RV10-List Archive Browser

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-bv
December 07, 2006 - December 16, 2006

> > --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seeking
)
Date: Dec 07, 2006
I did the gear leg and wheel fairings after flying off Phase 1 hours (40). May help engine break in having more drag. I used the wing tie down points to jack up the plane to get the weight off the main gear. After considerable pain and agony measuring and re-measuring alignment I have come to the conclusion that attaining perfect alignment is more a matter of luck than skill. Its not a fun job for an old guy crawling under the wing time after time after time and one that's easy to put off once you are flying. If you are not chomping at the bit to fly and not worried about engine break-in it would be considerably easier to do the main gear before installing the wings. I believe you will need the engine and cowling on for the front gear fairings. I"ll be installing rudder trim when the plane gets out of the paint shop (half a ball out to the right). Wish I had done it before painting - to many other projects and didn't want to lose my position at the paint shop. Mark (N410MR) >From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently >seeking ) >Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:17:17 -0700 > > >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-) > > _________________________________________________________________ Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Re: Installing fairings
Date: Dec 07, 2006
You could fit the nose gear fairing without the engine, it might even be a little easier, but it's really not a big deal with the engine on. You have to have the engine in place and the prop on or at least a prop plate in place to be able to properly fit the cowling. Definitely much easier to the install main gear fairings without having to crawl under the wing. Wayne Edgerton # 40336 pluggin away - someday :>} 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: routing wires from rudder
Date: Dec 07, 2006
I think the Wiring Harness instructions have you drilling a hole just below the bottom bracket that the rudder bolts onto, which puts the hole through the top of the tie-down support. This requires a snap bushing in from either side because of the thickness, but it is a great location since the rudder bottom fairing is right there. We also used silicone of some sort to hold the wires and snap bushings in place and to provide some strain relief. It also avoids the need to route wires up and through the VS if you were to put them in at one of the other brackets. 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 Jay Wik Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:32 PM Subject: RV10-List: 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. -- 1:27 AM -- 1:27 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: QB access into side panels below door rim.
Date: Dec 07, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
The fiber optic conduit that I used (along with Tim and others) should be plenum rated. This basically means it has a coating on it that increases the temp at which it ignites and also emits less fumes. I used the poly pipe in the wings where I'm not as concerned about it. All of my stuff is still in boxes otherwise I would run a fire test on the conduit. Maybe Tim want's to light some up. 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: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:08 AM Subject: RV10-List: QB access into side panels below door rim. --> 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seeking
)
Date: Dec 07, 2006
I think the best way would be to fit them prior and then leave them off for the fly-off, whether leaving the brackets on or off (up to you). It is good to be able to check pressure regularly and monitor everything during the first 25-40 hours, and taking the pants off to do that can be a pain. Also, it slows you down quite a bit (as much as 18Kts in our experience), so you don't reach that outer radius ring as quickly, which helps a little bit when testing systems and stuff. If you are doing it without the wings on, then without the engine makes sense. You should be able to install the nose fairing without the cowl. The cowl will need to be trimmed around it anyway. After the wings and engine, just jacking up on the tie-down supports should get the wheels high enough to work on the fairings. Since you will need to be able to jack it up later anyway with the engine on, then I don't see any difference. It certainly is easier without the wings on for the mains and without the engine for the nose gear to work around that area. Overall, I would say if you have time it is good to get them fit before flying because it will be a pain to take the time once you are flying, because they can take a lot of time to work with. Also, you can paint them when you are painting everything else (if you paint before you fly, that is, which I recommend), which can save some hastle. 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: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:17 AM Subject: RV10-List: 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-) -- 1:27 AM -- 1:27 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Following in Tim's tradition
Date: Dec 07, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
The model has been sold to the next builder, and hopefully he will follow in the tradition and be offering it up for sale again in a year, so we can keep passing the torch. Dan _____ 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: QB access into side panels below door rim.
Date: Dec 07, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Use Fiber Optic Cable ducting that is plenum rated, if it ever burns, it is rated to be non-toxic as it is used in an air return plenum in the building. I had some laying around from a cabling job and took Tim's advice. You could probably call some of the local computer network guys and they would have what you need laying around. 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: Thursday, December 07, 2006 1:08 AM Subject: RV10-List: QB access into side panels below door rim. 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 07, 2006
Subject: Re: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seek
ing ) Deems, Do the pants NOW before you hang the engine. You will get it done with less hassle working around/under those wings and engine. Plus you will get them on straighter. Ask VAN himself, he put his on BEFORE he hung t he engine and wings! If the BOSS does it that way its good enough for m e. LOL DEAN 40449 ________________________________________________________________________
Deems,

Do the pants NOW before you hang the engine. You will get it do ne with less hassle working around/under those wings and engine. P lus you will get them on straighter. Ask VAN himself, he put his o n BEFORE he hung the engine and wings! If the BOSS does it that wa y its good enough for me.   LOL

DEAN 40449

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

________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net>
Subject: Re: Hi Res Pics?
Date: Dec 07, 2006
John ... I have not kept-up this thread ... please state the company you refer to when you say "their site" ... do you mean Garmin's site? Many thanks ... Jerry Grimmonpre' RV8 electric > > 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: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: QB access into side panels below door rim.
Date: Dec 07, 2006
Can one of you guys light some up with the stove or a soldering torch. Where do you get this stuff if I don't use the irrigation tubing. Light up one of those snap bushing and tell me what the difference would be if the wires got worn on one of them and lit it(for those not using conduit). I bet it burns. JOhnG >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: QB access into side panels below door rim. >Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:20:40 -0500 > > >Use Fiber Optic Cable ducting that is plenum rated, if it ever burns, it >is rated to be non-toxic as it is used in an air return plenum in the >building. >I had some laying around from a cabling job and took Tim's advice. You >could probably call some of the local computer network guys and they >would have what you need laying around. >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: Thursday, December 07, 2006 1:08 AM >To: Rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: QB access into side panels below door rim. > > > >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. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: QB access into side panels below door rim.
Date: Dec 07, 2006
> Where do you get this stuff if I don't use the irrigation tubing. Here's a source: http://onlinecatalog.anixter.com/SearchResultsServlet?QUERY=BROWSE&CATALOGID 04032900100000000&SECTIONID 04032900100004000&SUBSECTIONID 04032900100004006&SUBSECTIONNAME=Innerduct I didn't check to see what the smallest increment you could purchase. If you have to buy the entire reel, you'll have plenty for all your friends. :^) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 07, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts
Alumaprep is probably the best for "really" cleaning the parts it's a mild acid that etch's and cleans but if your not planning on alodining it can be overkill. I scuffed with the red scotchbrite pads and cleaned and degread with laquer thinner or MEK. MEK gases off slower than the thinner so it's better for large parts, small ones laquer thinner works good as does denatured alcohol, as the previous post said is the least toxic of the group, just make sure your in a well ventilated area and keep it off your skin. Drys out your hands something awful let alone the absorbtion factor. Open flame is NOT your friend here!! Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Hi Res Pics?
Date: Dec 07, 2006
Jerry, Sorry 'bout that. I was referring to the Advanced Flight Systems web site for the ACS3400/3500 pics. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Stella" <sstella(at)incisaledge.com>
Subject: Cleaning Parts
Date: Dec 07, 2006
Alumaprep and MEK seems to cleaner of choice. Thanks Rick. Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:45 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts Alumaprep is probably the best for "really" cleaning the parts it's a mild acid that etch's and cleans but if your not planning on alodining it can be overkill. I scuffed with the red scotchbrite pads and cleaned and degread with laquer thinner or MEK. MEK gases off slower than the thinner so it's better for large parts, small ones laquer thinner works good as does denatured alcohol, as the previous post said is the least toxic of the group, just make sure your in a well ventilated area and keep it off your skin. Drys out your hands something awful let alone the absorbtion factor. Open flame is NOT your friend here!! Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Mr. Olson finally made it to the press :-)
From: "Chris In Madison" <cowens(at)cnw.com>
Date: Dec 07, 2006
Saw your RV-10 in the Completions section of Sport Aviation this month. Congratulations for finally making it in there! You've been done for how long? Same situation for one of my EAA Chapter-mates Larry Landucci with his CH-801. He's been done for quite some time and they finally got around to getting his plane in there. And they didn't get the description right... Oh well, at least y'all are in there :-) Best regards, Chris -------- Chris Owens Waunakee, WI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79913#79913 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hot off the CNC!
From: "zackrv8" <zackrv8(at)verizon.net>
Date: Dec 07, 2006
Guys, Dave just made a door handle for the RV10. It fits the existing RV10 handle assembly perfect. Like the other RV canopy handles he makes, it mounts with just 2 set screws. No need to put the large screw in the front. We put this on tonight to check the fit. I already had the existing holes drilled for Vans handle. We slid the new handle on, torqued both set screws, removed the handle, center punched were the set screws made marks, and put the handle back on. The center punch makes little divots were the set screws go and this handle does not rotate. I tried pretty hard...but it doesn't rotate. Good to go. Dave is making an aluminum insert that replaces Van's plastic cap. He says it will be a press fit. Just tap it in. I'll post a pic when I get it. If you are interested in these handles, you can call Dave at 302-437-6087 or email him at his new email address.. dczachorowski(at)comcast.net Check out the pics below... Zack -------- RV8 #80125 RV10 # 40512 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79987#79987 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06652_804.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06648_135.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06657_111.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06656_430.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Matronics Fund Raiser - 2006 List of Contributors
Dear Listers, I would like to thank everyone that made a Contribution in support of the Lists this year! It was really nice to hear all great comments people had regarding the Lists! As I have said many times before, running these Lists is a labor of love. Your generosity during the List Fund Raiser only underscores the great sentiments people have made regarding the Lists. If you haven't yet made a Contribution in support of this year's Fund Raiser please feel free to do so. The nice List gifts will be available on the site for just a little while longer, so hurry and make your Contribution and get your great gift. Once again, the URL for the Contribution web site is: http://www.matronics.com/contribution I would like to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ), Paul Besing of Aeroware Enterprises ( http://www.kitlog.com ), Jon Croke of Homebuilt HELP ( http://www.homebuilthelp.com ) and Bob Nuckolls of AeroElectric ( http://www.aeroelectric.com ) for their extremely generous support during this year's Fund Raiser through the contribution of merchandise. These are great guys that support the aviation industry and I encourage each and every Lister to have a look at their products. Thank you Andy, Paul, Jon and Bob!! Your support is very much appreciated! And finally, below you will find a web link to the 2006 List of Contributors current as of 12/7/06! Have a look at this list of names as these are the people that make all of these List services possible! I can't thank each of you enough for your support and great feedback during this year's Fund Raiser! THANK YOU! http://www.matronics.com/loc/2006.html I will be shipping out all of the gifts in the next few weeks and hope to have everything out by the end of the month. In most cases, gifts will be shipped via US Postal Service. Kitlog Pro serial numbers should go out via email this weekend. Once again, thank you for making this year's List Fund Raiser successful! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: gear leg fairings
Date: Dec 08, 2006
When I built my RV8, I flew around for about a year before I finally permanently installed my gear leg/ wheel fairings. Then I jacked the plane and crawled around on the floor for many hours to get them installed. NEVER AGAIN I said to myself, and anyone within cursing range of my hangar. On my RV10, I currently have the main fuselage section, with gear legs temporarily installed, minus the tailcone, hanging from my aerolift, at standing height. I was able to perfectly align and level the fuselage, in all axis, using tiedown straps around the wingspars, and the boarding steps. I drop plumb-bobs thru the centerline rivet holes down to a heavy steel 4X8 foot table aligned beneath the fuselage. With this accurately jigged arraignment I have been able to install and drill all the fairings while comfortably seated at the worktable, using a series of rulers, squares, and taught string references. One could do this just as well with the tailcone and cabin attached, and a block and tackle system could replace an aerolift. This, my fourth homebuilt project, has become my challenge to be the most organized and comfortable project it can be. If that means doing gear leg fairings this early on, so be it. Chris Hukill buildus interuptus during major home remodel ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: QB access into side panels below door rim.
