear seats. That's what I plan to do too....I'll need to get my
stuff together and get those access panels cut. I assume you did
one under each side, with maximum side-to-side spacing, but staying
on the flat part of the fuse. Did you just do skin doublers or tied
into the ribs?
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Oops. Grrr. ;) |
FWIW here's the response from support at Vans:
It probably is not big deal to leave the overdriven rivets in place. You
are correct that in most cases you will do more damage by drilling
out and replacing a marginal rivet than by leaving it alone.
I plan to drill out the three or four that were marginally larger than
the #6 gauge and replace them, but leave the ones that are marginally
smaller than the #6 gauge.
James
PJ Seipel wrote:
>
> My tech counselor's view was that it is better to over drive the
> rivets than to under drive them. Something about an over driven rivet
> still retains 80% of its strength. Maybe someone else here has more
> concrete info or a reference you can check.
>
> PJ
> 40032
>
> James Ochs wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Well, moving right along, I got all my corrosion protection done on
>> the VS parts and started riveting last night. Went great, and being
>> the first time I had been using 1/8" rivets I grabbed my trusty rivet
>> gauge to make sure my shop heads were right. Well, it helps if you
>> use the #4 gauge instead of the #6 gauge.
>>
>> So now my question is this... the rivets I completed last night are
>> the AN426AD4-7 rivets along the rear spar that hold the rear spar
>> doubler to to the rear spar. I actually ran out of them as
>> apparently they didn't include enough with my kit, so I havent done
>> the ones that attach the lower rudder hinge to the spar. The shop
>> heads should be 3/16" but since I'm an idiot I drove them to 1/4".
>> It doesn't seem like this is a high load area ( I would think most of
>> the stress is on the hinge brackets and the bolts that attach the VS
>> to the fuse, and not the rivets that hold the doubler and stiffeners
>> to the spar - please correct me if I'm wrong ;) but then again, I'm
>> not an ME so what do I know? Do I need to drill out all of them or
>> are they ok as long as I get the rest of the rivets right? What I am
>> really afraid of is that drilling out rivets seems to invariably
>> create more problems...
>>
>> Thanks,
>> James
>> #40400.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Quickbuild Purchase Question |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Thanks Niko, that's why it is not optional for A & P mechanics or
Avionics Installers. The Feds found that it will happen, its just a
matter of when. The tragedy is that the skin that fails is so large in
dimension to replace on an RV-10, it has to be done with an unsightly
exterior patch. If it is planned for, we get to learn to make a joggle
and change the rivets out to a longer length, while using the matched
holes provided by the CNC instructions.
I guess new builders do not understand the importance of antennae
selection and location much earlier in this process.
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: RE: RV10-List: Quickbuild Purchase Question
There is also a good possibility of skin fatigue cracking if you don't
tie the doubler to the surrounding structure.
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: Quickbuild Purchase Question
A properly prepared doubler (compliant with AC 43.13-2A) is usually tied
into the adjacent ribs and or J stiffeners. That is a feature which
might get addressed sooner in the antenna selection (location) process
for the SB guys. The tie-in is to relieve skin stress, flex and oil
canning from the antennae drag coefficient. Let me know how you and the
rest of the QB guys solve it Tim.
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: Quickbuild Purchase Question
I just got the QB fuse and from the looks of it, the instrument panel
ribs are all in place, but, the panel and top skin are only in
with temporary rivets, so it should be easy (I think) to remove the
entire panel assembly and rework the ribs as necessary.
Bob, thanks for reminding me about the bent-whip antenna's under the
rear seats. That's what I plan to do too....I'll need to get my
stuff together and get those access panels cut. I assume you did
one under each side, with maximum side-to-side spacing, but staying
on the flat part of the fuse. Did you just do skin doublers or tied
into the ribs?
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna doublers. |
Is tieing the antenna doubler into a rib or stiffener more important with a
blade type antenna versus a whip? I understood the aerodynamic forces were
higher on the balde antenna........john
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | : RV10-List:Vents |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
Does the finish kit have the little eyeball vents included, or does one have to
track those down on your own?
