RV10-List Archive Browser

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-bu
November 28, 2006 - December 07, 2006

Subject: truemap and motion m1300 outdoor tablet PC
dear RV-ers. About 3 years ago, I purchased a license for truemap software. It was never used. It cost $595, and I presume that because it was never activated, the folks there will be kind enough to transfer this to anyone who wants to use it. (if not, I will take it back and refund the money.) I also purchased a Motion M1300 tablet PC, *with outdoor display*. the m1300 is almost the same thing as what they now sell as their LE 1600 tablet, though the latter has bluetood tech, and a fingerprint reader. the outdoor display is a *big* deal. w/o it, they are cheap. the tablet was also barely used, plus I have some accessories, like the extra keyboard---because I never ended up using the truemap software. finally, I have two USB GPS receivers. (they make sense, because a wireless consumes more power.) alas, I don't need the system any more. I may list it on ebay in a week or so. if you would like to purchase it, please drop me an email. not the smartest purchase I ever made... regards, /ivo ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Who is "Matt Dralle" & What Are "The Lists"? [Please Read]
Dear Listers, Who is Matt Dralle and what exactly are these Lists? Well, I've been working in the information technology industry for over 20 years primarily in computer networking design and implementation. I have also done extensive work in web development and CGI design during this period. I started the Matronics Email Lists back in 1990 with about 30 fellow RV builders from around the world. Since that time, I have added 63 other kinds of aircraft related Lists to the line up and numerous other List related services such as the Forums, Wiki, Archives and Search Engine just to name a few. For flexibility and reliability, I have chosen to run all of my own servers here locally. Other List-related systems include a 1 Gigabit, fully switched network infrastructure, a commercial-grade Netscreen firewall, a Barracuda spam filter, a local T1 Internet router, and a commercial-grade business T1 Internet connection with full static addressing. The computer servers found here include a brand new, quad-processor Xeon Linux server for List web services, a dual-processor Xeon Linux system dedicated to the email processing List functions, and another P4 Linux system serving as a remote storage disk farm for the archives, databases, and for an on-line hard drive-based backup system with 3.2 Terra Bytes of storage, soon to be upgraded to over 6 Terra Bytes! This entire system is protected by three large, commercial-grade uninterrupted power supply (UPS) systems that assure the Lists are available even during a local power outage! Speaking of power, imagine how much electricity it takes to run all of these systems. One month this Summer, I had a staggering $1368 bill for electricity alone! I recently upgraded all of the computer racking infrastructure including new power feeds and dedicated air conditioning for the room that serves as the Computer Center for the Matronics Email Lists. This year I added another rack to house the new MONSTER quad-processor web system that didn't quite fit into the first rack! Here's a composite photo of the List Computer Center before the addition of the second rack: http://www.matronics.com/MattDralle-ListComputerCenter.jpg As you can see, I take running these Lists very seriously and I am dedicated to providing an always-on, 24x7x365 experience for each and every Lister. But building and running this system isn't cheap. As I've stated before, I don't support any of these systems with commercial advertising on the Lists. It is supported 100% through List member Contributions! That means you... and you... and YOU! To that end, I hold a List Fund Raiser each November and ask that members make a small Contribution to support the continued operation and upgrade of this ever-expanding system. Its solely YOUR Contributions that keeps it running! Please make a Contribution today to support these Lists! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 USA (Please include your email address on the check!) Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Re: transponder antenna placement
Date: Nov 28, 2006
Chris, For whatever it's worth I put the transponder in the tunnel as far forward as I could right up next to the firewall and I put the Ryan on the pilots side next to the tunnel forward of the landing gear, so as not to be obstructed. I didn't want another antenna to close to the Ryan if possible. Wayne Edgerton #40336 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: Flowscan bushing
Date: Nov 28, 2006
I reamed the Flowscan to accept a standard aluminum bushing to allow for a AN3 bolt, and removed enough material to penetrate the sender's wall, and cause it to leak. ( these are VERY thin walls) After spending another $250 to replace the sender, I then turned down a couple more bushings on the lathe, so they would fit the existing holes in the Flowscan, without removing any material from the Flowscan. Anyone need a leaky Flowscan, Cheap? Chris Hukill buildus interuptus during major home remodel (I though airplane parts were expensive!) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: jacks
Date: Nov 28, 2006
Just bought two jack stands with 10" lift 3 ton hydraulic jack included. We will machine a new center part for the 10. Can anyone provide the distance from the tiedown ring hole on the wings to the ground with normal inflation and that same distance with a flat tire. It will assist us in determining the length of the new machined part. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Subject: Rudder question
Date: Nov 28, 2006
Question regarding rudder bearing blocks and the "nylon" rudder cable guides. How snug should both of these be? I can tighten the center rudder bearing block to the pont where the rudder pedals will not move, obviously too tight. Same with the rudder cable guides. How much play do we need in these? Are the aerodynamic forces on the rudder enough to overcome the situation? Will there be enough wear in to loosen the pedals and the cable? Inquiring minds want to know John Hasbrouck #40264 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stupid questions
From: "orchidman" <gary(at)wingscc.com>
Date: Nov 28, 2006
jhstarn(at)verizon.net wrote: > > up GCA. OLD marker beacons were on IFR final approach to the end of the > runway & lit up as you passed over their cone signal. Remember: "On center > line, on glide slope"..... OR Did I just date myself....again 8*) > Did I hear you say PAR? [Laughing] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=77718#77718 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Stupid questions
A marker beacon antenna can be nothing more than a 40" strip of copper wire glassed into the wingtip. 14 ga solid romex stripped will do a good job. So will stripped off coax wire. Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Kraus" <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Subject: wheel bearings
Date: Nov 28, 2006
I do not know what grease was in the bearings when they came, but my guess it was just to keep out corrosion. I cleaned my bearings and used proper Aeroshell grease for wheel bearings (don't recall which number, but you can look it up on their web site). I used the wheel bearing grease buddy machine thingy that Cleaveland and Avery sell. It is about $30, but you'll use it at least every year.... -Mike Kraus RV-4 Flying RV-10 Wiring and the last 90% -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Blair Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:04 PM Subject: RV10-List: wheel bearings I started putting the wheels together today. It appears the bearings have been pre-greased and are ready to go. Does everyone agree, or did you have to use more grease? If so..recommendations? Thanks, Sean Blair #40225 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob.kaufmann" <bob.kaufmann(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Stupid questions
Date: Nov 28, 2006
Hey there has been a time or ten when a PAR has saved my bacon. Something about iced up, dead VOR and fog at PDX flying night mail. UGLY, UGLY, UGLY. Bob K Moving furniture, or honey do. LOL -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of orchidman Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:15 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Stupid questions jhstarn(at)verizon.net wrote: > > up GCA. OLD marker beacons were on IFR final approach to the end of the > runway & lit up as you passed over their cone signal. Remember: "On center > line, on glide slope"..... OR Did I just date myself....again 8*) > Did I hear you say PAR? [Laughing] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=77718#77718 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just A Few Days Left; Trailing Last Year...
Dear Listers, There are just a few more days left of this year's List Fund Raiser! Response has been very good, but we are behind last year in the number of people that have made a Contribution and as a percentage of the total number of subscribers. Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions during this Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution today! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: transponder antenna placement
Michael, I used snap bushings to route from the tail forward then conduit from the battery area forward. You could use smaller diameter diameter conduit than the 3/4" available from Van's but it would be OK as long as the holes weren't opened too much through the bulkheads, actually you could just zip tie the conduit to the bulkheads. The only wires from back there are the tail light, strobe, elevator trim and VOR antenna if you are using one in the tail. The tail light & strobe wires combo exits the last bulkhead through a 3/16's hole and enters the bottom fairing using a molex connector on the strobe and a simple spade connector on the bulb. Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Slime HS
Date: Nov 29, 2006
Kevin, I went with the Weld 10 on the front windscreen the second time around because I was out of the Hysol glue and had the Weld 10 on hand. The Hysol did seem to bond well as the windscreen was stuck pretty good when I removed it. That said, the Weld 10 was also easy to apply and should work just as well as the Hysol. No difference in clean up - mast well no matter which glue you go with. Mark (N410MR in paint shop) >From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa(at)antelecom.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: RV10-List: Slime HS >Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:03:03 -0800 > > >Mark, > >Thanks for the reply. Why did you decide to change the adhesive you used >on the front windscreen? >Did the Hysol seem to bond well? Now that you have used both which do you >prefer, ie, application, >cleanup, etc? > >Thanks, > >Kevin >40494 >tail/empennage > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com> >To: >Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 3:57 PM >Subject: Re: RV10-List: Slime HS > > >> >>Kevin, >> >>The number on the Hysol glue I used to put in the front windscreen (first >>time around) was 6339. Recently I replaced the front window and used the >>Weld 10 glue. Both seem fairly easy to work with but the front window >>removal was not a real pain with the Hysol glue - hope I don'y have to >>find out on the Weld 10. >> >>Mark (N410MR in paint shop) >> >> >> >>>From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa(at)antelecom.net> >>>Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>>To: >>>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Slime HS >>>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:31:27 -0800 >>> >>> >>>Mark, >>> >>>Which Hysol adhesive did you use? >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Kevin >>>40494 >>>tail/empennage > > _________________________________________________________________ All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Weight of the IO-540?
Not too concerned but the W & B will tell....I think I will be able to get rid of the bag of lead in the back seat when flying with just two like during my demo ride in the factory RV-10. My initial thought is the lighter front will create a more balanced CG. There are others with the same combo so I'm not to worried. Besides....weight is a whole bunch easier to add than remove. Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Stupid question revisted.
Date: Nov 29, 2006
Okay, here is the trick. Label everything as a stupid question and get lots of answers and all are done so with overwhelming kindness. Lets try again. 1)Why are people placing two comm antennas. 2)And when two antennas are placed, doesn't the nontransmitting one interfere with the transmitting one. Something like putting two tuning forks side by side and hiting one and the other starts humming too. Kindness only John G. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2006
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Stupid question revisted.
John, For my installation and the research that I have done (check the matronics aeroelectric list archives), I'm using two antennas with two radios - placed x-number of inches apart (I don't remember the magic number) because of the issue that you have mentioned. I'm actually placing one under the belly behind the main spar and the second one is foil tape in the windshield - thinking ground vs air communications. There are switches that allow for one antenna and two radios - to isolate the nontransmitting one's receiver circuits - but if you have an antenna failure - the second radio is useless. It depends on what you want...I have one of the switches that I mentioned in my avionics box - I think I got it from Bob Archer. I may use it eventually - for specific missions. Not saying right or wrong, just how I'm doing it and the basis for my decision Hope this helps, Ralph -----Original Message----- >From: John Gonzalez <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com> >Sent: Nov 29, 2006 11:35 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: Stupid question revisted. > > >Okay, here is the trick. Label everything as a stupid question and get lots >of answers and all are done so with overwhelming kindness. > >Lets try again. > >1)Why are people placing two comm antennas. > >2)And when two antennas are placed, doesn't the nontransmitting one >interfere with the transmitting one. Something like putting two tuning >forks side by side and hiting one and the other starts humming too. > >Kindness only > >John G. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Weight of the IO-540?
Date: Nov 29, 2006
Rick, I have a three blade MT prop (love it) but no light weight engine (Aero Sport). My CG only moved aft a small amount - not enough to take the shot bag out of the baggage compartment. My experience has been with one or two folks on board I make better landings (still waiting for that perfect 10) with the shot bag in the back and two notches of flaps. Mark (N410MR - in paint shop) >From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weight of the IO-540? >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:26:40 -0500 (EST) > > >Not too concerned but the W & B will tell....I think I will be able to get >rid of the bag of lead in the back seat when flying with just two like >during my demo ride in the factory RV-10. > >My initial thought is the lighter front will create a more balanced CG. >There are others with the same combo so I'm not to worried. >Besides....weight is a whole bunch easier to add than remove. > >Rick S. >40185 > > _________________________________________________________________ View Athletes Collections with Live Search http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2006
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: A question for the finishing mavens
Hi I am have just finished my vertical stab and rudder. Along the way I have had a few "oops moments" usually fixable. There have been a couple that have left their mark sort of speak. These include: * An extra dimple where there should be none * A couple of very small dents associated with riveting * A very, very, very small "RV10 Vertical Stab Signature dent" My question for the finishing experts is "to what extent will painting hide, cover up, make invisible minor imperfections arising from the construction process"? Inquiring minds need to know ... Les Kearney RV10 # 40643 - On to the Horizontal Stab tomorrow! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Rudder question- ditto
I haven't seen a response to John's question, I too would like to know how other builders have set them up. when I installed my cable guides they were very tight, how tight did you 'fly guys leave them? Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ John Hasbrouck wrote: > Question regarding rudder bearing blocks and the "nylon" rudder cable > guides. How snug should both of these be? I can tighten the center > rudder bearing block to the pont where the rudder pedals will not > move, obviously too tight. Same with the rudder cable guides. How > much play do we need in these? Are the aerodynamic forces on the > rudder enough to overcome the situation? Will there be enough wear in > to loosen the pedals and the cable? Inquiring minds want to know > > John Hasbrouck > #40264 > >* >* > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Subject: Re: A question about the QB fuselage
Date: Nov 29, 2006
Les, I went with the slo-build fuse and received it the end of May this year. By September I'd caught up to where the quick build is when you receive it. I had the advantage of not having to go back over everything to check correctness and didn't have to remove floor panels or other such stuff. I hate having to drill out rivets. Besides the significant cost savings ( did I mention I'm cheap? ) I enjoyed the building process much more than when I did the wings. I work full time and am not a sheet metal genius so if I can get to this point in the time I did, I think anybody else would be able to also. I'm now installing rudders and controls, fuel lines ect.. So my vote is for slo-build all the way... John Hasbrouck #40264 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: A question for the finishing mavens
Date: Nov 29, 2006
Les, Painting your mistakes makes them look beautiful . . . and obvious! I was in the same position and spent the time to fill any dents and smooth out smiley's using some filler. When I primed it looked prrrrrrrrrfect. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Les Kearney To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:04 PM Subject: RV10-List: A question for the finishing mavens Hi I am have just finished my vertical stab and rudder. Along the way I have had a few "oops moments" usually fixable. There have been a couple that have left their mark sort of speak. These include: a.. An extra dimple where there should be none b.. A couple of very small dents associated with riveting c.. A very, very, very small "RV10 Vertical Stab Signature dent" My question for the finishing experts is "to what extent will painting hide, cover up, make invisible minor imperfections arising from the construction process"? Inquiring minds need to know ... Les Kearney RV10 # 40643 - On to the Horizontal Stab tomorrow! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Rudder question- ditto
Date: Nov 29, 2006
Tim, Thanks for the reply!! Since I don't have seats installed I can't get good read on how the rudders will feel when moved with my legs. Did you torque the bolts for the center block to the values recomended for the AN3 bolt? If I do that I can't move the pedals with my hands but that doesn't speak to how they'd feel with my legs. Trying to avoid having to go back and adjust stuff later. It's much easier when it's all open......john #40264 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sean Blair" <seanblair(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: torn rib
Date: Nov 29, 2006
Thanks to all that offered advice on the small tear I have on a rib in the baggage area. I contacted Van's and got the following response: Sean, found your email. No problem leaving it as is. Plenty of structure around it so it should be just fine. scott at van's I will still install a patch for peace of mind. Be careful if you haven't installed the side steps yet. Until the floors are installed, these ribs are very flexible. Sean Blair #40225 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict
From: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>
Date: Nov 29, 2006
I'm delinquent posting results of this combo, but better late than never I guess. First, if you want to use the B&C 90 degree oil filter adapter with a Lycoming 540 engine on an RV-10, you also need their 1.4" spacer. If you want to additionally use the B&C SD-20 alternator on the vacuum pad there is an interference issue with the inboard lower screw boss on the SD-20 and the upper inboard corner of the oil filter adapter. I strongly suspect that the interference issue would exist regardless of teh brand of 90 degree oil filter adapter. You have 2 solutions: 1) B&C has a 3/4" spacer kit that also contains replacement studs for the vacuum pad and a replacement shear coupling for the standard SD-20. Don't recall exact price of the spacer kit, but it's $75-100. I have this combo installed on my engine and can verify that it works. The 2.5" spacer on the oil filter adapter will absolutely NOT work with this combination. 2) There is another version of the SD-20 called an SD-20S which is shorter than the standard SD-20. They sell this with a "clocking adapter" that rotates the alternator 45 degrees and moves is aft about 3/4". This was their solution before the spacer above and is what Ed Hayden installed. I don't know the cost. Of course, you could also install a remote oil filter which wouldn't have any interference issue but would cost more in addition to adding weight, complexity and more hose connections. A word of caution - clearance is only about 1/8" (.125") between the forward edge of the SD-20 inboard lower screw boss and inboard upper mounting bolt on the oil filter adapter. B&C's oil filter adapter spacer is 1.4" and I see that most others are 1.5". Attached picture shows the combo (#1 above) installed on my engine. If you look closely just to the right of the alternator and above the engine mount tube you can see the bolt head in front of the screw boss on the alternator. This is the problem area. Last time I was on their web site B&C didn't have any of the above shown. Bill is the guy to talk to at B&C. Bob RV-10 #40105 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=77992#77992 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/filter_004_132.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GenGrumpy(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 29, 2006
Subject: Re: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict
My 2 cents on this issue. Given the highway robbery B&C wanted for their adapter, I found a very simple solution to changing my oil filter on the first try. Take a plastic milk carton of the half gallon size. Eyeball it, then cut off about 1/4 of the bottom end, leaving one side with a 1/2 inch side rail on the 3 sides (keeps oil from overflowing). Place the cut open end up underneath the oil filter where it meets the engine block (there is room to slide it slightly forward so that the oil will drip directly into the milk carton). Crack open the filter a bit and let the residual from the filter drain into the milk carton. In about 10 minutes, as you slowly back the filter off, you will drain 95% of the oil into the milk carton. When it stops draining, remove the milk carton and take the filter off. You will end up with a few spatters below, but very easy to clean off. Works like a champ, and cost is zilch (assuming you drink milk!) I did my first one with an empty oil container, and it worked great until the residual overflowed my available space. The milk carton mod works like a champ and it didn't cost a thing! grumpy #40404 In a message dated 11/29/2006 9:03:07 PM Central Standard Time, bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com writes: I'm delinquent posting results of this combo, but better late than never I guess. First, if you want to use the B&C 90 degree oil filter adapter with a Lycoming 540 engine on an RV-10, you also need their 1.4" spacer. If you want to additionally use the B&C SD-20 alternator on the vacuum pad there is an interference issue with the inboard lower screw boss on the SD-20 and the upper inboard corner of the oil filter adapter. I strongly suspect that the interference issue would exist regardless of teh brand of 90 degree oil filter adapter. You have 2 solutions: 1) B&C has a 3/4" spacer kit that also contains replacement studs for the vacuum pad and a replacement shear coupling for the standard SD-20. Don't recall exact price of the spacer kit, but it's $75-100. I have this combo installed on my engine and can verify that it works. The 2.5" spacer on the oil filter adapter will absolutely NOT work with this combination. 2) There is another version of the SD-20 called an SD-20S which is shorter than the standard SD-20. They sell this with a "clocking adapter" that rotates the alternator 45 degrees and moves is aft about 3/4". This was their solution before the spacer above and is what Ed Hayden installed. I don't know the cost. Of course, you could also install a remote oil filter which wouldn't have any interference issue but would cost more in addition to adding weight, complexity and more hose connections. A word of caution - clearance is only about 1/8" (.125") between the forward edge of the SD-20 inboard lower screw boss and inboard upper mounting bolt on the oil filter adapter. B&C's oil filter adapter spacer is 1.4" and I see that most others are 1.5". Attached picture shows the combo (#1 above) installed on my engine. If you look closely just to the right of the alternator and above the engine mount tube you can see the bolt head in front of the screw boss on the alternator. This is the problem area. Last time I was on their web site B&C didn't have any of the above shown. Bill is the guy to talk to at B&C. Bob RV-10 #40105 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Rudder question- ditto
Date: Nov 29, 2006
Tim, The block halves come together fine but the diameter of the opening has been reduced by the width of the saw blade used to cut the block in half. While we've been discussing back and forth I've been working the rudder pedals and I think they are "wearing in". The movement seems to be freeing up with use and as it does I've tightened the bolts a little more. My biggest concern was that there would be sufficient aerodynamic force to re-center the rudder and over come the friction in the system....john #40264 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2006
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict
I'll see our 2 cents and raise you 2 cents!!! Use whatever container you can get under the filter. Use a center punch and punch a hole in the side of the filter. Unscrew the filter 1/2 turn. Punch another hole in the filter and allow the filter to drain. After the filter is empty, finish removing it and your 'catch basin'. It'll make it an even cleaner job!!! Linn GenGrumpy(at)aol.com wrote: > My 2 cents on this issue. > > Given the highway robbery B&C wanted for their adapter, I found a very > simple solution to changing my oil filter on the first try. > > Take a plastic milk carton of the half gallon size. > > Eyeball it, then cut off about 1/4 of the bottom end, leaving one side > with a 1/2 inch side rail on the 3 sides (keeps oil from overflowing). > > Place the cut open end up underneath the oil filter where it meets the > engine block (there is room to slide it slightly forward so that the > oil will drip directly into the milk carton). > > Crack open the filter a bit and let the residual from the filter drain > into the milk carton. > > In about 10 minutes, as you slowly back the filter off, you will drain > 95% of the oil into the milk carton. When it stops draining, remove > the milk carton and take the filter off. You will end up with a few > spatters below, but very easy to clean off. > > Works like a champ, and cost is zilch (assuming you drink milk!) > > I did my first one with an empty oil container, and it worked great > until the residual overflowed my available space. > > The milk carton mod works like a champ and it didn't cost a thing! > > grumpy > #40404 > > In a message dated 11/29/2006 9:03:07 PM Central Standard Time, > bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com writes: > > > > I'm delinquent posting results of this combo, but better late than > never I guess. > > First, if you want to use the B&C 90 degree oil filter adapter > with a Lycoming 540 engine on an RV-10, you also need their 1.4" > spacer. > > If you want to additionally use the B&C SD-20 alternator on the > vacuum pad there is an interference issue with the inboard lower > screw boss on the SD-20 and the upper inboard corner of the oil > filter adapter. I strongly suspect that the interference issue > would exist regardless of teh brand of 90 degree oil filter > adapter. You have 2 solutions: > > 1) B&C has a 3/4" spacer kit that also contains replacement studs > for the vacuum pad and a replacement shear coupling for the > standard SD-20. Don't recall exact price of the spacer kit, but > it's $75-100. I have this combo installed on my engine and can > verify that it works. The 2.5" spacer on the oil filter adapter > will absolutely NOT work with this combination. > > 2) There is another version of the SD-20 called an SD-20S which is > shorter than the standard SD-20. They sell this with a "clocking > adapter" that rotates the alternator 45 degrees and moves is aft > about 3/4". This was their solution before the spacer above and > is what Ed Hayden installed. I don't know the cost. > > Of course, you could also install a remote oil filter which > wouldn't have any interference issue but would cost more in > addition to adding weight, complexity and more hose connections. > > A word of caution - clearance is only about 1/8" (.125") between > the forward edge of the SD-20 inboard lower screw boss and inboard > upper mounting bolt on the oil filter adapter. B&C's oil filter > adapter spacer is 1.4" and I see that most others are 1.5". > > Attached picture shows the combo (#1 above) installed on my > engine. If you look closely just to the right of the alternator > and above the engine mount tube you can see the bolt head in front > of the screw boss on the alternator. This is the problem area. > > Last time I was on their web site B&C didn't have any of the above > shown. Bill is the guy to talk to at B&C. > > Bob > RV-10 #40105 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sean Blair" <seanblair(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Fighter pilot?
Date: Nov 29, 2006
A relative sent this to me..don't know if it's true, but fun to try. Can't get beyond 18 seconds on this myself. Hopefully that's good enough to be an RV-10 pilot. Good luck, Sean Blair #40225 Here's an interesting test: Think you have fine eye hand coordination--try this. The object of the game is to move the red block around without getting hit by the blue blocks or touching the black walls. If you can go longer than 22 seconds you are phenomenal. Reportedly, the US Air Force uses this for fighter pilots. They are expected to go for at least 2 minutes. Give it a try! http://tinyurl.com/56t9u ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Last "Official" Day Of The List Fund Raiser!
Dear Listers, Well, its November 30th and that means three things... 1) Today I am now officially 43 years old... (arg...) 2) It marks that last "official" day of the List Fund Raiser! 3) Its the last day I will be bugging everyone for a whole year! :-) If you use the Lists and enjoy the content and the no-advertising, no-spam, and no-censorship way in which they're run, please make a Contribution today to support their continued operation and upkeep. Your $20 or $30 goes a long way to further the List operation and keep the bills paid. I will be posting the List of Contributors next week, so make sure your name is on it! :-) Thank you to everyone that has made a Contribution so far this year! It is greatly appreciated. List Contributions: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict
Date: Nov 30, 2006
I'll see your 4 cents and raise it another 4: Avery has a gizmo with a hose clamp, an adopter and a hose that works like Linn's. You punch the hole on top, attach the gizmo, turn the filter with the hose facing down and out comes the oil into whatever jug you have placed on the ground! Rob Kermanj On Nov 29, 2006, at 10:52 PM, linn Walters wrote: > I'll see our 2 cents and raise you 2 cents!!! > Use whatever container you can get under the filter. Use a center > punch and punch a hole in the side of the filter. Unscrew the > filter 1/2 turn. Punch another hole in the filter and allow the > filter to drain. After the filter is empty, finish removing it and > your 'catch basin'. It'll make it an even cleaner job!!! > Linn > > GenGrumpy(at)aol.com wrote: >> My 2 cents on this issue. >> >> Given the highway robbery B&C wanted for their adapter, I found a >> very simple solution to changing my oil filter on the first try. >> >> Take a plastic milk carton of the half gallon size. >> >> Eyeball it, then cut off about 1/4 of the bottom end, leaving one >> side with a 1/2 inch side rail on the 3 sides (keeps oil from >> overflowing). >> >> Place the cut open end up underneath the oil filter where it meets >> the engine block (there is room to slide it slightly forward so >> that the oil will drip directly into the milk carton). >> >> Crack open the filter a bit and let the residual from the filter >> drain into the milk carton. >> >> In about 10 minutes, as you slowly back the filter off, you will >> drain 95% of the oil into the milk carton. When it stops >> draining, remove the milk carton and take the filter off. You >> will end up with a few spatters below, but very easy to clean off. >> >> Works like a champ, and cost is zilch (assuming you drink milk!) >> >> I did my first one with an empty oil container, and it worked >> great until the residual overflowed my available space. >> >> The milk carton mod works like a champ and it didn't cost a thing! >> >> grumpy >> #40404 >> >> In a message dated 11/29/2006 9:03:07 PM Central Standard Time, >> bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com writes: >> >> >> I'm delinquent posting results of this combo, but better late than >> never I guess. >> >> First, if you want to use the B&C 90 degree oil filter adapter >> with a Lycoming 540 engine on an RV-10, you also need their 1.4" >> spacer. >> >> If you want to additionally use the B&C SD-20 alternator on the >> vacuum pad there is an interference issue with the inboard lower >> screw boss on the SD-20 and the upper inboard corner of the oil >> filter adapter. I strongly suspect that the interference issue >> would exist regardless of teh brand of 90 degree oil filter >> adapter. You have 2 solutions: >> >> 1) B&C has a 3/4" spacer kit that also contains replacement studs >> for the vacuum pad and a replacement shear coupling for the >> standard SD-20. Don't recall exact price of the spacer kit, but >> it's $75-100. I have this combo installed on my engine and can >> verify that it works. The 2.5" spacer on the oil filter adapter >> will absolutely NOT work with this combination. >> >> 2) There is another version of the SD-20 called an SD-20S which is >> shorter than the standard SD-20. They sell this with a "clocking >> adapter" that rotates the alternator 45 degrees and moves is aft >> about 3/4". This was their solution before the spacer above and >> is what Ed Hayden installed. I don't know the cost. >> >> Of course, you could also install a remote oil filter which >> wouldn't have any interference issue but would cost more in >> addition to adding weight, complexity and more hose connections. >> >> A word of caution - clearance is only about 1/8" (.125") between >> the forward edge of the SD-20 inboard lower screw boss and inboard >> upper mounting bolt on the oil filter adapter. B&C's oil filter >> adapter spacer is 1.4" and I see that most others are 1.5". >> >> Attached picture shows the combo (#1 above) installed on my >> engine. If you look closely just to the right of the alternator >> and above the engine mount tube you can see the bolt head in front >> of the screw boss on the alternator. This is the problem area. >> >> Last time I was on their web site B&C didn't have any of the above >> shown. Bill is the guy to talk to at B&C. >> >> Bob >> RV-10 #40105 >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <gorejr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict
Date: Nov 30, 2006
The easiest way to prevent oil spillage is punch a hole in the oil filter on top and blow compressed air into the filter thus pushing oil into the engine and removing oil from the filter. Learned that one last year by an a/p in Costa Rica. Jim > > From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> > Date: 2006/11/29 Wed PM 10:52:36 EST > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict > > I'll see our 2 cents and raise you 2 cents!!! > Use whatever container you can get under the filter. Use a center punch > and punch a hole in the side of the filter. Unscrew the filter 1/2 > turn. Punch another hole in the filter and allow the filter to drain. > After the filter is empty, finish removing it and your 'catch basin'. > It'll make it an even cleaner job!!! > Linn > > GenGrumpy(at)aol.com wrote: > > > My 2 cents on this issue. > > > > Given the highway robbery B&C wanted for their adapter, I found a very > > simple solution to changing my oil filter on the first try. > > > > Take a plastic milk carton of the half gallon size. > > > > Eyeball it, then cut off about 1/4 of the bottom end, leaving one side > > with a 1/2 inch side rail on the 3 sides (keeps oil from overflowing). > > > > Place the cut open end up underneath the oil filter where it meets the > > engine block (there is room to slide it slightly forward so that the > > oil will drip directly into the milk carton). > > > > Crack open the filter a bit and let the residual from the filter drain > > into the milk carton. > > > > In about 10 minutes, as you slowly back the filter off, you will drain > > 95% of the oil into the milk carton. When it stops draining, remove > > the milk carton and take the filter off. You will end up with a few > > spatters below, but very easy to clean off. > > > > Works like a champ, and cost is zilch (assuming you drink milk!) > > > > I did my first one with an empty oil container, and it worked great > > until the residual overflowed my available space. > > > > The milk carton mod works like a champ and it didn't cost a thing! > > > > grumpy > > #40404 > > > > In a message dated 11/29/2006 9:03:07 PM Central Standard Time, > > bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com writes: > > > > > > > > I'm delinquent posting results of this combo, but better late than > > never I guess. > > > > First, if you want to use the B&C 90 degree oil filter adapter > > with a Lycoming 540 engine on an RV-10, you also need their 1.4" > > spacer. > > > > If you want to additionally use the B&C SD-20 alternator on the > > vacuum pad there is an interference issue with the inboard lower > > screw boss on the SD-20 and the upper inboard corner of the oil > > filter adapter. I strongly suspect that the interference issue > > would exist regardless of teh brand of 90 degree oil filter > > adapter. You have 2 solutions: > > > > 1) B&C has a 3/4" spacer kit that also contains replacement studs > > for the vacuum pad and a replacement shear coupling for the > > standard SD-20. Don't recall exact price of the spacer kit, but > > it's $75-100. I have this combo installed on my engine and can > > verify that it works. The 2.5" spacer on the oil filter adapter > > will absolutely NOT work with this combination. > > > > 2) There is another version of the SD-20 called an SD-20S which is > > shorter than the standard SD-20. They sell this with a "clocking > > adapter" that rotates the alternator 45 degrees and moves is aft > > about 3/4". This was their solution before the spacer above and > > is what Ed Hayden installed. I don't know the cost. > > > > Of course, you could also install a remote oil filter which > > wouldn't have any interference issue but would cost more in > > addition to adding weight, complexity and more hose connections. > > > > A word of caution - clearance is only about 1/8" (.125") between > > the forward edge of the SD-20 inboard lower screw boss and inboard > > upper mounting bolt on the oil filter adapter. B&C's oil filter > > adapter spacer is 1.4" and I see that most others are 1.5". > > > > Attached picture shows the combo (#1 above) installed on my > > engine. If you look closely just to the right of the alternator > > and above the engine mount tube you can see the bolt head in front > > of the screw boss on the alternator. This is the problem area. > > > > Last time I was on their web site B&C didn't have any of the above > > shown. Bill is the guy to talk to at B&C. > > > > Bob > > RV-10 #40105 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: Link McGarity <wv4i(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Stupid question revisted.