Date: Dec 07, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
If you know anyone that is in the computer cabling or electrical business ask them if they have any extra laying around from a job. Good chance they will just give it to you as long as they are short amounts. Michael -----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, December 07, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: Re: RE: RV10-List: QB access into side panels below door rim. > Where do you get this stuff if I don't use the irrigation tubing. Here's a source: http://onlinecatalog.anixter.com/SearchResultsServlet?QUERY=BROWSE&CATAL OGID 04032900100000000&SECTIONID 04032900100004000&SUBSECTIONID 04 032900100004006&SUBSECTIONNAME=Innerduct I didn't check to see what the smallest increment you could purchase. If you have to buy the entire reel, you'll have plenty for all your friends. :^) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts
Date: Dec 08, 2006
Steve, Before you conclude things all the way allow me to share the method I have found effective and efficient... http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works/Airframe/airframe.htm#Primer Short version: scuff with Scotchbrite wetted with Coleman fuel... scuff and clean in one operation. Randy Lervold www.rv-3.com www.rv-8.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Stella" <sstella(at)incisaledge.com> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 10:39 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts > > Alumaprep and MEK seems to cleaner of choice. Thanks Rick. > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:45 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts > > > Alumaprep is probably the best for "really" cleaning the parts it's a mild > acid that etch's and cleans but if your not planning on alodining it can > be > overkill. I scuffed with the red scotchbrite pads and cleaned and degread > with laquer thinner or MEK. > > MEK gases off slower than the thinner so it's better for large parts, > small > ones laquer thinner works good as does denatured alcohol, as the previous > post said is the least toxic of the group, just make sure your in a well > ventilated area and keep it off your skin. Drys out your hands something > awful let alone the absorbtion factor. Open flame is NOT your friend > here!! > > Rick S. > 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Stella" <sstella(at)incisaledge.com>
Subject: Cleaning Parts
Date: Dec 08, 2006
Does the fuel leave a residue that needs to cleaned off with soap? -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Lervold Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 10:46 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts Steve, Before you conclude things all the way allow me to share the method I have found effective and efficient... http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works/Airframe/airframe.htm#Primer Short version: scuff with Scotchbrite wetted with Coleman fuel... scuff and clean in one operation. Randy Lervold www.rv-3.com www.rv-8.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Stella" <sstella(at)incisaledge.com> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 10:39 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts > > Alumaprep and MEK seems to cleaner of choice. Thanks Rick. > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:45 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts > > > Alumaprep is probably the best for "really" cleaning the parts it's a mild > acid that etch's and cleans but if your not planning on alodining it can > be > overkill. I scuffed with the red scotchbrite pads and cleaned and degread > with laquer thinner or MEK. > > MEK gases off slower than the thinner so it's better for large parts, > small > ones laquer thinner works good as does denatured alcohol, as the previous > post said is the least toxic of the group, just make sure your in a well > ventilated area and keep it off your skin. Drys out your hands something > awful let alone the absorbtion factor. Open flame is NOT your friend > here!! > > Rick S. > 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts
Hmm, kinda rather hazardous to your health and building and airframe. Coleman fuel is white GASOLINE. Low octane unleaded, no additives. On 12/8/06, Randy Lervold wrote: > > Steve, > > Before you conclude things all the way allow me to share the method I have > found effective and efficient... > http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works/Airframe/airframe.htm#Primer > > Short version: scuff with Scotchbrite wetted with Coleman fuel... scuff and > clean in one operation. > > Randy Lervold > www.rv-3.com > www.rv-8.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Stella" <sstella(at)incisaledge.com> > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 10:39 AM > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts > > > > > > Alumaprep and MEK seems to cleaner of choice. Thanks Rick. > > > > Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick > > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:45 PM > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts > > > > > > Alumaprep is probably the best for "really" cleaning the parts it's a mild > > acid that etch's and cleans but if your not planning on alodining it can > > be > > overkill. I scuffed with the red scotchbrite pads and cleaned and degread > > with laquer thinner or MEK. > > > > MEK gases off slower than the thinner so it's better for large parts, > > small > > ones laquer thinner works good as does denatured alcohol, as the previous > > post said is the least toxic of the group, just make sure your in a well > > ventilated area and keep it off your skin. Drys out your hands something > > awful let alone the absorbtion factor. Open flame is NOT your friend > > here!! > > > > Rick S. > > 40185 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts
Date: Dec 08, 2006
Not at all. It is naptha which evaporates fully. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Stella" <sstella(at)incisaledge.com> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 8:22 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts > > Does the fuel leave a residue that needs to cleaned off with soap? > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Lervold > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 10:46 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts > > > Steve, > > Before you conclude things all the way allow me to share the method I have > found effective and efficient... > http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works/Airframe/airframe.htm#Primer > > Short version: scuff with Scotchbrite wetted with Coleman fuel... scuff > and > clean in one operation. > > Randy Lervold > www.rv-3.com > www.rv-8.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts
Date: Dec 08, 2006
> Hmm, kinda rather hazardous to your health and building and airframe. > Coleman fuel is white GASOLINE. Low octane unleaded, no additives. It's naptha, quite a ways down on the dangerous chemicals list and certainly safer than any of the other chemicals mentioned in this thread such as MEK or acetone or laquer thinner. Of course use gloves when scuffing with it. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Stella" <sstella(at)incisaledge.com>
Subject: Cleaning Parts
Date: Dec 08, 2006
No etching of the aluminum is needed? -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Lervold Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 12:35 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts > Hmm, kinda rather hazardous to your health and building and airframe. > Coleman fuel is white GASOLINE. Low octane unleaded, no additives. It's naptha, quite a ways down on the dangerous chemicals list and certainly safer than any of the other chemicals mentioned in this thread such as MEK or acetone or laquer thinner. Of course use gloves when scuffing with it. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Cleaning Parts
Date: Dec 08, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
>From what I've been told naphtha is also very similar in performance to wipes like DX-330, although I believe DX-330 is a high quality type of mineral sprit. Might be closer to DX-440 which has more solvent qualities. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Lervold Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:35 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cleaning Parts > Hmm, kinda rather hazardous to your health and building and airframe. > Coleman fuel is white GASOLINE. Low octane unleaded, no additives. It's naptha, quite a ways down on the dangerous chemicals list and certainly safer than any of the other chemicals mentioned in this thread such as MEK or acetone or laquer thinner. Of course use gloves when scuffing with it. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts
Think again: Shellite (Australia), also known as white gas (North America), white spirit or Coleman fuel, is a water white liquid with a hydrocarbon odour. Shellite has a flashpoint less than -30 degrees Celsius, and a boiling point of 47 degrees Celsius. The composition of shellite is 95% paraffins and naphthenes, less than 5% aromatic hydrocarbons and less than 0.5% benzene. It is highly flammable and due to its low flashpoint is used in many low pressure camping stoves. Shellite is also a fast drying solvent used for cleaning metal, hard plastic and painted surfaces. Benzene is carcinogenic. Flamability is much bigger concern. Not much harder to ignite than mogas or avgas. On 12/8/06, Randy Lervold wrote: > > > Hmm, kinda rather hazardous to your health and building and airframe. > > Coleman fuel is white GASOLINE. Low octane unleaded, no additives. > > It's naptha, quite a ways down on the dangerous chemicals list and certainly > safer than any of the other chemicals mentioned in this thread such as MEK > or acetone or laquer thinner. Of course use gloves when scuffing with it. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel(at)blueskyaviation.net>
Subject: Dimpling
Date: Dec 08, 2006
The list has been a little slow with regard to the building practices. Here is a tip on dimpling I just proved to my self. I started using baby powder on my dimple dies, just a skiff you don't want clumps. To prove this to my self I just got done dimpling the R&L lower wing skins of an RV-7 took just over an hour ( I have a dimpling machine). Using the baby powder I got perfectly formed dimples faster, when the baby powder wore off the sound of the dimpling process changed and there was a slight marring for the metal that is usual with dimpling. You, using your Avery dimpler will defiantly see the difference. One more note on baby powder: the reason I have it at the shop is for fiberglass and carbon fiber work. Some times I get itchy and the baby powder applied before I start sanding will eliminate itchiness. Noel Simmons Blue Sky Aviation, Inc. www.blueskyaviation.net <http://www.blueskyaviation.net/> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rear fuse vents
Date: Dec 08, 2006
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
Jay, FYI they work fine and do allow a large quantity of air to come through. They do not leak when closed and no rain water comes through when parked on the ramp. They are not fancy but effective. Randy 40006 -----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 11:16 AM 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: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts
Date: Dec 08, 2006
>>From what I've been told naphtha is also very similar in performance to > wipes like DX-330, although I believe DX-330 is a high quality type of > mineral sprit. Might be closer to DX-440 which has more solvent > qualities. > > Michael True. If you look at the contents of most of the paint company prep solvents you'll find that they are primarily naptha, but then add things like tolulene etc. to make sure they clean any kind of contaminant off. Actually DX-330 or the like would be technically even better than Coleman fuel to use in scuffing parts for priming but its just more expensive. Randy ________________________________________________________________________________
From: NYTerminat(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 08, 2006
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts
If it is 95% paraffin, is that what you want to clean your parts before painting?????? In a message dated 12/8/2006 1:29:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, apilot2(at)gmail.com writes: --> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" Think again: Shellite (Australia), also known as white gas (North America), white spirit or Coleman fuel, is a water white liquid with a hydrocarbon odour. Shellite has a flashpoint less than -30 degrees Celsius, and a boiling point of 47 degrees Celsius. The composition of shellite is 95% paraffins and naphthenes, less than 5% aromatic hydrocarbons and less than 0.5% benzene. It is highly flammable and due to its low flashpoint is used in many low pressure camping stoves. Shellite is also a fast drying solvent used for cleaning metal, hard plastic and painted surfaces. Benzene is carcinogenic. Flamability is much bigger concern. Not much harder to ignite than mogas or avgas. On 12/8/06, Randy Lervold wrote: > > > Hmm, kinda rather hazardous to your health and building and airframe. > > Coleman fuel is white GASOLINE. Low octane unleaded, no additives. > > It's naptha, quite a ways down on the dangerous chemicals list and certainly > safer than any of the other chemicals mentioned in this thread such as MEK > or acetone or laquer thinner. Of course use gloves when scuffing with it. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mr. Olson finally made it to the press :-)
From: "Jon Reining" <jonathan.w.reining(at)wellsfargo.com>
Date: Dec 08, 2006
I got my Van's 2007 calendar last night and saw the awesome formation photo of Tim, Alex, and Vic - very cool! That in itself was worth the price of the calendar. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p233#80233 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hot off the CNC!
From: "Jon Reining" <jonathan.w.reining(at)wellsfargo.com>
Date: Dec 08, 2006
Zack, Those look great! Have you given any thought to a lock? I know its been discussed before, and we've seen some nice samples from others, but nobody has delivered yet. You and Dave are a viable production source with some great products. Jon 40514 (along with my dad) Tailcone - buildus interruptus do no archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p238#80238 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sullivan, Christy" <christy.sullivan@credit-suisse.com>
Subject: Re: Hot off the CNC!
Date: Dec 08, 2006
Along with wife as well who reads the RV-10 list. Don't forget the wives as well!!! -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Reining Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 1:39 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Hot off the CNC! --> Zack, Those look great! Have you given any thought to a lock? I know its been discussed before, and we've seen some nice samples from others, but nobody has delivered yet. You and Dave are a viable production source with some great products. Jon 40514 (along with my dad) Tailcone - buildus interruptus do no archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p238#80238 ============================================================================= Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ============================================================================= ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hot off the CNC!
From: "zackrv8" <zackrv8(at)verizon.net>
Date: Dec 08, 2006
Jon, I asked Dave to design a lock. He's thinking about it but doesn't have anything yet. He is concentrating on the inside door handle. We don't like the square tubing that Vans has and the minimum space for your hand between the handle and door. I know he has ordered some 4130 tubing and will make a billet handle for the inside out of aluminum. Can't wait to see what he comes up with. Zack Jon Reining wrote: > Zack, > > Those look great! Have you given any thought to a lock? I know its been discussed before, and we've seen some nice samples from others, but nobody has delivered yet. You and Dave are a viable production source with some great products. > > Jon > 40514 (along with my dad) > Tailcone - buildus interruptus > > do no archive -------- RV8 #80125 RV10 # 40512 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p270#80270 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Another Alternative Engine?
Date: Dec 08, 2006
http://www.flyjeta.com/tech.htm What say you engine experts? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)cox.net>
Subject: Another Alternative Engine?
Date: Dec 08, 2006
Two problems: - Price (>$80K) - French -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 8:57 PM Subject: RV10-List: Another Alternative Engine? http://www.flyjeta.com/tech.htm What say you engine experts? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Another Alternative Engine?
AGGGHHHHAAAAAAA!!!! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Another Alternative Engine?
Double AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHAAA!!!!!! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Paint experience
Date: Dec 08, 2006
How much experience did you (anyone) have prior to doing your own priming and then paint? I need to start planning. For the simplicity of the fuse interior, it seems that I can both prime and paint with an inexpensive gun (<$50 or<$75), then I can save up for a higher quality exterior gun after I fly for a while. Questions: How's the learning curve? How many practice pieces before committing? What about gravity vs. standard fed guns? Meaning, how easy is it to manipulate the gun to all the nooks and crannys with such a big cup without losing paint flow? Recommend pint or quart cup to cover the interior, or go with a touch-up gun? I see on Tim's site that he only used about a quart total for the whole inside. Thanks, Rob Wright #392 Fuse Access Covers ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michael Schipper <mike(at)learningplanet.com>
Subject: Re: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seeking
)
Date: Dec 07, 2006
Hi Deems, Do yourself a favor and do the wheel pants and gear leg fairings now. You can leave them off the plane for the first couple of flights if you wish. On the RV-9A, I was one of those who just wanted to "get into the air", so I chose to do my undercarriage later. It may just be a mental thing, but once the plane is flying it is very difficult to spend the 40 hours (or whatever it is) to work on fiberglass. Also, as you have pointed out, it is a process that requires some level of accuracy, so it's good if you can align everything in advance. Regards, Mike Schipper #40576 - Wings - www.rvten.com RV-9A - N63MS - Flying On Dec 6, 2006, at 11:17 PM, Deems Davis wrote: > > 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 09, 2006
From: Rodger Todd <rj_todd(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Another Alternative Engine?