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Oops. Grrr. ;)
FWIW here's the response from support at Vans:
It probably is not big deal to leave the overdriven rivets in place. You
are correct that in most cases you will do more damage by drilling
out and replacing a marginal rivet than by leaving it alone.
I plan to drill out the three or four that were marginally larger than
the #6 gauge and replace them, but leave the ones that are marginally
smaller than the #6 gauge.
James
PJ Seipel wrote:
>
> My tech counselor's view was that it is better to over drive the
> rivets than to under drive them. Something about an over driven rivet
> still retains 80% of its strength. Maybe someone else here has more
> concrete info or a reference you can check.
>
> PJ
> 40032
>
> James Ochs wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Well, moving right along, I got all my corrosion protection done on
>> the VS parts and started riveting last night. Went great, and being
>> the first time I had been using 1/8" rivets I grabbed my trusty rivet
>> gauge to make sure my shop heads were right. Well, it helps if you
>> use the #4 gauge instead of the #6 gauge.
>>
>> So now my question is this... the rivets I completed last night are
>> the AN426AD4-7 rivets along the rear spar that hold the rear spar
>> doubler to to the rear spar. I actually ran out of them as
>> apparently they didn't include enough with my kit, so I havent done
>> the ones that attach the lower rudder hinge to the spar. The shop
>> heads should be 3/16" but since I'm an idiot I drove them to 1/4".
>> It doesn't seem like this is a high load area ( I would think most of
>> the stress is on the hinge brackets and the bolts that attach the VS
>> to the fuse, and not the rivets that hold the doubler and stiffeners
>> to the spar - please correct me if I'm wrong ;) but then again, I'm
>> not an ME so what do I know? Do I need to drill out all of them or
>> are they ok as long as I get the rest of the rivets right? What I am
>> really afraid of is that drilling out rivets seems to invariably
>> create more problems...
>>
>> Thanks,
>> James
>> #40400.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antenna doublers. |
| From: | "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com> |
Do you think I will have a problem with the setup I have. I just used
0.032" as a backup next to the skin? I am using whip antennas.
Scott Schmidt
Cell: 801-319-3094
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 John
Hasbrouck
Subject: RV10-List: Antenna doublers.
Is tieing the antenna doubler into a rib or stiffener more important
with a
blade type antenna versus a whip? I understood the aerodynamic forces
were
higher on the balde antenna........john
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | : RV10-List:Vents |
You need to track those down on your own. It just comes with the piece
that feeds the vent.
Scott Schmidt
Cell: 801-319-3094
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 Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Subject: RE: RV10-List:Vents
Does the finish kit have the little eyeball vents included, or does one
have to track those down on your own?
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Oops. Grrr. ;)
FWIW here's the response from support at Vans:
It probably is not big deal to leave the overdriven rivets in place. You
are correct that in most cases you will do more damage by drilling
out and replacing a marginal rivet than by leaving it alone.
I plan to drill out the three or four that were marginally larger than
the #6 gauge and replace them, but leave the ones that are marginally
smaller than the #6 gauge.
James
PJ Seipel wrote:
>
> My tech counselor's view was that it is better to over drive the
> rivets than to under drive them. Something about an over driven rivet
> still retains 80% of its strength. Maybe someone else here has more
> concrete info or a reference you can check.
>
> PJ
> 40032
>
> James Ochs wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Well, moving right along, I got all my corrosion protection done on
>> the VS parts and started riveting last night. Went great, and being
>> the first time I had been using 1/8" rivets I grabbed my trusty rivet
>> gauge to make sure my shop heads were right. Well, it helps if you
>> use the #4 gauge instead of the #6 gauge.
>>
>> So now my question is this... the rivets I completed last night are
>> the AN426AD4-7 rivets along the rear spar that hold the rear spar
>> doubler to to the rear spar. I actually ran out of them as
>> apparently they didn't include enough with my kit, so I havent done
>> the ones that attach the lower rudder hinge to the spar. The shop
>> heads should be 3/16" but since I'm an idiot I drove them to 1/4".