1.) Because they can.... 2.) Yes, if placed too close together or wrong distance apart, and if resonant at same freq. This may apply regardless of whether selected/deselected by A/B antenna switch. Short answer is follow mfr's recommendations, or call their tech line. Somewhat analogous to placing passive RF conductive material in tactical aircraft exterior coatings that is resonant to incoming radar signals, i.e. not connected to anything but still reacts, is reactive... For antenna A/B switch, simply need to get one with correct connector types (better) or adapters, and that has low loss at working frequencies. Like George Bush 41, hoping for a kinder, gentler America someday.... Link McGarity #40622 tailcone also ham radio afflicted ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: I knew it is going to happen
From: "Michael Wellenzohn" <michael(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Nov 30, 2006
Hi there, ok I screwed up riveting a 470 4-4 rivet and had to drill it out, the second attempt went wrong again and then drilling out made the 30# hole look like an 8. What rivet do I have to use now and what core drill? Michael (who is finishing the tailcone and expecting the wings next week) -------- RV-10 builder (tailcone) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78103#78103 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: Rudder question- ditto
Date: Nov 30, 2006
Tight enough to put some drag, but not really tight. It helps to keep the cables a little snug in their places if they hold on, but you certainly don't want it so tight that you can't move it with your hand. I can't speak to whether it will loosen with wear or not, but I wouldn't want to leave it that way. Just my take on it. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org W: 352-465-4545 C: 352-427-0285 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:15 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rudder question- ditto I haven't seen a response to John's question, I too would like to know how other builders have set them up. when I installed my cable guides they were very tight, how tight did you 'fly guys leave them? Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ John Hasbrouck wrote: > Question regarding rudder bearing blocks and the "nylon" rudder cable > guides. How snug should both of these be? I can tighten the center > rudder bearing block to the pont where the rudder pedals will not > move, obviously too tight. Same with the rudder cable guides. How > much play do we need in these? Are the aerodynamic forces on the > rudder enough to overcome the situation? Will there be enough wear in > to loosen the pedals and the cable? Inquiring minds want to know > > John Hasbrouck > #40264 > >* >* > -- 3:22 PM -- 3:22 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
See your 0.08 and raise you a 0.25. How about a remote mount filter? :-) Michael ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:24 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict I'll see your 4 cents and raise it another 4: Avery has a gizmo with a hose clamp, an adopter and a hose that works like Linn's. You punch the hole on top, attach the gizmo, turn the filter with the hose facing down and out comes the oil into whatever jug you have placed on the ground! Rob Kermanj On Nov 29, 2006, at 10:52 PM, linn Walters wrote: I'll see our 2 cents and raise you 2 cents!!! Use whatever container you can get under the filter. Use a center punch and punch a hole in the side of the filter. Unscrew the filter 1/2 turn. Punch another hole in the filter and allow the filter to drain. After the filter is empty, finish removing it and your 'catch basin'. It'll make it an even cleaner job!!! Linn GenGrumpy(at)aol.com wrote: My 2 cents on this issue. Given the highway robbery B&C wanted for their adapter, I found a very simple solution to changing my oil filter on the first try. Take a plastic milk carton of the half gallon size. Eyeball it, then cut off about 1/4 of the bottom end, leaving one side with a 1/2 inch side rail on the 3 sides (keeps oil from overflowing). Place the cut open end up underneath the oil filter where it meets the engine block (there is room to slide it slightly forward so that the oil will drip directly into the milk carton). Crack open the filter a bit and let the residual from the filter drain into the milk carton. In about 10 minutes, as you slowly back the filter off, you will drain 95% of the oil into the milk carton. When it stops draining, remove the milk carton and take the filter off. You will end up with a few spatters below, but very easy to clean off. Works like a champ, and cost is zilch (assuming you drink milk!) I did my first one with an empty oil container, and it worked great until the residual overflowed my available space. The milk carton mod works like a champ and it didn't cost a thing! grumpy #40404 In a message dated 11/29/2006 9:03:07 PM Central Standard Time, bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com writes: I'm delinquent posting results of this combo, but better late than never I guess. First, if you want to use the B&C 90 degree oil filter adapter with a Lycoming 540 engine on an RV-10, you also need their 1.4" spacer. If you want to additionally use the B&C SD-20 alternator on the vacuum pad there is an interference issue with the inboard lower screw boss on the SD-20 and the upper inboard corner of the oil filter adapter. I strongly suspect that the interference issue would exist regardless of teh brand of 90 degree oil filter adapter. You have 2 solutions: 1) B&C has a 3/4" spacer kit that also contains replacement studs for the vacuum pad and a replacement shear coupling for the standard SD-20. Don't recall exact price of the spacer kit, but it's $75-100. I have this combo installed on my engine and can verify that it works. The 2.5" spacer on the oil filter adapter will absolutely NOT work with this combination. 2) There is another version of the SD-20 called an SD-20S which is shorter than the standard SD-20. They sell this with a "clocking adapter" that rotates the alternator 45 degrees and moves is aft about 3/4". This was their solution before the spacer above and is what Ed Hayden installed. I don't know the cost. Of course, you could also install a remote oil filter which wouldn't have any interference issue but would cost more in addition to adding weight, complexity and more hose connections. A word of caution - clearance is only about 1/8" (.125") between the forward edge of the SD-20 inboard lower screw boss and inboard upper mounting bolt on the oil filter adapter. B&C's oil filter adapter spacer is 1.4" and I see that most others are 1.5". Attached picture shows the combo (#1 above) installed on my engine. If you look closely just to the right of the alternator and above the engine mount tube you can see the bolt head in front of the screw boss on the alternator. This is the problem area. Last time I was on their web site B&C didn't have any of the above shown. Bill is the guy to talk to at B&C. Bob RV-10 #40105 href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c o ntribution href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s .com/Navigator?RV10-List ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: Fighter pilot?
Date: Nov 30, 2006
I made it 10.6. Hopefully that good enough to be an RV-10 builder. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse(at)itecusa.org"jesse(at)itecusa.org HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org W: 352-465-4545 C: 352-427-0285 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Blair Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:14 PM Subject: RV10-List: Fighter pilot? A relative sent this to me=85=85don=92t know if it=92s true, but fun to try. Can=92t get beyond 18 seconds on this myself. Hopefully that=92s good enough to be an RV-10 pilot. Good luck, Sean Blair #40225 Here's an interesting test: Think you have fine eye hand coordination--try this. The object of the game is to move the red block around without getting hit by the blue blocks or touching the black walls. If you can go longer than 22 seconds you are phenomenal. Reportedly, the US Air Force uses this for fighter pilots. They are expected to go for at least 2 minutes. Give it a try! HYPERLINK "http://tinyurl.com/56t9u"http://tinyurl.com/56t9u "http://www.aeroelectric.com"www.aeroelectric.com "http://www.buildersbooks.com"www.buildersbooks.com "http://www.kitlog.com"www.kitlog.com "http://www.homebuilthelp.com"www.homebuilthelp.com "http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribut ion "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"http://www.matronics.com/Na vig ator?RV10-List 11/28/2006 3:22 PM -- 11/28/2006 3:22 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com>
Date: Nov 30, 2006
Subject: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict
Vans Website does NOW offer spacers and 90 degree adapter. ________________________________________________________________________
Vans Website does NOW offer spacers and 90 degree adapter.

______________________ __________________________________________________
Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today!

________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Fighter pilot?
Hmmm I guess the USAF is concerned about fighter pilots having to engage red boxes in arial combat! Cheers Les Kearney Do no archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:46 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fighter pilot? I made it 10.6. Hopefully that good enough to be an RV-10 builder. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org W: 352-465-4545 C: 352-427-0285 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Blair Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:14 PM Subject: RV10-List: Fighter pilot? A relative sent this to me..don't know if it's true, but fun to try. Can't get beyond 18 seconds on this myself. Hopefully that's good enough to be an RV-10 pilot. Good luck, Sean Blair #40225 Here's an interesting test: Think you have fine eye hand coordination--try this. The object of the game is to move the red block around without getting hit by the blue blocks or touching the black walls. If you can go longer than 22 seconds you are phenomenal. Reportedly, the US Air Force uses this for fighter pilots. They are expected to go for at least 2 minutes. Give it a try! http://tinyurl.com/56t9u www.aeroelectric.com www.buildersbooks.com www.kitlog.com www.homebuilthelp.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Even neater if you already have the screw on filter adapter, the Airwolf adapter plate simply screws on. Michael ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BPA Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:26 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict AirWolf makes a remote filter system that mounts on the firewall. It uses an adaptor that mounts on the accessory case with two lines that run to and from the filter block. It's a pretty trick set up. The thing to consider is if you want an additional couple of oil lines running around under there. Allen Barrett's Place -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:51 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict My only objection to a remote filter is the extra hoses and connections creating potential leak sources. Rob Kermanj On Nov 30, 2006, at 9:28 AM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote: See your 0.08 and raise you a 0.25. How about a remote mount filter? :-) Michael ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:24 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict I'll see your 4 cents and raise it another 4: Avery has a gizmo with a hose clamp, an adopter and a hose that works like Linn's. You punch the hole on top, attach the gizmo, turn the filter with the hose facing down and out comes the oil into whatever jug you have placed on the ground! Rob Kermanj ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Fighter pilot?
Date: Nov 30, 2006
How much practice are you allowed? If you are only allowed one time...I guess I am a transport guy. With a few tries i am a fighter jock. What do you fly if you don't want to kill people? Fie suppression...arial bomber!!!! That's a good war. JohnG. >From: "Sean Blair" <seanblair(at)adelphia.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV10-List: Fighter pilot? >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:13:41 -0700 > >A relative sent this to me..don't know if it's true, but fun to try. Can't >get beyond 18 seconds on this myself. Hopefully that's good enough to be an >RV-10 pilot. > > >Good luck, > > >Sean Blair > >#40225 > > > Here's an interesting test: > > > Think you have fine eye hand coordination--try this. > > > The object of the game is to move the red block around without > > getting hit by the blue blocks or touching the black walls. > > > If you can go longer than 22 seconds you are phenomenal. > > > Reportedly, the US Air Force uses this for fighter pilots. They are > > expected to go for at least 2 minutes. Give it a try! > > > http://tinyurl.com/56t9u > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: LED light revisted.
Date: Nov 30, 2006
Deems, Very helpful web site you have! I've been to the archives and no help there. That search engine sure isn't Google Deems--Your web site gives a link to Jeff"s LED nav lights. I don't see any contact info for Jeff on that site. Second, what voltage are these lights(Your Nav lights). Will the 14v lights run on 12v system? I see so many LEDs that are either 14V or 28 volt. without revisiting the 12, 28 volt issue. What are people using if they are a 12V system to drive a 14 volt LED lights or 28V lights. Thanks, JOhn G. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fighter pilot?
Ahh but I do remember a time when they engaged planes with a red star and had to stay away from a certain the border. KABONG Do Not Archive PS: I've passed this on to at least a dozen pilots. A coupla are old fighter types. ----- Original Message ----- From: Les Kearney To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Hmmm I guess the USAF is concerned about fighter pilots having to engage red boxes in arial combat! -server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On A relative sent this to me..don't know if it's true, but fun to try. Can't get beyond 18 seconds on this myself. Hopefully that's good enough to be an RV-10 pilot. Good luck, Sean Blair #40225 http://tinyurl.com/56t9u ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Tool Questions
Date: Nov 30, 2006
I'm getting ready to take the RV10 plunge and will be ordering my kit and tools after Christmas just before the price increase takes effect. I've heard nothing but good things about Shaun Isham and Bob Avery and their respective companies. It appears that I can't go too wrong with either option. I'm interested in getting a pnuematic squeezer and a DRDT-2 from the start. One comment that Shaun made was to get the back riveting plate locally. He is of the belief that the 3/8" plate that both he and Avery sells is not thick enough. Not having done any back riveting before, I have no clue as to whom to believe. Question 1: What are the recommedations for a plate for back riveting? is the 3/8" thick plate thick enough? Question 2: any reason why I shouldn't purchase from either one of these vendors? Or is it truly a flip of the coin? thanks, bob Soon to be RV10 builder N410BL ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: Niko <owl40188(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Hose End Fitting on Wing Side of Fuel Line
For those using flexible hoses for the fuel lines what type of hose end fit ting did you use at the fuel tank side. I am thinking of using a 60 deg ho se end fitting and running the hose so that it has only one bend from the f uselage to the fuel tank.=0A=0AThanks=0A=0ANiko=0A40188 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: LED light revisted.
You can contact Jeff Bordelon @ RV-7A(at)austin.rr.com ;they are 12/14V and only draw a small amount of current (< 1 amp). Re 12V / 14V: I'm definitely NOT the electron guru, and somebody else should jump in here and provide a definitive answer, but they are essentially the same system and operate from the same battery/alternator source. Battery outputs 14.5 v when fully charged, there is some loss in the wiring due to wire resistance etc. You may want to get Bob Nuckols book available on his web site and subscribe to the Matronics aero-electric list as well. Bob provides free consulting via the list on a time available basis, Some of the stuff is more detailed than I want or care about, but it is a very valuable resource. In his book he explains all about the 12/14v and 24/28v systems and why they are referred to the way they are. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ ps. if you contact Jeff, let him know he's got no contact info on the LED page. John Gonzalez wrote: > > Deems, > > Very helpful web site you have! > > I've been to the archives and no help there. That search engine sure > isn't Google > > Deems--Your web site gives a link to Jeff"s LED nav lights. > > I don't see any contact info for Jeff on that site. > > Second, what voltage are these lights(Your Nav lights). Will the 14v > lights run on 12v system? > > I see so many LEDs that are either 14V or 28 volt. without revisiting > the 12, 28 volt issue. What are people using if they are a 12V > system to drive a 14 volt LED lights or 28V lights. > > Thanks, > > JOhn G. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Tool Questions
Regarding the back riveting plate I think they probably meant 3/16", the big issue with the back riveting plates that the tool guys sell is not so much the thickness, but the length and width dimensions, because they are relatively small approx 3-4 " by 8-10" it is too easy when back riveting to not have the plate under the head of the rivet and that makes for !@@$##@$ and ugly impressions in your pristine skins! If you have a metal supply/scrap yard in your area, go to them and you will probably be able to find a plate of 3/16 - 1/4" thick material that is already cut, I found one about 16" x 20" which worked fine, Take your belt sander to it and clean off any 'scale' or roughness, it will be a lot cheaper than the tool guys plate and serve you better, I hear Alexander's have one in their shop which is inlaid in a bench which is even larger. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ back to sanding, filling, sanding.filling, sanding, ...................... rvmail(at)thelefflers.com wrote: > >I'm getting ready to take the RV10 plunge and will be ordering my kit and tools after Christmas just before the price increase takes effect. > >I've heard nothing but good things about Shaun Isham and Bob Avery and their respective companies. It appears that I can't go too wrong with either option. I'm interested in getting a pnuematic squeezer and a DRDT-2 from the start. > >One comment that Shaun made was to get the back riveting plate locally. He is of the belief that the 3/8" plate that both he and Avery sells is not thick enough. > >Not having done any back riveting before, I have no clue as to whom to believe. > >Question 1: What are the recommedations for a plate for back riveting? is the 3/8" thick plate thick enough? > >Question 2: any reason why I shouldn't purchase from either one of these vendors? Or is it truly a flip of the coin? > >thanks, > >bob > >Soon to be RV10 builder >N410BL > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: LED light revisted.
Date: Nov 30, 2006
The book is in the mail. Thanks for the contact. John >From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV10-List: LED light revisted. >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:33:22 -0700 > > >You can contact Jeff Bordelon @ RV-7A(at)austin.rr.com ;they are 12/14V and >only draw a small amount of current (< 1 amp). Re 12V / 14V: I'm definitely >NOT the electron guru, and somebody else should jump in here and provide a >definitive answer, but they are essentially the same system and operate >from the same battery/alternator source. Battery outputs 14.5 v when fully >charged, there is some loss in the wiring due to wire resistance etc. You >may want to get Bob Nuckols book available on his web site and subscribe to >the Matronics aero-electric list as well. Bob provides free consulting via >the list on a time available basis, Some of the stuff is more detailed than >I want or care about, but it is a very valuable resource. In his book he >explains all about the 12/14v and 24/28v systems and why they are referred >to the way they are. > >Deems Davis # 406 >Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) >http://deemsrv10.com/ > > >ps. if you contact Jeff, let him know he's got no contact info on the LED >page. > >John Gonzalez wrote: > >> >>Deems, >> >>Very helpful web site you have! >> >>I've been to the archives and no help there. That search engine sure isn't >>Google >> >>Deems--Your web site gives a link to Jeff"s LED nav lights. >> >>I don't see any contact info for Jeff on that site. >> >>Second, what voltage are these lights(Your Nav lights). Will the 14v >>lights run on 12v system? >> >>I see so many LEDs that are either 14V or 28 volt. without revisiting the >>12, 28 volt issue. What are people using if they are a 12V system to >>drive a 14 volt LED lights or 28V lights. >> >>Thanks, >> >>JOhn G. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: "Pascal" <rv10builder(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Tool Questions
Bob; I, like you, have not started but I have done extensive, and I mean extensive research on tools. My advice, if you are looking to save money on tools and get the same quality than shop around. If you want one stop shopping than here is that feedback: A well known RV builder, RV teacher and really sharp guy gave me the following advice: Tools. My advice is to steer clear of Isham's. I've heard too many things about how he's selling NON-new stuff and calling it new. Talk to Fred Kunkel at Clear Air Tools (http://www.clearairtools.com). Fred is THE MAN when it comes to aircraft tools. Nobody knows pneumatic stuff like Fred does. He has a kit now (he didn't used to offer a real kit) that is extremely competitive. Better price when you add it all up than what Avery offers. Again, I'm not finanically affiliated with Fred at all. Just calling it like I see it. I recommend buying a kit from either Fred or Avery. You won't be disappointed either way there. My 2 cents is -- call Fred regardless, though, and ask him for his RV builder tool kit pricing. Shop around and I think you'll find his setup is pretty darn good. If I were starting over, knowing what I know now, I'd order from Fred. Nothing wrong with Avery's stuff either if that's the way you go. I don't know how valid Isham's moral marketing is, but I will tell you I have heard this from a few other "in the know" people. In his defense I have also heard great feedback from people who have purchased from Isham's. Cleveland has equally good tools as Avery, Brown tools has the cheapest pneumatic squeezer with the respective 2'',3'', and 4'' yokes as well as an air drill I highly recommend, Sioux 1412, Cleartools has a great squeezer package deal as well, he (Fred @ cleartools) is great to talk to and will give honest feedback telling you that you can buy from anyone regardless of the time he will spend with you. The Yard Store and Brown tools have good tools and are less expensive than any of the other vendors. I myself will spend less than 2K and have the best tools, why? because I am comparison shopping and buying everything that is the least (yet best) quality from practically every vendor out there. Cleveland, for example, has the best price on the 3M Deburring wheel right now, a while ago they had an equally good deal on the Sioux drill. Time is money but for me researching the tools also teaches me why I even need each to start with and when I start the -10 in 2007 I will know the right tool for each piece. Best of success on this project! Pascal ----- Original Message ----- From: <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: RV10-List: Tool Questions > > I'm getting ready to take the RV10 plunge and will be ordering my kit and > tools after Christmas just before the price increase takes effect. > > I've heard nothing but good things about Shaun Isham and Bob Avery and > their respective companies. It appears that I can't go too wrong with > either option. I'm interested in getting a pnuematic squeezer and a > DRDT-2 from the start. > > One comment that Shaun made was to get the back riveting plate locally. > He is of the belief that the 3/8" plate that both he and Avery sells is > not thick enough. > > Not having done any back riveting before, I have no clue as to whom to > believe. > > Question 1: What are the recommedations for a plate for back riveting? > is the 3/8" thick plate thick enough? > > Question 2: any reason why I shouldn't purchase from either one of these > vendors? Or is it truly a flip of the coin? > > thanks, > > bob > > Soon to be RV10 builder > N410BL > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tool Questions
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: "Stovall Todd Lt Col AF/A4RX" <Todd.Stovall(at)pentagon.af.mil>
I used both the plate that came with my tool kit plus one (actually two I made myself). The one that came with the kit I used to set rivets on the rudder stiffners because it was easier to move the plate around than the skin. When I did the rudder trailing edge, I used the ones I made out of 2"x36"x3/16 steel pieces that I bought at Home Depot. I polished one side and countersunk them in-line into the edge of my work table. Worked just fine when I set those double-flush rivets. I also have the DRDT-2 and a pneumatic squeezer. Both highly recommended. I also have the Cleaveland "Main Squeeze" hand-squeezer. It works well and is faster to setup than the pneumatic. In fact I was originally going to forgo the pneumatic until I went to squeeze my first 4-7 rivet. Let's just say I had about a 4-day work stoppage until the pneumatic arrived. Todd #40631 Final drilling the HS skins -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvmail(at)thelefflers.com Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:20 PM Subject: RV10-List: Tool Questions I'm getting ready to take the RV10 plunge and will be ordering my kit and tools after Christmas just before the price increase takes effect. I've heard nothing but good things about Shaun Isham and Bob Avery and their respective companies. It appears that I can't go too wrong with either option. I'm interested in getting a pnuematic squeezer and a DRDT-2 from the start. One comment that Shaun made was to get the back riveting plate locally. He is of the belief that the 3/8" plate that both he and Avery sells is not thick enough. Not having done any back riveting before, I have no clue as to whom to believe. Question 1: What are the recommedations for a plate for back riveting? is the 3/8" thick plate thick enough? Question 2: any reason why I shouldn't purchase from either one of these vendors? Or is it truly a flip of the coin? thanks, bob Soon to be RV10 builder N410BL ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris , Susie Darcy" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: A question about the QB fuselage
Date: Dec 01, 2006
I would not get a QB fuse again as the standard on mine was very poor with lots of items being redone. Chris 388 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: A question about the QB fuselage
Hmmm That is not good news. Are the QB wings any better? Inquiring minds need to know ... Les Kearney RV10 # 40643 - Vertical Stab -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris , Susie Darcy Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:24 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: A question about the QB fuselage I would not get a QB fuse again as the standard on mine was very poor with lots of items being redone. Chris 388 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris , Susie Darcy" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: A question about the QB fuselage
Date: Dec 01, 2006
Wings were perfect! Chris 388 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: Niko <owl40188(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Hose End Fitting on Wing Side of Fuel Line
Thanks for the reply Steve. I was actually wondering about the other end o f the hose, the one that connects to the fuel tank.=0A=0ANiko=0A40188=0A=0A =0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: "millstees(at)ameritech.net" <millstees (at)ameritech.net>=0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Thursday, November 30 , 2006 4:04:00 PM=0ASubject: RE: RV10-List: Hose End Fitting on Wing Side o f Fuel Line=0A=0A=0ANiko:=0A =0AThe 60deg fittings won't fit in the tunnel when you mount them to the fuel valve. I bought banjo fittings from Andair www.andair.co.uk, and attached 864 hose ends from A/S (about$15 each). An dair also offers a 90deg fitting that goes on the valve housing, however, I like the flexibility of the banjo fitting better.=0A =0ASteve Mills=0ARV-1 0 40486 Slow-build=0ANaperville, Illinois=0Afinishing fuselage=0ADo Not Arc hive=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: owner-rv10-list-server@matroni cs.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Niko=0ASen t: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:22 PM=0ATo: Matronics=0ASubject: RV10-Lis t: Hose End Fitting on Wing Side of Fuel Line=0A=0A=0AFor those using flexi ble hoses for the fuel lines what type of hose end fitting did you use at t he fuel tank side. I am thinking of using a 60 deg hose end fitting and ru nning the hose so that it has only one bend from the fuselage to the fuel t ank.=0A =0AThanks=0A =0ANiko=0A40188=0A=0A=0Ahref="http://www.aeroelectri c.com">www.aeroelectric.com=0Ahref="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.bui ldersbooks.com=0Ahref="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com=0Ahref="ht tp://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com=0Ahref="http://www.matr onics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matron ics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ==== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: A question about the QB fuselage
Date: Nov 30, 2006
My QB fuse and wings look great. I am #409 but I delayed receipt of both for 5-6 months. I think I delayed receipt of my empannage kit too. My QB stuff arrived I think in Feb or March of '06. I have no problem with either and I am an anal type. JOhn G. >From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: A question about the QB fuselage >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:05:22 -0700 > >Hmmm > > >That is not good news. Are the QB wings any better? > > >Inquiring minds need to know ... > > >Les Kearney > >RV10 # 40643 - Vertical Stab > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris , Susie >Darcy >Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:24 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV10-List: A question about the QB fuselage > > >I would not get a QB fuse again as the standard on mine was very poor with >lots of items being redone. > > >Chris 388 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris , Susie Darcy" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: A question about the QB fuselage
Date: Dec 01, 2006
John have you started work on it??? Mine looked great to until I started working on it. For instance the gear mounts were miss drilled big time meaning hours of work to put larger bolts in. Also check the bolts in the spars. Are they the correct ones?? Now lets not even talk about the baggage door area!! I suppose I spent about 3 days fixing things ...no big deal except for the gear mounts!! Again my wings were perfect! I am a second time builder so just telling you my opinion. If I was to build again I would do a flat pack fuse and QB wings. Regards Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: A question about the QB fuselage and tools
Date: Nov 30, 2006
Chris, I can only comment on what I can see and attest to the quality of those parts put together but not necessarily have I worked on them. All panels that were held in place with a few half set blind rivets have been removed and all the rivets that I can see are set well. The tail cone is riveted in and I finally got hit with the idea that I better start getting a clear vision of what I am going to do electrically and antenna wise down on paper. For instance, I am under the current belief that despite training at night flight when I was sixteen, I now do not believe it to be a very safe undertaking. CC Glider pilots prepare for what we call outlandings, and I have made a few, but we never have an engine that can quit, and we also have much more time in glide. More importantly, we don't do an outlanding at night. Get my point. I am however wiring lights in because a 10 without them is just too unsophisticated. Also, those flights where sunset time is approaching and your 10-30 minutes behind schedule. In addition, I took some of this electrical stuff in college physics, but aside from re-wiring a boat trailer, I've forgotten. My "Aero Electric Connection" came in the mail today and in addition to all the Eggenfellner information, I need to start digesting this book rapidly. My question about the 12v and 14v LEDs today showed my lack of understanding and in the short time I have had to look at the book, the question has been answered. At least it shows I am eager to know and learn. Two comments I would like to make regarding tools: To Pascal, I understand your desire to get the best price on tools, but I must comment that until you start really using them, you will not realize what you have and more importantly what you don't have. It will be frustrating to learn that the order you placed yesterday or last week could have contained another item that you now need. The wait for the next shipment is horrible. The extra cost sucks too. Each time one orders from a different vender due to shopping around, don't forget to add in the freight costs. It adds up and as all of us probably have learned, don't ship expedighted and no deliveries on Saturday...HELL NO!!! There goes all your savings from shopping around. No amount of looking through the catalogs will tell you how to get at that rivet with the gun, the bar or the pnuematic or how to make that dimple when no tools you have will reach. Be careful while making allegation about people's integrity when it is not your own experience. I do not know who this Isham's tool supplier is, but I also think that you used text of someone else who advised you, but you did not provide his name. It was just really, really absolute. Like a "NO" slam dunk. As Obewan would say, "Only Siths deal in absolutes" I will just say that anyone who has not started building but has a good understanding of their tool purchase(S), pick up this book and other that will be needed and start digesting it. If you're a trust funder or retired and can work on this project almost everyday...you're in a good place, albiet it still is one hell of an undertaking. Full time work and family and somethings got to give....Ya, I haven't watched Television for ten years now so I have a handle on that. DVDs yah, but T.V. no, no, no! The reward is no where as great, but the model planes(The really nice ones) are more fun to build and you get done faster. Did I say that, good grief Charlie Brown..... Just feeling a little overwhelmed over the last few days. No dentistry tomorrow, but wait, breakfast and make lunch for my daughter, then 2 1/2hrs at my daughter's kindergarden/helping out teaching, then home for an hour, then back down to her kindergarden for photos, then back over the hill to pick up the Prius from it service...damm, it will be 2:30 or 3pm by that time. Wife says don't worry she's going to grandmother tomorrow night and saturday. I say, yah, but I have to sleep sometime after working all week waking up at 5am. Start working on the plane at 3pm and go to 12pm there's my nine hours. Don't fall asleep with a rivet gun in your hand. And this was my relaxing/down time. Signing off. John G. >From: "Chris , Susie Darcy" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: RV10-List: A question about the QB fuselage >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:10:07 +1100 > > >John have you started work on it??? Mine looked great to until I started >working on it. For instance the gear mounts were miss drilled big time >meaning hours of work to put larger bolts in. Also check the bolts in the >spars. Are they the correct ones?? Now lets not even talk about the baggage >door area!! I suppose I spent about 3 days fixing things ...no big deal >except for the gear mounts!! > >Again my wings were perfect! > >I am a second time builder so just telling you my opinion. If I was to >build again I would do a flat pack fuse and QB wings. > >Regards Chris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Egg Engine
Date: Dec 01, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
I visited my engine builder last week the day before Thanksgiving when I was driving through the area moving my project from Texas to WI. He not only offered me a place to crash for the night but invited me to Thanksgiving dinner with his family. :-) Thanks again for the tour Allen! Glad to see Jan finally recognizes that the turbo isn't an option for the -10. Last conversation I had with him, (and one of the many questions that got me kicked off his list) he insisted it was an option and wasn't needed unless you wanted it. Of course back then it was also still a supercharger. I can't wait until one of you are up and flying so we can finally get some good comparison numbers against a stock -10. We really need some alternatives to Lycoming. Any thoughts on how much of a hit you will take in cruise with the 4-blade? What was the decision process in going with the 4-blade? Michael -----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, December 01, 2006 9:05 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Hose End Fitting on Wing Side of Fuel Line --> John I have been talking all along about installing an Eggenfellner engine. I placed the first order for one for the 10, they used my engine mount and cowl to develop the engine, and I have readily answered any question from all about anything I am doing. The turbo is the only version that is recommended for the 10. The weight of the firewall forward package, including the 4 blade lightweight prop is comparable or slightly less than FWF for a Lycoming. The dual batteries are still being mounted to in the standard Vans location, Jan makes a battery tray to mount to the firewall in the smaller planes, so what I did was buy that, cut it in half, welded a plate to the end and the two batteries fit on the Vans battery tray. I was down at the Eggenfellner factory last week, and got to see my engine in final assembly and 55 others. Jan had the Turbo H6, with the 4 blade prop installed on the factory plane, he started the engine and taxied around, and there is no way to describe the sound, it was so quiet and when I put my hand on the wind there was little to no vibration. I can not wait to get this engine flying in a 10. The reason we did not go flying was that it was after 9 pm and we were both tired. Now, how many of you can actually say you visited your engine manufacturer that late at night and were welcomed, even encouraged to stop by and check it out. We just happened to be in the area, called and he said stop on by. The support system for this engine is unsurpassed in my mind. Jan is accessible at all hours of the day, and continually answers his email and posts to the web 24x7. I often wonder how he does it. I have the utmost confidence in him and the engine. If you have any other questions feel free to ask, I am sure many more people want to know more. Dan N289DT RV10E ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2006
From: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Hose End Fitting on Wing Side of Fuel Line
I can sort of visualize what you are describing. A photo or two would be worth a thousand words! Inquiring minds want to know... Regards, Jay Skinned knuckles from installing landing gear mounts From: <millstees(at)ameritech.net> Subject: Hose End Fitting on Wing Side of Fuel Line Niko: The 60deg fittings won't fit in the tunnel when you mount them to the fuel valve. I bought banjo fittings from Andair www.andair.co.uk, and attached 864 hose ends from A/S (about$15 each). Andair also offers a 90deg fitting that goes on the valve housing, however, I like the flexibility of the banjo fitting better. Steve Mills Want to start your own business? http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hose End Fitting on Wing Side of Fuel Line
Date: Dec 01, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Depending on which valve you are using you can also just come off the 90's using a 45. Here's what I did: http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=msausen&project=22&ca tegory=1703&log=15835&row=5 Michael Sausen -10 #352 Fuselage -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Brinkmeyer Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: RV10-List: Hose End Fitting on Wing Side of Fuel Line --> I can sort of visualize what you are describing. A photo or two would be worth a thousand words! Inquiring minds want to know... Regards, Jay Skinned knuckles from installing landing gear mounts From: <millstees(at)ameritech.net> Subject: Hose End Fitting on Wing Side of Fuel Line Niko: The 60deg fittings won't fit in the tunnel when you mount them to the fuel valve. I bought banjo fittings from Andair www.andair.co.uk, and attached 864 hose ends from A/S (about$15 each). Andair also offers a 90deg fitting that goes on the valve housing, however, I like the flexibility of the banjo fitting better. Steve Mills ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Fighter pilot?