I don't consider myself an expert - well not in this field anyway, but when I first started looking at the -10 it was obvious to me that the SMA230 would be eminently suitable. I contacted both the local agent and SMA in France to be told two things. Firstly they were only interested in supplying complete FWF kits which only they would install and secondly they were developing a higher powered version which eventually would be suitable for us (higher powered being 350+hp). That left me wondering about their marketing and also their ability to read (when did 260hp max 350hp?) My take is that they are not interested in any way in the experimental market. Since then I have heard that they are still having prop problems due to unevenness in the cycle - can't remember the source but it was printed. I regretfully will be installing some form of Lycosaurus which it's ravenous appetite and dislike for hot starting. If it's not too early, received first card 1 month ago, Merry Christmas to all, Rodger --- Jeff Carpenter wrote: > > > http://www.flyjeta.com/tech.htm > > What say you engine experts? > > > Click on > about > provided > www.buildersbooks.com > Admin. > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 09, 2006
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Paint experience
Reply inline... Rob Wright wrote: > How much experience did you (anyone) have prior to doing your own > priming and then paint? I need to start planning. For the simplicity > of the fuse interior, it seems that I can both prime and paint with an > inexpensive gun (<$50 or<$75), then I can save up for a higher quality > exterior gun after I fly for a while. > > Questions: > > Hows the learning curve? > The learning curve question is a very tough question. It could vary greatly for people. I do believe that those who are priming their own parts can benefit from the time spent priming, however. My advice is if you don't feel really comfortable, have someone come over who is when you get to the real painting, and give you a hand with some parts, or at least critique you. Most people will know SOMEONE who they can call who's painted things before, even if it's a friend of a friend. So talk about it with those close to you and see who knows who. Even if it cost you a couple hundred bucks for an off-duty auto body person for a day, you'd learn things....and a professional paid paint job will still be many THOUSANDS more. > > How many practice pieces before committing? > Painting isn't too bad when you get the theory down and have some practice. After doing the plane I painted and matched a couple of car pieces too, including clearcoat. The only thing that didn't turn out perfect is I did it in a dusty garage and got some dirt in the clearcoat. If you have someone get you started, there's no reason that you can't do a reasonable job. I'll never pay for a car to be painted again, from what I've found now. So now my wife can nail all the deer she wants. ;) > > > What about gravity vs. standard fed guns? Meaning, how easy is it to > manipulate the gun to all the nooks and crannys with such a big cup > without losing paint flow? > > Here's a good suggestion for you. I think the pressure pot guns would do good for people on the main color, but we didn't use them. But, the guy who helped me had a good trick. For the Sata guns we used, they make a plastic liner disposable paint cup that has it's own integral filter. It was awesome for doing even the undersides of things, because as the paint got used, the liner collapsed, keeping it void of air for the most part. This eliminated the issue. They weren't too expensive, and it was nice to just throw away the liners when done with a session. Again, a small cost compared to paying a pro. Incidently, keeping a paint job simple (which is what I consider mine to be), can help make it easier. One large single color base followed by 1 or 2 stripe colors isn't really a big deal. Actually, the color stripes are even easier to do on top of the base, and I found the base coat clearcoat to be even easier to work with in general. But I am glad I went single stage on the main color. > > Recommend pint or quart cup to cover the interior, or go with a touch-up > gun? I see on Tims site that he only used about a quart total for the > whole inside. > The interior is harder to maneuver around than the exterior. I now own, AFTER the fact, a nice SATA MiniJet with a smaller cup that would be great for the small areas on the interior. I think you could use either, but you'll want to put any inline hose filters somewhere upstream a ways so the hose connects directly to the gun with a 10' whip instead of quick connectors. That makes it easier to flex around. I don't know what I'd do if I could do it all over again. Probably use the minijet on the interior, since it's such a small area. Either way, when you paint the plane, you're going to mix up larger batches of paint than what one gun cup will hold. You need to be able to just pour more into the gun and carry on quick, in order to keep painting along the wet edge on the larger parts. The good news is, if you can't keep up and keep the edge wet, you can back up to a seam or some spot and start that panel with a new edge. Anyway, you just don't want to have to stop and mix more paint during a large shoot if possible. It also might be nice, if you have the time and space to do it, to do a couple major pieces at a time. Like the day you do the fuselage, don't do anything else. Do the wings another day. Then do the small parts another day. That helps break things up. For my next plane, I may even just plastic line my garage and do the entire thing there, as the color striped we did there turned out fine. I'd just need to get some blower/filter stuff set up but I could do that cheap enough to still make the entire job a bargain over a paid-for pro job. Mine isn't the prettiest plane out there, but it still seems to look good to most people from what I can tell. Tim > > > Thanks, > > > > Rob Wright > > #392 > > Fuse Access Covers > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 09, 2006
From: PJ Seipel <seipel(at)seznam.cz>
Subject: Re: Another Alternative Engine?
SMA has been around for a long time. I looked at them when I was considering DeltaHawk and others. They will not sell to the experimental market. Only way you're going to get an engine from them, at least in the next five to ten years, is if you bring them a Cessna 182 and get it retrofitted for $80K. Their entire focus is on the certified GA market. PJ RV-10 #40032 Jeff Carpenter wrote: > > http://www.flyjeta.com/tech.htm > > What say you engine experts? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 09, 2006
From: James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net>
Subject: Re: Paint experience
Rob, I use a Paasche airbrush for all the small pieces (anything other than a skin), which keeps overspray down, wastes less paint, and lets you work a boit slower this allowing you more precision in priming. For the skins, it is too small, so I use a regular automotive touchup gun, but the amount of paint that gets in the air is horrible compared to the airbrush. If you do go the airbrush route, make sure to get a few 3 or 6 oz. spray jars and a large needle to spray the heavy paints. I use the airbrush at 70psi. Oh, if you screw up a small part during priming, just toss the part in a bucket of Acetone or MEK and it will remove it so you can try again later. (after a week though, the PPG Epoxy paint won't dissolve!) I am using PPG DP50LF Epoxy primer, with DP401 Catalyst. -Jim 40384 (must..... get..... back.... to..... riveting..... bottom.... wing.... skins.... ! ) Rob Wright wrote: > How much experience did you (anyone) have prior to doing your own > priming and then paint? I need to start planning. For the simplicity > of the fuse interior, it seems that I can both prime and paint with an > inexpensive gun (<$50 or<$75), then I can save up for a higher quality > exterior gun after I fly for a while. > > Questions: > > Hows the learning curve? > > How many practice pieces before committing? > > What about gravity vs. standard fed guns? Meaning, how easy is it to > manipulate the gun to all the nooks and crannys with such a big cup > without losing paint flow? > > Recommend pint or quart cup to cover the interior, or go with a > touch-up gun? I see on Tims site that he only used about a quart > total for the whole inside. > > Thanks, > > Rob Wright > > #392 > > Fuse Access Covers > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 09, 2006
From: Rodger Todd <rj_todd(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Paint experience
Hi Tim, "they make a plastic liner disposable paint cup that has it's own integral filter. It was awesome for doing even the undersides of things, because as the paint got used, the liner collapsed, keeping it void of air for the most part" I think you're refering to the 3M PPS system here which is available for most guns. I'm in the process of getting it for my Sata Minijet 4 - been on order for over two months, the distributor is currently waiting for the mini-cups. See http://multimedia.mmm.com/mws/mediawebserver.dyn?6666660Zjcf6lVs6EVs66SeggCOrrrrQ- or if this doesn't work then go to the 3M site and search for PPS. I think some one here mentioned this some months ago. Best wishes, Rodger --- Tim Olson wrote: > > > Reply inline... > > > Rob Wright wrote: > > How much experience did you (anyone) have prior to > doing your own > > priming and then paint? I need to start planning. > For the simplicity > > of the fuse interior, it seems that I can both > prime and paint with an > > inexpensive gun (<$50 or<$75), then I can save up > for a higher quality > > exterior gun after I fly for a while. > > > > Questions: > > > > Hows the learning curve? > > > > The learning curve question is a very tough > question. It could vary > greatly for people. I do believe that those who are > priming their own > parts can benefit from the time spent priming, > however. My advice is > if you don't feel really comfortable, have someone > come over who is > when you get to the real painting, and give you a > hand with some parts, > or at least critique you. Most people will know > SOMEONE who they > can call who's painted things before, even if it's a > friend of a > friend. So talk about it with those close to you > and see who > knows who. Even if it cost you a couple hundred > bucks for an off-duty > auto body person for a day, you'd learn > things....and a professional > paid paint job will still be many THOUSANDS more. > > > > > > How many practice pieces before committing? > > > > Painting isn't too bad when you get the theory down > and have some > practice. After doing the plane I painted and > matched a couple of > car pieces too, including clearcoat. The only thing > that didn't > turn out perfect is I did it in a dusty garage and > got some dirt > in the clearcoat. If you have someone get you > started, there's no > reason that you can't do a reasonable job. I'll > never pay for a > car to be painted again, from what I've found now. > So now my > wife can nail all the deer she wants. ;) > > > > > > > What about gravity vs. standard fed guns? Meaning, > how easy is it to > > manipulate the gun to all the nooks and crannys > with such a big cup > > without losing paint flow? > > > > > > Here's a good suggestion for you. I think the > pressure pot guns would > do good for people on the main color, but we didn't > use them. But, > the guy who helped me had a good trick. For the > Sata guns we used, > they make a plastic liner disposable paint cup that > has it's own > integral filter. It was awesome for doing even the > undersides > of things, because as the paint got used, the liner > collapsed, keeping > it void of air for the most part. This eliminated > the issue. They > weren't too expensive, and it was nice to just throw > away the liners > when done with a session. Again, a small cost > compared to paying > a pro. > > Incidently, keeping a paint job simple (which is > what I consider mine > to be), can help make it easier. One large single > color base followed > by 1 or 2 stripe colors isn't really a big deal. > Actually, the color > stripes are even easier to do on top of the base, > and I found the base > coat clearcoat to be even easier to work with in > general. But I am > glad I went single stage on the main color. > > > > > > > Recommend pint or quart cup to cover the interior, > or go with a touch-up > > gun? I see on Tims site that he only used about > a quart total for the > > whole inside. > > > > The interior is harder to maneuver around than the > exterior. I now own, > AFTER the fact, a nice SATA MiniJet with a smaller > cup that would be > great for the small areas on the interior. I think > you could use > either, but you'll want to put any inline hose > filters somewhere > upstream a ways so the hose connects directly to the > gun with a 10' > whip instead of quick connectors. That makes it > easier to flex > around. I don't know what I'd do if I could do it > all over again. > Probably use the minijet on the interior, since it's > such a small > area. > > Either way, when you paint the plane, you're going > to mix up larger > batches of paint than what one gun cup will hold. > You need to be able > to just pour more into the gun and carry on quick, > in order to keep > painting along the wet edge on the larger parts. > The good news is, > if you can't keep up and keep the edge wet, you can > back up to a > seam or some spot and start that panel with a new > edge. Anyway, > you just don't want to have to stop and mix more > paint during a large > shoot if possible. It also might be nice, if you > have the time > and space to do it, to do a couple major pieces at a > time. Like > the day you do the fuselage, don't do anything else. > Do the wings > another day. Then do the small parts another day. > That helps > break things up. > > For my next plane, I may even just plastic line my > garage and do > the entire thing there, as the color striped we did > there turned > out fine. I'd just need to get some blower/filter > stuff set up > but I could do that cheap enough to still make the > entire job > a bargain over a paid-for pro job. Mine isn't the > prettiest > plane out there, but it still seems to look good to > most > people from what I can tell. > > Tim > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Rob Wright > > > > #392 > > > > Fuse Access Covers > > > > * > > > Click on > about > provided > === message truncated == ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: Another Alternative Engine?
Date: Dec 09, 2006
I guess ravenous appetite could be debated as well. Yes, you can burn 26gph at sea level running rich on take-off, but you can also cruise burning 7gph with TAS upwards of 150Kts, or 13.5gph at 176Kts. That seems to me to be pretty economical. Another issue on hot starts is there is a fuel injection system that has a purge valve so you can pull a lever, run the boost pump, and flush the hot fuel out of the system. With 2 mags hot start takes a little longer, but it isn't a big deal IMHO. A Slick Start helps with this also, although they have stopped selling it, but I hear they are coming out with a new version sometime early next year. 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 Rodger Todd Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 8:06 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Another Alternative Engine? I don't consider myself an expert - well not in this field anyway, but when I first started looking at the -10 it was obvious to me that the SMA230 would be eminently suitable. I contacted both the local agent and SMA in France to be told two things. Firstly they were only interested in supplying complete FWF kits which only they would install and secondly they were developing a higher powered version which eventually would be suitable for us (higher powered being 350+hp). That left me wondering about their marketing and also their ability to read (when did 260hp max 350hp?) My take is that they are not interested in any way in the experimental market. Since then I have heard that they are still having prop problems due to unevenness in the cycle - can't remember the source but it was printed. I regretfully will be installing some form of Lycosaurus which it's ravenous appetite and dislike for hot starting. If it's not too early, received first card 1 month ago, Merry Christmas to all, Rodger --- Jeff Carpenter wrote: > > > http://www.flyjeta.com/tech.htm > > What say you engine experts? > > > Click on > about > provided > www.buildersbooks.com > Admin. > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html -- 12:53 PM -- 12:53 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Hot Starts Lycoming?
Date: Dec 09, 2006
Any one care to share their hot start tips????? CS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brian Douglas" <bsponcil(at)belinblank.org>
Subject: Re: Paint experience
Date: Dec 09, 2006
This past summer I borrowed a HVLP system from a guy at our airport and shot my practice kit control surface just to see how good of a job I could do. The final result was pretty poor so I decided I'd just give up on that idea and let the pros do it for me. Since then I bought an el-cheapo gun from Wally-World to shoot the interior surfaces of the tailcone skins with epoxy primer (I had until then been using rattle can stuff) and after shooting all of those skins and associated bulkheads I'm coming back around to the thought of shooting the paint myself. It takes some time and experimentation to get the gun set up right and to figure out all of the other variables in the process but my guess is that by the time you've shot the tailcone and wings, you'll be much more confident in your ability and you'll have made all of the mistakes you need to make and figured out how to fix them. It sounds like Rob is well beyond that point in his build so I'm not sure what to suggest as far a practice. Scrap aluminum from the junkyard? Old wheelbarrow? Helpfully suggest to the wife that the gargage doors need to be re-painted? One thing I'll say is that el-cheapo gun has a TREMENDOUS amount of overspray. I'd swear that every flat surface in my garage has a 1/16" layer of grey dust on it. -Brian #40497 Iowa City, IA ----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Wright To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:24 PM Subject: RV10-List: Paint experience How much experience did you (anyone) have prior to doing your own priming and then paint? I need to start planning. For the simplicity of the fuse interior, it seems that I can both prime and paint with an inexpensive gun (<$50 or<$75), then I can save up for a higher quality exterior gun after I fly for a while. Questions: How's the learning curve? How many practice pieces before committing? What about gravity vs. standard fed guns? Meaning, how easy is it to manipulate the gun to all the nooks and crannys with such a big cup without losing paint flow? Recommend pint or quart cup to cover the interior, or go with a touch-up gun? I see on Tim's site that he only used about a quart total for the whole inside. Thanks, Rob Wright #392 Fuse Access Covers ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 09, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Engine analyzer/monitor
Anyone looked at this system? http://www.xerionavionix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Hot Starts Lycoming?