>> It doesn't seem like this is a high load area ( I would think most of
>> the stress is on the hinge brackets and the bolts that attach the VS
>> to the fuse, and not the rivets that hold the doubler and stiffeners
>> to the spar - please correct me if I'm wrong ;) but then again, I'm
>> not an ME so what do I know? Do I need to drill out all of them or
>> are they ok as long as I get the rest of the rivets right? What I am
>> really afraid of is that drilling out rivets seems to invariably
>> create more problems...
>>
>> Thanks,
>> James
>> #40400.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "son hoang" <son(at)hoangs.com> |
| Subject: | plane flew into restricted airspace |
C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
White House and Congress evacuated
red level alert
stock market dived because of the security scare
this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
I just shook my head in disbelief
there was much over reaction to the real threat
but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to fly
who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Hodgson"
>
> "Prop noise is loudest" - not necessarily, and it's very 'peaky' in line
> with the plane of the prop. Keep helical tip speed below around 800 fps
and
> you avoid the annoying T6 blare. Not a problem on fixed pitch props unless
> they're very fine, and on a CS prop that allows 2700 rpm on take-off, just
> get back to 25/25 as soon as safely possible after take-off.
>
> Exhaust noise remains the dominant factor for most of the time an
aeroplane
> is overflying, and as for mufflers, the Swiss type in Tony Bingelis' books
> works well for damping out the high frequencies. However the Lycoming
sound
> spectrum shows highest powers under 800Hz. An expansion chamber muffler of
> adequate volume (say over 270 cu in) should work better for these low
> frequencies. Even treating the ends of the exhaust pipes as per the Wicks
> 'piccolo' takes some of the 'bite' out of the sound. Some German companies
> have done successful work on certificated mufflers and will be happy to
sell
> you a couple (for enormous piles of euros!) They are much smaller /
lighter
> than the Swiss muffler in Tony's book. Have a Google for Gomolzig and
Liese
> for starters.
>
> Our Popular Flying Association takes noise reduction seriously, and some
> info can be found on their website:
> http://www.pfa.org.uk/engineering_services/silencing_papers.asp
>
> Performance loss may be less than feared using these new free-breathing
> mufflers. If the length of pipe is tuned to say 2500rpm, it may not even
> happen, according to some reports.
>
> My RV is not yet flying, so I can't quote actual figures yet. I do however
> intend to take before and after readings when playing around with
mufflers.
> You can still legally fly an 'experimental' without any muffler over here
in
> the UK, but for how long?? We've lost a lot of airfields to noise
> complaints, so have to disarm the critics before they shut us down
> completely.
>
> Just my 2c /pence worth, YMMV etc
>
> Bob
>
> (RV3B - still starting 'finishing')
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
Netscape/7.2 (ax)
| Subject: | Re: plane flew into restricted airspace |
Be very careful to assign blame to one's selves when the actual problem
lies with over reaction from the security Nazi's.
David
son hoang wrote:
>
>C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
>White House and Congress evacuated
>red level alert
>stock market dived because of the security scare
>
>this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
>I just shook my head in disbelief
>there was much over reaction to the real threat
>but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to fly
>who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:05 PM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Selection |
Hi All,
The best operating NAV antenna installation available is Bob Archer's
Sportcraft NAV antenna. Nothing works better than this.
It also happens to be installed in the wingtip. You can install one in each
wingtip for each radio. (No you can not joint them together. There is a
node for every two feet of wingspan.)
You can also install one of Bob's Marker Beacon antenna kit in one of the
wingtips. Or he can tell you how to make your own from a piece of coax.
Nav antenna $65 each
Marker Beacon antenna kit $25 each
from Bob Archer. _bobsantennas(at)earthlink.com_ (javascript:void)
(310) 316-8796
Regards,
Jim Ayers
PS In this case you don't get what you pay for. You get much more than you
pay for.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Selection |
Just out of curiosity is there a good solution for hidden/lowdrag comm
antennas as well?
Is glideslope the same antenna as nav? For some reason i though glide
slope needed a different orientation than nav...
James
LessDragProd(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The best operating NAV antenna installation available is Bob Archer's
> Sportcraft NAV antenna. Nothing works better than this.