Lol....roger that. Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: A question about the QB fuselage and tools
John Gonzalez wrote: > For instance, I am under the current belief that despite training at > night flight when I was sixteen, I now do not believe it to be a very > safe undertaking. CC Glider pilots prepare for what we call > outlandings, and I have made a few, but we never have an engine that > can quit, and we also have much more time in glide. More importantly, > we don't do an outlanding at night. Get my point. I came out of my cc/racing days looking forward to a lot of VFR, daytime skyburning with some travel out of my community's lit turf strip. Nine years later with an IFR tickie and 1,200 hours on my Maule I found that; 1) Boring holes in the sky with power just doesn't compare to soaring so I don't do it, 2) Lit grass is one of the great joys of taildragging - and absolutely ensential to using a plane for travel - I can't tell you how many daytime TOs from E. Bumfuk to nighttime landings at home I've done but it's made the cost more than worthwhile, 3) a gas pump on the field is worth almost any price - I never considered fuel a key element of flight before, go figure. Nowadays, I barely feel safe walking from house to hangar at night (and neither does my cat) but I do a minimal amount of night flying generally to get home. It's some of the most important flying I do. Do get lights. > Two comments I would like to make regarding tools: To Pascal, I > understand your desire to get the best price on tools, but I must > comment that until you start really using them, you will not realize > what you have and more importantly what you don't have. Good advice there. My experience was ditto. Yours will be too. > ...I do not know who this Isham's tool supplier is, but I also think > that you used text of someone else who advised you, but you did not > provide his name. It was just really, really absolute. Like a "NO" > slam dunk. I ordered my initial kit from Isham and had an excellent experience. Everything I needed, a few revisions handled perfectly, all as promised. High quality and good advice throughout. It really saved time. I went from there to ordering from Avery and Cleaveland due to their well focused catalogs and popularity. Good experiences there too - I prefer Cleaveland for no particular reason except Mike answering the phone. With a little experience under my belt, I've made some Harbour Freight purchases and intend to do some Yard Store purchases.... but my tool buying has gone dormant for awhile. The best advice I obtained about tools was from myself due to my experience at the Alexander Tech Center. Jacob made a point of encouraging me to use a variety of tools (e.g. 3 different hand squeezer and a power squeezer). When asked, "Which is best? Jacob said, "The one that works best for you". Sage advice from a very young man. My initial choice often changed after use. The opportunities to try a wide range of tools is unfortunately limited for most of us. Just my 2 cents, Bill Watson (4I, Foureyes, MauleDriver) "Initial close-up of the tailcone - let's get that paint booth setup so we can prime" http://www.mykitlog.com/MauleDriver/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2006
From: Niko <owl40188(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Preoiler/ Backup oil pump
Any words of wisdom on preoilers / backup oil pumps? I am considering the Infinity pump. Don't be shy now lets hear whats on your minds.=0A=0ANiko=0A 40188 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Preoiler/ Backup oil pump
Date: Dec 01, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Niko, Check the archives. I had a few posts a while back about this, specifically around the Infinity pump. Don't recall a lot of it now but I believe I found the pump he uses for about half the cost. Michael ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Niko Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:21 PM Subject: RV10-List: Preoiler/ Backup oil pump Any words of wisdom on preoilers / backup oil pumps? I am considering the Infinity pump. Don't be shy now lets hear whats on your minds. Niko 40188 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Boone" <david555(at)cox.net>
Subject: fuel filter location
Date: Dec 01, 2006
We are in the process of installing the fuel filter in the plans prescribed location in the tunnel. The specs for the fuel filter call for it to be cleaned after the first 5 or 10 hours of flying and at the annual condition inspections. Has anyone determined an approach that could make accessing/removing the filter any easier. Thanks David Boone ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: fuel filter location
Date: Dec 01, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Some people put in additional throw away filters at the tanks for the first 10 hours or so. Michael From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Boone Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:43 PM Subject: RV10-List: fuel filter location We are in the process of installing the fuel filter in the plans prescribed location in the tunnel. The specs for the fuel filter call for it to be cleaned after the first 5 or 10 hours of flying and at the annual condition inspections. Has anyone determined an approach that could make accessing/removing the filter any easier. Thanks David Boone ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2006
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>
Subject: RE: B&C SD-20 and Oil Filter Adapter Final Verdict
My new TMX IO-540 delivered this week came with the 90 degree oil filter adapter and required spacer. The nice thing about this adapter is that it also includes a port for an oil temperature sender. With this port and the standard oil pressure port, looks like I will not need install the VA-133 hose attached to the VA-168 manifold. Instead I will attach the oil temperature and oil pressure senders directly to the engine. One less hose to worry about. http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/20Engine/Engine04.jpg http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/20Engine/index.html Looks like it is $204 plus $45 for the spacer. http://mattituck.com/oil%20filter%20adapter%20add.pdf William Curtis 40237 - fuselage http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2006
From: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Rear fuse vents
Anyone else besides me think that these are junk? $35K for a kit that has cheesy, ugly, and (I'm thinking) less than useful vents. What have others done at this point? I'm thinking of riveting mine shut somehow and calling it good. How would these possibly be opened from inside? (not?). Van, are you listening? Jay Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Average building time QB Wings
From: "Michael Wellenzohn" <michael(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Dec 02, 2006
Hello all, I expect my QB wings to be delivered next tuesday and I am wondering how many building hours on average did you require to finish the wing. I just need to know if it makes sence to file the fuselage order this month. Cheers Michael -------- RV-10 builder (tailcone) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78662#78662 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: door proximty switch system
Date: Dec 02, 2006
If you have looked at the Vans supplied switches, reversing relays and lights from Radio Shack, you might conclude that there is a better way. The only thing to be used from the Vans kit is the rod magnet from the RS 49-496 to be inserted in the door pins. By purchasing the RS 49-533 switch you can get a switch that will be open when the magnet is in place. By wiring the switches for each side in parallel with each other and in series with a small RED LED and fuse one can set the system to show red anytime a door is open (switch is closed and LED is drawing 30ma).The RED lights goes out if and only if both pins are in position on each door. Mine will wired to the hot side of the backup battery. Mine will also be hooked in with a current sensing alarm system for the aircraft. If anyone wants to see some pictures email me off the list. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Average building time QB Wings
Date: Dec 02, 2006
From: jsmcgrew(at)aol.com
I took my wings from QB delivery state to installed, wired, ready for flight in about 2 weeks of work (full time). Not sure on the actual hours, but something around: 14 days x 15 hours = 210 hours. I actually didn't do much to the wings until the fuselage was ready for them. Based on the destruction at the QB facility in the Philippines I'd suggest putting that QB Fuse order in promptly. -Jim 40134 - Flying 70 hours+ -----Original Message----- From: michael(at)wellenzohn.net Sent: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 2:24 PM Subject: RV10-List: Average building time QB Wings Hello all, I expect my QB wings to be delivered next tuesday and I am wondering how many building hours on average did you require to finish the wing. I just need to know if it makes sence to file the fuselage order this month. Cheers Michael -------- RV-10 builder (tailcone) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78662#78662 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: door proximity switch system
Date: Dec 02, 2006
After a minor incident with the doors, I've become very conservative/concerned about them being closed. On my doors, the biggest issue seems to be with the rear latches. It turns out someone sitting in the rear seats can see the rod sticking through, and in the absence of a rear passenger it's easy to reach back and feel the rod, jiggling the handle slightly moves the rod and you can be sure you're feeling the correct thing. Might not be an option for those with fancier interiors that hide this area. Marcus 40286 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:41 PM Subject: RV10-List: door proximty switch system If you have looked at the Vans supplied switches, reversing relays and lights from Radio Shack, you might conclude that there is a better way. The only thing to be used from the Vans kit is the rod magnet from the RS 49-496 to be inserted in the door pins. By purchasing the RS 49-533 switch you can get a switch that will be open when the magnet is in place. By wiring the switches for each side in parallel with each other and in series with a small RED LED and fuse one can set the system to show red anytime a door is open (switch is closed and LED is drawing 30ma).The RED lights goes out if and only if both pins are in position on each door. Mine will wired to the hot side of the backup battery. Mine will also be hooked in with a current sensing alarm system for the aircraft. If anyone wants to see some pictures email me off the list. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel(at)blueskyaviation.net>
Subject: door proximity switch system
Date: Dec 02, 2006
Yea make sure the damb doors are shut. It gets real draffy real fast :<( Noel Simmons 325HP _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 3:16 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: door proximity switch system After a minor incident with the doors, I've become very conservative/concerned about them being closed. On my doors, the biggest issue seems to be with the rear latches. It turns out someone sitting in the rear seats can see the rod sticking through, and in the absence of a rear passenger it's easy to reach back and feel the rod, jiggling the handle slightly moves the rod and you can be sure you're feeling the correct thing. Might not be an option for those with fancier interiors that hide this area. Marcus 40286 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:41 PM Subject: RV10-List: door proximty switch system If you have looked at the Vans supplied switches, reversing relays and lights from Radio Shack, you might conclude that there is a better way. The only thing to be used from the Vans kit is the rod magnet from the RS 49-496 to be inserted in the door pins. By purchasing the RS 49-533 switch you can get a switch that will be open when the magnet is in place. By wiring the switches for each side in parallel with each other and in series with a small RED LED and fuse one can set the system to show red anytime a door is open (switch is closed and LED is drawing 30ma).The RED lights goes out if and only if both pins are in position on each door. Mine will wired to the hot side of the backup battery. Mine will also be hooked in with a current sensing alarm system for the aircraft. If anyone wants to see some pictures email me off the list. www.aeroelectric.com www.kitlog.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: door proximity switch system
Date: Dec 02, 2006
I planned to use the "feel" method only but needed a means to trigger and alarm so went ahead to install the switches but I will still "feel" since I won't have the fully covered interior. ----- Original Message ----- From: Noel & Yoshie Simmons To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 3:23 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: door proximity switch system Yea make sure the damb doors are shut. It gets real draffy real fast :<( Noel Simmons 325HP ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 3:16 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: door proximity switch system After a minor incident with the doors, I've become very conservative/concerned about them being closed. On my doors, the biggest issue seems to be with the rear latches. It turns out someone sitting in the rear seats can see the rod sticking through, and in the absence of a rear passenger it's easy to reach back and feel the rod, jiggling the handle slightly moves the rod and you can be sure you're feeling the correct thing. Might not be an option for those with fancier interiors that hide this area. Marcus 40286 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:41 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: door proximty switch system If you have looked at the Vans supplied switches, reversing relays and lights from Radio Shack, you might conclude that there is a better way. The only thing to be used from the Vans kit is the rod magnet from the RS 49-496 to be inserted in the door pins. By purchasing the RS 49-533 switch you can get a switch that will be open when the magnet is in place. By wiring the switches for each side in parallel with each other and in series with a small RED LED and fuse one can set the system to show red anytime a door is open (switch is closed and LED is drawing 30ma).The RED lights goes out if and only if both pins are in position on each door. Mine will wired to the hot side of the backup battery. Mine will also be hooked in with a current sensing alarm system for the aircraft. If anyone wants to see some pictures email me off the list. www.aeroelectric.comwww.kitlog.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listwww.aeroelectric.comwww.kitlo g.comhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2006
From: James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net>
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
Perhaps I can explain my reasons for considering an Eggenfellner powerplant for my RV-10 First of all, these are my opinions only, so DO NOT FLAME! It seems that every time someone mentions a non-Lycoming powerplant, they get hammered with responses that can be summed up as "If you don't use Lycoming, there's something wrong with you". I have my reasons, you have yours. Here are my reasons: 1. $50,000 (approx) for a new Lycoming? I can't afford it. Used? I'd rather not have to go researching about the life history and what's needed (like a crank) to get the engine reliable. $27,000 or so for a complete Eggenfellner FWF package is very competitive. 2. 230HP is more than enough for myself; I'm used to flying 152's for heavens sake! Anything over 800FPM climb rate will please me. 3. Liquid cooling does have its advantages, including tighter tolerances, almost no oil burning, no shock cooling, no complex baffling because "#4 cylinder runs hot", etc. 4. Weight is almost the same as a Lycoming. 5. I do *all* the work on all my equipment, cars, engines, etc. I do not want an A&P to touch it - They break enough things already :) 6. Mixture and prop control are pretty much all automatic; Less pilot workload. 7. Rebuild cost is much less. What's a Lycoming rebuild cost - $20,000 ? With the Eggenfellner, just replace the entire engine block, crank, pistons, rings and all for around $3,000 8. I do not care about resale value. I am building this plane only for myself to enjoy - NOT TO RESELL. 9. I can always remove an Eggenfellner and put a Lycoming in its place (with a new engine mount) later. Nothing prevents you from switching powerplants later. 10. The Eggenfellner engines are *extremely* smooth; Much less vibration. 11. Insurance costs are pretty much the same with the Eggenfellner engine package as with Lycoming (due to Eggenfellner's reliable track record) Please don't bash those of us who are looking at alternatives; You Lycoming people have your reasons for going with Lycoming, and we have no problem with that. -Jim 40384, Riveting bottom wing skins (slowly) Tim Olson wrote: > > Hey Bill, I'm not going to join a pile-on about Subies. For the record > I basically agree, but still encourage anyone willing to step forth. > I personally wouldn't buy the finished plane because it isn't what > I'd want, but I meet others who would now and then. If the promises > deliver, I'd think it would be a viable "alternate" engine, but I would > doubt that in the end any of the benefits or deficits would be all > that big one way or another. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Leffler" <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Band Saw
Date: Dec 02, 2006
I see that many have band saws. Can I get by with an inexpensive Ryobi/Rigid/Delta for $99? These all seem to run 3000 rpm. Or do I really need a variable speed to drop things down to the 300-400 rpm range? Is the distance between the blade and the saw critical? I'm not sure how long a typical piece being cut is and how long the stock it's being cut off is? I see quite a few people have a variable speed band saw from Harbor Freight. It appears that it has been discontinued by Harbor Freight. What brand/model would you recommend? Thanks, Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
On 12/2/06, millstees(at)ameritech.net wrote: > I would like to second everything that Jim just said, and add a couple of > items to the discussion. > > 1. 2006 technology. They make more car engines in a year than all aircraft > engines ever made combined, so the R&D is far advanced. So advanced that NO ONE is making an engine that works in and aircraft, runs on any form of gasoline that makes more power per pound with better bfsc than Continental and Lycoming. > 2. I live in Illinois. Right now it is 20deg outside. If I wanted to go > fly a Lycoming, I would have to do a pre-heat...not necessary with a Subaru, > you just hit the starter and it goes, just like a car would. So use multi-grade oil and install a Tanis or Reiff system. > 3. I owned an Arrow, and had nothing but cylinder and crank problems, so I > am ready for a change to something reliable. Hmm, thousands others haven't had same problems...perhaps your sample isn't statistically significant. > 4. Parts come from Subaru, not Eggenfellner, so availibility is not a > problem, and do not have the inflated aviation cost. And aren't designed to operate 2000 hours at full power, unlike aircraft engine parts. I don't see very many 20 year old Subies running around, but there sure are a lot of 20 year old aircraft engines flying around. > 5. It is turbo-charged, so even if there is a small power penalty compared > to the IO-540, it is more than made up as you climb...I'll still be > developing 220HP at 16,000 ft. Turbos aren't known for reliability either, especially when run much over 75% for any length of time. But it is all about choice. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Rear fuse vents
Date: Dec 03, 2006
Dont like it, make it different.......i've made side panels out of glass with armrests that have louvers for the fresh air. Vent is actuated by small push pull cable.. .02 fwiw Steve 40205 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Brinkmeyer > Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:16 PM > To: RV10 > Subject: RV10-List: Rear fuse vents > > > Anyone else besides me think that these are junk? $35K for a kit that has > cheesy, ugly, and (I'm thinking) less than useful vents. What have others > done > at this point? > > I'm thinking of riveting mine shut somehow and calling it good. How would > these > possibly be opened from inside? (not?). > > Van, are you listening? > > Jay > > > > Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it > now. > > > > > -- > -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Rear fuse vents
Date: Dec 03, 2006
Actually they work pretty well. Alex De Dominicis alex(at)rvtraining.com has some neat handles that he has fitted to the inside and tells me that soon he will have them for sale. Russ Daves N710RV - 76 hours since first flight ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Subject: Subaru
Date: Dec 03, 2006
How many Egg Subarus are flying in other than -10 experimentals and what is their track record? Eggenfeller has been around a while, enough that some track record should be available regarding service and support. The -10 installation is pure speculation until enough are flying. #40264 John Hasbrouck ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2006
From: James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net>
Subject: Re: Subaru
Its on their website <http://eggenfellneraircraft.com/> *ENGINES SOLD * RV - 2 SEATS 389 RV - 10 17 SPORTSMAN-Glastar 59 CH-801 22 MUSTANG II 1 TUNDRA 3 LEGACY FG 1 LANCAIR 360 5 GLASAIR 5 Interesting, eh? -Jim 40384 John Hasbrouck wrote: > > How many Egg Subarus are flying in other than -10 experimentals and > what is their track record? Eggenfeller has been around a while, > enough that some track record should be available regarding service > and support. The -10 installation is pure speculation until enough > are flying. > > #40264 > John Hasbrouck > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2006
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
Jesse Saint wrote: > Take a car to the > racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular > basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that > engine. Hi Jesse, That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up? No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to show that there is any truth to it. Too many opinions and no actual data presented makes it difficult for those of us that have not yet made an engine decision. If anyone out there has real world information about car engines needing a lot of repairs and replacements when running at 75% or better power for lengths of time, I'd greatly appreciate if you would forward the data to us. I have a friend that is an engine designer/race car driver that told me he didn't think there would be any major troubles using a good quality car engine like the Subaru in an aircraft application. That also is just his opinion, but a fairly well educated one. So, any real data that I can base my decision on? Thanks, -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: Band Saw
Date: Dec 03, 2006
I have a Delta. 9". Works for 90% of the parts that you will need the saw for. Otherwise, pick up a variable speed Dremel and use the cut off wheels to do the cutting. I know of at least one RV-8 builder who bought and loved the Sears variable speed 12". Whatever you choose, this becomes your metal saw. No wood. As a long time wood worker, take my advice and don't even think about combining your beautiful wood band saw for the metal work. Get a cheap table top for your metal, buy a blade with lots of teeth and narrow, and move on. Did I say, "Move on!" Oh, my goodness. I'm becoming one of those...... John Jessen #40328 (9 more days of Buildus Interruptus purgatory) -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:50 PM Subject: RV10-List: Band Saw I see that many have band saws. Can I get by with an inexpensive Ryobi/Rigid/Delta for $99? These all seem to run 3000 rpm. Or do I really need a variable speed to drop things down to the 300-400 rpm range? Is the distance between the blade and the saw critical? I'm not sure how long a typical piece being cut is and how long the stock it's being cut off is? I see quite a few people have a variable speed band saw from Harbor Freight. It appears that it has been discontinued by Harbor Freight. What brand/model would you recommend? Thanks, Bob -- 9:39 PM -- 9:39 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2006
From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway), in straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy V-8's. If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being viewed in rear view mirrors. Why do the Big Boys of motorsports keep at least two spare engines at the track ?. Run'em and they will break. Ya don't have to run'em hard for five hours, 1/4 mile at a time will quickly do the trick. BUT that's at 100% for less than 15 seconds. Don't take my word for it, check any motorsports stats. airplane, motorcycle, cars, NASCAR, off road, 1/4 mile and see how many DNF's are related to powerplants that "disassembled" themselves. Turbos, nitro, NO, higher compression, high RPM's only quicken the coming of the end and that terrible silence that follows. KABONG Do Not Archive BUT we are building "experimental" airplanes. Ya make YOUR choice, pays YOUR money & takes YOUR chances. ME ? ?, Leaning toward RV-12 but I don't like "reduction" gearboxes as a general rule. Just one more thing to go wrong. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dj Merrill" <deej(at)deej.net> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner > > Jesse Saint wrote: >> Take a car to the >> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular >> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that >> engine. > > > Hi Jesse, > That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up? > No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements > thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to > show that there is any truth to it. > >> Thanks, > > -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Panel Cutting
Date: Dec 04, 2006
From: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.com>
Tip de jour, I was a little worried about cutting the holes in my instrument panel. I have gone for a three screen GRT EFIS/EIS setup and only have about 1/8" to 1/4" to play with to clear the Left Hand Side EFIS from the F1045L rib. For those to get to this point, here's how I tackled it. 1. transferred the initial panel design from E-panel builder to TurboCAD 2. printed the panel layout onto clear A4 (8 1/2x11") Avery labels, 3. cut some perspex to match the LHS of panel and stuck on the label 4. cut the GRT efis hole in the perspex to the template on the label and mounted the EFIS 5. clecoed the perspex with efis to the fwd fuse and checked rib clearance. (I needed to drop the EFIS another 3/16" to clear the rib). 6. transferred the revised measurements to turboCAD and reprinted on transparent labels. 7. stuck the labels to the panel 8 cut the round holes with a 2 1/4" hole saw on drill press. Panel clamped to press table to prevent movement. 9. cut the rectangular holes with a jigsaw (saber saw to you guys) and hand filed to the line. The final cutting/filing of the panel took less than a Sunday arvo and I'm really happy with the results. I can recommend the trick with the clear adhesive labels to get an excellent view of how things appear on the panel, and then use as a cutting template. - and for a small fee I can tell you precisely how far up from the bottom of the panel to mount that EFIS ;-> hope it's useful cheers, Ron #187 'bout to mount instruments ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Eggenfellner
Date: Dec 03, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
There are many articles on Subaru and high power runs, they have the current high speed and time record. I know there is a re-print on the Egg site, and several searches on Google reveal that auto engines in high power applications are very reliable, Liquid cooling equals tighter tolerances, and better heat control, which are the what cause most early part failure. Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:58 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner Jesse Saint wrote: > Take a car to the > racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular > basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that > engine. Hi Jesse, That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up? No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to show that there is any truth to it. Too many opinions and no actual data presented makes it difficult for those of us that have not yet made an engine decision. If anyone out there has real world information about car engines needing a lot of repairs and replacements when running at 75% or better power for lengths of time, I'd greatly appreciate if you would forward the data to us. I have a friend that is an engine designer/race car driver that told me he didn't think there would be any major troubles using a good quality car engine like the Subaru in an aircraft application. That also is just his opinion, but a fairly well educated one. So, any real data that I can base my decision on? Thanks, -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Eggenfellner
Date: Dec 03, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Let me put in something here, while I agree engines at the track often eat themselves, how many of these engines are stock and have not had any work done to them to make them race worthy? I would bet all of the engines you speak of have had something as mild as a CAM upgrade to a full blown bore and NOS treatment. In those conditions running 100% could cause major issues. But the Egg engine is stock, IE no change to the CAM, No NOS system added for that last second push. Like I said we can speculate all day, lets wait 5 more months or so, and I will be able to give all of us a report on real numbers. So far my build has not had very much additional work to it, in fact I would say in the long run I will end up saving time by not having to worry about baffling or many of the other FWF items that many Lycoming installs have to be concerned with. But only time will tell, and as the engine is delivered to me, I will make sure and document everything, and work with third parties to verify everything I post, because I know nobody on this list will take anybody at face value. Can't we all just get along and push forward with the EXPERIMENTAL aspect in our chosen hobby? Dan N289DT -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:51 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway), in straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy V-8's. If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being viewed in rear view mirrors. Why do the Big Boys of motorsports keep at least two spare engines at the track ?. Run'em and they will break. Ya don't have to run'em hard for five hours, 1/4 mile at a time will quickly do the trick. BUT that's at 100% for less than 15 seconds. Don't take my word for it, check any motorsports stats. airplane, motorcycle, cars, NASCAR, off road, 1/4 mile and see how many DNF's are related to powerplants that "disassembled" themselves. Turbos, nitro, NO, higher compression, high RPM's only quicken the coming of the end and that terrible silence that follows. KABONG Do Not Archive BUT we are building "experimental" airplanes. Ya make YOUR choice, pays YOUR money & takes YOUR chances. ME ? ?, Leaning toward RV-12 but I don't like "reduction" gearboxes as a general rule. Just one more thing to go wrong. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dj Merrill" <deej(at)deej.net> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner > > Jesse Saint wrote: >> Take a car to the >> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular >> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that >> engine. > > > Hi Jesse, > That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up? > No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements > thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to > show that there is any truth to it. > >> Thanks, > > -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Band Saw
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Dec 03, 2006
I'm getting ready to drill my tail cone so most of the multitude of parts I need to fabricate are done (for now). My Ryobi $99 from the Home Depot aviation department has worked well with the metal cutting blade they sell separately. I agree with the others that the 9" throat is a little confining, but snips, hacksaws, and dremels can fill the gap. It's not a great bandsaw but it gets the job done. Secretly I wish I had a good compound miter saw with a metal cutting blade. Best tool recommendation I've gotten from this site? The #30 and #40 reamer bits from Avery. Best bit I've ever used! John -------- #40572 Empennage - Starting tailcone. N711JG reserved Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78926#78926 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Eggenfellner
Date: Dec 03, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
If you are looking for real data, don't expect to get it from Jan. About a year ago I was giving SERIOUS consideration to Egg's engine for the RV-10. I finally abandoned the idea for several reasons. First, like others have said, Jan has an issue with his temper. He fly's off the handle in an irrational way when you push him for data. He sees it as a personal attack or something. He attempted to throw me off his list for asking straight forward questions around his designs, his HP values he was quoting, and his complete inability to meet his promised delivery dates on almost every production cycle. Also others that have purchased his engine have had parts show up months later, missing, or not really a complete FWF. Jan himself loves to make a point that every production run is a brand new design. As he says his engine is for experimenters, nothing wrong with that as long as you know what you are getting into. With the H6 RV-10 engine he has redesigned his redrive, went from a design with a supercharger as an optional component to a turbo charger as a requirement, and is at least 6 months behind his promised delivery date from his "special" he ran last Christmas. You will also never have an engine that has actual HP numbers because he refuses to run one of his engines on a dyno. Several of the guys that bought his earlier engines said they thought it was producing far less than what Jan advertised. Jan's answer was the prop was limiting the engine and shortly after this he switched engines. The final straw that got me ejected from his list, which he says isn't for perspective customers, was asking him why the HP numbers for the RV-10 engine kept changing and for the better even though his design wasn't changing. His answer was that it always was projected to produce 250HP and that he can say it will be between 230-250HP. Guys, these are all FACTS and I have said it before, make sure you do your due diligence before you jump on the bandwagon. I admire guys like Dan who are putting their faith in an alternative engine package. I'm just not willing to do it and it's almost entirely because of the guy that has the only viable alternative engine at this time. I want straight answers and he has never given me a single one. But he was quick to ban me from his group and from buying his engine when I asked for straight answers. Oh ya, you won't find most of my questions and the banter back and forth with Jan in his list because he went into the archives and deleted them. I however still have them in my own archive and I would be happy to share them with anyone. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:58 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner Jesse Saint wrote: > Take a car to the > racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular > basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that > engine. Hi Jesse, That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up? No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to show that there is any truth to it. Too many opinions and no actual data presented makes it difficult for those of us that have not yet made an engine decision. If anyone out there has real world information about car engines needing a lot of repairs and replacements when running at 75% or better power for lengths of time, I'd greatly appreciate if you would forward the data to us. I have a friend that is an engine designer/race car driver that told me he didn't think there would be any major troubles using a good quality car engine like the Subaru in an aircraft application. That also is just his opinion, but a fairly well educated one. So, any real data that I can base my decision on? Thanks, -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