Date: Dec 09, 2006
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Hot Starts Lycoming? I also have the Bendix injection system. The Lycoming engine manuel has the following advice on hot starts: "Because fuel percolates the system must be cleared of vapor: it is recommended the same procedure for starting a cold engine be used for starting a hot engine" Don't know if this procedure assumes you have a fuel return line but it has worked in my rather limited experience - 50 hrs. and waiting on paint shop to finish. Tim's idea of not turning on the boost pump may prevent from having to go to a flooded start procedure. Unfortunately this doesn't work in my '04 T182T. Thanks for offering just the same. I'm just trying to see what others are doing and what works for them. CS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: Gear leg fairings
Date: Dec 07, 2006
When I built my RV8, I flew around for about a year before I finally permanently installed my gear leg/ wheel fairings. Then I jacked the plane and crawled around on the floor for many hours to get them installed. NEVER AGAIN I said to myself, and anyone within cursing range of my hangar. On my RV10, I currently have the main fuselage section, with gear legs temporarily installed, minus the tailcone, hanging from my aerolift, at standing height. I was able to perfectly align and level the fuselage, in all axis, using tiedown straps around the wingspars, and the boarding steps. I drop plumb-bobs thru the centerline rivet holes down to a heavy steel 4X8 foot table aligned beneath the fuselage. With this accurately jigged arraignment I have been able to install and drill all the fairings while comfortably seated at the worktable, using a series of rulers, squares, and taught string references. One could do this just as well with the tailcone and cabin attached, and a block and tackle system could replace an aerolift. This, my fourth homebuilt project, has become my challenge to be the most organized and comfortable project it can be. If that means doing gear leg fairings this early on, so be it. Chris Hukill buildus interuptus during major home remodel ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Another Alternative Engine?
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Dec 09, 2006
carl.froehlich(at)cox.net wrote: > Two problems: > - Price (>$80K) > - French > > -- I don't mind the French, but it's pretty heavy as well. John -------- #40572 Empennage - Starting tailcone. N711JG reserved Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p455#80455 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Paint experience
Date: Dec 09, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Use SprayGunDepot.com. I've used them a few times and never had a problem. Got the PPS from them about a month ago along with adapters for my guns. Haven't had a chance to use it yet though. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rodger Todd Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 8:59 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Paint experience Hi Tim, "they make a plastic liner disposable paint cup that has it's own integral filter. It was awesome for doing even the undersides of things, because as the paint got used, the liner collapsed, keeping it void of air for the most part" I think you're refering to the 3M PPS system here which is available for most guns. I'm in the process of getting it for my Sata Minijet 4 - been on order for over two months, the distributor is currently waiting for the mini-cups. See http://multimedia.mmm.com/mws/mediawebserver.dyn?6666660Zjcf6lVs6EVs66Se ggCOrrrrQ- or if this doesn't work then go to the 3M site and search for PPS. I think some one here mentioned this some months ago. Best wishes, Rodger --- Tim Olson wrote: > > > Reply inline... > > > Rob Wright wrote: > > How much experience did you (anyone) have prior to > doing your own > > priming and then paint? I need to start planning. > For the simplicity > > of the fuse interior, it seems that I can both > prime and paint with an > > inexpensive gun (<$50 or<$75), then I can save up > for a higher quality > > exterior gun after I fly for a while. > > > > Questions: > > > > How's the learning curve? > > > > The learning curve question is a very tough > question. It could vary > greatly for people. I do believe that those who are > priming their own > parts can benefit from the time spent priming, > however. My advice is > if you don't feel really comfortable, have someone > come over who is > when you get to the real painting, and give you a > hand with some parts, > or at least critique you. Most people will know > SOMEONE who they > can call who's painted things before, even if it's a > friend of a > friend. So talk about it with those close to you > and see who > knows who. Even if it cost you a couple hundred > bucks for an off-duty > auto body person for a day, you'd learn > things....and a professional > paid paint job will still be many THOUSANDS more. > > > > > > How many practice pieces before committing? > > > > Painting isn't too bad when you get the theory down > and have some > practice. After doing the plane I painted and > matched a couple of > car pieces too, including clearcoat. The only thing > that didn't > turn out perfect is I did it in a dusty garage and > got some dirt > in the clearcoat. If you have someone get you > started, there's no > reason that you can't do a reasonable job. I'll > never pay for a > car to be painted again, from what I've found now. > So now my > wife can nail all the deer she wants. ;) > > > > > > > What about gravity vs. standard fed guns? Meaning, > how easy is it to > > manipulate the gun to all the nooks and crannys > with such a big cup > > without losing paint flow? > > > > > > Here's a good suggestion for you. I think the > pressure pot guns would > do good for people on the main color, but we didn't > use them. But, > the guy who helped me had a good trick. For the > Sata guns we used, > they make a plastic liner disposable paint cup that > has it's own > integral filter. It was awesome for doing even the > undersides > of things, because as the paint got used, the liner > collapsed, keeping > it void of air for the most part. This eliminated > the issue. They > weren't too expensive, and it was nice to just throw > away the liners > when done with a session. Again, a small cost > compared to paying > a pro. > > Incidently, keeping a paint job simple (which is > what I consider mine > to be), can help make it easier. One large single > color base followed > by 1 or 2 stripe colors isn't really a big deal. > Actually, the color > stripes are even easier to do on top of the base, > and I found the base > coat clearcoat to be even easier to work with in > general. But I am > glad I went single stage on the main color. > > > > > > > Recommend pint or quart cup to cover the interior, > or go with a touch-up > > gun? I see on Tim's site that he only used about > a quart total for the > > whole inside. > > > > The interior is harder to maneuver around than the > exterior. I now own, > AFTER the fact, a nice SATA MiniJet with a smaller > cup that would be > great for the small areas on the interior. I think > you could use > either, but you'll want to put any inline hose > filters somewhere > upstream a ways so the hose connects directly to the > gun with a 10' > whip instead of quick connectors. That makes it > easier to flex > around. I don't know what I'd do if I could do it > all over again. > Probably use the minijet on the interior, since it's > such a small > area. > > Either way, when you paint the plane, you're going > to mix up larger > batches of paint than what one gun cup will hold. > You need to be able > to just pour more into the gun and carry on quick, > in order to keep > painting along the wet edge on the larger parts. > The good news is, > if you can't keep up and keep the edge wet, you can > back up to a > seam or some spot and start that panel with a new > edge. Anyway, > you just don't want to have to stop and mix more > paint during a large > shoot if possible. It also might be nice, if you > have the time > and space to do it, to do a couple major pieces at a > time. Like > the day you do the fuselage, don't do anything else. > Do the wings > another day. Then do the small parts another day. > That helps > break things up. > > For my next plane, I may even just plastic line my > garage and do > the entire thing there, as the color striped we did > there turned > out fine. I'd just need to get some blower/filter > stuff set up > but I could do that cheap enough to still make the > entire job > a bargain over a paid-for pro job. Mine isn't the > prettiest > plane out there, but it still seems to look good to > most > people from what I can tell. > > Tim > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Rob Wright > > > > #392 > > > > Fuse Access Covers > > > > * > > > Click on > about > provided > === message truncated == ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Fuse Part
Date: Dec 09, 2006
For those past the Access Covers section (35), last page where it shows the bolt access covers, F-1050B. When holding mine up to their install location, they don't seem to match up very well or I'll need to introduce a crease to make them sit flush. Wonder what others' experiences have been and any pics if available. Looks like if I installed them right now it would overlap the powder coated angle on the fwd end and underlap it on the rear end of the cover. Sorry no pics yet I didn't have the camera with me today. Rob Wright #392 Fuse Access Covers ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Transition training
Date: Dec 10, 2006
Yesterday I went over to Alex De Dominicis's house at Eagles Nest Air Park, which is here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, and took my first RV10 transition training flight with him. To say I had a great time flying his 10 is an understatement. Alex really has a beautiful bird and he has it fantastically equipped with all the fun stuff. He turned on his A/C while we were sitting on the ground to show me how it works and it works great, just like the car. Got to check this out later. I may have used up some of my RV grins in flying Alex's machine but hopefully I've got a couple left for when I fly mine, which I hope is not to far off. His 10 handled outstanding in every phase of flight. In straight and level the ride was very smooth and the visibility was second to none. Alex and I aren't little guys and we had plenty of elbow room between us. We did the standard things you do in training. Straight ahead stalls were a non event as compared to other planes I've flown. It never did really break but just kind of sat there and buffeted mostly. Very docile. We did standard and steep turns. He had me first do 20 deg turns and this was very easy to hold altitude. We then move it to 30 deg and it still was very smooth, unlike some planes I've flown, I actually let go of the stick at one point in the turn with the 30 deg bank and the plane held itself there. I was really impressed on how smooth it was in these maneuvers. We then moved it up to 40 deg bank and it was still easily controllable but I did have to hold a little more back pressure to hold altitude as we progressed through the turn. I've flown quite a few different planes, singles and twins and gliders, I've owned a Bonanza and a Baron, and I have to say this plane handles better than anyone that I've ever flown. One point that Alex made to me on steep turns was that when you fly right turns you will notice, which I did, a little more back pressure is required, which is a function of the P factor. After our maneuvers we decided to shoot some approaches using his TruTrac Sorcerer auto pilot, I also flew one by hand. We shot an ILS into Midlothian Airport and it took us right down the glide slope. We then executed a missed with the auto pilot and it flew us to the IAF and did a hold for us making the entry that we all scratch our heads over when we have to do one. Very impressive. We then did a hand flown approach and it wasn't difficult to hold the ILS needles in check, we did have to break off though because of conflicting traffic in the area. We then proceeded to the landing phase. It really handled nicely on the approach to landing and the landing. Not difficult at all to land. Alex had me use 2 notches of flaps on the approach, I think it was 15 deg, and that worked really well. Boy, when you push in on the throttle to take off on the touch and go this baby wants to just jump off the runway. I did notice the P factor on take off more than I've been used to, requiring rudder to keep it straight. I'm assuming this is because of the power to weight ratio. It wasn't a problem but you definitely needed to use the rudders. On climb out this puppy wants to climb quick. We did several other things but as you can tell I thoroughly enjoyed myself. I've had a lot of flight instructors over the years but Alex would have to rate as one of the better ones I've had. He's very low keyed and tells you what he wants you to do very clearly. And he told me lets just go out there and have some fun flying, which makes a person relax and actually have some fun. I would highly recommend anyone needing transition training to consider giving Alex a call. He's a really nice guy and a great instructor. He's also an Air Traffic Controller at the DFW airport. Here is his web site address http://www.rvtraining.com/ Now I've got to get those vendors who are holding me up to get off there behinds and get my equipment to me :>} I'm ready to get this show on the road. Wayne Edgerton #40336 itching from fiber glass work :>{ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 10, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Bending skin edges after dimpling
I have the Cleaveland edge bending tool. It does a very nice job. However, I dimpled the trailing edge of my elevator before putting the slight bend the trailing edge. Has anyone else tried using this tool to bend an edge after dimpling? Any tips? I quickly figured out that the tool probably works best before any dimpling but I had already done the dimpling before learning this. Bill Watson - tailcone assembled, elevators almost ready to rivet, finally priming tomorrow. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Re: Bending skin edges after dimpling
Date: Dec 10, 2006
Hi Bill, I've done my edge bending with a hand seamer both before and after dimpling. Either way, I start at the end with the edge of the tool gripping half way in to 3-4 rivet holes and make a slight bend, then move the tool down, overlapping one hole as I make my way down the skin. This method has worked well for me, and I see no difference between the edges bent before dimpling and those bent after. I'm very happy with the result. Jeff Carpenter 40304 On Dec 10, 2006, at 1:36 PM, MauleDriver wrote: > > I have the Cleaveland edge bending tool. It does a very nice job. > However, I dimpled the trailing edge of my elevator before putting > the slight bend the trailing edge. Has anyone else tried using > this tool to bend an edge after dimpling? Any tips? > > I quickly figured out that the tool probably works best before any > dimpling but I had already done the dimpling before learning this. > > Bill Watson - tailcone assembled, elevators almost ready to rivet, > finally priming tomorrow. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 10, 2006
From: "Mike Lauritsen - Work" <mike(at)cleavelandtool.com>
Subject: Re: Bending skin edges after dimpling
Don't use the our edge rolling tool after the dimpling! You will end up making a bend that is tight in between dimples and almost non existant at the dimple. Furthermore it will roll out or flatten the dimples and you will have to re-dimple the row. Redimpling will tend to stretch the material slightly. If I were in your position I would try and find a finger break big enough to fit it in and bend it slightly that way (plumbing shop?). Our tool works great for this area if you remember to use it :) Mike -- Mike Lauritsen Cleaveland Aircraft Tool 515-432-6794 www.cleavelandtool.com > > On Dec 10, 2006, at 1:36 PM, MauleDriver wrote: > > > > > I have the Cleaveland edge bending tool. It does a very nice job. > > However, I dimpled the trailing edge of my elevator before putting > > the slight bend the trailing edge. Has anyone else tried using > > this tool to bend an edge after dimpling? Any tips? > > > > I quickly figured out that the tool probably works best before any > > dimpling but I had already done the dimpling before learning this. > > > > Bill Watson - tailcone assembled, elevators almost ready to rivet, > > finally priming tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Stella" <sstella(at)incisaledge.com>
Subject: Bending skin edges after dimpling
Date: Dec 10, 2006
Here's an idea I just thought of to protect the dimples already made. Take a piece of hardwood or aluminum stock and you can either match drill and countersink them to line up with dimples or you could just run a groove the width of the dimples and clamp onto that. I haven't tried it before but it was just a thought. Steve _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Lauritsen - Work Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:59 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Bending skin edges after dimpling Don't use the our edge rolling tool after the dimpling! You will end up making a bend that is tight in between dimples and almost non existant at the dimple. Furthermore it will roll out or flatten the dimples and you will have to re-dimple the row. Redimpling will tend to stretch the material slightly. If I were in your position I would try and find a finger break big enough to fit it in and bend it slightly that way (plumbing shop?). Our tool works great for this area if you remember to use it :) Mike -- Mike Lauritsen Cleaveland Aircraft Tool 515-432-6794 www.cleavelandtool.com On Dec 10, 2006, at 1:36 PM, MauleDriver wrote: > > I have the Cleaveland edge bending tool. It does a very nice job. > However, I dimpled the trailing edge of my elevator before putting > the slight bend the trailing edge. Has anyone else tried using > this tool to bend an edge after dimpling? Any tips? > > I quickly figured out that the tool probably works best before any > dimpling but I had already done the dimpling before learning this. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Testement RM" <john(at)roadmapscoaching.com>