>
> It also happens to be installed in the wingtip. You can install one
> in each wingtip for each radio. (No you can not joint them together.
> There is a node for every two feet of wingspan.)
>
> You can also install one of Bob's Marker Beacon antenna kit in one of
> the wingtips. Or he can tell you how to make your own from a piece of
> coax.
>
> Nav antenna $65 each
> Marker Beacon antenna kit $25 each
>
> from Bob Archer. bobsantennas(at)earthlink.com
> (310) 316-8796
>
> Regards,
> Jim Ayers
> PS In this case you don't get what you pay for. You get much more
> than you pay for.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antenna Selection |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
How about a 1000' trailing wire antenna so you can talk to the submarines on low
frequency?
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Antenna Selection
Just out of curiosity is there a good solution for hidden/lowdrag comm
antennas as well?
Is glideslope the same antenna as nav? For some reason i though glide
slope needed a different orientation than nav...
James
LessDragProd(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The best operating NAV antenna installation available is Bob Archer's
> Sportcraft NAV antenna. Nothing works better than this.
>
> It also happens to be installed in the wingtip. You can install one
> in each wingtip for each radio. (No you can not joint them together.
> There is a node for every two feet of wingspan.)
>
> You can also install one of Bob's Marker Beacon antenna kit in one of
> the wingtips. Or he can tell you how to make your own from a piece of
> coax.
>
> Nav antenna $65 each
> Marker Beacon antenna kit $25 each
>
> from Bob Archer. bobsantennas(at)earthlink.com
> (310) 316-8796
>
> Regards,
> Jim Ayers
> PS In this case you don't get what you pay for. You get much more
> than you pay for.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | plane flew into restricted airspace |
I agree - he wasn't "rotten" - he was a student pilot that strayed. It
happens to all of us sometime. He's CFI should have known, but maybe he
didn't. It's silly to treat them as criminals.
The real problem is the nonsense that is going on in D.C. Radar could
easily determine that it was a slow-moving, small aircraft that could
cause little damage, if any.
I wish they had been 1/10 this diligent on 9/11.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of AI Nut
Subject: Re: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Be very careful to assign blame to one's selves when the actual problem
lies with over reaction from the security Nazi's.
David
son hoang wrote:
>
>C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
>White House and Congress evacuated
>red level alert
>stock market dived because of the security scare
>
>this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
>I just shook my head in disbelief
>there was much over reaction to the real threat
>but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have
>to fly who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones
>among us)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:05 PM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <schmoboy(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Selection |
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: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Selection |
What you really need is a flush mount transponder antenna. That way you
don't have that draggy 4" long antenna hanging out the bottom. :-)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/11/2005 4:41:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Tdawson(at)avidyne.com writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
How about a 1000' trailing wire antenna so you can talk to the submarines on
low frequency?
TDT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Curtis <wcurtis(at)core.com> |
>Anyone considering Ameri-King AK450? These units are inexpensive
>(they declare)and should be.
David,
I've had one (AK-450) for 5 years in my Cardinal and have not had any problems
with it. What was the failure mode? I'll probably default to one of these if
a 406Mhz unit with GPS interface is not available at a reasonably price.
William Curtis
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill McCoy <hoverlover9797(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Antenna Selection |
Hey Tim, are you from the TACAMO community?
"Tim Dawson-Townsend"
How about a 1000' trailing wire antenna so you can talk to the submarines on low
frequency?
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Antenna Selection
Just out of curiosity is there a good solution for hidden/lowdrag comm
antennas as well?
Is glideslope the same antenna as nav? For some reason i though glide
slope needed a different orientation than nav...
James
LessDragProd(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The best operating NAV antenna installation available is Bob Archer's
> Sportcraft NAV antenna. Nothing works better than this.
>
> It also happens to be installed in the wingtip. You can install one
> in each wingtip for each radio. (No you can not joint them together.
> There is a node for every two feet of wingspan.)
>
> You can also install one of Bob's Marker Beacon antenna kit in one of
> the wingtips. Or he can tell you how to make your own from a piece of
> coax.