Date: Dec 03, 2006
If I understand this banter, an EGG FWF kit for the 10 has not been delivered yet. Is an EGG flying on their prototype 10? If not I stand by my "add a year to your project" and that does not include the additional experimenting getting the cooling and other additional testing complete after first flight. ----- Original Message ----- From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:50 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner > > > If you are looking for real data, don't expect to get it from Jan. > About a year ago I was giving SERIOUS consideration to Egg's engine for > the RV-10. I finally abandoned the idea for several reasons. > > First, like others have said, Jan has an issue with his temper. He > fly's off the handle in an irrational way when you push him for data. > He sees it as a personal attack or something. He attempted to throw me > off his list for asking straight forward questions around his designs, > his HP values he was quoting, and his complete inability to meet his > promised delivery dates on almost every production cycle. Also others > that have purchased his engine have had parts show up months later, > missing, or not really a complete FWF. Jan himself loves to make a > point that every production run is a brand new design. As he says his > engine is for experimenters, nothing wrong with that as long as you know > what you are getting into. > > With the H6 RV-10 engine he has redesigned his redrive, went from a > design with a supercharger as an optional component to a turbo charger > as a requirement, and is at least 6 months behind his promised delivery > date from his "special" he ran last Christmas. You will also never have > an engine that has actual HP numbers because he refuses to run one of > his engines on a dyno. Several of the guys that bought his earlier > engines said they thought it was producing far less than what Jan > advertised. Jan's answer was the prop was limiting the engine and > shortly after this he switched engines. The final straw that got me > ejected from his list, which he says isn't for perspective customers, > was asking him why the HP numbers for the RV-10 engine kept changing and > for the better even though his design wasn't changing. His answer was > that it always was projected to produce 250HP and that he can say it > will be between 230-250HP. > > Guys, these are all FACTS and I have said it before, make sure you do > your due diligence before you jump on the bandwagon. I admire guys like > Dan who are putting their faith in an alternative engine package. I'm > just not willing to do it and it's almost entirely because of the guy > that has the only viable alternative engine at this time. I want > straight answers and he has never given me a single one. But he was > quick to ban me from his group and from buying his engine when I asked > for straight answers. > > Oh ya, you won't find most of my questions and the banter back and > forth with Jan in his list because he went into the archives and deleted > them. I however still have them in my own archive and I would be happy > to share them with anyone. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill > Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:58 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner > > > Jesse Saint wrote: >> Take a car to the >> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a > regular >> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that >> engine. > > > Hi Jesse, > That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back > that up? > No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements > thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to > show that there is any truth to it. > > Too many opinions and no actual data presented makes it > difficult for > those of us that have not yet made an engine decision. If anyone out > there has real world information about car engines needing a lot of > repairs and replacements when running at 75% or better power for lengths > of time, I'd greatly appreciate if you would forward the data to us. > > I have a friend that is an engine designer/race car driver that > told > me he didn't think there would be any major troubles using a good > quality car engine like the Subaru in an aircraft application. That > also is just his opinion, but a fairly well educated one. > > So, any real data that I can base my decision on? > > Thanks, > > -Dj > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2006
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
The 50 yr old technology had ZERO crankshaft problems. The only Lyc crank problems are from 1996 to approx 2002, because the current management thought they could save some money or something with different metallurgy. If you can get a crank from the 1980's it will last forever. I'm flying behind one right now of early '80s vintage, never been turned or polished, still standard dimension bearings. No ADs, no nothing on it. Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > The only comment I have when someone responds in this manner is > CRANKSHAFT and lawsuit. > Enough said about unquestionable reliability, there are 5000+ > individuals that would argue on this case for 50 year old technology. > Dan > Waiting for the facts to show themselves before we speculate. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jae Chang" <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com>
Subject: Fuselage options (preset flaps)
Date: Dec 03, 2006
I will be putting in my order for the fuselage kit this week. I noticed there is only the 1 option for pre-set flaps. Am I wrong for assuming most will opt for the option? Also, I scanned the Section 40 PDF on tim's site, but I didn't see any mention of the option. Just curious exactly what the difference is with this option. Just seems like a strange thing to be optional. Jae #40533 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: Fuselage options (preset flaps)
Date: Dec 04, 2006
The flaps can either be just infinitely-adjustable electric, or you can get the flap positioning system that has 4 presets (reflexed 3, 0, 15, 30). It is, of course, also infinitely adjustable, but has the presets for easy handling and not needing to count while extending. I am sure some are going without the positioning system, but I think it is a no-brainer (no offense meant to those going without) option if you can afford it. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. www.itecusa.org W: 352-465-4545 C: 352-427-0285 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jae Chang Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 11:38 PM Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps) I will be putting in my order for the fuselage kit this week. I noticed there is only the 1 option for pre-set flaps. Am I wrong for assuming most will opt for the option? Also, I scanned the Section 40 PDF on tim's site, but I didn't see any mention of the option. Just curious exactly what the difference is with this option. Just seems like a strange thing to be optional. Jae #40533 -- 4:36 PM -- 7:18 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 04, 2006
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
The other month, I and our EAA group had the opportunity to visit the Lycoming factory and do a tour. While I certainly do not desire to be a "water" carrier for any product, I think one has to look at a product as to why it exists. If the auto manufacturers were required to meet all the aviation/FAA standards then the auto engines and automobiles would cost much more than they currently do. If all the auto mechanics had to be federally licensed then repairs would cost much more. Lycoming is essentially making a custom, small run product. Each engine is being built for a specific individual with individual specification. Imagine that Chevy making each engine per the buyers specs or that if an engine rebuild is required that the parts are all somehow routed through GM since they were the first builder of the engine block. Or that of the engines being rebuilt many were being custom rebuilt by the original engine plant? Or that GM being investigated each time one of their products fails, the way aircraft companies are vetted after an accident? Certainly there are after market builders who may work differently but they may still require parts from the OEM supplier. Additionally, aircraft engines are not made in volume. They are custom built, one at a time by a highly experienced builders. Additionally from what I could see Lycoming is a union represented. Don't know if that adds to the cost but I'd expect it does have some effect on the cost...but I don't know if having a union shop adds to the quality or detracts. Today it can go either way. I currently fly more than recreationally, about 300 hours per year and certainly respect the folks that build the power plants and maintain them, as I'm betting my life to their skills and so are you if you fly one hour per year or 1,000 hours. My buddy Pete bet his future with Delta Hawk's new tech and now is installing a Lycoming in his project. I do hope that there will be many power options for all aircraft especially when I get ready to order and that new options come on the market...as I don't have a dog in this fight. My current spam product have a Lycoming in the PA 28-235 and the J-5s have Continentals and I sure liked the sales pitch of a number of engine suppliers but so few have performed over time. In case all have forgotten Porsche is get involved in a single lever product with Mooney back in the late 1970's early 1980...that engine failed but from what I remember Porsche did support the engine for a long time after they withdrew. There are a number of options out there besides the majors but all come with a higher pucker factor and the Eggenfeller is certainly in this category from my knowledge. They have very few engines flying and are promising a lot to the market place. They have not met the test of time from what I know but they may at some time in the future. So if wants to be an experimenter in craft, build, and engine go that route. If not one can then go through a mix of technologies to meet your "pucker" factor. No choice is perfect so go the direction you are most comfortable with. I'd like to look at this decision making like my buddy and CFI/I looks at students. He final review of a student mentally goes like this...he'll release a student for flight if he thinks he can trust his wife and kids in the other empty seats with his student at the controls. That's the way I'd like to think about the engines in my aircraft...do I trust them to build a product that will keep my family safe. Please don't kid yourselves, an engine failure at a critical time may kill you; I don't care how much flying time and experience you have. At some critical times your flying skills only mitigate the accident scene does not eliminate it. Patrick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 04, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lyc. Cranks
Les, you might want to look into whether Superior or ECI offer or will be offering a crank for the -540. I know they do for the -360 engines, for about 20% less than the Lycoming part, with none of the AD issues the recent Lyc cranks have. Perhaps Rhonda or Allen know the answer, I just haven't researched it. On 12/4/06, Les Kearney wrote: > Given Kelly's crankshaft comment, how do I know that the new Lyc 540 that I > buy won't be the victim of some new form of cost cutting by Lycoming > management? I really don't want to install at 25 year old engine either. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lyc. Cranks
Date: Dec 04, 2006
From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com>
I can't say about ECI. I've heard for several years that they were planning on a 540 clone but certainly haven't seen anything to lend any credibility to it. Based on what Superior told us a few weeks ago, I would say not in the foreseeable future. Rhonda -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:22 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Lyc. Cranks Les, you might want to look into whether Superior or ECI offer or will be offering a crank for the -540. I know they do for the -360 engines, for about 20% less than the Lycoming part, with none of the AD issues the recent Lyc cranks have. Perhaps Rhonda or Allen know the answer, I just haven't researched it. On 12/4/06, Les Kearney wrote: > Given Kelly's crankshaft comment, how do I know that the new Lyc 540 that I > buy won't be the victim of some new form of cost cutting by Lycoming > management? I really don't want to install at 25 year old engine either. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: access panels
Date: Dec 04, 2006
I have a QB fuse and I have been impressed with the quality of the workmanship, but I have spent a lot of time trying to route conduit through the fuselage sides. From the plans it looks like the two holes on each bulkhead(four per side) were supposed to be drilled to 3/4" diameter. To me it looks like they drilled it to size for the regular size snap bushings that are used elsewhere(Like cable runs in the tunnel) Hence, I have had a heck of a time doing this. I thought I was being clever by uising a 4" CARBON FIBER pushrod used for models to help guide through the holes. A little light was going off in my head after several(Ton) of attempts of dragging this rod inside there. Carbon/aluminum, Pencil/ Aluminum??? Now that there is a big unknown about how much carbon residue i left on the primed aluminum parts, I am thinking about making some access panel infront and inback of these two bulkheads, which will allow me to clean the metal, re prime or Beo lube. I addition, route everthing correctly. I just can't figure away to unscrew the side panels and remove them as many are riveted in and gaining access to re rivet would be like taking out major assembles(MAJOR) Any Ideas, has anyone else needed to put in access panels there. It seems non structural as there are so few screws holding things in place. Hope this is a relief from the engine wars. John G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds(at)macs.net>
Subject: Airflow Performance Filter Maintnance
Date: Dec 04, 2006
We have installed the Airflow Performance filter per Section 37 - Fuel System. The instructions with the filter "suggest" it should be removed, opened, and cleaned after the first 10 hours and then annually. How easy is it remove the filter with panel and the CT-10 throttle quadrant installed????? Also, how easy is it to remove the seats?? Inquiring minds want to know. Richard Reynolds ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: access panels
Date: Dec 04, 2006
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
When fishing wire runs on our air carrier birds, we use a simple brazing rod with a limitless length of waxed electric tie string taped to the end. Unlike an electrician's fish wire (available at the aviation department of Home Depot) flat with a hook on the end for conduit. We just go fishing with the straight rod. When changing out flexible metal control cables such as the RV-10 rudder, We tie the terminated end to the string and fish the string by pulling on the old cable. We tie a new replacement cable and then pull the string back through fairleads, cables and pulley runs. We are often pulling up to 45 feet on an aileron run. As yet no one has worn one out to need the technique. Another trick from HD's aviation department is their heaviest gage of plastics weed wacker replacement line. It is great for determining wire runs. It tends to bend at a similar radius to wire bundles. It's flexible, it's cheap and easy to work with. Lancair used it to determine their wire panels (4 x 8 sheets of plywood) to pre-wire complete aircraft on the board in the avionics department. Randy DeBauw (#40006)or the boys at Advanced might tell you the lengths needed for the RV-10 from their doing his entire aircraft back in April of 2005. During the FWF episode you can check wiring, cables and hose routing with the stuff. Electrolysis is not going to be a problem with the residue. Carbon just like Hydrogen Embrittlement can change the molecular structure of sheet metal. It becomes more brittle and cracks can ensue. Galvanic issues are where two dissimilar materials such as Alclad and carbon fiber are nested together in the presence of humidity. This is not a problem in this application. Ask Van's Techline if you are concerned. John Cox -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:01 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: access panels Now that we all understand that graphite is carbon. What about the reaction. I cannot get a rag in there to clean it off with any cleaner, I can't barely get the carbon rod to find the holes. The carbon rod which is now bevelled on the end will leave marks on a piece of paper, not as well as a pencil but you can see it. I put tape over the end to stop this, but what about what has already occured, just shoot in Boe lube and try for a few more twenty minute sessions to get the rod and then the conduit to go through the holes, or cut the access panels do a thorough cleaning, line up the conduit, but for all other purposes, the panels will probably never be used again. John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 04, 2006
From: Niko <owl40188(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: access panels
Hi John,=0A=0AI just put some access panels in the baggage floor. See my p ost on 11/14/06 , it has some pictures.=0A=0AYou probably need two more acc ess panels in the passenger seat floors. This will give you access to both bays. I would create access panels in lieu of drilling out the panels as the access panels will be usefull for maintenance. I thnk the access panel s should have been designed into the kit.=0A=0ANiko=0A40188=0A=0A=0A----- O riginal Message ----=0AFrom: John Gonzalez <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>=0ATo: r v10-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, December 4, 2006 1:31:37 PM=0ASubjec Gonzalez" =0A=0AI have a QB fuse and I have been im pressed with the quality of the =0Aworkmanship, but I have spent a lot of t ime trying to route conduit through =0Athe fuselage sides. From the plans it looks like the two holes on each =0Abulkhead(four per side) were suppose d to be drilled to 3/4" diameter. To me =0Ait looks like they drilled it t o size for the regular size snap bushings =0Athat are used elsewhere(Like c able runs in the tunnel)=0A=0AHence, I have had a heck of a time doing this . I thought I was being clever =0Aby uising a 4" CARBON FIBER pushrod used for models to help guide through =0Athe holes. A little light was going o ff in my head after several(Ton) of =0Aattempts of dragging this rod inside there. Carbon/aluminum, Pencil/ =0AAluminum???=0A=0ANow that there is a b ig unknown about how much carbon residue i left on the =0Aprimed aluminum p arts, I am thinking about making some access panel infront =0Aand inback of these two bulkheads, which will allow me to clean the metal, =0Are prime o r Beo lube. I addition, route everthing correctly.=0A=0AI just can't figure away to unscrew the side panels and remove them as many =0Aare riveted in and gaining access to re rivet would be like taking out major =0Aassembles( MAJOR)=0A=0AAny Ideas, has anyone else needed to put in access panels there . It seems =0Anon structural as there are so few screws holding things in place.=0A=0AHope this is a relief from the engine wars.=0A=0AJohn G.=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Nebert" <doug(at)mapcontext.com>
Subject: Diesel options
Date: Dec 04, 2006
Regarding diesel options, I am watching the DeltaHawk diesel engine (www.deltahawkengines.com) in the 200HP range. Yes, their production schedule gets delayed but they have installed one in a Velocity with impressive performance and economy figures. I'm still a few years away from decision on an engine... -- Doug Nebert #40546 - wing slow build ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Diesel options
Date: Dec 04, 2006
I watched at Deltahawk and Zoche diesel at OSH 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 I chose to fly with the Lycosaurus. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Nebert" <doug(at)mapcontext.com> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:52 PM Subject: RV10-List: Diesel options > > Regarding diesel options, I am watching the DeltaHawk diesel engine > (www.deltahawkengines.com) in the 200HP range. Yes, their production > schedule gets delayed but they have installed one in a Velocity with > impressive performance and economy figures. I'm still a few years away > from decision on an engine... > > -- Doug Nebert > #40546 - wing slow build > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 04, 2006
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
It is postings like the following that really spark my interest (posted today on the SubaruAircraft Yahoo list): ----- Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had a group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1 Cessna 120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar. Flying formation with this gaggle I had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop. OAT was 25 deg. so they were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps etc. trying to keep from freezing. Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed cockpit heater/defroster. The best part was, they were burning 8 gph of 100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!! We all had a great lunch and departed for the island. One of the pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me. He said going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being beamed 100 years into the future. He must be a Star Wars fan :>)) Charlie Walker 762 TROUBLE FREE hrs. ----- -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Intercoms
Date: Dec 04, 2006
Next question, I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function) AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom Any body ever used any of these brands? John G ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fuselage options (preset flaps)
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
There is also the FPS Plus from Aircraft Extras. The advantage of this one is that it also changes your trim setting to match the flaps. They also sell a trim speed changer to reduce the trim speed, and make it less sensitive, at higher airspeeds. http://www.aircraftextras.com/ Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:26 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps) Hi Jae, Without the option the flap switch must be held until it reaches the desired position while observing the flap indicator or looking out the window at the flap. With the option there are three preset positions. When the switch is activated, it extends the flaps to the next setting and stops. However, only one touch is needed to raise the flaps. You can read more about it on Van's site at: www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1165249109-2-327&browse=a irframe&product=fps Vern (#324 Fuselage and having fun:) -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jae Chang Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 8:38 PM Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps) I will be putting in my order for the fuselage kit this week. I noticed there is only the 1 option for pre-set flaps. Am I wrong for assuming most will opt for the option? Also, I scanned the Section 40 PDF on tim's site, but I didn't see any mention of the option. Just curious exactly what the difference is with this option. Just seems like a strange thing to be optional. Jae #40533 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Fuselage options (preset flaps)
Date: Dec 05, 2006
It's like the detents on a Cessna 150 or 172. ----- Original Message ----- From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:15 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps) > > > There is also the FPS Plus from Aircraft Extras. The advantage of this > one is that it also changes your trim setting to match the flaps. They > also sell a trim speed changer to reduce the trim speed, and make it > less sensitive, at higher airspeeds. > > http://www.aircraftextras.com/ > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:26 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps) > > > Hi Jae, > > Without the option the flap switch must be held until it reaches the > desired position while observing the flap indicator or looking out the > window at the flap. With the option there are three preset positions. > When the switch is activated, it extends the flaps to the next setting > and stops. However, only one touch is needed to raise the flaps. You can > read more about it on Van's site at: > www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1165249109-2-327&browse=a > irframe&product=fps > > Vern (#324 Fuselage and having fun:) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jae Chang > Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 8:38 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps) > > > > I will be putting in my order for the fuselage kit this week. I noticed > there is only the 1 option for pre-set flaps. Am I wrong for assuming > most will opt for the option? > > Also, I scanned the Section 40 PDF on tim's site, but I didn't see any > mention of the option. Just curious exactly what the difference is with > this option. > Just seems like a strange thing to be optional. > > Jae > #40533 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel(at)blueskyaviation.net>
Subject: Intercoms
Date: Dec 05, 2006
I would recommend the pm3000 Noel Simmons Blue Sky Aviation, Inc. www.blueskyaviation.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:43 PM Subject: RV10-List: Intercoms Next question, I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function) AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom Any body ever used any of these brands? John G ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
Tim Olson wrote: > >> >> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses >> me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern, >> then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy >> who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly, >> with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable >> track record. The interesting thing is that one of the reasons I am considering a Subaru is that safety is one of my major concerns. I keep reading on various mailing lists about the "reliability" of Lycoming and related engines, but nearly every time I stop by my local FBO maintenance shop there is one there having some sort of top end work done on it. I've personally had to have cylinders replaced on a Continental O200, and valves worked on a Lyc O320, and I don't have all that much flying time. Somewhere there is a disconnect between the perceived "reliability" of Lycomings and what I have seen personally in the Real World. Granted, my data set is small, but I cannot imagine that my shop is the only one in the world that is getting all the "unreliable" Lycoming engines to work on. We don't yet have tons of air time on the Subaru packages, but what time we do have tends towards showing that the Subaru is a very reliable airplane package. There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of hours of Subaru engines in automobiles, SUVs, and racing applications, and to me at least (my opinion) the core engine is not in question in the slightest - it is tough, reliable, and extremely well designed. The only question I have left is whether the PSRU (gear reduction unit) will be as reliable as the engine, but so far from the hours already flown, the Egg PSRU seems to be a very good and reliable performer. Time will tell if this continues to hold true. -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Intercoms
Date: Dec 05, 2006
Noel, Are you Blue Sky Avaitoin in Camarillo? How difficult is it to install? I need my transponder in the glider certified this spring. Can you guys still do it. John G. >From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel(at)blueskyaviation.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Intercoms >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:21:55 -0700 > > > >I would recommend the pm3000 > >Noel Simmons >Blue Sky Aviation, Inc. >www.blueskyaviation.net > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez >Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:43 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: Intercoms > > >Next question, > >I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the >headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the >three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and >install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an >Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function) > >AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM > > >PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM > > >Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom > >Any body ever used any of these brands? > >John G > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Eggenfellner
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com>
DJ: The main reason that most engines need top end work done is from getting the engine too hot and glazing the cylinders, not really from a design or manufacturing defect. Another common problem is corrosion of the cam/tappets due to lack of flight time. The best way to keep your engine in tip-top shape and eliminate those problems is to fly the heck out of it, avoid long run-ups on the ground and change the oil. Rhonda -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:49 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner Tim Olson wrote: > >> >> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses >> me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern, >> then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy >> who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly, >> with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable >> track record. The interesting thing is that one of the reasons I am considering a Subaru is that safety is one of my major concerns. I keep reading on various mailing lists about the "reliability" of Lycoming and related engines, but nearly every time I stop by my local FBO maintenance shop there is one there having some sort of top end work done on it. I've personally had to have cylinders replaced on a Continental O200, and valves worked on a Lyc O320, and I don't have all that much flying time. Somewhere there is a disconnect between the perceived "reliability" of Lycomings and what I have seen personally in the Real World. Granted, my data set is small, but I cannot imagine that my shop is the only one in the world that is getting all the "unreliable" Lycoming engines to work on. We don't yet have tons of air time on the Subaru packages, but what time we do have tends towards showing that the Subaru is a very reliable airplane package. There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of hours of Subaru engines in automobiles, SUVs, and racing applications, and to me at least (my opinion) the core engine is not in question in the slightest - it is tough, reliable, and extremely well designed. The only question I have left is whether the PSRU (gear reduction unit) will be as reliable as the engine, but so far from the hours already flown, the Egg PSRU seems to be a very good and reliable performer. Time will tell if this continues to hold true. -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel(at)blueskyaviation.net>
Subject: Intercoms
Date: Dec 05, 2006
Large temperature differential I am afraid, we are in Lewistown Montana. We just specialize in RV's, I tend to stay away from certified, don't like the way they are constructed :>0, gliders are a different story love them certified or not. If you are talking about the pm300 it is quite easy. Simply use shielded wire from your jacks to the panel, the wiring diagrams are downloadable from PS engineering's www. There are a few people on the list that are trying to keep you from making a mistake. If you are using multiple coms and multiple Navs you should go with an audio panel. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:01 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Intercoms Noel, Are you Blue Sky Avaitoin in Camarillo? How difficult is it to install? I need my transponder in the glider certified this spring. Can you guys still do it. John G. >From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel(at)blueskyaviation.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Intercoms >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:21:55 -0700 > > > >I would recommend the pm3000 > >Noel Simmons >Blue Sky Aviation, Inc. >www.blueskyaviation.net > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez >Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:43 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: Intercoms > > >Next question, > >I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the >headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the >three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and >install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an >Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function) > >AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM > > >PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM > > >Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom > >Any body ever used any of these brands? > >John G > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
Rhonda Bewley wrote: > > DJ: > > The main reason that most engines need top end work done is from getting > the engine too hot and glazing the cylinders, not really from a design > or manufacturing defect. Another common problem is corrosion of the > cam/tappets due to lack of flight time. The best way to keep your > engine in tip-top shape and eliminate those problems is to fly the heck > out of it, avoid long run-ups on the ground and change the oil. > > Rhonda > Hi Rhonda, No real argument as to why the problems happen, I just find it interesting (and somewhat amusing) that one of the strong arguments that people use for choosing a Lycoming is the claimed "reliability", but yet there are all these problems that seem to be occuring which indicates to a neophyte like myself that they really aren't all that reliable after all. If the Subaru engine is treated the same way as the Lyc, I'm not convinced that we will see any more problems with it than the Lyc has, but that is just my own opinion with no actual data to back it up. The more brave souls that gather the Subaru data for us, the better to make my decision down the road... :-) -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Satellite Radio
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
XM SUCKS! :-) Couldn't help myself, just need to disagree with Dan. Seriously though, I do agree with Dan on the portables. You will get much more use out of a portable and can move it between airplane, car, house. If you get a 496 you don't have a choice in service (XM only) but it's one less thing to clutter the cockpit. As far as providers goes, I have had both for years. XM for when it first came out for a couple years and Sirius for about the last two. The programming is very similar and either would probably be fine for 75% of the people out there. I primarily listen to a lot of "alternative" type of music and found XM to be very confused when it comes to programming around that format so I decided to try Sirius. I find that there is more programming on Sirius that I like but their play lists are too short so the popular songs end up in very heavy rotation. Anyone looking at getting satellite radio should try to borrow a friends for a week and see which they like better. If you have DISH satellite TV, you have access to almost all the Sirius channels so you can check it out there. Won't make a difference in a couple years because one will probably by the other anyway. Michael -----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: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:22 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner --> Just to stir the discussion and make it boil over.....Do not spend the extra money to get Sirius built in the portables are cheaper, and XM is better anyway. Most of us will be using a portable Garmin and can get the XM included in the plan, and use the aux Jack to get the music over to the intercom. Hey, we have not had a primer war in awhile, so lets start an XM versus Siruis discussion... Dan ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Eggenfellner