Subject: Lycoming IO-540 Maintenance Manuals
Date: Dec 10, 2006
For those of you flying with the IO-540 D4A5, what engine manuals to you recommend buying. I understand there is a parts manual and an overhaul manual. I don't plan to be overhauling (have a new Aerosport engine) but do want a reference for general maintenance, torque values, etc. What is the best source for these? Lycoming direct? John Testement HYPERLINK "mailto:jwt(at)roadmapscoaching.com"jwt(at)roadmapscoaching.com 40321 Richmond, VA Finish kit - engine, cowl -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Leikam" <DAVELEIKAM(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Bending skin edges after dimpling
Date: Dec 10, 2006
I also dimpled my elevator trailing edge before making the bend by mistake. I used my edge bending roller to make the bend but opened the gap between the rollers to just clear the dimples. I was able to get enough bend to satisfy me and my edges turned out fine. Dave Leikam 40496 tailcone riveting ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Stella To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:34 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Bending skin edges after dimpling Here's an idea I just thought of to protect the dimples already made. Take a piece of hardwood or aluminum stock and you can either match drill and countersink them to line up with dimples or you could just run a groove the width of the dimples and clamp onto that. I haven't tried it before but it was just a thought. Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Lauritsen - Work Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:59 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: Bending skin edges after dimpling Don't use the our edge rolling tool after the dimpling! You will end up making a bend that is tight in between dimples and almost non existant at the dimple. Furthermore it will roll out or flatten the dimples and you will have to re-dimple the row. Redimpling will tend to stretch the material slightly. If I were in your position I would try and find a finger break big enough to fit it in and bend it slightly that way (plumbing shop?). Our tool works great for this area if you remember to use it :) Mike -- Mike Lauritsen Cleaveland Aircraft Tool 515-432-6794 www.cleavelandtool.com On Dec 10, 2006, at 1:36 PM, MauleDriver wrote: MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> > > I have the Cleaveland edge bending tool. It does a very nice job. > However, I dimpled the trailing edge of my elevator before putting > the slight bend the trailing edge. Has anyone else tried using > this tool to bend an edge after dimpling? Any tips? > > I quickly figured out that the tool probably works best before any > dimpling but I had already done the dimpling before learning this. -- Please Support Your Lists This Month -- (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click onthis year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com * Aeroware Enterprises www.kitlog.com * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.comList Contribution Web Site--> http://www.matronics.com/contributionThank you for your generous support! -Matt Dralle, List Admin. - The RV10-List Email Forum - ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 10, 2006
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Priming Question - When To Do
Hi One of the things I have been doing during my empennage construction process is to clean / deburr and prep all parts prior to initial assembly and match drilling. After drilling, I deburr all holes drilled and then proceed to final assembly and riveting. Reading other posts, I believe that others prime as a last step before assembly & riveting. Is there any compelling reason to prefer one way over the other? Inquiring minds need to know Les Kearney RV10 #40643 - lost in the empennage ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Priming Question - When To Do
Date: Dec 10, 2006
Less heartache when you scratch your prime job and then have to recoat. I wait until after I'm done fooling with the pieces to prime. Rob Wright #392 Fuse Access Covers (Sec 35) _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 10:22 PM Subject: RV10-List: Priming Question - When To Do Hi One of the things I have been doing during my empennage construction process is to clean / deburr and prep all parts prior to initial assembly and match drilling. After drilling, I deburr all holes drilled and then proceed to final assembly and riveting. Reading other posts, I believe that others prime as a last step before assembly & riveting. Is there any compelling reason to prefer one way over the other? Inquiring minds need to know Les Kearney RV10 #40643 - lost in the empennage ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt
Date: Dec 10, 2006
From: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com>
Hi guys, just wanted to let you all know about an incident I had today that could have been prevented. I flew down to Mesquite NV. last Thursday and was getting ready to fly back today. As I was loading and getting ready to fly back to Salt Lake City, I took out the eye bolts for the tie downs. I then loaded two people in the back with luggage. The plane was pointed slightly up hill and then both me and my friend stepped on the step and the plane rocked back. I got off but the plane continued to fall back and the tail hit the ground. It slightly bent the bottom fuselage skin at the very rear and cracked the rear fiberglass fairing on the rudder. I will have to replace it and repaint it. It really isn't a big deal but I'm going to replace the whole fiberglass peice. There would be no scratches or damage at all if I would have left the rear tie down in. It would have hit the ground. I never thought it would rock back but it did. It was on a slope and the wind was blowing pretty hard that pushed the rear of the plane down even more. Moral of the story: Put the eye bolt in and keep it there. Don't be like me and worry about the .0345256395734 mph that you lose with the eye bolt. You can still take out the wing bolts. Scott Schmidt N104XP - 72 hours ________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 11, 2006
Subject: Re: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt
Scott, I was just at mesquite..........did you fly down to golf WOLF CREEK? Wh at a great golf course. While we were playing a nice VLJ flew in as the airport is almost ON the course. When 805HL is done I figure I can get to Mesquite in 4 hours.........play golf and fly home. Sorry to hear about the incident. I guess getting someone in the front seat before lo ading all the WINNINGS from the casino in the baggage compartment is a m ust when leaving Nevada! LOL DEAN 40449 ________________________________________________________________________
Scott,

I was just at mesquite..........did you fly down to golf WOLF CREEK?& nbsp; What a great golf course. While we were playing a nice VLJ f lew in as the airport is almost ON the course. When 805HL is done I figure I can get to Mesquite in 4 hours.........play golf and fly home .   Sorry to hear about the incident. I guess getting so meone in the front seat before loading all the WINNINGS from the casino in the baggage compartment is a must when leaving Nevada!   LO L

DEAN 40449

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

________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt
Date: Dec 10, 2006
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Scott, my heart goes out to you. Randy must have known that, cause the first time I boarded N610RV he was quick to point out that two humans (of my ballast) cannot mount the RV-10 aircraft at the same point in time. Builders Note: Only one POB on any given step at the same point in time. Share the excitement of loading for a flight - one at a time. Trivia from the latest FAA AC43.13-2A, Chapter Three - Page 14, Section 38. When installed, the 3/8-16 UNC eyebolt (not provided in the kit) has a frontal area of about 0.4231875 sq. inches and using the formula from the AC43.13-1B that would make the factors in Drag = .000327 * Area * velocity squared. So at that magic 208 mph, your drag might have been as high as 5.986972368 pounds. That's no light bag of potatoes for us Hot Rodders. Now what formulation did you use to convert drag factor into lost mph at cruise? How are the headers working out? Do you have any input on Grand Rapids vs. Chelton yet? Isn't your engine an Aerosport? Hope the repair goes quickly and your painter is as good at Spot Work as complete repaint. I am waiting for Sun N' Fun and a Grand Champion RV-10. May you have gentle breezes, light tailwinds and clear skies into the spring. John Cox #40600 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:21 PM Subject: RV10-List: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt Hi guys, just wanted to let you all know about an incident I had today that could have been prevented. I flew down to Mesquite NV. last Thursday and was getting ready to fly back today. As I was loading and getting ready to fly back to Salt Lake City, I took out the eye bolts for the tie downs. I then loaded two people in the back with luggage. The plane was pointed slightly up hill and then both me and my friend stepped on the step and the plane rocked back. I got off but the plane continued to fall back and the tail hit the ground. It slightly bent the bottom fuselage skin at the very rear and cracked the rear fiberglass fairing on the rudder. I will have to replace it and repaint it. It really isn't a big deal but I'm going to replace the whole fiberglass peice. There would be no scratches or damage at all if I would have left the rear tie down in. It would have hit the ground. I never thought it would rock back but it did. It was on a slope and the wind was blowing pretty hard that pushed the rear of the plane down even more. Moral of the story: Put the eye bolt in and keep it there. Don't be like me and worry about the .0345256395734 mph that you lose with the eye bolt. You can still take out the wing bolts. Scott Schmidt N104XP - 72 hours ________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt
Date: Dec 10, 2006
From: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com>
We flew down Thursday and went over Grand Canyon again. We landed at the Grand Canyon airport in 25 knot winds. We golfed both courses at Oasis. I've played Wolfcreek before and loved it. What a great weekend, 70 degrees and no wind or clouds. If any of you ever fly down the local Mesquite auto rental company will come and pick you up. You then can leave the car at the airport when you leave and they will come and pick it up. I wish my winnings were the issue. Played three card poker and did alright but I didn't win the bazzillion dollars I was hoping for. Well, it was time to do some things on plane I've been holding off on. I'm going to add the oxygen system and finish the headliner while I'm working on the rudder. I'm also going to add a rudder trim while I have it off and have to repaint it. -Scott Schmidt N104XP - 72 hours ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of ddddsp1(at)juno.com Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 10:53 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt Scott, I was just at mesquite..........did you fly down to golf WOLF CREEK? What a great golf course. While we were playing a nice VLJ flew in as the airport is almost ON the course. When 805HL is done I figure I can get to Mesquite in 4 hours.........play golf and fly home. Sorry to hear about the incident. I guess getting someone in the front seat before loading all the WINNINGS from the casino in the baggage compartment is a must when leaving Nevada! LOL DEAN 40449 ________________________________________________________________________ <http://www.aeroelectric.com/> <http://www.buildersbooks.com/> <http://www.homebuilthelp.com/> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 10, 2006
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: tough or impossible floor pan rivets?
Here is one from the archives. Good Luck Hope yours comes out better than my mangled pop rivets. Larry #356 -------------------------- This is bit of an old issue, but I recently won the battle against the "impossible rivets" on the rear seat pans and I thought I would share my method. The forward-most hole is the problem because the front seat support gets in the way. I managed to set a solid rivet in these holes, but it took some trial and error. I ended up using a 12" piece of steel angle, with a hole drilled in one end to accept a 1/8" cupped set (I had to do some grinding on the end of the steel piece to get it to work out). I placed the cupped set on the rivet and blocked the aft end of the steel piece from the side panel with a piece of wood. Then I used a mushroom set in my rivet gun, placed it on the piece of steel as close to the rivet as possible and hammered away. I cranked up the PSI on the gun a bit. I used different pieces of wood to support the steel piece while I riveted to keep from scratching the floor and side panel aluminum. As a bucking bar for all the floor pan rivets along the left and right sides of the fuselage, I used the long RV-10 bucking bar with a 2x4 block taped in the middle (this gives you leverage against the outside skin for holding pressure on the back side of the rivets). It takes some adjusting of the size of the block, but once you get it right you can get through those rivets quickly. You might want to support the outside skin with something to keep it from denting as you're pushing on it. Send me an email if you want to see a picture of the rivet set up. Jim McGrew RV-10 #134 - Just starting to wire fuse -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R [NTK] > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:30 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: The impossible rivets - 1 won, 1 lost > > Tim, you and I seem to be at the same sport. I ended up doing > the same thing for the nutplates on the baggage door jam. I drilled the > rivet hole to come out the back and then enlarged this hole to 1/4" and > back riveted it using a hammer and punch on a backing plate. > As for the most forward rivet on the rear side seat pans, I also > left this rivet out. I called Van's about it and explain to Bruce there > is no way to get this rivet because you can't get to either side of the > rivet with the gun. He went on to say you can use a pop rivet at a 15 > degree angle, but I said it would be more like a 70 degree angle and it > wouldn't work. If you look at the drawing that show the rear floor pan, > you will notice they don't even show this hole exists, so I wonder if > this was added later not thinking about how it would be set. > > > > Thank You > Ray Doerr > 40250 Floor Pans all rivet on. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 11:16 PM > To: RV10 > Subject: RV10-List: The impossible rivets - 1 won, 1 lost > > > I found 2 "impossible" rivets, and the solution to one of them. QB > fuse, by the way. > > #1 is on the baggage door latch bracket that goes on the fuselage. > There are 2 nutplates to attach. 2 of those 4 rivets are not > accessible by squeezer or bucking bar. I did, however, > find that I have a very small flat squeezer set and I could drill > a hole and enlarge with a unibit in the flange underneath the > rivet, and get the squeezer through. I just don't know how else > you'd do it. Here's a couple of photos. > > http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/fuselage/20050530/RV200505260017.html > http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/fuselage/20050530/RV200505260016.html > > > The other impossible rivets are on the very forward hole of the > rear seat panels, on the sidewalls. There are holes that are completely > inaccessible by rivet gun, or pop rivet tool. This photo shows the > location, a couple inches NorthEast of the rivet set. > http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/fuselage/20050530/RV200505250013.html > Short of drilling a hole through my seat bracket, which is NOT > worth it, I can't find a way to fill that hole. The ones on the > other side of the floor panel by the tunnel could be popped in > from the tunnel side I suppose, but you'd have an ugle rivet > sticking into the seating area. For now I'm just going to leave > them empty. If I got desperate, I'd GLUE in a rivet for looks... > then everyone would think I figured out the secret. :) > > Tim > > -- > > Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 11, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Bending skin edges after dimpling
Thanks Mike but I did it already (see other post). We'll see if the streching will get me when I rivet. I will try to avoid that in the future by bending before dimpling. However, not sure what you mean here, "I would try and find a finger break big enough to fit it in and bend it slightly that way (plumbing shop?)". Bill "Priming today" Watson Mike Lauritsen - Work wrote: > Don't use the our edge rolling tool after the dimpling! You will end > up making a bend that is tight in between dimples and almost non > existant at the dimple. Furthermore it will roll out or flatten the > dimples and you will have to re-dimple the row. Redimpling will tend > to stretch the material slightly. If I were in your position I would > try and find a finger break big enough to fit it in and bend it > slightly that way (plumbing shop?). Our tool works great for this > area if you remember to use it :) > > Mike > > > -- > Mike Lauritsen > Cleaveland Aircraft Tool > 515-432-6794 > www.cleavelandtool.com <http://www.cleavelandtool.com> > > > > On Dec 10, 2006, at 1:36 PM, MauleDriver wrote: > > MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com > > > > > I have the Cleaveland edge bending tool. It does a very nice job. > > However, I dimpled the trailing edge of my elevator before putting > > the slight bend the trailing edge. Has anyone else tried using > > this tool to bend an edge after dimpling? Any tips? > > > > I quickly figured out that the tool probably works best before any > > dimpling but I had already done the dimpling before learning this. > > * > > > * > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hot Starts Lycoming?