>
> Nav antenna $65 each
> Marker Beacon antenna kit $25 each
>
> from Bob Archer. bobsantennas(at)earthlink.com
> (310) 316-8796
>
> Regards,
> Jim Ayers
> PS In this case you don't get what you pay for. You get much more
> than you pay for.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
<42829227.5050305(at)hiwaay.net>
| Subject: | Re: plane flew into restricted airspace |
I don't think they reacted soon enough to 9-11 So I would rather they over
react than under react. So I guess there damned if they do and damned if
they don't, wouldn't you say?
But if your saying the 152 guys aren't at fault when they entered restricted
air space, and they created a violation, then who is? We may not agree with
the rules but we had better follow them if we all want to keep flying as
freely as we do. I've flown in other counties and trust me we've got the
best damned system going out there, bar none, even with its warts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "AI Nut" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
>
> Be very careful to assign blame to one's selves when the actual problem
> lies with over reaction from the security Nazi's.
>
> David
>
>
> son hoang wrote:
>
>>
>>C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
>>White House and Congress evacuated
>>red level alert
>>stock market dived because of the security scare
>>
>>this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
>>I just shook my head in disbelief
>>there was much over reaction to the real threat
>>but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to
>>fly
>>who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>>To:
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:05 PM
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antenna doublers. |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Comant gives the drag coefficient for every antennae design on their
webpages. I posted the math formula some time back on this site. Yes,
is the correct answer but some whips tend to resonate from wind speed
more than others and send the vibration just like a tuning fork into the
empennage.
As certified mechanics, we have to do all installations as compliant.
As the Experimental builder, you have leeway to cut lots of corners till
your DAR says "Do it this way". Ask him early. If you don't have one,
shop around for someone familiar with your style of construction.
John
-----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: Antenna doublers.
Is tieing the antenna doubler into a rib or stiffener more important
with a
blade type antenna versus a whip? I understood the aerodynamic forces
were
higher on the balde antenna........john
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antenna doublers. |
Scott, your pictures show great workmanship. Ask your DAR before
closeout. Then report back to the group.
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: Antenna doublers.
Do you think I will have a problem with the setup I have. I just used
0.032" as a backup next to the skin? I am using whip antennas.
Scott Schmidt
Cell: 801-319-3094
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 John
Hasbrouck
Subject: RV10-List: Antenna doublers.
Is tieing the antenna doubler into a rib or stiffener more important
with a
blade type antenna versus a whip? I understood the aerodynamic forces
were
higher on the balde antenna........john
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DejaVu" <wvu(at)mail.ameritel.net> |
products.
I'm out of commission from hurting my ankle while coaching soccer. Can't stand
for very long. I would swap elevating my foot 75% of the time to do anything
on the plane.
Anh
Maryland
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Rene Felker
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any day....of course I am just starting
on my wings.
Rene'
N423CF
40322
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:11 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its the tedious deburring of the
holes which get me. I really hate that.
Mani
Rick wrote:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DejaVu" <wvu(at)mail.ameritel.net> |
<42829227.5050305(at)hiwaay.net> <003201c55693$101af2f0$6401a8c0@MainOffice>
| Subject: | Re: plane flew into restricted airspace |
products.
Being 12nmi from the ADIZ ring there have been more incidences of straying a
few miles inside than I care to hear. Most are innocent enough and usually
handled with a request from a controller to give them a call and licenses
being suspended or even stripped silently. 3 miles from the White House on
a crystal clear day? Umm...Umm...Umm.
Anh
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
>
> I don't think they reacted soon enough to 9-11 So I would rather they over
> react than under react. So I guess there damned if they do and damned if
> they don't, wouldn't you say?