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Keep in mind that there are vastly more Lycomings out there that are fairly old compared to new or reman'd so it's not unexpected to have experiences like this. Stop by your local Subie dealer and I bet you find Subie engines being worked on without a single Lycoming in site. :-) I honestly don't expect you would find a huge spread in reliability statistics when you compare "new" Subie packages to "new" Lycoming packages. As far as the crank issues everyone loves to point to recently, this is not a design flaw. 10's of thousands of cranks are out there without these problems. Some bean counter probably pushed someone to save some $$ and they made a bad decision to change the metallurgical recipe of the cranks. Bad decision not related to the overall design. I personally think it sucks and Lycoming should stop passing the costs to their customers, but we have no leverage without alternative engine options whether its from Egg, Eci, Mistral, or whoever. But let's get one thing straight, the automotive industry is far from exempt when it comes to making bad decisions to save $$. As a matter of fact, I think they lead the way in that dept also. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:49 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner Tim Olson wrote: > >> >> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses me. >> If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern, then >> the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy who wants to >> experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly, with well built >> planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable track record. The interesting thing is that one of the reasons I am considering a Subaru is that safety is one of my major concerns. I keep reading on various mailing lists about the "reliability" of Lycoming and related engines, but nearly every time I stop by my local FBO maintenance shop there is one there having some sort of top end work done on it. I've personally had to have cylinders replaced on a Continental O200, and valves worked on a Lyc O320, and I don't have all that much flying time. Somewhere there is a disconnect between the perceived "reliability" of Lycomings and what I have seen personally in the Real World. Granted, my data set is small, but I cannot imagine that my shop is the only one in the world that is getting all the "unreliable" Lycoming engines to work on. We don't yet have tons of air time on the Subaru packages, but what time we do have tends towards showing that the Subaru is a very reliable airplane package. There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of hours of Subaru engines in automobiles, SUVs, and racing applications, and to me at least (my opinion) the core engine is not in question in the slightest - it is tough, reliable, and extremely well designed. The only question I have left is whether the PSRU (gear reduction unit) will be as reliable as the engine, but so far from the hours already flown, the Egg PSRU seems to be a very good and reliable performer. Time will tell if this continues to hold true. -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rhonda's Comments
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
So as not to get thrown out with the EGG trash / Delete Key, your comments were great and on target. Another pointer is to have the engine pre-warmed in colder climates to close those tolerances and get that oil flowing more quickly to exposed surfaces. With a little boroscope training, it is shocking how fast tappet faces, cam lobes and cylinder wall begin to oxidize from high humidity levels. Here in Oregon it is not uncommon to run 65%-85% humidity for six months. After just seven days the sheeting action of the oil film is nearly gone and that relative humidity just loves internal engines that are not regularly run to "Full Operating Temperature" for the prescribed time to cook out the humidity from the oil. Acids that are formed don't help either. Temperature/adequate idle RPM and leaning the mixture help can help as well in the care and feeding of the dinosaurs. John Cox #40600 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>
Subject: RE: Eggenfellner
>Yeah, since I've got a Lycoming O-540 sitting in a crate >in my basement, if an email comes with the title "RV10 > List: Eggenfellner", I just hit "Delete" I'm in the same boat and tempted to do the same but I've found this discussion interesting and not a total waste of bandwidth. While I've made my choice, I see the need and rationale for others going the Eggenfellner route. Because if we are to condemn them for following that path then it should follow that those that fly certified ships should also condemn us for the "experimentals" that we fly. That's the nice thing about this endeavour, you can experiment and innovate as much or as little as you are comfortable with. Where would we be if the Wrights had listened to the conventional wisdom of the day when the most esteemed physicist espoused that "heavier than air flight was an impossibility?" I too wish a more modern, less expensive alternative power plant was available. I just paid the equivalent of what I paid for a brand new 2002 MB ML-320 for an TMX IO-540 with one electronic ignition. Without discussions such as this we are doomed to this obscene economic model and there will NEVER be a viable alternative power-plant if we deter those who choose to explore the possibilities in this area. William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
Why would I have any interest in a do-it-yourself ECU? What I described is how car manufacturer/EPA approved ECUs work. Building a plane isn't enough? You want to design code to run the engine most efficiently for all regimes? Do you have any idea the staff and resources car companies put into ECU development? Do you think it really is as easy as MegaSquirt ads claim? Designing one for racing is a lot simpler..just maximize power output at desired rpm and you are done. So far, only TCM has a certified FADEC, and quite frankly I wouldn't want to fly with it. I can operate the engine more efficiently with manual controls than it will in FADEC mode, because I can go fast ROP, or go economy LOP and keep the temps where I want them. If you don't use closed loop O2 feedback, your only other option for mixture control is EGT, which has much greater lag in response time, by comparison. Unless you will be certain of always being able to get unleaded mogas at airports you land at, your O2 sensor will die on the first load of 100LL. Why would you want electronic injectors that can fail both electrically or by the usual dirt/varnish plugging? GAMIs may or may not be needed depending on your luck with Lyc. QC. My Lyc runs fine with stock injectors LOP. Others won't. Spark control you can already get the equivalent of automotive in either the experimental category or the Unison Lasar certified system. So far the improvements don't appear to be worth the money. The Lycs and Continentals are extremely reliable when operated frequently, according to manual...since you asked for an A&P opinion...I'm only A&P/IA. Or ask the major engine shops what kind of failure rate they see, what their warranty rate is. If they had the kind of record you allege, they would be spending huge amounts on warranty claims and wouldn't stay in business long. Oh, wait, Rhonda already gave her opinion, which I agree with entirely. I've owned an aircraft for 31 years. I've done two overhauls, zero cylinder work, zero top overhauls, in climate from Alaska to Arizona. Monitor your temps, keep temps conservative and fly frequently. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Eggenfellner
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr(at)sprint.com>
My friend has an Egg on his RV-9 and his latest oil analyzes of his engine and PSRU came back with excessive wear on the PSRU. He had the second generation PSRU from Jan and it is now being swapped out after 500 hours because one of the bearings in it were making metal. He is now waiting to get the third generation PSRU with the 2.02 gear ratio from Jan. At the rate that Jan keeps changing his components, it is going to be very hard for anyone to accumulate enough hours on a particular component to see if it will stand the test of time. Thank You Ray Doerr N519RV(40250) Former Jan customer, but never again. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:49 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner Tim Olson wrote: > >> >> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses >> me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern, >> then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy >> who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly, >> with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable >> track record. The interesting thing is that one of the reasons I am considering a Subaru is that safety is one of my major concerns. I keep reading on various mailing lists about the "reliability" of Lycoming and related engines, but nearly every time I stop by my local FBO maintenance shop there is one there having some sort of top end work done on it. I've personally had to have cylinders replaced on a Continental O200, and valves worked on a Lyc O320, and I don't have all that much flying time. Somewhere there is a disconnect between the perceived "reliability" of Lycomings and what I have seen personally in the Real World. Granted, my data set is small, but I cannot imagine that my shop is the only one in the world that is getting all the "unreliable" Lycoming engines to work on. We don't yet have tons of air time on the Subaru packages, but what time we do have tends towards showing that the Subaru is a very reliable airplane package. There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of hours of Subaru engines in automobiles, SUVs, and racing applications, and to me at least (my opinion) the core engine is not in question in the slightest - it is tough, reliable, and extremely well designed. The only question I have left is whether the PSRU (gear reduction unit) will be as reliable as the engine, but so far from the hours already flown, the Egg PSRU seems to be a very good and reliable performer. Time will tell if this continues to hold true. -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Insurance Underwriting
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Rick, Please add some clarity here... from your perspective. Does an insurance underwriter make no rate change for choice of alternative engine and non certificated prop choice rather than certificated engine (IO-540D4A5) and certificated prop (Hartzell 2 blade) for the exact same pilot and airframe hull coverage? A post was made which implied coverage was available and could lead someone to believe the costs are equal. Can you clarify? I asked mine about horsepower and that wasn't a concern (Hot Rodding). Lack of an Instrument ticket and low hours did factor into premium. Retractable Gear and Tail Dragger too but we don't have to worry about that either. I forgot to ask about Alt Engines, cause I got off on a tangent of gyrocopters and he spun out of control with me as a future customer. I could barely auto-rotate the dialog in time by telling him I was only asking about a friend who had one (Uncovered). The Subie discussion got me going. Maybe someone has Sky Smiths number who believes he is the know all, be all, end all for insurance rates. John Cox #40600 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
Kelly McMullen wrote: > Unless you will be certain of always being able > to get unleaded mogas at airports you land at, your O2 sensor will die > on the first load of 100LL. It is recommended to run Decalin TCP additive (http://www.decalinchemicals.com/) when running 100LL to handle the lead content in the Subaru, although they still recommend checking and cleaning the O2 sensor at frequent intervals when using 100LL (20 hours). In my Lyc O320, I had lead buildup problems on the valves from using 100LL (the engine was designed to run on the old 80 octane avgas), but since using Decalin TCP I have had no further troubles with lead in my Lyc. For me at least, I have to use TCP for using 100LL in my Lyc or the Egg Subaru (if I get one) to help maintain a healthy engine. Tim Olson wrote: > "all these problems" just seems so strange to hear. When you count > how many engines are out there, "all these" seems to be similar > to saying "tons of U.S. Airline passenger deaths in the past 2 years"... > just another sensationalist term. As a percentage of engines > out there, it's actually amazing that if you eliminate pilot error, > esp. due to fuel mismanagement, that you're left with an incredibly > small pool of accidents to analyze. I suppose you could attribute to "pilot error" some of the problems that Lycs have if the pilot does not fly the airplane frequently, thus causing the engine issues that in turn cause the top end work to be done (noting the previous posts on the topic). Regardless of the reasons, there still seems to be a lot of top end work that is necessary to maintain a typical Lycoming to TBO in your average privately owned GA aircraft, solely based on my own opinion and personal observations, which may not represent reality as a whole. Perhaps the term "reliable" is somewhat ambigious. To me, it means being able to run to the advertised TBO without doing any major work to the engine. Doing top end work part way through the TBO means the engine did not make it all the way to TBO without the extra work, thus reducing its "reliability" in my eyes. What is boils down to from my personal, limited experience is that I have not seen any evidence to show that a Lycoming is any MORE reliable than a Subaru engine, so it puzzles me when people make claims that they are. I'm just hoping to see some solid evidence from beyond my own limited experience that will help me to make a well educated engine decision. It is difficult to weed through all the opinions and my own personal experiences and just look at facts, especially since this is a highly contentious topic. This has been an excellent discussion, and I appreciate the polite and constructive conversation that we have had thus far about the topic. -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
Doerr, Ray R [NTK] wrote: > > My friend has an Egg on his RV-9 and his latest oil analyzes of his engine and PSRU came back with excessive wear on the PSRU. He had the second generation PSRU from Jan and it is now being swapped out after 500 hours because one of the bearings in it were making metal. He is now waiting to get the third generation PSRU with the 2.02 gear ratio from Jan. > At the rate that Jan keeps changing his components, it is going to be very hard for anyone to accumulate enough hours on a particular component to see if it will stand the test of time. > Ray, this is excellent information, and I greatly appreciate you sharing this. The PSRU is one of the potentially questionably parts of the engine package in my eyes, and reports like yours help in the decision making process. I'm hoping there is a lot more history on the PSRU before I have to make an engine decision. Did Jan give any potential reason as to why the bearings are making metal? I wonder if there is an "overhaul" process that can be done on a PSRU versus buying a whole new one. If the cost were reasonable, a 500 hour "top end" inspection and perhaps overhaul on the PSRU might be an acceptable option, similar to what we do with magnetos. -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: <seanblair(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Conduit
I'm getting ready to run conduit through the baqggage area and acquired the same stuff Tim Olsen is using. It looks great, lots of room, and should do the job. The concern I have is how large this is on the O.D. and will there be a significant weakening of the bulkheads from enlarging the holes to size? I believe the O.D. is 1.125 inches. I plan to run one on each side. Tim and others, after you installed this conduit, did you have alot of extra capacity left over? Could it be scaled down a little and still be sufficient? Thanks, Sean Blair #40225 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: PSRUs
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Ray, it is indeed the PSRUs which bring Alt Engine Owners to their knees. It is rarely the actual engine. Atkins has had multiple losses in-flight and it has been accessories, hoses and his quality of workmanship. If he only wore a white coat with pocket pen protector you would begin to see why conservatives defend dinosaurs so passionately. Still no one is addressing noise and that is best because of there current hearing loss. On the Lancair side, there were literally scores who lost millions in the pursuit of Hot Rodding and Alternates to the Dinosaurs. In the end, nearly all have capitulated to the developmental costs of PSRUs and the use of Ts in front of their engine designation as a compromise. No recent aircraft manufacturer has been more focused on safety than Cirrus. They avoid PSRUs like a modern plague. Pratt and Whitney had the hundreds of millions and put it where it was needed to make Turbo-Props so reliable. The turbine engine is nearly bullet-proof and running a 1.3 millions dollar PSRU up front with FADEC control helps. For those of us on more worldly financial means, this has been an enjoyable exercise in lively discussion and esoteric pursuit. John Cox #40600 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Insurance Underwriting
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
To answer your question on this and the RV7 airframe, there was not a premium difference for either engine, it was based on TT and my lack of IFR ticket. When I got initial quotes on the 10, it was quoted the same way, that is why I am getting my IFR done ASAP. There is a significant price drop, and once I get more time in type there will be another price break. But if the plane falls out of the air, like all are predicting, then all bets are off! Honestly, I do not feel this is any more experimental, then flying hard IFR behind an experimental panel. you just have to determine what you are willing to do, test it, test it some more, and move on. Dan _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:07 PM Subject: RV10-List: Insurance Underwriting Rick, Please add some clarity here... from your perspective. Does an insurance underwriter make no rate change for choice of alternative engine and non certificated prop choice rather than certificated engine (IO-540D4A5) and certificated prop (Hartzell 2 blade) for the exact same pilot and airframe hull coverage? A post was made which implied coverage was available and could lead someone to believe the costs are equal. Can you clarify? I asked mine about horsepower and that wasn't a concern (Hot Rodding). Lack of an Instrument ticket and low hours did factor into premium. Retractable Gear and Tail Dragger too but we don't have to worry about that either. I forgot to ask about Alt Engines, cause I got off on a tangent of gyrocopters and he spun out of control with me as a future customer. I could barely auto-rotate the dialog in time by telling him I was only asking about a friend who had one (Uncovered). The Subie discussion got me going. Maybe someone has Sky Smiths number who believes he is the know all, be all, end all for insurance rates. John Cox #40600 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Confession
Date: Dec 05, 2006
When the bottom leading edges of the flap skins are riveted to the flange of the spar, you have to force your hand down between the skins with a bucking bar to buck those rivets. The bucking bar I favor is a left over hunk of metal from a printing press. All of the sides are polished and the edges are polished and rounded. If the base of the bar is resting on the web while bucking the flange it will put a slight scar or scuff on the web from the kick back. I'll usually put a piece of thick tape down on the web or on the bar itself to keep this from happening. If the access doesn't allow it, or I flat out forget, I'll hit the spots with a scotch bright pad, smooth them out, give them a quick shot of zinc chromate and move on. In the case of my flaps, I did none of the above. I got caught up in the "moment" (you all know how exciting riveting can get) and put a neat row of scars across the inner web of my flap spar and buttoned it up with pop rivets before it even occurred to me. Can those of you out there with real life experience speak to the nature of stress cracks... how shy of perfect something can be before it's a potential problem. In my case, these are more "dent like" than "scratch like." I'd like to get a sense of what I'm dealing with here. Should I move on and forget about it? Move on and inspect it every so many hours once flying? Rebuild the flaps? I'm hoping, too, that this might give us a breather from the Eggenfellner thread. Jeff Carpenter Thinking I'm Finished with the Flaps 40304 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Insurance Underwriting
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
My company Regal-Wissmiller had adds for lack of IFR, adds for Retract, adds for taildragger, adds for under 400 hours TT and adds for alternate engine. Major adds for Lancair make and model specific. No add for Van's with nose wheel, no adds for horsepower above 210, 250 or 300. To which I was pleasantly surprised while holding passion as a Hot Rodder. Glass EFIS is triggering a whole new discussion as they look at rates and the number of low time Cirrus pilots who pull the chute and destroy the plane rather than trying to fly it. Proficiency Training is not Transition Training and I sense that I hear the sounds of that train approaching in the distance. Anyone want to bet the percentage of RV-10 builder's with less than 1,000 hours and Private Pilot Certificate (Sans IFR) in the gene pool. We have quite a colorful fruit basket when trying to compare insurance impact. Others may want to know the company to pursue and this leads back to the query several weeks ago for tracking. John Cox ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R. Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:45 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Insurance Underwriting To answer your question on this and the RV7 airframe, there was not a premium difference for either engine, it was based on TT and my lack of IFR ticket. When I got initial quotes on the 10, it was quoted the same way, that is why I am getting my IFR done ASAP. There is a significant price drop, and once I get more time in type there will be another price break. But if the plane falls out of the air, like all are predicting, then all bets are off! Honestly, I do not feel this is any more experimental, then flying hard IFR behind an experimental panel. you just have to determine what you are willing to do, test it, test it some more, and move on. Dan ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:07 PM Subject: RV10-List: Insurance Underwriting Rick, Please add some clarity here... from your perspective. Does an insurance underwriter make no rate change for choice of alternative engine and non certificated prop choice rather than certificated engine (IO-540D4A5) and certificated prop (Hartzell 2 blade) for the exact same pilot and airframe hull coverage? A post was made which implied coverage was available and could lead someone to believe the costs are equal. Can you clarify? I asked mine about horsepower and that wasn't a concern (Hot Rodding). Lack of an Instrument ticket and low hours did factor into premium. Retractable Gear and Tail Dragger too but we don't have to worry about that either. I forgot to ask about Alt Engines, cause I got off on a tangent of gyrocopters and he spun out of control with me as a future customer. I could barely auto-rotate the dialog in time by telling him I was only asking about a friend who had one (Uncovered). The Subie discussion got me going. Maybe someone has Sky Smiths number who believes he is the know all, be all, end all for insurance rates. John Cox ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Radio and intercom
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
While I like Citabrias in general and KCABs in particular, I don't think it would be very useful as an instrument trainer. It's pretty important during instrument training for the instructor to be able to see the instruments well enough to fly the airplane with them. With the instructor in the back seat, and you and the instruments in the front, it will be very difficult for the instructor to watch for traffic while checking to see if you're still on the localizer, and also watch the altimeter to see if you are below the MDA. Jack Phillips 40610 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Reining Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 12:21 PM Subject: RV10-List: Radio and intercom --> My wife and I just bought a 1969 Citabria 7KCAB as a trainer while the 10 is being built. It doesn't look the best but runs great. However, when we bought it, we knew we wanted to upgrade a few things. We're planning on eventually making the panel IFR capable as a very simple trainer, not really with "hard" IFR flying in mind - we live in the San Francisco Bay Area so the most IFR we'd really be looking at is getting through the fog in the morning to get out to the practice area. With that in mind - it currently has a MicroAir M760 radio and a portable intercom, with the rear seat push to talk inoperable. I'd like to replace the radio with a Nav/Com and get a panel mounted intercom. What do people recommend? Happy to look at functioning used equipment. Idea is this is more of a trainer, with more basic and inexpensive equipment, so not looking to install the SL30 or PM8000 that we'd look to install in the 10. Thanks! Jon Reining 40514 (along with my dad) buildus interruptus - tailcone, QB wings and fuselage waiting Do Not Archive _________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Confession
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
If you have ever seen a striped circa 60's plane getting ready for body work, the amount of dents would scare you. In my opinion small dents are not as big an issue, if they are not that deep, IE smiley's. If they are hidden inside a structure and are not visible, and do not mess with the integrity of the joint, move on. If they are visible, fill them, paint them and forget about it. If they mess with the structure of the joint that is a different issue, and a call to Vans is in order, but they will likely tell you them same thing. Dan Hiding smileys on the wings for paint, and no I will never tell where they are. -----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, December 05, 2006 3:23 PM Subject: RV10-List: Confession When the bottom leading edges of the flap skins are riveted to the flange of the spar, you have to force your hand down between the skins with a bucking bar to buck those rivets. The bucking bar I favor is a left over hunk of metal from a printing press. All of the sides are polished and the edges are polished and rounded. If the base of the bar is resting on the web while bucking the flange it will put a slight scar or scuff on the web from the kick back. I'll usually put a piece of thick tape down on the web or on the bar itself to keep this from happening. If the access doesn't allow it, or I flat out forget, I'll hit the spots with a scotch bright pad, smooth them out, give them a quick shot of zinc chromate and move on. In the case of my flaps, I did none of the above. I got caught up in the "moment" (you all know how exciting riveting can get) and put a neat row of scars across the inner web of my flap spar and buttoned it up with pop rivets before it even occurred to me. Can those of you out there with real life experience speak to the nature of stress cracks... how shy of perfect something can be before it's a potential problem. In my case, these are more "dent like" than "scratch like." I'd like to get a sense of what I'm dealing with here. Should I move on and forget about it? Move on and inspect it every so many hours once flying? Rebuild the flaps? I'm hoping, too, that this might give us a breather from the Eggenfellner thread. Jeff Carpenter Thinking I'm Finished with the Flaps 40304 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
Just three points. TCP is good for reducing lead deposits on plugs/valves. It won't do anything for O2 sensor, and no, you can't clean lead from the sensor, as it binds with the sensor material. Other deposits to some degree can be burned off, and modern O2 sensors are heated internally to reduce deposit build up, but still lead will kill them, and you are still looking at $50-100 every time you have to replace one, plus labor. I'd call the Decalin recommendation to clean an O2 sensor every 20 hours as fruitless and a lot of work that isn't likely to save it. Mogas DOES soften PRC, and if you use it, your fuel tanks will eventually leak and will have to be resealed. Cylinder top end work....mostly a function of how hot you run the cylinders. Keep them below 400CHT, change your oil regularly and fly regularly, and you won't need top end work. I have over 600 hours behind 200hp Lyc. with no top end work since I've owned it. Also keep in mind, with the RV-10 you are talking 200mph aircraft. 1000 hours of flying is 200,000 miles. 2000 hours is 400,000 miles. Please advise how many auto engines go that far with no top end work. Not that long ago Japanese engines routinely needed head gasket replacement/head resurfacing. Not to mention virtually all of the overhead cam engines need timing belt replacement at 60-90,000 miles. On 12/5/06, Dj Merrill wrote: > It is recommended to run Decalin TCP additive > (http://www.decalinchemicals.com/) when running 100LL to handle the lead > content in the Subaru, although they still recommend checking and > cleaning the O2 sensor at frequent intervals when using 100LL (20 > hours). In my Lyc O320, I had lead buildup problems on the valves from > using 100LL (the engine was designed to run on the old 80 octane avgas), > but since using Decalin TCP I have had no further troubles with lead in > my Lyc. For me at least, I have to use TCP for using 100LL in my Lyc or > the Egg Subaru (if I get one) to help maintain a healthy engine. > I suppose you could attribute to "pilot error" some of the problems > that Lycs have if the pilot does not fly the airplane frequently, thus > causing the engine issues that in turn cause the top end work to be done > (noting the previous posts on the topic). Regardless of the reasons, > there still seems to be a lot of top end work that is necessary to > maintain a typical Lycoming to TBO in your average privately owned GA > aircraft, solely based on my own opinion and personal observations, > which may not represent reality as a whole. > > Perhaps the term "reliable" is somewhat ambigious. To me, it means > being able to run to the advertised TBO without doing any major work to > the engine. Doing top end work part way through the TBO means the > engine did not make it all the way to TBO without the extra work, thus > reducing its "reliability" in my eyes. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 05, 2006
Subject: Re: Insurance Underwriting
Rick, Last year my rates decreased fairly dramatically in our spam can while not IFR, I did complete the Cessna FITS course on the G 1000 system plus added 300 hours in one year. Hope to finish up the IFR/Commercial rating in the next couple of months but I doubt that this will lower my rate much. Patrick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: Niko <owl40188(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Confession
Jeff,=0A=0AIt sounds like you have some scuff marks or small dents. If tha ts the case it should be fine. I would nevertheless check the area for cra cks during inspections since the marks are on the spar. What you absolutel y don't want is a tear, notch or anything that would give you a higher stre ss concentration than a standard hole. Those I would personally repair eve n if the structure is not highly loaded there. Until lots of hours are acc umulated on RV10s we won't know where the inherently weak areas are. So fa r the only one that has come out is on the vertical stab. One other genera l note is that just because Van's says its okay not to repair something it doesn't mean that they are right. Its not their skin on the line on that p articular plane. Another thought is that for typicall commercial aircraft spectrum if you increase the stress by 10% you will approximately halve the fatigue life because life vs stress is an exponential function. The criti cal areas will typically be at a rivet hole, access hole or another stress riser that's why if the structure has marginal life deburring edges of holes could turn out to be v ery important. So even a small scratch that touches the edge of a hole sho uld be buffed , removed , cleaned etc..=0A=0ANiko=0A40188=0A=0A=0A----- Ori ginal Message ----=0AFrom: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>=0ATo: rv 10-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 3:23:05 PM=0ASubjec enter =0A=0AWhen the bottom leading edges of the fl ap skins are riveted to the =0Aflange of the spar, you have to force your hand down between the =0Askins with a bucking bar to buck those rivets. T he bucking bar I =0Afavor is a left over hunk of metal from a printing pre ss. All of the =0Asides are polished and the edges are polished and round ed. If the =0Abase of the bar is resting on the web while bucking the fla nge it =0Awill put a slight scar or scuff on the web from the kick back. I'll =0Ausually put a piece of thick tape down on the web or on the bar =0Aitself to keep this from happening. If the access doesn't allow it, =0Aor I flat out forget, I'll hit the spots with a scotch bright pad, =0As mooth them out, give them a quick shot of zinc chromate and move on.=0A=0AI n the case of my flaps, I did none of the above. I got caught up in =0Ath e "moment" (you all know how exciting riveting can get) and put a =0Aneat row of scars across the inner web of my flap spar and buttoned =0Ait up wi th pop rivets before it even occurred to me.=0A=0ACan those of you out ther e with real life experience speak to the =0Anature of stress cracks... how shy of perfect something can be before =0Ait's a potential problem. In m y case, these are more "dent like" =0Athan "scratch like." I'd like to ge t a sense of what I'm dealing =0Awith here. Should I move on and forget a bout it? Move on and =0Ainspect it every so many hours once flying? Rebu ild the flaps?=0A=0AI'm hoping, too, that this might give us a breather fro m the =0AEggenfellner thread.=0A=0AJeff Carpenter=0AThinking I'm Finished ========= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: Perry Casson <pcasson(at)sasktel.net>
Subject: Intercoms
I've installed a Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom. My only complaint is it does not have enough audio inputs if you have things like warning tones from your EIS or AOA system to integrate. Not hard to wire up a summing amplifier in front of an existing input to combine audio inputs but still something you would not need to do on a more capable unit. Perry Casson Next question, I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function) AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom Any body ever used any of these brands? John G ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Eggenfellner
Hmmmm Mark, be careful what you ask for, ..... Anyway, as the originator of this thread, what I wanted was info. I readily admit that I *knew* little about the issues related to engine selection. As a new builder that has a multitude of choices & decisions looming in the future, this is one I wanted to start considering sooner rather than later. I do say many, many thanks to all who commented. I have a much better appreciation of the factors / decision points / considerations involved. Cheers Les Kearney RV10 # 40643 - Lost in the empennage -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 5:33 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner All I want for Christmas is to have this subject go away. How many ways can you beat a dead horse? Mark (N410MR) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Just for discussion purposes...
Date: Dec 05, 2006
I know very little about engines at this point, but with all this talk of Eggenfellner and Deltahawk, can anyone tell me why something like the Mercedes 6 Cylinder Diesel (458 lbs and 224 hp @ 3800 rpm) would not be a good foundation for a conversion to use in the RV-10. Here's a link with a bit more info: http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2005/01daimler.php Jefr Carpenter 40304 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Just for discussion purposes...