Date: Dec 11, 2006
From: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr(at)sprint.com>
Sure. Mixture full out Throttle 1/8" Crank engine until it fires, then immediately set Mixture all in and turn on Boost pump. I found that sometimes if you don't get the boost pump on right after it fires, the engine will fire and run for 2 seconds or so then quit. I believe this is because it burns up all the fuel in the cyclinders from the hot start conditions and then it doesn't have new fuel to continue running. By the way the boost pump can then be turned off about 10 seconds after the start. Thank You Ray Doerr 40250 N519RV Flying and 188 on the Hobbs. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of C Smith Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 10:06 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Hot Starts Lycoming? Any one care to share their hot start tips????? CS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Shielded wire.
Date: Dec 11, 2006
Is it important to not only shield headphone jack and mic jack wire, but to also use a shielded wire for the strobe wire run...perhaps to keep the energy inside the wire???????? Having truoble getting through all the reading material while building. Only so much time in a 24 hr, seven day week. JOhn G. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 11, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Shielded wire.
John, The strobe wires are sheilded, 4 wire stuff with a foil sheild and one bare, one white, one clear, one red and one black. The wire came with my strobe package from Creative Air. Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 11, 2006
From: todd agold <t_agold(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: OB leading edge skins
I've been working on the outboard leading edges and noticed that there is a slight spanwise bend on the lower surface about 6 (I think) rivet holes back from the leading edge. If I run my hand over the airfoil, like air passing over it, I can feel a slight bump at this bend. Is this supposed to be there? Has anyone else seen/heard of this? Thanks, Todd Agold #40362 --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 11, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Lycoming IO-540 Maintenance Manuals
John, Here's a suggestion I received in answer to the same question. Operators Manual, Lycoming Revision 60297-10-5 (If you order a new engine this should come with it. The Lycoming Engine Parts Manual is PC-215-1 dated June 1993. A complete set of Service Bulletins, Instructions, and Letters is BS-147. The Lycoming Trouble-Shooting Manual is SSP-475. Lycoming Special Tools Catalog is SSP-384. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ John Testement RM wrote: > For those of you flying with the IO-540 D4A5, what engine manuals to > you recommend buying. I understand there is a parts manual and an > overhaul manual. I don't plan to be overhauling (have a new Aerosport > engine) but do want a reference for general maintenance, torque > values, etc. What is the best source for these? Lycoming direct? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 11, 2006
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Lycoming IO-540 Maintenance Manuals
How much of these manuals, if any, comes with an engine from BPE? Larry Rosen #356 Deems Davis wrote: > > John, > > Here's a suggestion I received in answer to the same question. > > Operators Manual, Lycoming Revision 60297-10-5 (If you order a new > engine this should come with it. > The Lycoming Engine Parts Manual is PC-215-1 dated June 1993. > A complete set of Service Bulletins, Instructions, and Letters is BS-147. > The Lycoming Trouble-Shooting Manual is SSP-475. Lycoming Special > Tools Catalog is SSP-384. > > Deems Davis # 406 > Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) > http://deemsrv10.com/ > > > John Testement RM wrote: > >> For those of you flying with the IO-540 D4A5, what engine manuals to >> you recommend buying. I understand there is a parts manual and an >> overhaul manual. I don't plan to be overhauling (have a new Aerosport >> engine) but do want a reference for general maintenance, torque >> values, etc. What is the best source for these? Lycoming direct? >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Lycoming IO-540 Maintenance Manuals
Date: Dec 11, 2006
From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com>
Larry: Lycoming doesn't ship the experimental kit engines with an operator's manual. Not sure why, although we have discussed it several times with them. However, I'm happy to supply you with one. Best, Rhonda -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 2:50 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Lycoming IO-540 Maintenance Manuals How much of these manuals, if any, comes with an engine from BPE? Larry Rosen #356 Deems Davis wrote: > > John, > > Here's a suggestion I received in answer to the same question. > > Operator's Manual, Lycoming Revision 60297-10-5 (If you order a new > engine this should come with it. > The Lycoming Engine Parts Manual is PC-215-1 dated June 1993. > A complete set of Service Bulletins, Instructions, and Letters is BS-147. > The Lycoming Trouble-Shooting Manual is SSP-475. Lycoming Special > Tools Catalog is SSP-384. > > Deems Davis # 406 > Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) > http://deemsrv10.com/ > > > John Testement RM wrote: > >> For those of you flying with the IO-540 D4A5, what engine manuals to >> you recommend buying. I understand there is a parts manual and an >> overhaul manual. I don't plan to be overhauling (have a new Aerosport >> engine) but do want a reference for general maintenance, torque >> values, etc. What is the best source for these? Lycoming direct? >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 11, 2006
From: Niko <owl40188(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Priming Question - When To Do
Les,=0A=0AHere is why I prime as the last step.=0A=0A- Avoids a lot of s cratches on the primer.=0A=0A- The conversion coating/ primer gets aroun d the perimeter of the holes which is a likely location for corrosion to st art.=0A=0A- The primed surface stays cleaner as its not handled as much. =0A=0A- Sometimes dimpling a primed surface debonds the primer.=0A=0ANik o=0A40188=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Les Kearney <kearney@ shaw.ca>=0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 11 :21:53 PM=0ASubject: RV10-List: Priming Question - When To Do=0A=0A=0AHi=0A =0AOne of the things I have been doing during my empennage construction pr ocess is to clean / deburr and prep all parts prior to initial assembly and match drilling. After drilling, I deburr all holes drilled and then procee d to final assembly and riveting.=0A =0AReading other posts, I believe that others prime as a last step before assembly & riveting.=0A =0AIs there any compelling reason to prefer one way over the other?=0A =0AInquiring minds need to know=0A =0ALes Kearney=0ARV10 =0A#40643 ' lost in the empennage == ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 7.9mm ream anyone
Date: Dec 11, 2006
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Are there any of the flying RV-10 builders that would like to sell their 7.9 MM ream? John Cox #40600 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: 7.9mm ream anyone
Date: Dec 11, 2006
John, I won't sell it but you are welcome to use it for as long as you need it. Just promise to pass it along to the next builder. Send me your mailing address. Mark ( (410MR) 40043 >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV10-List: 7.9mm ream anyone >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:25:38 -0800 > >Are there any of the flying RV-10 builders that would like to sell their >7.9 MM ream? > >John Cox >#40600 > _________________________________________________________________ Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 7.9mm ream anyone
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.com>
On this subject, how many have reamed the landing gear holes rather than drilled them? I reamed the mounts to 7.9mm so I have the reamer. But the actual landing gear itself is one hunk o' steel. Is it difficult to ream? cheers Ron -----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, 12 December 2006 1:15 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: 7.9mm ream anyone John, I won't sell it but you are welcome to use it for as long as you need it. Just promise to pass it along to the next builder. Send me your mailing address. Mark ( (410MR) 40043 >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV10-List: 7.9mm ream anyone >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:25:38 -0800 > >Are there any of the flying RV-10 builders that would like to sell their >7.9 MM ream? > >John Cox >#40600 > _________________________________________________________________ Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Newest 10 Builder
From: "orchidman" <gary(at)wingscc.com>
Date: Dec 11, 2006
I have been looking and drooling over the 10 since April of this year. Took the 2-many-thousand-$ flight at Oshkosh and ordered my Emp and Wings this morning. Tells you what I though of the flight and the plane. :D This afternoon I got my builder number which is 674 so I dont think we can get a better update as to how many 10 kits have been sold/started through today. As to lead times, the Emp kit should ship Friday of this week or early next week and the Wing kit will ship right at 8 weeks from now, but might be 7 weeks. I am sure the lead times will increase as Dec 31 approaches. I am excited about joining this elite group. -------- Gary Blankenbiller RV10 - # 40674 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p935#80935 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Newest 10 Builder
Date: Dec 11, 2006
Welcome aboard. Rene' 40322 N423CF 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of orchidman Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:13 PM Subject: RV10-List: Newest 10 Builder I have been looking and drooling over the 10 since April of this year. Took the 2-many-thousand-$ flight at Oshkosh and ordered my Emp and Wings this morning. Tells you what I though of the flight and the plane. :D This afternoon I got my builder number which is 674 so I dont think we can get a better update as to how many 10 kits have been sold/started through today. As to lead times, the Emp kit should ship Friday of this week or early next week and the Wing kit will ship right at 8 weeks from now, but might be 7 weeks. I am sure the lead times will increase as Dec 31 approaches. I am excited about joining this elite group. -------- Gary Blankenbiller RV10 - # 40674 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p935#80935 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Reining" <wreining(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bending skin edges after dimpling
Date: Dec 11, 2006
I also dimpled our elevator edges before bending. Even though I already owned the Cleveland tool, I could see that it would ride over the dimples. So I ordered Avery's tool (the two little white nylon wheels) and used it. I was a little worried about how it would turn out, but just gathered my courage and carefully drew it along the edge, forming just the slightest bend between the dimples and the edge. It all went together very nicely. Thanks Avery! Someone ought to have Van's put a note in the elevator instructions about bending before dimpling. Bill Reining (with my son Jon) 40514 Tail Cone - interrupted by household move ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: clearance
Date: Dec 11, 2006
Anybody have a measurement from the ground to the belly of the aircraft, or how high do I need to hoist/jack the fuse up in order to slide the gear legs in? Rob Wright #392 Fuse ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Wire routing--TUNNEL?
Date: Dec 11, 2006
So many people have discussed the hot tunnel temperatures associated with their Lycoming heating and air system. First, is there any left over room in the tunnel for anything, as in wire bundles, upper right and left corners. Is the temperature in the tunnel so hot that is makes it an impractical area to route anything except hot water to make cocoa on long flights? Thinking about putting in a third hole in the bulkheads above the main spar Just thinking, Just asking. John G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: clearance
Date: Dec 11, 2006
I do not have the measurement, but I had mine on top of a regular cafeteria table from the aviation department of Sams... Rene' 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Wright Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:45 PM Subject: RV10-List: clearance Anybody have a measurement from the ground to the belly of the aircraft, or how high do I need to hoist/jack the fuse up in order to slide the gear legs in? Rob Wright #392 Fuse ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob.kaufmann" <bob.kaufmann(at)cox.net>
Subject: Shielded wire.
Date: Dec 11, 2006
Well there you have it, John you have not bought the week stretcher. You can get it from either Stein, Avery or Cleveland and the price is only $450 for the economy version. It gives you a 27 hour day and an 8 day week. Rick Sked bought one a year ago and has had great success with it. Bob K To thrifty to buy a week stretcher. Still working the 168 hour week. Do not archive. -----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 11, 2006 9:19 AM Subject: RV10-List: Shielded wire. Is it important to not only shield headphone jack and mic jack wire, but to also use a shielded wire for the strobe wire run...perhaps to keep the energy inside the wire???????? Having truoble getting through all the reading material while building. Only so much time in a 24 hr, seven day week. JOhn G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Mr. Olson finally made it to the press :-)Re: Mr. Olson
finally made it to the press :-)
Date: Dec 12, 2006
I plan on doing Sun & Fun 2007. Maybe we could meet at Jesse's home base in Florida and do a group RV-10 flyin to Sun & Fun. Russ Daves N710RV ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net>
Subject: Battery Wire
Date: Dec 12, 2006
John, the best battery wire around for the long run from the tailcone to the firewall is Super-2-CCA FatWire. You can order it from http://periheliondesign.com/fatwires.htm It is super flexible and really light weight. I love it. You can order a few feet extra and also use it to make up a great ground wire from the engine to the firewall as well. Russ Daves N710RV First flight 7/28/06 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Newest 10 Builder
Date: Dec 12, 2006
Welcome aboard. You are going to love both building and flying the RV-10. I highly recommend getting all the great RV-10 builders web sites set up as favorites and using their knowledge on a regular basis while building. If it had not been for Tim Olson's web site I would probably still be building instead of flying. Since Tim a number of other builders have also developed great web sites which will help you get a great cross section of knowledge during the building process. In addition, don't forget to use the search engine on Matronics for answers to questions as well. Russ Daves N710RV First Flight 7/28/06 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org>
Subject: Newest 10 Builder
Date: Dec 12, 2006
Congratulations! For new builders, it would be nice to see where you are located (and for all the rest, I guess). I know a lot of it is on the Google map thingy. I will start. I am in Dunnellon (north central) Florida, X35. 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 orchidman Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:13 PM Subject: RV10-List: Newest 10 Builder I have been looking and drooling over the 10 since April of this year. Took the 2-many-thousand-$ flight at Oshkosh and ordered my Emp and Wings this morning. Tells you what I though of the flight and the plane. :D This afternoon I got my builder number which is 674 so I dont think we can get a better update as to how many 10 kits have been sold/started through today. As to lead times, the Emp kit should ship Friday of this week or early next week and the Wing kit will ship right at 8 weeks from now, but might be 7 weeks. I am sure the lead times will increase as Dec 31 approaches. I am excited about joining this elite group. -------- Gary Blankenbiller RV10 - # 40674 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p935#80935 -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Shielded wire.