>
> But if your saying the 152 guys aren't at fault when they entered
restricted
> air space, and they created a violation, then who is? We may not agree
with
> the rules but we had better follow them if we all want to keep flying as
> freely as we do. I've flown in other counties and trust me we've got the
> best damned system going out there, bar none, even with its warts.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "AI Nut" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:15 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
>
>
> >
> > Be very careful to assign blame to one's selves when the actual problem
> > lies with over reaction from the security Nazi's.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > son hoang wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
> >>White House and Congress evacuated
> >>red level alert
> >>stock market dived because of the security scare
> >>
> >>this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
> >>I just shook my head in disbelief
> >>there was much over reaction to the real threat
> >>but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to
> >>fly
> >>who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
> >>To:
> >>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:05 PM
> >>Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
I have the same problem. I stabbed myself in the hand with a very sharp knife,
a long and dumb story, and cut a tendon and nerve and they tell me I'm out of
the plane building business for a total of three months. Talk about withdrawal
pain.
----- Original Message -----
From: DejaVu
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: WTB:
I'm out of commission from hurting my ankle while coaching soccer. Can't stand
for very long. I would swap elevating my foot 75% of the time to do anything
on the plane.
Anh
Maryland
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Rene Felker
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
I agree, I will swap dimpling for debur any day....of course I am just starting
on my wings.
Rene'
N423CF
40322
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:11 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: WTB:
Actually, I did not mind the dimpling at all. Its the tedious deburring of
the holes which get me. I really hate that.
Mani
Rick wrote:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | plane flew into restricted airspace |
Well said!
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 AI Nut
Subject: Re: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Be very careful to assign blame to one's selves when the actual problem
lies with over reaction from the security Nazi's.
David
son hoang wrote:
>
>C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
>White House and Congress evacuated
>red level alert
>stock market dived because of the security scare
>
>this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
>I just shook my head in disbelief
>there was much over reaction to the real threat
>but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to
fly
>who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:05 PM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | airspace incursion |
I propose that the US government offer a Z prize similar in nature to the X prize
that Mr. Allen offered for the civilian space project. The Z prize would be
for depositing a 5 pound payload at the White House. Of course the only entrants
to the contest should be loyal US citizens whose entries must be non destructive
and entrants must be immune from prosecution. An award of perhaps $1 million
tax free would ensure plenty of participation. There are lots of ways to
accomplish same and do not include the use of light aircraft. The HS bureaucrats
are running the asylum inside the beltway. Fiy aman Allah.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | plane flew into restricted airspace |
I don't know what's sadder - two guys who can't navigate, and didn't notice this
huge city below them, or evacuating the Capital because a C-152 was on its way.
What would a -152 to if it hit the Capital? Make a soot mark and slide down
the side?
TDT
________________________________
| From: | owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Jesse Saint |
Subject: RE: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Well said!
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 AI Nut
Subject: Re: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Be very careful to assign blame to one's selves when the actual problem
lies with over reaction from the security Nazi's.
David
son hoang wrote:
>
>C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
>White House and Congress evacuated
>red level alert
>stock market dived because of the security scare
>
>this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
>I just shook my head in disbelief
>there was much over reaction to the real threat
>but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to
fly
>who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:05 PM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Standley" <taildragon(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: airspace incursion |
NOT funny. Please don't use this list for that sort of thing.
Thank you
Roger #40291
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill<mailto:dlm46007(at)cox.net>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 5:34 AM
Subject: RV10-List: airspace incursion
I propose that the US government offer a Z prize similar in nature to the X prize
that Mr. Allen offered for the civilian space project. The Z prize would
be for depositing a 5 pound payload at the White House. Of course the only entrants
to the contest should be loyal US citizens whose entries must be non destructive
and entrants must be immune from prosecution. An award of perhaps $1
million tax free would ensure plenty of participation. There are lots of ways
to accomplish same and do not include the use of light aircraft. The HS bureaucrats
are running the asylum inside the beltway. Fiy aman Allah.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net> |
On Sunday I purchased a Campbell Hausfeld compressor (Single stage, two
cylinder, 60 gallon tank, model VT6195, 10.2 SCFM @ 90 PSI) for $199
plus $109 freight. Seems like a good deal to me. I have yet to receive
it, but if anyone else is interested they can contact Chuck Oestreich
800.388.0073 or chuckoestreich@pro-fit-intl.com they have one or two more.