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Could be the high weight before you even start to bolt on accessories and the all important PSRU? Also I would bet that it is not horizontally opposed like the Lycomings or Subaru's, so it might not fit in a standard cowl? You could always develop a FWF package and TRY to get others to talk about it? HAHA! Dan -----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, December 05, 2006 8:13 PM Subject: RV10-List: Just for discussion purposes... I know very little about engines at this point, but with all this talk of Eggenfellner and Deltahawk, can anyone tell me why something like the Mercedes 6 Cylinder Diesel (458 lbs and 224 hp @ 3800 rpm) would not be a good foundation for a conversion to use in the RV-10. Here's a link with a bit more info: http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2005/01daimler.php Jefr Carpenter 40304 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GenGrumpy(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 05, 2006
Subject: Annual Condition Inspection checklist
Have any of the fliers made up an ACI inspection checklist they are willing to share with the group? Grumpy #40404, 37 hrs towards the 40 flyoff! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2006
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
Mark Ritter wrote: > All I want for Christmas is to have this subject go away. How many ways > can you beat a dead horse? My apologies, Mark, and I mean no offense, but if this were truly a dead horse then we would all have a plethora of information with which to make an engine decision. There are still many of us that would like to get as much information about the Subaru option as we can, and I truly hope that the conversation and the exchange of information never ends. I mean no ill towards those that no longer wish to participate in the conversation, but isn't it a bit unfair to ask those of us that do wish to share information to stop doing so? That is sorta the whole point behind the mailing list... Please, if you don't want to join in, then please just delete the message and let the rest of us try to make sense out of what information we can find and share with the group. Thanks for understanding, -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Confession
Date: Dec 05, 2006
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Jeff, Another example which is great training, is to cut aluminum tubing and take various steps of preparation for a flare. Cut but unfilled with hacksaw marks, filed square, deburred, and polished. Use the flare tool and you will quickly develop skill as well as learn how stress risers cause visible cracks in non-deburred edges immediately after rolling. Edge preparation is a valued skill whether sheet, rod stock, tubing or angle. John Cox ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Niko Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:11 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Confession Jeff, It sounds like you have some scuff marks or small dents. If thats the case it should be fine. I would nevertheless check the area for cracks during inspections since the marks are on the spar. What you absolutely don't want is a tear, notch or anything that would give you a higher stress concentration than a standard hole. Those I would personally repair even if the structure is not highly loaded there. Until lots of hours are accumulated on RV10s we won't know where the inherently weak areas are. So far the only one that has come out is on the vertical stab. One other general note is that just because Van's says its okay not to repair something it doesn't mean that they are right. Its not their skin on the line on that particular plane. Another thought is that for typicall commercial aircraft spectrum if you increase the stress by 10% you will approximately halve the fatigue life because life vs stress is an exponential function. The critical areas will typically be at a rivet hole, access hole or another stress riser that's why if the structure has marginal life deburring edges of holes could turn out to be very important. So even a small scratch that touches the edge of a hole should be buffed , removed , cleaned etc.. Niko 40188 ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 3:23:05 PM Subject: RV10-List: Confession When the bottom leading edges of the flap skins are riveted to the flange of the spar, you have to force your hand down between the skins with a bucking bar to buck those rivets. The bucking bar I favor is a left over hunk of metal from a printing press. All of the sides are polished and the edges are polished and rounded. If the base of the bar is resting on the web while bucking the flange it will put a slight scar or scuff on the web from the kick back. I'll usually put a piece of thick tape down on the web or on the bar itself to keep this from happening. If the access doesn't allow it, or I flat out forget, I'll hit the spots with a scotch bright pad, smooth them out, give them a quick shot of zinc chromate and move on. In the case of my flaps, I did none of the above. I got caught up in the "moment" (you all know how exciting riveting can get) and put a neat row of scars across the inner web of my flap spar and buttoned it up with pop rivets before it even occurred to me. Can those of you out there with real life experience speak to the nature of stress cracks... how shy of perfect something can be before it's a potential problem. In my case, these are more "dent like" than "scratch like." I'd like to get a sense of what I'm dealing with here. Should I move on and forget about it? Move on and inspect it every so many hours once flying? Rebuild the flaps? I'm hoping, too, that this might give us a breather from the Eggenfellner thread. Jeff Carpenter Thinking sp; November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on _"http://www.aeroelectric.com/" target=_blank>www.aeroelectric.com bsp; * Aeroware Enterprises <http://www.kitlog.com/> www.homontribution" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.homebuilthelp.com/> _p; ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target=_blank>http://www.matro============== ======== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Subject: Re: Conduit
Tim, You ran extra wires for FUTURE avionics? You already have things in that plane that myself and others have not even DREAMED about yet. I wa nt in my FUTURE a hired pilot flying me, remotes in my hand watching vid eos/sateliteTV in the rear seat, drinking lots of cold imported beer and waiting to land at another exotic white sand beach. LOL OK........ma ybe I will put in a few 3 1/4 guages to make it IFR legal in a few years to fill up a few of the empty conduits before my FUTURE dream plane. Beats reading Eggenfeller posts, DEAN 40449 ________________________________________________________________________
Tim,

You ran extra wires for FUTURE avionics? You already have things in that plane that myself and others have not even D REAMED about yet. I want in my FUTURE a hired pilot flying me , remotes in my hand watching videos/sateliteTV in the rear se at, drinking lots of cold imported beer and waiting to land at another e xotic white sand beach. LOL OK........maybe I will put in a few 3 1/4 guages to make it IFR legal in a few years to fill up a few o f the empty conduits before my FUTURE dream plane.

Beats reading Eggenfeller posts,

DEAN 40449

______________________ __________________________________________________
Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today!

________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: FW: RE: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken legs.
Date: Dec 05, 2006
Dj, For those wanting more information, I feel I should share this with you. Again, Eric Wolf runs Wolf Aerospace and is supposed to be currently working on a water cooled/direct drive Lyco replacement. I need to touch basis with him and see whats up. I know, we have all heard the same story before. Read below about the problem with reduction drives on internal combustion engines. I imagine some of these gear wear spots could be minimized by using worm drive gearing as it spreads the force out over a greater surface area. Below explains the problem well. Even with this said Eggs are still not out of my thought process. Just more food for thought. >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> >To: "'John Gonzalez'" >Subject: RE: This is umm?? >Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:30:51 -0800 > >Hi John. The reason gear reductions are a problem in planes is that you fly >full throttle most of the time. Cars have a torque converter or a clutch >which absorbs the oscillations of the power pulses. The gears of a airplane >gear reduction are constantly beating each other up all the time. The >propeller is fighting the air and is wanting to slow down and the engine >produces a power pulse every 90 degrees of revolution(8 cylinder)(180 for a >4 cylinder). At the point of power the gears are smashed together, as soon >as the power pulse is over the gears slam each other the other way because >of the prop trying to stop due to wind resistance. Its quite nasty and can >set up a harmonic at certain rpm's that can destroy the reduction drive. >You >know when you are drilling teeth and you get that sweet spot rpm and >everything works well. But then you slow down while cutting and it gets >rough. Same thing kind of. Its not optimum at all but Subaru does not make >an engine big enough to fly a plane. They are getting HP by revving up the >engine then reducing rpm with a gear drive.. The old Conti and Lyc engines >are tough but outdated. I am improving what already works the best. >Bombardier aerospace has an engine that revs to 6000 rpm and was available >in turbo and non turbo It had a gear drive and a small displacement. They >said it would be the engine of choice. I Have heard nothing for a while. I >presume its a dead issue. There is no place for a wimpy engine in an >airplane. Everybody gets confused with driving cars as much as we do. An >aircraft engine is the only thing keeping you from crashing,,,,,Why skimp >on >power or strength or design. I am glad everybody is trying to make these >ridicules engines. Every day you hear of some crazy new design that uses >some new method of engine or some other band aid. Airplanes need big beefy >no excuses power. I would gladly drive a prius. But I want power in my >plane >or on a passenger jet. I do intend to make a version of my engine with >catalytic converters. The amount of oil, raw fuel and lead spewing out of >our planes today is unacceptable. I am very excited about the future of my >engines. They will be so much cleaner than what we have today. As far as >the >twin turbos on a Subaru. Its a good engine but do you really want to have >your kids in an airplane with an overstressed engine that is not made for >aircraft?? Or how about being an unpaid test pilot? > >In your RV10, how much can the engine weigh and how much power is >recommended? Do they have a maximum power recommended? > > >Eric. >-----Original Message----- >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com] >Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 9:00 AM >To: Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com >Subject: RE: This is umm?? > >Isn't a car's transmission considerred a gear reduction. Why is it a >bigger >problem in an airplane. One would think that because the propeller >supplies >a constant load, unlike a car wheels, that it would be easier on the gears. > >What do you think about the idea of the twin turbos on the Eggenfellner's. > >John > > > >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> > >To: "'John Gonzalez'" > >Subject: RE: This is umm?? > >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:37:43 -0800 > > > >I think turbine engines get efficient at 30000 feet. You will never go > >above 12500 without oxygen. I have flown all over the place. I flew all > >the way to Tennessee once. I fly to Vegas, Mammoth, Utah, Arizona, san > >Francisco. I did all this under 12500 except for the Tennessee flight. > >I did that at 13500 with oxygen. I saw in their web site the rebuild > >cost would be one third the cost of the engine. I think if you need > >260hp, your best bet would be a Lycoming or continental right now. I > >hate to say that but it is the only big engine without a gear > >reduction. Gear reductions are big problems on piston engines. They all > >say they have it figured out but they just dont last. On a turbine > >engine, gear reductions are not bad because there are no power pulses > >to beat the gear reduction apart. If Innodyn gets it done soon, maybe > >that would be interesting. The fuel consumption is high on a turbine > >but they also have a lot of advantages. Maybe I will have an engine > >done in time for your plane...... > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com] > >Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:49 AM > >To: Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com > >Subject: RE: This is umm?? > > > >Eric, they claim a 5000 hr O.H. time. NO indication as to how much $ > >to rebuild. Dought I would have to if it doesn't fall apart..."IF" > > > >According to Charlie Sullivan at Innodyn the test pilot was able to do > >something to jimmy the system and prevent the computer from doing its > >normal task. Then the problem occured. > > > >Here is what I intend to do with my plane. After flying off the hours > >at the local airport the power plane will be used for trips only. > >Mammoth several times a year. SW Colorado a lot and Idaho once a year. > >I will probably fly the sailplane more for the spiritual side of flying > >and leave the power plane as a tool. > > > >I may base the glider in Bishop in the summers and fly to it instead of > >doing cross country flights as the driving costs and time are getting > >prohibitive. > > > > > > >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> > > >To: "'John Gonzalez'" > > >Subject: This is umm?? > > >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:42:41 -0800 > > > > > > > > > > > >"we confirmed the need for fully integrated flight systems and the > > >importance of specialized pilot training on operating our turbine. " > > > > > > > > >I pulled this from their web site. This is exactly what I am talking > >about. > > >I think the aviation world is high on crazy pills!!!!!!!! Why do I > > >need to be trained for something that should just work!!!! PUSH THE > > >KNOB FORWARD AND IT MAKES MORE POWER, PULL THE KNOB BACK AND IT MAKES > > >LESS!!!!! That's all you will need to know for my engine. No Shock > > >cooling or overheating, no carb ice, just power when and where you > > >need it. I would rather fly the plane than worry about what the > > >engine is doing. Imagine if you had to drive a car like you fly a >plane,,haha,,. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Wolf Aerospace Corp. > > >1152 Acacia Ct. > > >Ontario Ca. 91761 > > >(909)947-2121 > > >FAX (909)947-5299 > > >The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally > > >privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this > > >e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended > > >recipient, any disclosure, copying distribution or any action taken > > >or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be > > >unlawful > > > > > >-- > > >3/22/2006 > > > > > > > > ><< wolfx.jpg >> > > > > > > > >-- > >3/22/2006 > > > > > >-- > >3/22/2006 > > > > > > >-- > > >-- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Conduit
Date: Dec 05, 2006
You forgot the beautiful stewardess serving the drinks. Where's your head man! >From: "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV10-List: Conduit >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 04:45:04 GMT > >Tim, >You ran extra wires for FUTURE avionics? You already have things in >that plane that myself and others have not even DREAMED about yet. I want >in my FUTURE a hired pilot flying me, remotes in my hand watching >videos/sateliteTV in the rear seat, drinking lots of cold imported beer and >waiting to land at another exotic white sand beach. LOL OK........maybe >I will put in a few 3 1/4 guages to make it IFR legal in a few years to >fill up a few of the empty conduits before my FUTURE dream plane. >Beats reading Eggenfeller posts, >DEAN 40449 > > >________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: FW: RE: More engine stuff, four broken legs
Date: Dec 05, 2006
>From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> >To: "'John Gonzalez'" >Subject: RE: More engine stuff >Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:21:21 -0800 > >If I won the lottery I would move to Hawaii and surf all day HAHA!!! > >I have a program that checks if something is strong enough for the load >that >it is going to see. I have made everything 5 times stronger. I have A LOT >of >experience with CAD and engineering aircraft parts. I also have made tons >of >tooling and machined all kinds of different metals. I have also put lots on >engines together. I am taking the approach that will make the engine run >the >first time. I will then put all the parts on a diet. My engine will make >way >more power, so a few pounds will not matter at first. My 8 cylinder will be >about 50 Lbs heavier than the 6 cylinder it will replace. That is with >water >, radiator, complete engine. I have a full working model of all the parts >that make the engine. The program has a motion simulator and a stress >analysis program that will show week spots. It is true that once we have >all >the parts to assemble the engine, there will be some changes required once >we have it running. We have made tooling that is more complicated than an >engine so we are used to this kind of work. We work with close tolerances >every day. I honestly think making engines will be a step back in terms of >difficulty and complexity compared to what we do now. I have been designing >it now for 3 years in my spare time. I have all the equipment now so that >is >out of the way. That is way more than most people who are making an engine >have done. One thing that I have that they do not is a complete >manufacturing facility to make parts as I need them. I do not need to go >outside to get anything. Valves, valve springs, pistons, rings, seals, >bolts, etc, are readily available from a catalog. I will make heads, case >halves, intake manifold, oil pan, valve covers, etc from aluminum castings >here in my shop. And crank, cam, and other steel parts on my CNC's from >billet stock. When I look at projects I have done before that were large >and >complex, this is not that bad. I think if money were no problem and I could >put my whole shop to work on it, I could do it in 6 months at a cost of >about 500K. When I sell my plane I will have 100K. I would say that 400K is >for labor and 100K for material and tooling, mostly tooling. I bought a >lottery ticket today, so cross your fingers. I bought one last week, but >didnt even get one number!! One good thing is that when I do get this done >I will need someone to put some hours on the engine. I will buy a Cirrus >and >swap engines. So you are welcome to fly it as much as you want. All I would >ask is that the person flying make notes of how it performs. I would really >check it out a lot before I would let anyone fly it though. I would fly it >with a parachute for the first few flights even though it has one on the >plane. Always have a backup plan! I would not want anyone to get hurt from >something a made. This engine will be built like a Swiss watch and be >better >than anything out there. I will sell them at the same price as what it will >replace. The two big engine manufacturers Will probably down talk my >engine, >but it will be an awesome engine. > >-----Original Message----- >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:18 PM >To: Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com >Subject: RE: More engine stuff > >Thanks for the reply. > >Do you have a working model yet? The picture is nice but you could draw >that and make a wish list for things you would like the engine to do, but >how does it all come together? Cad drawings with computer simulation of >working parts all working in unison and looking for problems and conflicts. > >Isn't until it is a complete assembly, functioning, that you start learning >where the problems are. What have you got more than an idea? You said you >have a computer program that checks metal strength tolerances. > >If you won the lottery tonight, realistically at full bore and full >enthusiasm, how long to completion with all testing behind you? > >All that are doing something like this seem to be taking a lot longer than >originally planned. > > > >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> > >To: "'John Gonzalez'" > >Subject: RE: More engine stuff > >Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:44:51 -0800 > > > >Just as a quick note. My engines are designed for a 100% duty cycle. That > >means you will be able to fly full throttle in any air temp at any > >altitude. > >I hate limitations so I decided very early to not have any. I will also >be > >able to get a 3000 hour TBO easily. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 1:28 PM > >To: eric(at)wolfaerospace.com > >Subject: More engine stuff > > > >Thanks for the link to how it works.com > > > >I misunderstood you during our conversation as you had said that you had > >made something much shorter on your engine...perhaps it was simply the > >entire engine footprint as your cylinders could be more tightly spaced > >without all the cooling fins. I have taken apart outboard boat engines > >before so I am not that unfamiliar with an internal combuston engine's > >function. > > > >I was wondering whether you have ever looked at Eggenfellner aircraft > >engines? They seem to be putting together a very complete product and it > >is > >much more technologically advanced than the usual air cooled aircraft > >engine. From what it looks like on their web site, they seem to be >running > >their H-6 engine at very high RPM to get the 225hp for takeoff. > > > >What is your thought about this high rev during a 10-15 minute climb. > > > >I seem to remember my father manual transmission, Acura Integra getting >to > >say 5700-6000 RPM and I got scared the engine would launch a piston or > >something. > > > >They say they will be offering a supercharger to allow better performance > >up > >to 16K. > > > >What are your thoughts? > > > >John Gonzalez > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > >-- > > > > > > >-- > > >-- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Okay mom, I promise I'll bury it, it's starting to smell
Date: Dec 05, 2006
For you guys in the know. Again, who knows, everyone has dreams!!!!!! Hi John. Thank you for the links. I checked out the web sites and they both look good. It was great talking with you last night. Hearing the frustration you have over the current technology is very motivating to me, I feel the same way. I know I could take over the piston engine market if I had my project at 100%. I looked at the planes and molds you made, very impressive. Attached is a picture of the 9 axis CNC machine and a picture of my engine. The picture has the valve covers and lots of parts missing and also a lot of transparent parts. I am sending you this picture in the strictest confidence. Please do not let it out of your hands. Feel free to talk about it as much as you want with your pilot friends. Some of the important facts about my engine are as follows. 1. Billet crankshaft 2. Billet camshafts (hollow) 3. All aluminum cylinder head and cases. We are using a special aluminum that an engineer friend said would be the best. It's a custom blend that has high heat resilience. Not that my engine is going to get too hot, but incase of a coolant leak, I intend to be able to use the engine at 50% power to get to a safe landing place. 4. Redundant oil pumps 5. Dry sump oil system 6. Full FADEC 7. Overhead cams 8. Redundant water pumps There is a lot more info, but you get the idea. Also, we have a 4,6 and 8 cylinder. All engines will have turbo as an option. The displacement of the engines runs from 245 cubic inches to over 700 cubic inches. The power levels run from 150 hp to over 800 hp. The weight of the unit will be very close to existing engines in all sizes. All engines will be much more fuel efficient and produce much more HP per cubic inch than the status quo. Enjoy, Eric Wolf. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: FW: RE: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken
legs.
Date: Dec 05, 2006
I know nothing about this new engine entry but did notice that it is based in Canada. Having lived outside the USA for many years, one learns that there are many different laws affecting business transactions. The difficulty and cost of enforcing a business transaction where they have your money and your new engine can be daunting. Ask some of the RV builders who have dealt with Crossflow or Mistral. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:59 PM Subject: RV10-List: FW: RE: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken legs. Dj, For those wanting more information, I feel I should share this with you. Again, Eric Wolf runs Wolf Aerospace and is supposed to be currently working on a water cooled/direct drive Lyco replacement. I need to touch basis with him and see whats up. I know, we have all heard the same story before. Read below about the problem with reduction drives on internal combustion engines. I imagine some of these gear wear spots could be minimized by using worm drive gearing as it spreads the force out over a greater surface area. Below explains the problem well. Even with this said Eggs are still not out of my thought process. Just more food for thought. >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> >To: "'John Gonzalez'" >Subject: RE: This is umm?? >Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:30:51 -0800 > >Hi John. The reason gear reductions are a problem in planes is that you fly >full throttle most of the time. Cars have a torque converter or a clutch >which absorbs the oscillations of the power pulses. The gears of a airplane >gear reduction are constantly beating each other up all the time. The >propeller is fighting the air and is wanting to slow down and the engine >produces a power pulse every 90 degrees of revolution(8 cylinder)(180 for a >4 cylinder). At the point of power the gears are smashed together, as soon >as the power pulse is over the gears slam each other the other way because >of the prop trying to stop due to wind resistance. Its quite nasty and can >set up a harmonic at certain rpm's that can destroy the reduction drive. >You >know when you are drilling teeth and you get that sweet spot rpm and >everything works well. But then you slow down while cutting and it gets >rough. Same thing kind of. Its not optimum at all but Subaru does not make >an engine big enough to fly a plane. They are getting HP by revving up the >engine then reducing rpm with a gear drive.. The old Conti and Lyc engines >are tough but outdated. I am improving what already works the best. >Bombardier aerospace has an engine that revs to 6000 rpm and was available >in turbo and non turbo It had a gear drive and a small displacement. They >said it would be the engine of choice. I Have heard nothing for a while. I >presume it's a dead issue. There is no place for a wimpy engine in an >airplane. Everybody gets confused with driving cars as much as we do. An >aircraft engine is the only thing keeping you from crashing,,,,,Why skimp >on >power or strength or design. I am glad everybody is trying to make these >ridicules engines. Every day you hear of some crazy new design that uses >some new method of engine or some other band aid. Airplanes need big beefy >no excuses power. I would gladly drive a prius. But I want power in my >plane >or on a passenger jet. I do intend to make a version of my engine with >catalytic converters. The amount of oil, raw fuel and lead spewing out of >our planes today is unacceptable. I am very excited about the future of my >engines. They will be so much cleaner than what we have today. As far as >the >twin turbos on a Subaru. It's a good engine but do you really want to have >your kids in an airplane with an overstressed engine that is not made for >aircraft?? Or how about being an unpaid test pilot? > >In your RV10, how much can the engine weigh and how much power is >recommended? Do they have a maximum power recommended? > > >Eric. >-----Original Message----- >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com] >Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 9:00 AM >To: Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com >Subject: RE: This is umm?? > >Isn't a car's transmission considerred a gear reduction. Why is it a >bigger >problem in an airplane. One would think that because the propeller >supplies >a constant load, unlike a car wheels, that it would be easier on the gears. > >What do you think about the idea of the twin turbos on the Eggenfellner's. > >John > > > >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> > >To: "'John Gonzalez'" > >Subject: RE: This is umm?? > >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:37:43 -0800 > > > >I think turbine engines get efficient at 30000 feet. You will never go > >above 12500 without oxygen. I have flown all over the place. I flew all > >the way to Tennessee once. I fly to Vegas, Mammoth, Utah, Arizona, san > >Francisco. I did all this under 12500 except for the Tennessee flight. > >I did that at 13500 with oxygen. I saw in their web site the rebuild > >cost would be one third the cost of the engine. I think if you need > >260hp, your best bet would be a Lycoming or continental right now. I > >hate to say that but it is the only big engine without a gear > >reduction. Gear reductions are big problems on piston engines. They all > >say they have it figured out but they just don't last. On a turbine > >engine, gear reductions are not bad because there are no power pulses > >to beat the gear reduction apart. If Innodyn gets it done soon, maybe > >that would be interesting. The fuel consumption is high on a turbine > >but they also have a lot of advantages. Maybe I will have an engine > >done in time for your plane...... > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com] > >Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:49 AM > >To: Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com > >Subject: RE: This is umm?? > > > >Eric, they claim a 5000 hr O.H. time. NO indication as to how much $ > >to rebuild. Dought I would have to if it doesn't fall apart..."IF" > > > >According to Charlie Sullivan at Innodyn the test pilot was able to do > >something to jimmy the system and prevent the computer from doing its > >normal task. Then the problem occured. > > > >Here is what I intend to do with my plane. After flying off the hours > >at the local airport the power plane will be used for trips only. > >Mammoth several times a year. SW Colorado a lot and Idaho once a year. > >I will probably fly the sailplane more for the spiritual side of flying > >and leave the power plane as a tool. > > > >I may base the glider in Bishop in the summers and fly to it instead of > >doing cross country flights as the driving costs and time are getting > >prohibitive. > > > > > > >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> > > >To: "'John Gonzalez'" > > >Subject: This is umm?? > > >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:42:41 -0800 > > > > > > > > > > > >"we confirmed the need for fully integrated flight systems and the > > >importance of specialized pilot training on operating our turbine. " > > > > > > > > >I pulled this from their web site. This is exactly what I am talking > >about. > > >I think the aviation world is high on crazy pills!!!!!!!! Why do I > > >need to be trained for something that should just work!!!! PUSH THE > > >KNOB FORWARD AND IT MAKES MORE POWER, PULL THE KNOB BACK AND IT MAKES > > >LESS!!!!! That's all you will need to know for my engine. No Shock > > >cooling or overheating, no carb ice, just power when and where you > > >need it. I would rather fly the plane than worry about what the > > >engine is doing. Imagine if you had to drive a car like you fly a >plane,,haha,,. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Wolf Aerospace Corp. > > >1152 Acacia Ct. > > >Ontario Ca. 91761 > > >(909)947-2121 > > >FAX (909)947-5299 > > >The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally > > >privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this > > >e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended > > >recipient, any disclosure, copying distribution or any action taken > > >or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be > > >unlawful > > > > > >-- > > >3/22/2006 > > > > > > > > ><< wolfx.jpg >> > > > > > > > >-- > >3/22/2006 > > > > > >-- > >3/22/2006 > > > > > > >-- > > >-- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "noel anderson" <nandrand(at)xtra.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Eggenfellner
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Hi team. I agree with Dj, this is just what the list is about, exchange of info'!! A little bit of cut& thrust!!!! The more knowledgeable list members should be more tolerant of us lesser mortals. Fly safe Noel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dj Merrill" <deej(at)deej.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:54 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner > > Mark Ritter wrote: >> All I want for Christmas is to have this subject go away. How many ways >> can you beat a dead horse? > > My apologies, Mark, and I mean no offense, but if this were truly a > dead horse then we would all have a plethora of information with which > to make an engine decision. There are still many of us that would like > to get as much information about the Subaru option as we can, and I > truly hope that the conversation and the exchange of information never > ends. > > I mean no ill towards those that no longer wish to participate in the > conversation, but isn't it a bit unfair to ask those of us that do wish > to share information to stop doing so? That is sorta the whole point > behind the mailing list... > > Please, if you don't want to join in, then please just delete the > message and let the rest of us try to make sense out of what information > we can find and share with the group. > > Thanks for understanding, > > -Dj > > > -- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: My wings arrived :-)
From: "Michael Wellenzohn" <michael(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Dec 06, 2006
I am so happy, yesterday my QB Wings arrived. I am now doing the inventory and need to start building the wing stand. Having it shipped to Switzerland cost me a fortune but I have no alternative. Can you please advise if anything is missing or you know of better alternatives in my "need to buy" list for the wings: - Pitot tube (Gretz-1000) - LED Nav Lights & Strobe (Jeff) - Landing lights (Vans HID) - Servos for A/P Many Thanks Michael http:/www.wellenzohn.net -------- RV-10 builder (tailcone) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79510#79510 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Eggenfellner
Date: Dec 06, 2006
You are right - gather as much (good) information as you can and make a decision. Was just wondering is there a point when you reach information overload? Mark (N410MR) >From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner >Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:02:01 -0700 > > >Hmmmm > >Mark, be careful what you ask for, ..... > >Anyway, as the originator of this thread, what I wanted was info. I readily >admit that I *knew* little about the issues related to engine selection. As >a new builder that has a multitude of choices & decisions looming in the >future, this is one I wanted to start considering sooner rather than later. > >I do say many, many thanks to all who commented. I have a much better >appreciation of the factors / decision points / considerations involved. > >Cheers > >Les Kearney >RV10 # 40643 - Lost in the empennage > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter >Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 5:33 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner > > >All I want for Christmas is to have this subject go away. How many ways >can > >you beat a dead horse? > >Mark (N410MR) > > _________________________________________________________________ View Athletes Collections with Live Search http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: My wings arrived :-)
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Aileron trim. AOA. Rene' Felker 40322 N423CF Finish....I hate fiberglass -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Wellenzohn Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:05 AM Subject: RV10-List: My wings arrived :-) I am so happy, yesterday my QB Wings arrived. I am now doing the inventory and need to start building the wing stand. Having it shipped to Switzerland cost me a fortune but I have no alternative. Can you please advise if anything is missing or you know of better alternatives in my "need to buy" list for the wings: - Pitot tube (Gretz-1000) - LED Nav Lights & Strobe (Jeff) - Landing lights (Vans HID) - Servos for A/P Many Thanks Michael http:/www.wellenzohn.net -------- RV-10 builder (tailcone) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79510#79510 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob.kaufmann" <bob.kaufmann(at)cox.net>
Subject: My wings arrived :-)
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Aileron trim if you are going to use it. Bob K -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Wellenzohn Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:05 AM Subject: RV10-List: My wings arrived :-) I am so happy, yesterday my QB Wings arrived. I am now doing the inventory and need to start building the wing stand. Having it shipped to Switzerland cost me a fortune but I have no alternative. Can you please advise if anything is missing or you know of better alternatives in my "need to buy" list for the wings: - Pitot tube (Gretz-1000) - LED Nav Lights & Strobe (Jeff) - Landing lights (Vans HID) - Servos for A/P Many Thanks Michael http:/www.wellenzohn.net -------- RV-10 builder (tailcone) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79510#79510 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: FW: RE: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken
legs.