The special 4 wire shielded wire is for the runs to the strobe heads. How about the power and grounds to the strobe power supply? Just Tefzel wire? Local ground or run a wire back to the ground block on the fire wall? Larry #356 Rick wrote: > > John, > > The strobe wires are sheilded, 4 wire stuff with a foil sheild and one bare, one white, one clear, one red and one black. The wire came with my strobe package from Creative Air. > > Rick S. > 40185 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Wire
Russ, What length wire did you order? Larry Russell Daves wrote: > John, the best battery wire around for the long run from the tailcone > to the firewall is *Super-2-CCA FatWire. You can order it from > http://periheliondesign.com/fatwires.htm* > ** > *It is super flexible and really light weight. I love it. You can > order a few feet extra and also use it to make up a great ground wire > from the engine to the firewall as well.* > ** > *Russ Daves* > *N710RV* > *First flight 7/28/06* > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 7.9mm ream anyone
I think this is one of the topics that gets more discussion than it probably warrants. I just completed this step, and had a LOT of angst prior to doing so. I ordered the 7.9mm DRILL bit from Mcmaster Carr (having forgotten the advice to use a reamer). the day came to drill/ream the holes and I debated about delaying and ordering a reamer. Well I pressed ahead and found out the the Drill bit worked just fine. It turns out that there is not a lot of material that gets removed in the process, and the 7.9mm drill bit seemed to do the job just fine, took very little time and produced excellent results. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/. > > *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: 7.9mm ream anyone > > > > On this subject, how many have reamed the landing gear holes rather > than drilled them? I reamed the mounts to 7.9mm so I have the > reamer. But the actual landing gear itself is one hunk o' steel. Is > it difficult to ream? > > cheers > Ron > > ** ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Shielded wire.
I used good o'l Tezfel like all the other parts but can't vouch that there is not an issue because I haven't flown it yet but I did carry the ground forward to the common single point on the firewall. The high volts are only carried out to the actual strobe, depending on your setup the power supply uses either 12 or 24 volts input. I have connected all my grounds to a single point up front except for the no noise resistance operated items like standard filament lights, pitot heat, stick grip warmer, seat warmers and rear window deicers ;) Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Bending skin edges after dimpling
FWIW, The Orndoff videos went over working with sheetmetal very well, that's where I heard/learned about doing the bend before dimpling. Bending works well anytime you have overlapping seams. The hardest part is to REMEMBER to bend before you dimple. I have used a hand seamer on a few areas where that has happened. For those who ponied up to go to one of the classes they should have addressed that in those classes as well. Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Newest 10 Builder
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>
Welcome! Where are you located? Bob #40105 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of orchidman Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:13 PM Subject: RV10-List: Newest 10 Builder I have been looking and drooling over the 10 since April of this year. Took the 2-many-thousand-$ flight at Oshkosh and ordered my Emp and Wings this morning. Tells you what I though of the flight and the plane. :D This afternoon I got my builder number which is 674 so I dont think we can get a better update as to how many 10 kits have been sold/started through today. As to lead times, the Emp kit should ship Friday of this week or early next week and the Wing kit will ship right at 8 weeks from now, but might be 7 weeks. I am sure the lead times will increase as Dec 31 approaches. I am excited about joining this elite group. -------- Gary Blankenbiller RV10 - # 40674 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p935#80935 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Newest 10 Builder
Let me add my welcome as well, I hope you find this adventure as rewarding and satisfying (sometimes frustrating) as I have. I second Russ's advice, the archives are helpful but if you don't find the information you seek there, don't be bashful about posting and asking questions, you will usually receive several responses which more often than not represent different ways to skin the cat, then you get to decide what will work for you and your plane. Each mistake you make will teach you something. so don't fret too much about not doing everything 'perfectly' right out of the box, While you want to do everything possible to ensure a safe plane, there's very little if anything that can't be fixed/repaired/redone. Good Luck PS. Oh yeah, the only thing about this group that's 'Elite' is Rick Sked's perfect record of never drilling out a mis-set rivet! ;-) or, maybe it's John Cox's 'Rapidbuild' breakneck record setting build pace, or perhaps Chris Johnstons single shot @ bending trim tabs, or............... you get the picture. I guess if there's anything special about this group it the love we all share for what we're going. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ (anxiously awaiting the freight truck w/ my engine to pull up!) orchidman wrote: > >I have been looking and drooling over the 10 since April of this year. Took the 2-many-thousand-$ flight at Oshkosh and ordered my Emp and Wings this morning. Tells you what I though of the flight and the plane. :D > >This afternoon I got my builder number which is 674 so I dont think we can get a better update as to how many 10 kits have been sold/started through today. > >As to lead times, the Emp kit should ship Friday of this week or early next week and the Wing kit will ship right at 8 weeks from now, but might be 7 weeks. I am sure the lead times will increase as Dec 31 approaches. > >I am excited about joining this elite group. > >-------- >Gary Blankenbiller >RV10 - # 40674 > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p935#80935 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: clearance
Rob, I don't know that anybody will have this information, because as soon as you get the leg's inserted and the wheels on you take it down to avoid the risk of an accident. But you can estimate it pretty easily, by setting one of the gear legs parallel mounting tube, resting the leg on the ground and then measuring how much the top of the leg extends beyond the bottom of the gear tube. I just kept 'ratcheting it up' until I had enough clearance. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ Rob Wright wrote: > Anybody have a measurement from the ground to the belly of the > aircraft, or how high do I need to hoist/jack the fuse up in order to > slide the gear legs in? > > > > Rob Wright > > #392 > > Fuse > >* > > >* > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Newest 10 Builder
From: "tomhanaway" <tomhanaway(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Dec 12, 2006
Gary, Welcome. I'm just a lttle ahead of you. #639. I've finished my vertical stabilizer and rudder. Horizontal stab will be primed in the next few days. All setup done and will begin riveting. Sent my deposit check in yesterday for the QB fuselage and wings. I'm actually pretty pleasd with the workmanship to date but there's definitely a learning curve. I went down to George and Becky Ornoff's place in Texas for a weekend workshop. Worh it's weight in gold because it establishes a standard that you can evaluate your work by. The other reality is that my workmanship is much better now than when I started. Later next year, I'll go back and decide if I want to redo the vert stab based on improved skills. At the present, I don't see any need to do that. So, go ahead and treat your first piece as a learning curve that can be replaced inexpensively. Tom Hanaway Boynton Beach, FL (next to West Palm Beach) full blown priming-next to ocean :^) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81062#81062 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Newest 10 Builder
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Uh-oh, he said Engine , DOH! Dan N289DT RV10 "E" -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:02 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Newest 10 Builder Let me add my welcome as well, I hope you find this adventure as rewarding and satisfying (sometimes frustrating) as I have. I second Russ's advice, the archives are helpful but if you don't find the information you seek there, don't be bashful about posting and asking questions, you will usually receive several responses which more often than not represent different ways to skin the cat, then you get to decide what will work for you and your plane. Each mistake you make will teach you something. so don't fret too much about not doing everything 'perfectly' right out of the box, While you want to do everything possible to ensure a safe plane, there's very little if anything that can't be fixed/repaired/redone. Good Luck PS. Oh yeah, the only thing about this group that's 'Elite' is Rick Sked's perfect record of never drilling out a mis-set rivet! ;-) or, maybe it's John Cox's 'Rapidbuild' breakneck record setting build pace, or perhaps Chris Johnstons single shot @ bending trim tabs, or............... you get the picture. I guess if there's anything special about this group it the love we all share for what we're going. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ (anxiously awaiting the freight truck w/ my engine to pull up!) orchidman wrote: > >I have been looking and drooling over the 10 since April of this year. Took the 2-many-thousand-$ flight at Oshkosh and ordered my Emp and Wings this morning. Tells you what I though of the flight and the plane. :D > >This afternoon I got my builder number which is 674 so I dont think we can get a better update as to how many 10 kits have been sold/started through today. > >As to lead times, the Emp kit should ship Friday of this week or early next week and the Wing kit will ship right at 8 weeks from now, but might be 7 weeks. I am sure the lead times will increase as Dec 31 approaches. > >I am excited about joining this elite group. > >-------- >Gary Blankenbiller >RV10 - # 40674 > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p935#80935 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: AOPA rebate closeout
Date: Dec 12, 2006
If you have not filed for your AOPA fuel rebate you can do so online using you old logonid and password at https://www.bankofamerica.com/index.jsp. get your account on the screen and "view options" then "more options" then "features and benefits", then third line is the AOPA old rebate claim form. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AOPA rebate closeout
Currently considering EAA Visa or Air BP cards as possible replacements. Any other suggestions for rebates? On 12/12/06, David McNeill wrote: > > If you have not filed for your AOPA fuel rebate you can do so online using > you old logonid and password at > https://www.bankofamerica.com/index.jsp. get your account > on the screen and "view options" then "more options" then "features and > benefits", then third line is the AOPA old rebate claim form. > > -- Please Support Your Lists This Month -- > Gifts!) > Contribution link below to find out more about > Incentive Gifts provided > * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com > www.kitlog.com > Contribution Web Site > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > your generous support! > Admin. > - The RV10-List Email Forum - > to browse > Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, > much more: > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Jeff's LED lights
Date: Dec 12, 2006
Deems or anyone else who has installed these lights, is there a seperate set of wires going to the strobe lights and a seperate set of wires going to the LEDs. I am waiting for an email from Jeff himself, but i am trying to place my wire order today during my short downtime from work, not building...or are they both the same. Thanks, John G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Leffler" <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: AOPA rebate closeout
Date: Dec 12, 2006
I canceled my AOPA card and went with both the EAA and Air BP Card. The only thing I don't like about the Air BP card is that they issue a check for the rebate. I would much prefer just a credit to the account. Almost all the avgas within 50 miles is BP, so this one works well for me. The EAA Card is too new and hasn't had a bill yet. I figured that with the amount of stuff I will most likely be purchasing from Aircraft Spruce, it may worth having the account. Although, I haven't found anything that specifies the exact amount of the rebate. Everything that I've found stated "up to 10%". I went with the version that also gives a cash rebate. I don't need any programs that just issue points. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:06 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: AOPA rebate closeout Currently considering EAA Visa or Air BP cards as possible replacements. Any other suggestions for rebates? On 12/12/06, David McNeill wrote: > > If you have not filed for your AOPA fuel rebate you can do so online using > you old logonid and password at > https://www.bankofamerica.com/index.jsp. get your account > on the screen and "view options" then "more options" then "features and > benefits", then third line is the AOPA old rebate claim form. > > -- Please Support Your Lists This Month -- > Gifts!) > Contribution link below to find out more about > Incentive Gifts provided > * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com > www.kitlog.com > Contribution Web Site > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > your generous support! > Admin. > - The RV10-List Email Forum - > to browse > Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, > much more: > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Jeff's LED lights
Yes, separate wires for each, shielded to the Strobes, and Tefzel to the LED power pucks. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ John Gonzalez wrote: > > Deems or anyone else who has installed these lights, is there a > seperate set of wires going to the strobe lights and a seperate set of > wires going to the LEDs. I am waiting for an email from Jeff himself, > but i am trying to place my wire order today during my short downtime > from work, not building...or are they both the same. > > Thanks, > > John G. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 7.9mm ream anyone
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
You won't be reaming the gear. It is way too hard. You reem just the hole in the weldment. Randy 40006 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 6:55 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: 7.9mm ream anyone On this subject, how many have reamed the landing gear holes rather than drilled them? I reamed the mounts to 7.9mm so I have the reamer. But the actual landing gear itself is one hunk o' steel. Is it difficult to ream? cheers Ron -----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, 12 December 2006 1:15 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: 7.9mm ream anyone John, I won't sell it but you are welcome to use it for as long as you need it. Just promise to pass it along to the next builder. Send me your mailing address. Mark ( (410MR) 40043 >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV10-List: 7.9mm ream anyone >Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:25:38 -0800 > >Are there any of the flying RV-10 builders that would like to sell their >7.9 MM ream? > >John Cox >#40600 > _________________________________________________________________ Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. Support Your Lists This Month -- Raiser. Click on out more about Gifts provided www.aeroelectric.com Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com www.kitlog.com www.homebuilthelp.com HREF="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c o ntribution support! browse Subscriptions page, Chat, FAQ, HREF="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s .com/Navigator?RV10-List ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Draft of GRT EFIS Horizon User Manual
Date: Dec 12, 2006
Received a draft copy of the new Horizon User Manual from Carlos at GRT today. To large (78 pages) to post to the list. I could forward one to an email address if you would like a copy. Have not checked to see if it is posted on the GRT site. Mark N410MR _________________________________________________________________ MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by style, age, and price. Try it! http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId00,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata 0601&tcode=wlmtagline ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Draft of GRT EFIS Horizon User Manual