Larry Rosen
RV10 #356
Emp Complete, waiting on QB Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter(at)grandecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: plane flew into restricted airspace |
Unless it was loaded with explosives like the car bombs that are going off
in IRAQ that destroy whole buildings.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)Avidyne.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
I don't know what's sadder - two guys who can't navigate, and didn't notice
this huge city below them, or evacuating the Capital because a C-152 was on
its way. What would a -152 to if it hit the Capital? Make a soot mark and
slide down the side?
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Well said!
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 AI Nut
Subject: Re: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Be very careful to assign blame to one's selves when the actual problem
lies with over reaction from the security Nazi's.
David
son hoang wrote:
>
>C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
>White House and Congress evacuated
>red level alert
>stock market dived because of the security scare
>
>this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
>I just shook my head in disbelief
>there was much over reaction to the real threat
>but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to
fly
>who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:05 PM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
>
>
====================================
====================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | plane flew into restricted airspace |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
What's the useful load of a C-152, compared to a SUV?
TDT
-----Original Message-----
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: plane flew into restricted airspace
Unless it was loaded with explosives like the car bombs that are going off
in IRAQ that destroy whole buildings.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)Avidyne.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
I don't know what's sadder - two guys who can't navigate, and didn't notice
this huge city below them, or evacuating the Capital because a C-152 was on
its way. What would a -152 to if it hit the Capital? Make a soot mark and
slide down the side?
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Well said!
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 AI Nut
Subject: Re: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Be very careful to assign blame to one's selves when the actual problem
lies with over reaction from the security Nazi's.
David
son hoang wrote:
>
>C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
>White House and Congress evacuated
>red level alert
>stock market dived because of the security scare
>
>this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
>I just shook my head in disbelief
>there was much over reaction to the real threat
>but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to
fly
>who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:05 PM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
>
>
====================================
====================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "son hoang" <son(at)hoangs.com> |
| Subject: | Re: plane flew into restricted airspace |
over reaction by the bureaucracy asides
(what if the C 152 carried some home made bomb or biological weapons of some
sort....if they did not do anything the media would have been alll over the
HS and Secret service for not doing their job.....we heard so much about
suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel )
all of the $$$ AOPA, EAA and other aviation organization spent in the last
decades educating the public about the safety and benefits of GA
went down the drain in one lousy incident
how can one not notice the capitol and the white house in day light VMC
?!!!!
put yourself in the position of John Q the public..how do you think they
view this incident
I cringed when I thought of the cost of the Blackhawk and F16s and the
Homeland Security Citation deployed in this case
BTW as search of the FAA database shows that Mr. Sheaffer of PA is not a CFI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)Avidyne.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
I don't know what's sadder - two guys who can't navigate, and didn't notice
this huge city below them, or evacuating the Capital because a C-152 was on
its way. What would a -152 to if it hit the Capital? Make a soot mark and
slide down the side?
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Well said!
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 AI Nut
Subject: Re: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Be very careful to assign blame to one's selves when the actual problem
lies with over reaction from the security Nazi's.
David
son hoang wrote:
>
>C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
>White House and Congress evacuated
>red level alert
>stock market dived because of the security scare
>
>this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
>I just shook my head in disbelief
>there was much over reaction to the real threat
>but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to
fly
>who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:05 PM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
>
>
====================================
====================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | plane flew into restricted airspace |
I guess a more important question would be how big of a bomb could a 152
carry and how much damage could it do. The answer to that is, of course, a
big enough one to do a lot of damage. A little anthrax or something like
that could cause a lot of problems for a lot of "important" people. I do
agree that our airport security and things like that since 9/11 has gone
overboard, but restricted airspace is there for a reason. Part of being a
pilot is knowing what the rules are, right? I guess if that CFI wanted to
teach his student the hard way about the importance of not violating
restricted airspace, the lesson was very well learned. Shame on him!
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 Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Subject: RE: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
I don't know what's sadder - two guys who can't navigate, and didn't notice
this huge city below them, or evacuating the Capital because a C-152 was on
its way. What would a -152 to if it hit the Capital? Make a soot mark and
slide down the side?
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Well said!
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 AI Nut
Subject: Re: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Be very careful to assign blame to one's selves when the actual problem
lies with over reaction from the security Nazi's.