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
This is a well thought out reply, and I have food for thought as I asked Jan the same thing about the gear loading, and damping the pulses from the engine. He explained that yes there are pulses, and there are several ways to deal with them, the approach he takes is three fold. First there is a custom designed light weight prop, this reduces the overall inertia associated with a large mass spinning, that causes loading on the gears. This is not to say there still is not loading, just not as much because of the light turning mass, this also reduces the typically gyroscopic effect from a standard prop, less weight less precision acting on the spline to the gear box. In addition, Jan also uses a three way spring system in the large torque dampener on the engine, these springs take the mass of the fly wheel and counteract them by opposite springs absorbing the pulses. The third approach, is to use worm gears, further spreading the load across the face of the teeth. The result is a very smooth running engine, that has the pulses reduced as much as possible. There have been strain gauge tests done to monitor the pulses, and the information is readily available from Jan. In addition, it is not a twin turbo setup, rather a single stage that is used to hold 32" up to 18K feet. There is some boost added down low, but not enough to over stress the engine as your friend try's to imply. Also Fuji industries, maker of the Subaru engines, got its start making aircraft engines, and after the war had to convert to peace time activities. What most people do not think about is that the Subaru Legacy engines are a horizontally opposed 6, just like a Lycoming, so they do share that design principle. One of the big disparities is displacement, Lycoming is 540 cubic inch engine, while the Subaru is 183 cubic inches. I do agree with your friend stating that he wants max power available, we all agree on that. But if we can get the same or slightly less HP in a smaller package, why not? Less weight equals more useful load for the same HP. I know the Subaru FWF package weighs 468 LBS total, includes engine mount, cooling, radiators, sensors, wiring, oil, and Sensi prop etc. I also know the Lycoming, configured in a like configuration, with Hartzell, accessories, oil cooler, plumbing, and baffling etc will come in higher than that, but no one has weighed a Lycoming FWF package. You can take the base numbers, add them together and it is higher to start with, let alone once it is all mounted. So, long story short we still have to wait until next summer to get performance numbers and see what it really is. Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:00 AM Subject: RV10-List: FW: RE: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken legs. Dj, For those wanting more information, I feel I should share this with you. Again, Eric Wolf runs Wolf Aerospace and is supposed to be currently working on a water cooled/direct drive Lyco replacement. I need to touch basis with him and see whats up. I know, we have all heard the same story before. Read below about the problem with reduction drives on internal combustion engines. I imagine some of these gear wear spots could be minimized by using worm drive gearing as it spreads the force out over a greater surface area. Below explains the problem well. Even with this said Eggs are still not out of my thought process. Just more food for thought. >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> >To: "'John Gonzalez'" >Subject: RE: This is umm?? >Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:30:51 -0800 > >Hi John. The reason gear reductions are a problem in planes is that you fly >full throttle most of the time. Cars have a torque converter or a clutch >which absorbs the oscillations of the power pulses. The gears of a airplane >gear reduction are constantly beating each other up all the time. The >propeller is fighting the air and is wanting to slow down and the engine >produces a power pulse every 90 degrees of revolution(8 cylinder)(180 for a >4 cylinder). At the point of power the gears are smashed together, as soon >as the power pulse is over the gears slam each other the other way because >of the prop trying to stop due to wind resistance. Its quite nasty and can >set up a harmonic at certain rpm's that can destroy the reduction drive. >You >know when you are drilling teeth and you get that sweet spot rpm and >everything works well. But then you slow down while cutting and it gets >rough. Same thing kind of. Its not optimum at all but Subaru does not make >an engine big enough to fly a plane. They are getting HP by revving up the >engine then reducing rpm with a gear drive.. The old Conti and Lyc engines >are tough but outdated. I am improving what already works the best. >Bombardier aerospace has an engine that revs to 6000 rpm and was available >in turbo and non turbo It had a gear drive and a small displacement. They >said it would be the engine of choice. I Have heard nothing for a while. I >presume it's a dead issue. There is no place for a wimpy engine in an >airplane. Everybody gets confused with driving cars as much as we do. An >aircraft engine is the only thing keeping you from crashing,,,,,Why skimp >on >power or strength or design. I am glad everybody is trying to make these >ridicules engines. Every day you hear of some crazy new design that uses >some new method of engine or some other band aid. Airplanes need big beefy >no excuses power. I would gladly drive a prius. But I want power in my >plane >or on a passenger jet. I do intend to make a version of my engine with >catalytic converters. The amount of oil, raw fuel and lead spewing out of >our planes today is unacceptable. I am very excited about the future of my >engines. They will be so much cleaner than what we have today. As far as >the >twin turbos on a Subaru. It's a good engine but do you really want to have >your kids in an airplane with an overstressed engine that is not made for >aircraft?? Or how about being an unpaid test pilot? > >In your RV10, how much can the engine weigh and how much power is >recommended? Do they have a maximum power recommended? > > >Eric. >-----Original Message----- >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com] >Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 9:00 AM >To: Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com >Subject: RE: This is umm?? > >Isn't a car's transmission considerred a gear reduction. Why is it a >bigger >problem in an airplane. One would think that because the propeller >supplies >a constant load, unlike a car wheels, that it would be easier on the gears. > >What do you think about the idea of the twin turbos on the Eggenfellner's. > >John > > > >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> > >To: "'John Gonzalez'" > >Subject: RE: This is umm?? > >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:37:43 -0800 > > > >I think turbine engines get efficient at 30000 feet. You will never go > >above 12500 without oxygen. I have flown all over the place. I flew all > >the way to Tennessee once. I fly to Vegas, Mammoth, Utah, Arizona, san > >Francisco. I did all this under 12500 except for the Tennessee flight. > >I did that at 13500 with oxygen. I saw in their web site the rebuild > >cost would be one third the cost of the engine. I think if you need > >260hp, your best bet would be a Lycoming or continental right now. I > >hate to say that but it is the only big engine without a gear > >reduction. Gear reductions are big problems on piston engines. They all > >say they have it figured out but they just don't last. On a turbine > >engine, gear reductions are not bad because there are no power pulses > >to beat the gear reduction apart. If Innodyn gets it done soon, maybe > >that would be interesting. The fuel consumption is high on a turbine > >but they also have a lot of advantages. Maybe I will have an engine > >done in time for your plane...... > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com] > >Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:49 AM > >To: Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com > >Subject: RE: This is umm?? > > > >Eric, they claim a 5000 hr O.H. time. NO indication as to how much $ > >to rebuild. Dought I would have to if it doesn't fall apart..."IF" > > > >According to Charlie Sullivan at Innodyn the test pilot was able to do > >something to jimmy the system and prevent the computer from doing its > >normal task. Then the problem occured. > > > >Here is what I intend to do with my plane. After flying off the hours > >at the local airport the power plane will be used for trips only. > >Mammoth several times a year. SW Colorado a lot and Idaho once a year. > >I will probably fly the sailplane more for the spiritual side of flying > >and leave the power plane as a tool. > > > >I may base the glider in Bishop in the summers and fly to it instead of > >doing cross country flights as the driving costs and time are getting > >prohibitive. > > > > > > >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> > > >To: "'John Gonzalez'" > > >Subject: This is umm?? > > >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:42:41 -0800 > > > > > > > > > > > >"we confirmed the need for fully integrated flight systems and the > > >importance of specialized pilot training on operating our turbine. " > > > > > > > > >I pulled this from their web site. This is exactly what I am talking > >about. > > >I think the aviation world is high on crazy pills!!!!!!!! Why do I > > >need to be trained for something that should just work!!!! PUSH THE > > >KNOB FORWARD AND IT MAKES MORE POWER, PULL THE KNOB BACK AND IT MAKES > > >LESS!!!!! That's all you will need to know for my engine. No Shock > > >cooling or overheating, no carb ice, just power when and where you > > >need it. I would rather fly the plane than worry about what the > > >engine is doing. Imagine if you had to drive a car like you fly a >plane,,haha,,. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Wolf Aerospace Corp. > > >1152 Acacia Ct. > > >Ontario Ca. 91761 > > >(909)947-2121 > > >FAX (909)947-5299 > > >The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally > > >privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this > > >e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended > > >recipient, any disclosure, copying distribution or any action taken > > >or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be > > >unlawful > > > > > >-- > > >3/22/2006 > > > > > > > > ><< wolfx.jpg >> > > > > > > > >-- > >3/22/2006 > > > > > >-- > >3/22/2006 > > > > > > >-- > > >-- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: My wings arrived :-)
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Nav Antenna's from Archer Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Wellenzohn Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 5:05 AM Subject: RV10-List: My wings arrived :-) I am so happy, yesterday my QB Wings arrived. I am now doing the inventory and need to start building the wing stand. Having it shipped to Switzerland cost me a fortune but I have no alternative. Can you please advise if anything is missing or you know of better alternatives in my "need to buy" list for the wings: - Pitot tube (Gretz-1000) - LED Nav Lights & Strobe (Jeff) - Landing lights (Vans HID) - Servos for A/P Many Thanks Michael http:/www.wellenzohn.net -------- RV-10 builder (tailcone) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79510#79510 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Following in Tim's tradition
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
I have finalized my color's for painting, so it is time to order my custom painted desktop model. As many of you know, Tim bought the hand carved and painted to match the factory colors RV10 model at Oshkosh several years ago. When he got to the painting stage, he sold the original one on the list to another builder. My wife got it for me for fathers day, and I have had it on my desk at work, it still looks brand new. And for those wondering, no it has not had the Eggenfellner mod installed, so it still has the two bladed Hartzel prop out front, but my new one will have the 4 bladed prop. "GRIN" It is now time to pass the proverbial torch to the next builder, if anyone is interested, I will sell it for a good discount. Let me know, and lets keep this one alive and passing it on to future builders. It makes a great conversation piece to show to those that call you crazy and that you are actually building a plane, not just an RC model. Dan > Dan Lloyd Director of Information Technology > Werner Company > 93 Werner Road > Greenville, PA 16125 > > lloyddr(at)wernerco.com > 1-724-588-2000 *2408 work > 1-724-988-9230 cell > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: FW: RE: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken
legs.
Date: Dec 06, 2006
This is Ontario just east of Los Angeles. Not Canada. JOhn >From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: RV10-List: FW: RE: This is umm?? This dead horse has three >broken legs. >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:43:36 -0700 > > >I know nothing about this new engine entry but did notice that it is based >in Canada. Having lived outside the USA for many years, one learns that >there are many different laws affecting business transactions. The >difficulty and cost of enforcing a business transaction where they have >your money and your new engine can be daunting. Ask some of the RV builders >who have dealt with Crossflow or Mistral. >----- Original Message ----- From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com> >To: >Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:59 PM >Subject: RV10-List: FW: RE: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken >legs. > > >Dj, > >For those wanting more information, I feel I should share this with you. > >Again, Eric Wolf runs Wolf Aerospace and is supposed to be currently >working >on a water cooled/direct drive Lyco replacement. > >I need to touch basis with him and see whats up. I know, we have all heard >the same story before. > >Read below about the problem with reduction drives on internal combustion >engines. > >I imagine some of these gear wear spots could be minimized by using worm >drive gearing as it spreads the force out over a greater surface area. >Below >explains the problem well. > >Even with this said Eggs are still not out of my thought process. Just more >food for thought. > > >>From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> >>To: "'John Gonzalez'" >>Subject: RE: This is umm?? >>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:30:51 -0800 >> >>Hi John. The reason gear reductions are a problem in planes is that you >>fly >>full throttle most of the time. Cars have a torque converter or a clutch >>which absorbs the oscillations of the power pulses. The gears of a >>airplane >>gear reduction are constantly beating each other up all the time. The >>propeller is fighting the air and is wanting to slow down and the engine >>produces a power pulse every 90 degrees of revolution(8 cylinder)(180 for >>a >>4 cylinder). At the point of power the gears are smashed together, as soon >>as the power pulse is over the gears slam each other the other way because >>of the prop trying to stop due to wind resistance. Its quite nasty and can >>set up a harmonic at certain rpm's that can destroy the reduction drive. >>You >>know when you are drilling teeth and you get that sweet spot rpm and >>everything works well. But then you slow down while cutting and it gets >>rough. Same thing kind of. Its not optimum at all but Subaru does not make >>an engine big enough to fly a plane. They are getting HP by revving up the >>engine then reducing rpm with a gear drive.. The old Conti and Lyc engines >>are tough but outdated. I am improving what already works the best. >>Bombardier aerospace has an engine that revs to 6000 rpm and was available >>in turbo and non turbo It had a gear drive and a small displacement. They >>said it would be the engine of choice. I Have heard nothing for a while. I >>presume it's a dead issue. There is no place for a wimpy engine in an >>airplane. Everybody gets confused with driving cars as much as we do. An >>aircraft engine is the only thing keeping you from crashing,,,,,Why skimp >>on >>power or strength or design. I am glad everybody is trying to make these >>ridicules engines. Every day you hear of some crazy new design that uses >>some new method of engine or some other band aid. Airplanes need big beefy >>no excuses power. I would gladly drive a prius. But I want power in my >>plane >>or on a passenger jet. I do intend to make a version of my engine with >>catalytic converters. The amount of oil, raw fuel and lead spewing out of >>our planes today is unacceptable. I am very excited about the future of my >>engines. They will be so much cleaner than what we have today. As far as >>the >>twin turbos on a Subaru. It's a good engine but do you really want to have >>your kids in an airplane with an overstressed engine that is not made for >>aircraft?? Or how about being an unpaid test pilot? >> >>In your RV10, how much can the engine weigh and how much power is >>recommended? Do they have a maximum power recommended? >> >> >>Eric. >>-----Original Message----- >>From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com] >>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 9:00 AM >>To: Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com >>Subject: RE: This is umm?? >> >>Isn't a car's transmission considerred a gear reduction. Why is it a >>bigger >>problem in an airplane. One would think that because the propeller >>supplies >>a constant load, unlike a car wheels, that it would be easier on the >>gears. >> >>What do you think about the idea of the twin turbos on the Eggenfellner's. >> >>John >> >> >> >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> >> >To: "'John Gonzalez'" >> >Subject: RE: This is umm?? >> >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:37:43 -0800 >> > >> >I think turbine engines get efficient at 30000 feet. You will never go >> >above 12500 without oxygen. I have flown all over the place. I flew all >> >the way to Tennessee once. I fly to Vegas, Mammoth, Utah, Arizona, san >> >Francisco. I did all this under 12500 except for the Tennessee flight. >> >I did that at 13500 with oxygen. I saw in their web site the rebuild >> >cost would be one third the cost of the engine. I think if you need >> >260hp, your best bet would be a Lycoming or continental right now. I >> >hate to say that but it is the only big engine without a gear >> >reduction. Gear reductions are big problems on piston engines. They all >> >say they have it figured out but they just don't last. On a turbine >> >engine, gear reductions are not bad because there are no power pulses >> >to beat the gear reduction apart. If Innodyn gets it done soon, maybe >> >that would be interesting. The fuel consumption is high on a turbine >> >but they also have a lot of advantages. Maybe I will have an engine >> >done in time for your plane...... >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com] >> >Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:49 AM >> >To: Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com >> >Subject: RE: This is umm?? >> > >> >Eric, they claim a 5000 hr O.H. time. NO indication as to how much $ >> >to rebuild. Dought I would have to if it doesn't fall apart..."IF" >> > >> >According to Charlie Sullivan at Innodyn the test pilot was able to do >> >something to jimmy the system and prevent the computer from doing its >> >normal task. Then the problem occured. >> > >> >Here is what I intend to do with my plane. After flying off the hours >> >at the local airport the power plane will be used for trips only. >> >Mammoth several times a year. SW Colorado a lot and Idaho once a year. >> >I will probably fly the sailplane more for the spiritual side of flying >> >and leave the power plane as a tool. >> > >> >I may base the glider in Bishop in the summers and fly to it instead of >> >doing cross country flights as the driving costs and time are getting >> >prohibitive. >> > >> > >> > >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric(at)wolfaerospace.com> >> > >To: "'John Gonzalez'" >> > >Subject: This is umm?? >> > >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:42:41 -0800 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >"we confirmed the need for fully integrated flight systems and the >> > >importance of specialized pilot training on operating our turbine. " >> > > >> > > >> > >I pulled this from their web site. This is exactly what I am talking >> >about. >> > >I think the aviation world is high on crazy pills!!!!!!!! Why do I >> > >need to be trained for something that should just work!!!! PUSH THE >> > >KNOB FORWARD AND IT MAKES MORE POWER, PULL THE KNOB BACK AND IT MAKES >> > >LESS!!!!! That's all you will need to know for my engine. No Shock >> > >cooling or overheating, no carb ice, just power when and where you >> > >need it. I would rather fly the plane than worry about what the >> > >engine is doing. Imagine if you had to drive a car like you fly a >>plane,,haha,,. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >Wolf Aerospace Corp. >> > >1152 Acacia Ct. >> > >Ontario Ca. 91761 >> > >(909)947-2121 >> > >FAX (909)947-5299 >> > >The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally >> > >privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this >> > >e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended >> > >recipient, any disclosure, copying distribution or any action taken >> > >or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be >> > >unlawful >> > > >> > >-- >> > >3/22/2006 >> > > >> > > >> > ><< wolfx.jpg >> >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >3/22/2006 >> > >> > >> >-- >> >3/22/2006 >> > >> > >> >> >> >>-- >> >> >>-- >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Following in Tim's tradition
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Where do we get an original, I want to see my paint scheme on 3D. JOhn G. >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:03:38 -0500 > >I have finalized my color's for painting, so it is time to order my custom >painted desktop model. As many of you know, Tim bought the hand carved and >painted to match the factory colors RV10 model at Oshkosh several years >ago. When he got to the painting stage, he sold the original one on the >list to another builder. My wife got it for me for fathers day, and I have >had it on my desk at work, it still looks brand new. And for those >wondering, no it has not had the Eggenfellner mod installed, so it still >has the two bladed Hartzel prop out front, but my new one will have the 4 >bladed prop. "GRIN" >It is now time to pass the proverbial torch to the next builder, if anyone >is interested, I will sell it for a good discount. >Let me know, and lets keep this one alive and passing it on to future >builders. It makes a great conversation piece to show to those that call >you crazy and that you are actually building a plane, not just an RC model. >Dan > > > Dan Lloyd >Director of Information Technology > > Werner Company > > 93 Werner Road > > Greenville, PA 16125 > > > > lloyddr(at)wernerco.com > > 1-724-588-2000 *2408 work > > 1-724-988-9230 cell > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Following in Tim's tradition
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
How much are you asking for it? Jack Phillips 40610 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R=2E Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:04 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition I have finalized my color's for painting, so it is time to order my custom painted desktop model. As many of you know, Tim bought the hand carved and painted to match the factory colors RV10 model at Oshkosh several years ago. When he got to the painting stage, he sold the original one on the list to another builder. My wife got it for me for fathers day, and I have had it on my desk at work, it still looks brand new. And for those wondering, no it has not had the Eggenfellner mod installed, so it still has the two bladed Hartzel prop out front, but my new one will have the 4 bladed prop. "GRIN" It is now time to pass the proverbial torch to the next builder, if anyone is interested, I will sell it for a good discount. Let me know, and lets keep this one alive and passing it on to future builders. It makes a great conversation piece to show to those that call you crazy and that you are actually building a plane, not just an RC model. Dan Dan Lloyd Director of Information Technology Werner Company 93 Werner Road Greenville, PA 16125 lloyddr(at)wernerco.com 1-724-588-2000 *2408 work 1-724-988-9230 cell _________________________________________________ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Following in Tim's tradition
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Well,,, the way I got the name and address was to buy the model from Tim.....But if you ask real nice I might be inclined to post it for everyone going this route. They are $189, and take 90 days or so to get painted. Dan Just trying to lighten the humor on the list after the war -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition Where do we get an original, I want to see my paint scheme on 3D. JOhn G. >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:03:38 -0500 > >I have finalized my color's for painting, so it is time to order my custom >painted desktop model. As many of you know, Tim bought the hand carved and >painted to match the factory colors RV10 model at Oshkosh several years >ago. When he got to the painting stage, he sold the original one on the >list to another builder. My wife got it for me for fathers day, and I have >had it on my desk at work, it still looks brand new. And for those >wondering, no it has not had the Eggenfellner mod installed, so it still >has the two bladed Hartzel prop out front, but my new one will have the 4 >bladed prop. "GRIN" >It is now time to pass the proverbial torch to the next builder, if anyone >is interested, I will sell it for a good discount. >Let me know, and lets keep this one alive and passing it on to future >builders. It makes a great conversation piece to show to those that call >you crazy and that you are actually building a plane, not just an RC model. >Dan > > > Dan Lloyd >Director of Information Technology > > Werner Company > > 93 Werner Road > > Greenville, PA 16125 > > > > lloyddr(at)wernerco.com > > 1-724-588-2000 *2408 work > > 1-724-988-9230 cell > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: Lycoming reliability
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Those Lycs in your shop having top end work, for whatever reason, are there because they continued to run, while providing symptoms to their problems. Those engines would otherwise be in some smoking hole somewhere, if there had been an immediate failure, and power loss. THAT is what reliability is in an aircraft engine, and that is what a Lyc with at least one magneto provides. Water cooling, high compression, high RPMs, gear reduction units, electronic ignition, FADEC systems, all erode away that basic reliability. My passengers will be provided with the best odds that we'll get safely on the ground, regardless how much money it costs. If you want to save a buck, or prove something to yourself, do it in something other than a 4 seat cross country machine. And wear a parachute. That's my 2 cents, now lets move on! Chris Hukill multiple Lyc engine owner A&P ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Following in Tim's tradition
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Whats another $189.00 dollars, pretty please, please, please, please, can I have the address. I want to give myself another nice Christmas gift. John G. I called you this am, you were gone. I'll call you on my way home today. >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:58:24 -0500 > > >Well,,, the way I got the name and address was to buy the model from >Tim.....But if you ask real nice I might be inclined to post it for >everyone going this route. They are $189, and take 90 days or so to get >painted. >Dan >Just trying to lighten the humor on the list after the war > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez >Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:24 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition > > > >Where do we get an original, I want to see my paint scheme on 3D. > >JOhn G. > > > >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> > >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > >To: > >Subject: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition > >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:03:38 -0500 > > > >I have finalized my color's for painting, so it is time to order my >custom > >painted desktop model. As many of you know, Tim bought the hand carved >and > >painted to match the factory colors RV10 model at Oshkosh several years > > >ago. When he got to the painting stage, he sold the original one on the > > >list to another builder. My wife got it for me for fathers day, and I >have > >had it on my desk at work, it still looks brand new. And for those > >wondering, no it has not had the Eggenfellner mod installed, so it >still > >has the two bladed Hartzel prop out front, but my new one will have the >4 > >bladed prop. "GRIN" > >It is now time to pass the proverbial torch to the next builder, if >anyone > >is interested, I will sell it for a good discount. > >Let me know, and lets keep this one alive and passing it on to future > >builders. It makes a great conversation piece to show to those that >call > >you crazy and that you are actually building a plane, not just an RC >model. > >Dan > > > > > Dan Lloyd > >Director of Information Technology > > > Werner Company > > > 93 Werner Road > > > Greenville, PA 16125 > > > > > > lloyddr(at)wernerco.com > > > 1-724-588-2000 *2408 work > > > 1-724-988-9230 cell > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Following in Tim's tradition
Hmmm I am interested as well. Cheers Les Kearney RV10 # 40643 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillips, Jack Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:31 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition How much are you asking for it? Jack Phillips 40610 -----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: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:04 AM Subject: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition I have finalized my color's for painting, so it is time to order my custom painted desktop model. As many of you know, Tim bought the hand carved and painted to match the factory colors RV10 model at Oshkosh several years ago. When he got to the painting stage, he sold the original one on the list to another builder. My wife got it for me for fathers day, and I have had it on my desk at work, it still looks brand new. And for those wondering, no it has not had the Eggenfellner mod installed, so it still has the two bladed Hartzel prop out front, but my new one will have the 4 bladed prop. "GRIN" It is now time to pass the proverbial torch to the next builder, if anyone is interested, I will sell it for a good discount. Let me know, and lets keep this one alive and passing it on to future builders. It makes a great conversation piece to show to those that call you crazy and that you are actually building a plane, not just an RC model. Dan Dan Lloyd Director of Information Technology Werner Company 93 Werner Road Greenville, PA 16125 lloyddr(at)wernerco.com 1-724-588-2000 *2408 work 1-724-988-9230 cell ectric.com ">www.buildersbooks.com og.com builthelp.com .matronics.com/contribution p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List _________________________________________________ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: Following in Tim's tradition
Date: Dec 06, 2006
I have also had a guy in Ecuador make some of them. I can post pictures if you want them. With shipping, it should be about $150 painted. All he needs is pictures of details and the 3 views to do it. It should take about a month or maybe a little more for delivery. You can contact me off the list for the info if you want. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org W: 352-465-4545 C: 352-427-0285 -----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: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:58 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition Well,,, the way I got the name and address was to buy the model from Tim.....But if you ask real nice I might be inclined to post it for everyone going this route. They are $189, and take 90 days or so to get painted. Dan Just trying to lighten the humor on the list after the war -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:24 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition Where do we get an original, I want to see my paint scheme on 3D. JOhn G. >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:03:38 -0500 > >I have finalized my color's for painting, so it is time to order my custom >painted desktop model. As many of you know, Tim bought the hand carved and >painted to match the factory colors RV10 model at Oshkosh several years >ago. When he got to the painting stage, he sold the original one on the >list to another builder. My wife got it for me for fathers day, and I have >had it on my desk at work, it still looks brand new. And for those >wondering, no it has not had the Eggenfellner mod installed, so it still >has the two bladed Hartzel prop out front, but my new one will have the 4 >bladed prop. "GRIN" >It is now time to pass the proverbial torch to the next builder, if anyone >is interested, I will sell it for a good discount. >Let me know, and lets keep this one alive and passing it on to future >builders. It makes a great conversation piece to show to those that call >you crazy and that you are actually building a plane, not just an RC model. >Dan > > > Dan Lloyd >Director of Information Technology > > Werner Company > > 93 Werner Road > > Greenville, PA 16125 > > > > lloyddr(at)wernerco.com > > 1-724-588-2000 *2408 work > > 1-724-988-9230 cell > > > > > > -- 4:07 PM -- 4:07 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Following in Tim's tradition
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Here it is for all of those enquiring minds: Griffin Aerospace Models 4200 N. Main Street, Suite 280 Fort Worth Texas 76106 Phone 866-584-0260 Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:43 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition Whats another $189.00 dollars, pretty please, please, please, please, can I have the address. I want to give myself another nice Christmas gift. John G. I called you this am, you were gone. I'll call you on my way home today. >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:58:24 -0500 > > >Well,,, the way I got the name and address was to buy the model from >Tim.....But if you ask real nice I might be inclined to post it for >everyone going this route. They are $189, and take 90 days or so to get >painted. >Dan >Just trying to lighten the humor on the list after the war > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez >Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:24 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition > > > >Where do we get an original, I want to see my paint scheme on 3D. > >JOhn G. > > > >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> > >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > >To: > >Subject: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition > >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:03:38 -0500 > > > >I have finalized my color's for painting, so it is time to order my >custom > >painted desktop model. As many of you know, Tim bought the hand carved >and > >painted to match the factory colors RV10 model at Oshkosh several years > > >ago. When he got to the painting stage, he sold the original one on the > > >list to another builder. My wife got it for me for fathers day, and I >have > >had it on my desk at work, it still looks brand new. And for those > >wondering, no it has not had the Eggenfellner mod installed, so it >still > >has the two bladed Hartzel prop out front, but my new one will have the >4 > >bladed prop. "GRIN" > >It is now time to pass the proverbial torch to the next builder, if >anyone > >is interested, I will sell it for a good discount. > >Let me know, and lets keep this one alive and passing it on to future > >builders. It makes a great conversation piece to show to those that >call > >you crazy and that you are actually building a plane, not just an RC >model. > >Dan > > > > > Dan Lloyd > >Director of Information Technology > > > Werner Company > > > 93 Werner Road > > > Greenville, PA 16125 > > > > > > lloyddr(at)wernerco.com > > > 1-724-588-2000 *2408 work > > > 1-724-988-9230 cell > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Lycoming reliability
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Wear a parachutte and more importantly get a glider rating and do atleast a few cross country flights in gliders to understand how a single engine power plane should be flown. A glider rating alone means nothing until you do it cross country. IMO JOhn G. >From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV10-List: Lycoming reliability >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 09:41:14 -0800 > >Those Lycs in your shop having top end work, for whatever reason, are there >because they continued to run, while providing symptoms to their problems. >Those engines would otherwise be in some smoking hole somewhere, if there >had been an immediate failure, and power loss. THAT is what reliability is >in an aircraft engine, and that is what a Lyc with at least one magneto >provides. Water cooling, high compression, high RPMs, gear reduction >units, electronic ignition, FADEC systems, all erode away that basic >reliability. My passengers will be provided with the best odds that we'll >get safely on the ground, regardless how much money it costs. >If you want to save a buck, or prove something to yourself, do it in >something other than a 4 seat cross country machine. And wear a parachute. >That's my 2 cents, now lets move on! > >Chris Hukill >multiple Lyc engine owner >A&P ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Following in Tim's tradition
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Jesse, What are those ones made from? JOhn G. >From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 13:18:17 -0500 > > >I have also had a guy in Ecuador make some of them. I can post pictures if >you want them. With shipping, it should be about $150 painted. All he >needs is pictures of details and the 3 views to do it. It should take >about >a month or maybe a little more for delivery. > >You can contact me off the list for the info if you want. > >Jesse Saint >I-TEC, Inc. >jesse(at)itecusa.org >www.itecusa.org >W: 352-465-4545 >C: 352-427-0285 > >-----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: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:58 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition > > >Well,,, the way I got the name and address was to buy the model from >Tim.....But if you ask real nice I might be inclined to post it for >everyone going this route. They are $189, and take 90 days or so to get >painted. >Dan >Just trying to lighten the humor on the list after the war > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez >Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:24 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition > > > >Where do we get an original, I want to see my paint scheme on 3D. > >JOhn G. > > > >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> > >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > >To: > >Subject: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition > >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:03:38 -0500 > > > >I have finalized my color's for painting, so it is time to order my >custom > >painted desktop model. As many of you know, Tim bought the hand carved >and > >painted to match the factory colors RV10 model at Oshkosh several years > > >ago. When he got to the painting stage, he sold the original one on the > > >list to another builder. My wife got it for me for fathers day, and I >have > >had it on my desk at work, it still looks brand new. And for those > >wondering, no it has not had the Eggenfellner mod installed, so it >still > >has the two bladed Hartzel prop out front, but my new one will have the >4 > >bladed prop. "GRIN" > >It is now time to pass the proverbial torch to the next builder, if >anyone > >is interested, I will sell it for a good discount. > >Let me know, and lets keep this one alive and passing it on to future > >builders. It makes a great conversation piece to show to those that >call > >you crazy and that you are actually building a plane, not just an RC >model. > >Dan > > > > > Dan Lloyd > >Director of Information Technology > > > Werner Company > > > 93 Werner Road > > > Greenville, PA 16125 > > > > > > lloyddr(at)wernerco.com > > > 1-724-588-2000 *2408 work > > > 1-724-988-9230 cell > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >4:07 PM > > >-- >4:07 PM > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: The difference in Teflon wire?
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Tim, I noticed form your web site that you recommend Wire Masters. Do you know the difference between the two types of Teflon wire: Teflon 22759-PTFE (Polytetrafloroethylene) Teflon 16878 -PTFE The numbers mean nothing to me. Thanks, John G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Hi Res Pics?
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Jim, Try the company web sites. I got my Garmin pics from their site and printed them to actual size. The photo quality was good enough to use as an economical panel planner. Also got the ACS 3400/3500 pics from their site. John Habrouck #40264 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Yokes
Date: Dec 06, 2006
As many of you are painfully aware of my many questions, I'm getting ready to take the plunge into the RV10 world. I've asked several RV10 builders that are local to me their opinions about what yokes do I need to get for my squeezer. Both replies I got was to use a 4" and a longeron. One indicated that while he had a 3", he didn't use it. Today, I got the following response from Avery: "Hi Bob, You need the 7730 three inch yoke. It is the one you will use the most. Change the 7555 into the 7530. That gives you one pneumatic with the three inch yoke. Re-add the 7755 longeron yoke. That gives you three yokes, the 7730 (part of the 7530), the 7755 longeron and the 7760 four inch no-hole. You could try to do without the 3" yoke, but I don't recommend it. I would leave the longeron off, before the 3 inch." Since I have no experience to base a decision, I would like to solicit opinions from a larger group of builders. I am on a somewhat constrained budget, which means I'm already spending more than my spouse is aware of at the moment. However, if it will make a significant difference in the ease of construction, I'm not opposed to getting the right tools. So, what yokes do I need to purchase? And yes, they will be attached to a pnuematic squeezer. thanks, bob N410BL - RV10 N3493R - PA28-180 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: The difference in Teflon wire?
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Teflon can be difficult to work with. Harder to strip primarily. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:30 PM Subject: RV10-List: The difference in Teflon wire? --> Tim, I noticed form your web site that you recommend Wire Masters. Do you know the difference between the two types of Teflon wire: Teflon 22759-PTFE (Polytetrafloroethylene) Teflon 16878 -PTFE The numbers mean nothing to me. Thanks, John G. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Yokes
I have a 4" no hole, a 3" standard and a 2-1/2" longeron. All were used on the entire build, My favorite is the longeron because it wraps around areas the standard can't. The no hole fits where others can't the standard for a reasonbly longer reach. Don't forget the adjustable set, makes setting it up very fast unless your William "washer/shim man" Curtis who swears by his washer and shim method ;) I ground the nose of my 3" down slightly to allow it to operate close to rib flanges without scratching or scraping the rib in close quarters. They can also be used a bucking bars in certain areas as well. Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Aileron Counterbalance
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Part A 1009, page 21-2 appears on the packing list (I believe) as 2 pieces of ST304-065 X 1.375 X 34.62. I don't seem to have those. I do have a single piece of AT6-035 X 1.5 X 83... thinner wall, larger diameter... is this what I should cut up and use for the counterbalance? Jeff Carpenter 40304 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michael Schipper <mike(at)learningplanet.com>
Subject: Re: Yokes
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Hi Bob, I'm sure you'll get many opinions on this. Here is mine: I have all three types, but if I had to forego one of them it would be the 3". I have actually loaned out my 3" yoke and have not really missed it that much. Most of the time I leave the longeron yoke in my squeezer and only occasionally do I reach for the no-hole yoke. Also, you should know that the 4" yoke will tend to deflect when squeezing larger rivets while the 3" didn't seem to give quite as much. Regards, Mike Schipper #40576 - Wings - www.rvten.com RV-9A - N63MS - flying On Dec 6, 2006, at 3:03 PM, wrote: > As many of you are painfully aware of my many questions, I'm > getting ready to take the plunge into the RV10 world. > > I've asked several RV10 builders that are local to me their > opinions about what yokes do I need to get for my squeezer. Both > replies I got was to use a 4" and a longeron. One indicated that > while he had a 3", he didn't use it. > > Today, I got the following response from Avery: > > "Hi Bob, You need the 7730 three inch yoke. It is the one you will > use the most. Change the 7555 into the 7530. That gives you one > pneumatic with the three inch yoke. Re-add the 7755 longeron yoke. > That gives you three yokes, the 7730 (part of the 7530), the 7755 > longeron and the 7760 four inch no-hole. You could try to do > without the 3" yoke, but I don't recommend it. I would leave the > longeron off, before the 3 inch." > > Since I have no experience to base a decision, I would like to > solicit opinions from a larger group of builders. > > I am on a somewhat constrained budget, which means I'm already > spending more than my spouse is aware of at the moment. However, > if it will make a significant difference in the ease of > construction, I'm not opposed to getting the right tools. > > So, what yokes do I need to purchase? > > And yes, they will be attached to a pnuematic squeezer. > > thanks, > > bob > N410BL - RV10 > N3493R - PA28-180 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Yokes
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: "Stovall Todd Lt Col AF/A4RX" <Todd.Stovall(at)pentagon.af.mil>
I've got a 3" and a longeron. A 4" no-hole (and the adjustable set sized to go with it) would be nice but not a necessity (at least to this point in the build HS Stab). Those that are further along/finished may have more insight into the pros/cons of the 4". I've used the 3" the most, but I know the longeron yoke will have it's day. Todd Dimpling the HS Stab -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvmail(at)thelefflers.com Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:04 PM Subject: RV10-List: Yokes As many of you are painfully aware of my many questions, I'm getting ready to take the plunge into the RV10 world. I've asked several RV10 builders that are local to me their opinions about what yokes do I need to get for my squeezer. Both replies I got was to use a 4" and a longeron. One indicated that while he had a 3", he didn't use it. Today, I got the following response from Avery: "Hi Bob, You need the 7730 three inch yoke. It is the one you will use the most. Change the 7555 into the 7530. That gives you one pneumatic with the three inch yoke. Re-add the 7755 longeron yoke. That gives you three yokes, the 7730 (part of the 7530), the 7755 longeron and the 7760 four inch no-hole. You could try to do without the 3" yoke, but I don't recommend it. I would leave the longeron off, before the 3 inch." Since I have no experience to base a decision, I would like to solicit opinions from a larger group of builders. I am on a somewhat constrained budget, which means I'm already spending more than my spouse is aware of at the moment. However, if it will make a significant difference in the ease of construction, I'm not opposed to getting the right tools. So, what yokes do I need to purchase? And yes, they will be attached to a pnuematic squeezer. thanks, bob N410BL - RV10 N3493R - PA28-180 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: The difference in Teflon wire?
Date: Dec 06, 2006
A little slippery is it. Okay, so which tefzel wire is needed or what is the difference in these. Tefzel-ETFE (Ethylene Tetrafluoroethylene) Cross-Linked Tefzel-XL-ETFE Thanks, John G. >From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: The difference in Teflon wire? >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:09:48 -0600 > > > >Teflon can be difficult to work with. Harder to strip primarily. > >Michael > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez >Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:30 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: The difference in Teflon wire? > >--> > >Tim, > >I noticed form your web site that you recommend Wire Masters. > >Do you know the difference between the two types of Teflon wire: > >Teflon 22759-PTFE >(Polytetrafloroethylene) >Teflon 16878 -PTFE > >The numbers mean nothing to me. > >Thanks, > >John G. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Aileron Counterbalance
Jeff, that may be a pushrod you have there I believe, the counter balances are steel pipe (ST on the part number) and heavy, can't miss em. At least on my kit inventory. Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: Yokes
Date: Dec 06, 2006
If going with one yoke, I would probably recommend either the 3" or the Longeron. If going with two, I would get both the 3" and the Longeron. If adding another, I would go with a no-hole, whether 3" or 4" (probably 4"). Next I would get a 2", probably, for tight places. The 3" is what we use the most, but the longeron sure is nice in some places. You can kind-of simulate a Longeron with the right deep die, but that gets a little harder to get it in place. The 4" is quite heavy, by the way. The no-hole is great for the other type of tight areas. Hope this helps. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org W: 352-465-4545 C: 352-427-0285 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvmail(at)thelefflers.com Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:04 PM Subject: RV10-List: Yokes As many of you are painfully aware of my many questions, I'm getting ready to take the plunge into the RV10 world. I've asked several RV10 builders that are local to me their opinions about what yokes do I need to get for my squeezer. Both replies I got was to use a 4" and a longeron. One indicated that while he had a 3", he didn't use it. Today, I got the following response from Avery: "Hi Bob, You need the 7730 three inch yoke. It is the one you will use the most. Change the 7555 into the 7530. That gives you one pneumatic with the three inch yoke. Re-add the 7755 longeron yoke. That gives you three yokes, the 7730 (part of the 7530), the 7755 longeron and the 7760 four inch no-hole. You could try to do without the 3" yoke, but I don't recommend it. I would leave the longeron off, before the 3 inch." Since I have no experience to base a decision, I would like to solicit opinions from a larger group of builders. I am on a somewhat constrained budget, which means I'm already spending more than my spouse is aware of at the moment. However, if it will make a significant difference in the ease of construction, I'm not opposed to getting the right tools. So, what yokes do I need to purchase? And yes, they will be attached to a pnuematic squeezer. thanks, bob N410BL - RV10 N3493R - PA28-180 -- 4:07 PM -- 4:07 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: The difference in Teflon wire?
To help strip teflon (or any other slippery insulation) once the insulation is cut, use a large alligator boot to grip the insulation so you can pull it off. Or get one of the nifty automatic strippers that'll cut an pul;l off the insulation all in one lick. Linn RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote: > >Teflon can be difficult to work with. Harder to strip primarily. > >Michael > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez >Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:30 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: The difference in Teflon wire? > >--> > >Tim, > >I noticed form your web site that you recommend Wire Masters. > >Do you know the difference between the two types of Teflon wire: > >Teflon 22759-PTFE >(Polytetrafloroethylene) >Teflon 16878 -PTFE > >The numbers mean nothing to me. > >Thanks, > >John G. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Yokes
My yoke priority... 1. Longeron 2. 3 inch 3. 4" no-hole Longeron stays in the squeezer most often. Definitely recommend the adjustable set <http://cleavelandtoolstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=SNSHA45> The adjustable set holder is by far the most time-saving piece on the squeezer. -Sean #40303 Jesse Saint wrote: > > If going with one yoke, I would probably recommend either the 3" or the > Longeron. If going with two, I would get both the 3" and the Longeron. If > adding another, I would go with a no-hole, whether 3" or 4" (probably 4"). > Next I would get a 2", probably, for tight places. The 3" is what we use > the most, but the longeron sure is nice in some places. You can kind-of > simulate a Longeron with the right deep die, but that gets a little harder > to get it in place. The 4" is quite heavy, by the way. The no-hole is > great for the other type of tight areas. > > Hope this helps. > > Jesse Saint > I-TEC, Inc. > jesse(at)itecusa.org > www.itecusa.org > W: 352-465-4545 > C: 352-427-0285 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > rvmail(at)thelefflers.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:04 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Yokes > > > As many of you are painfully aware of my many questions, I'm getting ready > to take the plunge into the RV10 world. > > I've asked several RV10 builders that are local to me their opinions about > what yokes do I need to get for my squeezer. Both replies I got was to > use a 4" and a longeron. One indicated that while he had a 3", he didn't > use it. > > Today, I got the following response from Avery: > > "Hi Bob, You need the 7730 three inch yoke. It is the one you will use the > most. Change the 7555 into the 7530. That gives you one pneumatic with the > three inch yoke. Re-add the 7755 longeron yoke. That gives you three yokes, > the 7730 (part of the 7530), the 7755 longeron and the 7760 four inch > no-hole. You could try to do without the 3" yoke, but I don't recommend it. > I would leave the longeron off, before the 3 inch." > > Since I have no experience to base a decision, I would like to solicit > opinions from a larger group of builders. > > I am on a somewhat constrained budget, which means I'm already spending more > than my spouse is aware of at the moment. However, if it will make a > significant difference in the ease of construction, I'm not opposed to > getting the right tools. > > So, what yokes do I need to purchase? > > And yes, they will be attached to a pnuematic squeezer. > > thanks, > > bob > N410BL - RV10 > N3493R - PA28-180 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: "Pascal" <rv10builder(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Yokes
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Lauritsen - Work" <mike(at)cleavelandtool.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:46 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: C Type Pneumatic Rivet Squeezer > > > Cleaveland (that's me) sells them at the following link. > > https://www.cleavelandtoolstore.com/products.asp?dept=52 > > In the order of most used yokes there is the 3", 2.5" Flange (longeron), > and > 4" thin nose. People like the 4" thin because you can reach in a little > further with it and still have the thin nose for other tight areas. > > Our adjustable set holder will work with all of the yokes where others > only > work with the 1" thick base yokes. Ours also has a 32 pitch thread in the > ram so if you switch from a -3.5 to a -4 rivet it is just a half turn. No > measuring needed. > > We will match the competitions price as long as it is the exact same item > & > quality. > > > Mike Lauritsen > Cleaveland Aircraft Tool > 2225 First St. > Boone, Iowa 50036 > 515-432-6794 > mike(at)cleavelandtool.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:04 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: C Type Pneumatic Rivet Squeezer > > > You betcha!! > > It's worth every penny. I have a 4" no-hole, a 3" regular C and a 2.5" > Longeron. If I did it again I would have gone with a 3" no-hole instead of > the 4. The reason being is you can use the adjustable rivet set with the > three but not the 4. Oh yeah, get the adjustable ram/rivet set too. Worth > it's weight in shims. Can't say enough about the value of this tool. I > used > it to complete all my aluminum work on the RV-10. I don't have a hand > squeezer in my collection of tools. Buyer beware off E-bay only because of > the few stories I have heard about getting bad ones, but they did manage > to > get the bad ones rebuilt for some savings over a new one if your into > taking > that risk. > > I picked mine up at http://www.rivettools.com along with their 20 > piece "RV" rivet sets. These are the BEST made sets I ever used and it has > all the screw dimple dies you will need as well. My dimple dies are still > intact (heard of nubs breaking off some) and I found they make cleaner > dimples than many of the cheaper versions if you can call $28-30 cheap! > The > set is $150. > > No affiliation with them just great service and the tool is still going > strong. > > Rick S. > 40185 > > -----Original Message----- >>From: Link McGarity <callsign(at)bellsouth.net> >>Sent: Sep 13, 2006 3:08 AM >>To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: RV10-List: C Type Pneumatic Rivet Squeezer >> >> >>Anybody using one of these? Best size, type of yokes? Tool vendor source? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Link McGarity >>RV6/N42GF >>RV10/N41GF(rsvd)/#40622 >>Wellington, FL (FD38) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Yokes
Bob If you are budget constrained, I suggest you call the Yard Store (http://www.yardstore.com/) at 1-800-888-8991 and see if they have any used squeezers in stock. I purchased a used one at a substantial discount - it works just fine. Cheers Les Kearney RV10 #40643 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvmail(at)thelefflers.com Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:04 PM Subject: RV10-List: Yokes As many of you are painfully aware of my many questions, I'm getting ready to take the plunge into the RV10 world. I've asked several RV10 builders that are local to me their opinions about what yokes do I need to get for my squeezer. Both replies I got was to use a 4" and a longeron. One indicated that while he had a 3", he didn't use it. Today, I got the following response from Avery: "Hi Bob, You need the 7730 three inch yoke. It is the one you will use the most. Change the 7555 into the 7530. That gives you one pneumatic with the three inch yoke. Re-add the 7755 longeron yoke. That gives you three yokes, the 7730 (part of the 7530), the 7755 longeron and the 7760 four inch no-hole. You could try to do without the 3" yoke, but I don't recommend it. I would leave the longeron off, before the 3 inch." Since I have no experience to base a decision, I would like to solicit opinions from a larger group of builders. I am on a somewhat constrained budget, which means I'm already spending more than my spouse is aware of at the moment. However, if it will make a significant difference in the ease of construction, I'm not opposed to getting the right tools. So, what yokes do I need to purchase? And yes, they will be attached to a pnuematic squeezer. thanks, bob N410BL - RV10 N3493R - PA28-180 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <jim(at)CombsFive.Com>
Subject: Re: Hi Res Pics?
Date: Dec 06, 2006
I did, but when resized, they look pretty sad. I did get some pics. (Thanks, Mike) Jim C N312F / #40192 =========================================================== From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com> Date: 2006/12/06 Wed PM 03:51:32 EST Subject: Re: RV10-List: Hi Res Pics? Jim, Try the company web sites. I got my Garmin pics from their site and printed them to actual size. The photo quality was good enough to use as an economical panel planner. Also got the ACS 3400/3500 pics from their site. John Habrouck #40264 =========================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: The difference in Teflon wire?
Date: Dec 06, 2006
You don't want any "PTFE" wire...only "ETFE"...which is Tefzel (crosslinked). The "22759" number on it's own is almost worthlesss, because there is both teflon and tefzel in that mil spec. The important number is the "slant" or "/" numer, in this case /16...so you want to get M22759/16-xx-xx (x=the wire size, and y=color). There are a LOT of other slant number out there, but some are silver plating, different stranding, different conductors, etc.. Also, the 16878 number is also a good one depending on the slant number...you can just use that main first Mil Spec number as your guide. I'll say it again...save yourself some time and just buy it from someone who already has done the research ----hint, hint, hint! Also, just for an FYI or records, the mil spec for the shielded cable is M27500-TE(or TG)2T22-xxxxxxxx which is a bunch of other gobblteygook that tells you sizing, stranding, color, inner jacket size & type, etc... OK, enough stumping. Teflon has several less desirable properties over Tefzel. Michael Sausen eluded to the stripping, and that it's a lot more slippery. I also has poor cold flow characteristics, which means in large bundles it can and will slowly flow around things like zip ties, etc... Anyway, go with tefzel that is the correct mil spec and you'll be fine. Cheers, Stein. >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of RV Builder >(Michael Sausen) >Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:10 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: The difference in Teflon wire? > > > > >Teflon can be difficult to work with. Harder to strip primarily. > >Michael > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez >Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:30 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: The difference in Teflon wire? > >--> > >Tim, > >I noticed form your web site that you recommend Wire Masters. > >Do you know the difference between the two types of Teflon wire: > >Teflon 22759-PTFE >(Polytetrafloroethylene) >Teflon 16878 -PTFE > >The numbers mean nothing to me. > >Thanks, > >John G. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: Following in Tim's tradition
Date: Dec 06, 2006
I'm not sure. Some kind of resin according to the guy. Accessories like antennas and prop are made out of wood, metal, etc. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org W: 352-465-4545 C: 352-427-0285 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:12 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition Jesse, What are those ones made from? JOhn G. >From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 13:18:17 -0500 > > >I have also had a guy in Ecuador make some of them. I can post pictures if >you want them. With shipping, it should be about $150 painted. All he >needs is pictures of details and the 3 views to do it. It should take >about >a month or maybe a little more for delivery. > >You can contact me off the list for the info if you want. > >Jesse Saint >I-TEC, Inc. >jesse(at)itecusa.org >www.itecusa.org >W: 352-465-4545 >C: 352-427-0285 > >-----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: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:58 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition > > >Well,,, the way I got the name and address was to buy the model from >Tim.....But if you ask real nice I might be inclined to post it for >everyone going this route. They are $189, and take 90 days or so to get >painted. >Dan >Just trying to lighten the humor on the list after the war > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez >Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:24 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition > > > >Where do we get an original, I want to see my paint scheme on 3D. > >JOhn G. > > > >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> > >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > >To: > >Subject: RV10-List: Following in Tim's tradition > >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:03:38 -0500 > > > >I have finalized my color's for painting, so it is time to order my >custom > >painted desktop model. As many of you know, Tim bought the hand carved >and > >painted to match the factory colors RV10 model at Oshkosh several years > > >ago. When he got to the painting stage, he sold the original one on the > > >list to another builder. My wife got it for me for fathers day, and I >have > >had it on my desk at work, it still looks brand new. And for those > >wondering, no it has not had the Eggenfellner mod installed, so it >still > >has the two bladed Hartzel prop out front, but my new one will have the >4 > >bladed prop. "GRIN" > >It is now time to pass the proverbial torch to the next builder, if >anyone > >is interested, I will sell it for a good discount. > >Let me know, and lets keep this one alive and passing it on to future > >builders. It makes a great conversation piece to show to those that >call > >you crazy and that you are actually building a plane, not just an RC >model. > >Dan > > > > > Dan Lloyd > >Director of Information Technology > > > Werner Company > > > 93 Werner Road > > > Greenville, PA 16125 > > > > > > lloyddr(at)wernerco.com > > > 1-724-588-2000 *2408 work > > > 1-724-988-9230 cell > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >4:07 PM > > >-- >4:07 PM > > -- 4:07 PM -- 4:07 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: The difference in Teflon wire?
From: "N777TY" <microsmurfer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Why not just order from Stein and not worry about these numbers? He's got the stuff that you need/want... it'll be painless buying from him. -------- RV-7A N777TY (res) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79675#79675 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: wing tip lens repair
Date: Dec 06, 2006
I faintly remember discussions about removing Sharpie Ink from plexiglass but when I do the search I am obviously not asking the right questions; so I need help. After doing a nice job on my wing tip lenses I stupidly grabbed some acetone to clean off the ink marks--fortunately I only smudged a small area. Is there a way to get rid of the hazy smudge, and what should I have used in the first place? Thanks Jay Rowe 40301 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: Jay Wik <jwik(at)crary.com>
Subject: routing wires from rudder
I decided to put in a rudder trim and am looking at how to run the servo wires for it and the tail light/strobe into the fuselage. Where has everyone penetrated the Vertical Stab rear spar to run wires? Are there structural concerns? What size hole and I presume snap bushing? Wherever that point is, do you run the wires through the Rudder leading edge directly opposite, or is it better for the points to be staggered by several inches so to be easier on the wire? Regarding rudder trim, I modeled what I've seen so far but I think my approach was a bit different in that I mounted the servo on the starboard side of the skin, while the rod protruded from the port side. My thought was that steeper angle shortened the slot I had to cut in the skin for the rod, and possibly less exposed to the slip stream. Also, I have no other RV builders in Fergus Falls, MN (FFM) anyone should stop in anytime and tell me how I'm doing. Jay Wik #40536 Wings started. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seeking
) I understand that most flying builders have left the wheel pants & leg fairings off during their Stage 1. And some have not installed them until after flying. It appears that the alignment of these can be critical to the aircrafts top speed and overall handling. The plans call for raising the aircraft off the ground to facilitate the install. If this is the case, wouldn't it be better to install the pants & leg fairings BEFORE the engine gets hung? Would it help to ensure a better alignment? Does it make it easier / less time? From Tim' site it's obvious that they can be added later, for those of you who added them later, if you had it to do over again would you do them earlier? What about the other way around (those who did earlier)? My engine ships tomorrow, and I'm putting it on it's gear tomorrow , debating whether to hang the engine when it arrives next week, or let it sit, while I do the Pants and Fairings. THANKS Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ Want to see some pics of MY BPE IO-540-X w/ CAS? http://deemsrv10.com/album/My%20BPE%20IO-540-X%20w%20CAS/index.html 8-) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 07, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seeking
) Deems, After talking with Russ Daves he was adamant about putting them on before you do the wings, why not prior to the engine? Datum line should not differ if the engine is on or off right? IMHO Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seeking
)
Date: Dec 06, 2006
How are you going to fit the nose gear fairings without the cowl in place? How do you fit the cowl without the engine in place. Main gear pants and fairings probably should be fitted without the wings for easy access. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick" <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:29 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seeking ) > > Deems, > > After talking with Russ Daves he was adamant about putting them on before > you do the wings, why not prior to the engine? Datum line should not > differ if the engine is on or off right? > > IMHO > > Rick S. > 40185 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seeking
) Raising the entire airframe without the 400 + lbs of engine would be a lot easier also. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ Rick wrote: > >Deems, > >After talking with Russ Daves he was adamant about putting them on before you do the wings, why not prior to the engine? Datum line should not differ if the engine is on or off right? > >IMHO > >Rick S. >40185 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: The difference in Teflon wire?
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Thank you for your time. I have your number too, and I planned on contacting you for several items and this may be another. JOhn G. >From: "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: The difference in Teflon wire? >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:53:57 -0600 > > >You don't want any "PTFE" wire...only "ETFE"...which is Tefzel >(crosslinked). > >The "22759" number on it's own is almost worthlesss, because there is both >teflon and tefzel in that mil spec. The important number is the "slant" or >"/" numer, in this case /16...so you want to get M22759/16-xx-xx (x=the >wire >size, and y=color). There are a LOT of other slant number out there, but >some are silver plating, different stranding, different conductors, etc.. > >Also, the 16878 number is also a good one depending on the slant >number...you can just use that main first Mil Spec number as your guide. >I'll say it again...save yourself some time and just buy it from someone >who >already has done the research ----hint, hint, hint! Also, just for an FYI >or records, the mil spec for the shielded cable is M27500-TE(or >TG)2T22-xxxxxxxx which is a bunch of other gobblteygook that tells you >sizing, stranding, color, inner jacket size & type, etc... > >OK, enough stumping. Teflon has several less desirable properties over >Tefzel. Michael Sausen eluded to the stripping, and that it's a lot more >slippery. I also has poor cold flow characteristics, which means in large >bundles it can and will slowly flow around things like zip ties, etc... > >Anyway, go with tefzel that is the correct mil spec and you'll be fine. > >Cheers, >Stein. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of RV Builder > >(Michael Sausen) > >Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:10 PM > >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > >Subject: RE: RV10-List: The difference in Teflon wire? > > > > > > > > > >Teflon can be difficult to work with. Harder to strip primarily. > > > >Michael > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez > >Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:30 PM > >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > >Subject: RV10-List: The difference in Teflon wire? > > > >--> > > > >Tim, > > > >I noticed form your web site that you recommend Wire Masters. > > > >Do you know the difference between the two types of Teflon wire: > > > >Teflon 22759-PTFE > >(Polytetrafloroethylene) > >Teflon 16878 -PTFE > > > >The numbers mean nothing to me. > > > >Thanks, > > > >John G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: QB access into side panels below door rim.
Date: Dec 06, 2006
Dan, You're The Man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Put in three hours tonight and am back on track. Thanks a ton.. JOhn G Or by the way, the conduit that people are using, due to it being an experimental, is there any requirement. The corregated crap at PepBoys burns pretty well when the fire gets on it and stinks. The NyloFlo stuff melts but the the flame seems to self extinguish doesn't smell too bad., The Home Depot 3/4 black irragation line of which I have 500 feet of does just like the Pep Boys car stuff. Did anyone test their's with a flame The Nyla flow stuff from Do It center smells like snow skis being waxed. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2006
From: Bill DeRouchey <billderou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seeking
) Deems- Not many of us has data on this subject because once in place that is the way we fly - without experimenting toward improvement. Some thoughts: The main leg fairing orientation seems to be important for rudder trim. Everytime I cycle them off/on the rudder trim needs adjustment. I have seen this three times. Note that the attach holes in the mating intersection fairings were never modified after initial install. Another thought is during flight the main gear legs will have no weight and be positioned somewhat differently if the fairings are installed with all the weight on the legs. I have a hunch that getting the alignment perfect it is uncontrollable and only becomes important when you believe the necessary rudder trim has become excessive. The ball in my slip/skid is approx 1/4" in diameter and I needed to trim out half this diameter. Bill DeRouchey billderou(at)yahoo.com Grounded until I complete Rev B Raising the entire airframe without the 400 + lbs of engine would be a lot easier also. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ Rick wrote: > >Deems, > >After talking with Russ Daves he was adamant about putting them on before you do the wings, why not prior to the engine? Datum line should not differ if the engine is on or off right? > >IMHO > >Rick S. >40185 > >

November 28, 2006 - December 07, 2006

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-bu