David
son hoang wrote:
>
>C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
>White House and Congress evacuated
>red level alert
>stock market dived because of the security scare
>
>this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
>I just shook my head in disbelief
>there was much over reaction to the real threat
>but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to
fly
>who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:05 PM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
>
>
>
====================================
====================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cory Emberson" <bootless(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | plane flew into restricted airspace |
The useful load of a 150 is 615 pounds, and it holds 26 gallons of fuel.
Don't know what an SUV holds. The really big ones, like the Ford Valdez ,
probably holds at least that and more.
Cory
-----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: plane flew into restricted airspace
What's the useful load of a C-152, compared to a SUV?
TDT
-----Original Message-----
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: plane flew into restricted airspace
Unless it was loaded with explosives like the car bombs that are going off
in IRAQ that destroy whole buildings.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)Avidyne.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
I don't know what's sadder - two guys who can't navigate, and didn't notice
this huge city below them, or evacuating the Capital because a C-152 was on
its way. What would a -152 to if it hit the Capital? Make a soot mark and
slide down the side?
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Well said!
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 AI Nut
Subject: Re: RV10-List: plane flew into restricted airspace
Be very careful to assign blame to one's selves when the actual problem
lies with over reaction from the security Nazi's.
David
son hoang wrote:
>
>C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
>White House and Congress evacuated
>red level alert
>stock market dived because of the security scare
>
>this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
>I just shook my head in disbelief
>there was much over reaction to the real threat
>but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to
fly
>who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:05 PM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
>
>
====================================
====================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller Advertisement |
NEW! JAA/FAA certified 2 blade aluminum constant speed MT-Propeller
MT-Propeller has developed a new high performance 2 blade aluminum propeller
for eliminating certain disadvantages of regular 2 blade aluminum constant
speed propellers.
The 2 blade aluminum MT-Propeller has the following:
- No RPM restrictions for undampened crankshaft Lycoming ( )O-360-series
engines.
- Latest available high efficiency airfoils
- Scimitar blade shape for noise reduction and high performance.
- Smooth running due to close tolerance manufacturing (CNC machined)
The new aluminum MT-Propeller is available for Lycoming and Continental
engines developing up to 300 hp. The maximum diameter is 203 cm (80 inches).
The Lycoming ( )O-360-series MT-Propeller is typically a 72 inch diameter
and includes a spinner assembly installed at the factory to match your cowl.
This allows delivery to be a bolt on propeller assembly. Minimum blade
diameter is 68 inches.
Price is $6,399 plus shipping and any applicable taxes.
13" diameter spinner assembly set for 1 1/2" cowl spacing installed on
propeller.
No cost option: Spinner color - White, Red, Black, Grey, Yellow or left in
primer only.
"Hi-Glo" option - $450 (The "Hi-Glo" option gives the Kevlar/Epoxy spinner
the appearance of a polished aluminum (or chrome) spinner dome.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
Custom Aircraft Propeller - A division of Less Drag Products, Inc.
_www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com/)
(805) 795-5377
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller Advertisement |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
How about for an IO-540?
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Subject: RV10-List: Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller Advertisement
NEW! JAA/FAA certified 2 blade aluminum constant speed MT-Propeller
MT-Propeller has developed a new high performance 2 blade aluminum propeller for
eliminating certain disadvantages of regular 2 blade aluminum constant speed
propellers.
The 2 blade aluminum MT-Propeller has the following:
- No RPM restrictions for undampened crankshaft Lycoming ( )O-360-series engines.
- Latest available high efficiency airfoils
- Scimitar blade shape for noise reduction and high performance.
- Smooth running due to close tolerance manufacturing (CNC machined)
The new aluminum MT-Propeller is available for Lycoming and Continental engines
developing up to 300 hp. The maximum diameter is 203 cm (80 inches).
The Lycoming ( )O-360-series MT-Propeller is typically a 72 inch diameter and includes
a spinner assembly installed at the factory to match your cowl. This
May 04, 2005 - May 12, 2005
RV10-Archive.digest.vol-af