Date: Dec 12, 2006
If you are referring to the GRT sport , it is on the website and the PDF can be downloaded. BTW if you need a copy of Sport manual, you can logon to FEDEX/KINKOS and send them the PDF. You can pick up the hardcopy the nextday. Two copies (single side B/W plus some color, spiral bound) of the Sport was $21. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:39 PM Subject: RV10-List: Draft of GRT EFIS Horizon User Manual > > > Received a draft copy of the new Horizon User Manual from Carlos at GRT > today. To large (78 pages) to post to the list. > > I could forward one to an email address if you would like a copy. Have > not checked to see if it is posted on the GRT site. > > Mark > N410MR > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by > style, age, and price. Try it! > http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId00,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata 0601&tcode=wlmtagline > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Draft of GRT EFIS Horizon User Manual
Date: Dec 12, 2006
I'm not referring to the Sport. Mark N410MR >From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: RV10-List: Draft of GRT EFIS Horizon User Manual >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:48:18 -0700 > > >If you are referring to the GRT sport , it is on the website and the PDF >can be downloaded. BTW if you need a copy of Sport manual, you can logon to >FEDEX/KINKOS and send them the PDF. You can pick up the hardcopy the >nextday. Two copies (single side B/W plus some color, spiral bound) of the >Sport was $21. >----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com> >To: >Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:39 PM >Subject: RV10-List: Draft of GRT EFIS Horizon User Manual > > >> >> >> >>Received a draft copy of the new Horizon User Manual from Carlos at GRT >>today. To large (78 pages) to post to the list. >> >>I could forward one to an email address if you would like a copy. Have >>not checked to see if it is posted on the GRT site. >> >>Mark >>N410MR >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by >>style, age, and price. Try it! >>http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId00,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata 0601&tcode=wlmtagline >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com>
John, I didn't really calculate the drag from the eye bolt. I was just guessing. I'm sure it isn't enough to even worry about though. So far the ceramic coated headers have been great. I haven't observed any advantages and haven't seen any disadvantages. My engine is an Aerosport and everything seems to be working great. I cut down the baffles on the fronts of the cylinders and really saw an increase on the cooling. I still need to cut down my #1 a little more. Typically I have 360 on #1, 345 on #2, #3 and #4 are around 315 and #5 and #6 are around 330 when I'm cruising at 19.5 inches, 2380 RPM and the OAT is around 30 degrees. My oil temp is around 165 at that OAT. It starts great hot or cold. I really like the Lightspeed electronic ignition. I don't have much to report on the Cheltons vs. the Grand Rapids yet. I still have not been able to get my magnetometer to work on the Grand Rapids. I think this then causes some other problems with the moving map. I have not been at all impressed with the AHRS on the Grand Rapids yet either. It is only completely level 50% of the time at this point. Most of that is my fault though. It usually takes 2:30 seconds to align and I don't have the patience. The Cheltons have been bullet proof on that. No matter what angle the plane is sitting, I can be moving or sitting, it is always dead on. The only issue I have with the Chelton's right now is the GPS antenna. The Crossbow antenna is under my rear fairing near the Vertical Stab and I lose signal quite often. I would never try an IFR approach until I upgrade it to the PinPoint AHRS. The Chelton's are absolutely amazing when it comes to linking with the autopilot as well. I like the engine page much better on the Grand Rapids though. I have been spending my time learning the Cheltons and haven't given the Grand Rapids a fair shake. But if I had to pick one, the Chelton's by far appear to be more reliable, look nicer and are easier to work. Just getting the Grand Rapids to GOTO an airport is not nearly as easy as the Cheltons. I am going to figure out my magnetometer issue over the next couple of weeks. Once I get everything working on both I will fly with both, shoot some approaches with both, and get back to you all. As for the Grand Champion John, I hate to disappoint but I don't have it. I've been to Oshkosh 12 years in a row and have looked at the Grand Champions and the guys who just miss and the difference between the Grand Champion and second place is 5000 hours. The Glasair Grand Champion (a few years ago) I think spent something like 9000 hours building his. It takes 6000 - 10000 hours to build a Grand Champion. I have 3000 hours in mine and it is nice and looks great but I never built it to be a show winner. I just wanted a nice looking plane that didn't look "home-made" (as my friends wife calls it). I also plan to fly too much to ever keep it a show winner. I have been flying now for 58 days and I have 75.4 hours on the hobbs. I already have a few chips on the paint around the doors and I have one spot around my pilot window where my fiberglass tape didn't hold up and I have a 6" crack in the paint at the joint between the window and the door. So far I've been able to prevent the crack everywhere else that a few people have been getting at the joint between the window and the fiberglass with a 1" strip of light fiberglass cloth. The only way to fix that is to redo the door but I have way too much fun flying. Maybe I'll fix that if I have a couple of weeks of bad flying weather. I keep scaring my wife by telling her that we have almost used up 5% of the engine in the first two months of flying. I'll get back to you on the EFIS systems when I feel like I know both of them much better. Scott Schmidt sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 11:28 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt Scott, my heart goes out to you. Randy must have known that, cause the first time I boarded N610RV he was quick to point out that two humans (of my ballast) cannot mount the RV-10 aircraft at the same point in time. Builders Note: Only one POB on any given step at the same point in time. Share the excitement of loading for a flight - one at a time. Trivia from the latest FAA AC43.13-2A, Chapter Three - Page 14, Section 38. When installed, the 3/8-16 UNC eyebolt (not provided in the kit) has a frontal area of about 0.4231875 sq. inches and using the formula from the AC43.13-1B that would make the factors in Drag = .000327 * Area * velocity squared. So at that magic 208 mph, your drag might have been as high as 5.986972368 pounds. That's no light bag of potatoes for us Hot Rodders. Now what formulation did you use to convert drag factor into lost mph at cruise? How are the headers working out? Do you have any input on Grand Rapids vs. Chelton yet? Isn't your engine an Aerosport? Hope the repair goes quickly and your painter is as good at Spot Work as complete repaint. I am waiting for Sun N' Fun and a Grand Champion RV-10. May you have gentle breezes, light tailwinds and clear skies into the spring. John Cox #40600 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:21 PM Subject: RV10-List: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt Hi guys, just wanted to let you all know about an incident I had today that could have been prevented. I flew down to Mesquite NV. last Thursday and was getting ready to fly back today. As I was loading and getting ready to fly back to Salt Lake City, I took out the eye bolts for the tie downs. I then loaded two people in the back with luggage. The plane was pointed slightly up hill and then both me and my friend stepped on the step and the plane rocked back. I got off but the plane continued to fall back and the tail hit the ground. It slightly bent the bottom fuselage skin at the very rear and cracked the rear fiberglass fairing on the rudder. I will have to replace it and repaint it. It really isn't a big deal but I'm going to replace the whole fiberglass peice. There would be no scratches or damage at all if I would have left the rear tie down in. It would have hit the ground. I never thought it would rock back but it did. It was on a slope and the wind was blowing pretty hard that pushed the rear of the plane down even more. Moral of the story: Put the eye bolt in and keep it there. Don't be like me and worry about the .0345256395734 mph that you lose with the eye bolt. You can still take out the wing bolts. Scott Schmidt N104XP - 72 hours ________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net>
Subject: EFIS & GPS Antennas
Date: Dec 13, 2006
Scott: You might want to look at whether or not you have any metal near your Magnetometer. I installed my magnetometers (duel) on a shelf above the battery but failed to realize that the metal screws I used on the shelf tray were causing interference. As far as the GPS antenna, having it under the fairing at the vertical stabilizer is way wrong for two reasons. 1. Cable run length too long and 2. the vertical stabilizer is interfering with the GPS look up anytime you turn. For my GPS antennas I built two mounting trays under the glare shield and cut out a 6" metal square above the trays and fiberglassed them in and have two GPS antenna's in one tray and one GPS and one WX Weather antenna in the other tray and have no problem whatsoever. Since you are already up and flying I would recommend that you attach a tray on the firewall center top and put all of your antennas under the firewall. My buddy flying an RV-6 did this and it works great. Russ Daves N710RV First Flight 7/28/06 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt
See inline... Scott Schmidt wrote: > > I don't have much to report on the Cheltons vs. the Grand Rapids yet. I > still have not been able to get my magnetometer to work on the Grand > Rapids. I think this then causes some other problems with the moving > map. I have not been at all impressed with the AHRS on the Grand Rapids > yet either. It is only completely level 50% of the time at this point. > Most of that is my fault though. It usually takes 2:30 seconds to align > and I don't have the patience. The Cheltons have been bullet proof on > that. No matter what angle the plane is sitting, I can be moving or > sitting, it is always dead on. The only issue I have with the Chelton's > right now is the GPS antenna. The Crossbow antenna is under my rear > fairing near the Vertical Stab and I lose signal quite often. I would > never try an IFR approach until I upgrade it to the PinPoint AHRS. The > Chelton's are absolutely amazing when it comes to linking with the > autopilot as well. I like the engine page much better on the Grand > Rapids though. I have been spending my time learning the Cheltons and > haven't given the Grand Rapids a fair shake. But if I had to pick one, > the Chelton's by far appear to be more reliable, look nicer and are > easier to work. Just getting the Grand Rapids to GOTO an airport is not > nearly as easy as the Cheltons. I am going to figure out my > magnetometer issue over the next couple of weeks. Once I get everything > working on both I will fly with both, shoot some approaches with both, > and get back to you all. > That antenna location is pretty far from ideal, I hate to say. If you get the antenna from D2AV that you'll use with the pinpoint, or even work a deal with them so you can buy that antenna, and get a credit when your pinpoint ships, then your options get much better. It's interesting that the stinkin' little antenna was actually what was spec'd by your current AHRS manufacturer. You really want to give that thing a good view from the sky. I saw Russ's reply, but what he doesn't know is that your AHRS isn't under the panel, so your best cable length would actually be if you do like me and just mount that antenna forward on the aluminum section of tailcone. The same antenna will work for the pinpoint as the crossbow. You do need to get a short 2' SMA to TNC cable, which I have contact info for if you need. But once you do that, your GPS situation will be great. I've actually never once lost GPS signal, and that's with either AHRS system. > As for the Grand Champion John, I hate to disappoint but I don't have > it. I've been to Oshkosh 12 years in a row and have looked at the Grand > Champions and the guys who just miss and the difference between the > Grand Champion and second place is 5000 hours. The Glasair Grand > Champion (a few years ago) I think spent something like 9000 hours > building his. It takes 6000 - 10000 hours to build a Grand Champion. I > have 3000 hours in mine and it is nice and looks great but I never built > it to be a show winner. I just wanted a nice looking plane that didn't > look "home-made" (as my friends wife calls it). I also plan to fly too > much to ever keep it a show winner. I have been flying now for 58 days > and I have 75.4 hours on the hobbs. I already have a few chips on the > paint around the doors and I have one spot around my pilot window where > my fiberglass tape didn't hold up and I have a 6" crack in the paint at > the joint between the window and the door. So far I've been able to > prevent the crack everywhere else that a few people have been getting at > the joint between the window and the fiberglass with a 1" strip of light > fiberglass cloth. The only way to fix that is to redo the door but I > have way too much fun flying. Maybe I'll fix that if I have a couple of > weeks of bad flying weather. I keep scaring my wife by telling her that > we have almost used up 5% of the engine in the first two months of > flying. Well, your plane looks like you did nicer than me on a few things, but I know exactly how you feel. You're more pilot than builder, and your plane is more "ultra-cool-transportation" than "don't touch me and stand back while while my owner polishes me endlessly" to you. I've got rock chips in the paint, and the usual wear and tear you'd expect at 180 hours, but it's been way more fun flying it than just sitting in the chair admiring it. To me, the true beauty of the plane can only be seen from the front seats, when you're blasting through the clouds to clear skies above....or when you're cruising above some of the beautiful locations on our earth while moving 170kts. When I see people get obsessed over the shape of the interior door handles and things like that, I just chuckle. When I'm flying the plane, I don't even notice the door handles. It's what's in front of your eyes and out your windows that matters. I'm just glad to see you're getting lots of use out of your plane, and that you still report back here to us. Safe Flying, Scott! Tim > > I'll get back to you on the EFIS systems when I feel like I know both of > them much better. > > Scott Schmidt > sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 11:28 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt > > > Scott, my heart goes out to you. > > Randy must have known that, cause the first time I boarded N610RV he was > quick to point out that two humans (of my ballast) cannot mount the > RV-10 aircraft at the same point in time. > > Builders Note: Only one POB on any given step at the same point in > time. Share the excitement of loading for a flight - one at a time. > > Trivia from the latest FAA AC43.13-2A, Chapter Three - Page 14, Section > 38. When installed, the 3/8-16 UNC eyebolt (not provided in the kit) has > a frontal area of about 0.4231875 sq. inches and using the formula from > the AC43.13-1B that would make the factors in Drag = .000327 * Area * > velocity squared. So at that magic 208 mph, your drag might have been > as high as 5.986972368 pounds. That's no light bag of potatoes for us > Hot Rodders. Now what formulation did you use to convert drag factor > into lost mph at cruise? How are the headers working out? Do you have > any input on Grand Rapids vs. Chelton yet? Isn't your engine an > Aerosport? > > Hope the repair goes quickly and your painter is as good at Spot Work as > complete repaint. I am waiting for Sun N' Fun and a Grand Champion > RV-10. May you have gentle breezes, light tailwinds and clear skies into > the spring. > > John Cox > #40600 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:21 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt > > Hi guys, just wanted to let you all know about an incident I had today > that could have been prevented. I flew down to Mesquite NV. last > Thursday and was getting ready to fly back today. As I was loading and > getting ready to fly back to Salt Lake City, I took out the eye bolts > for the tie downs. I then loaded two people in the back with luggage. > The plane was pointed slightly up hill and then both me and my friend > stepped on the step and the plane rocked back. I got off but the plane > continued to fall back and the tail hit the ground. It slightly bent > the bottom fuselage skin at the very rear and cracked the rear > fiberglass fairing on the rudder. I will have to replace it and repaint > it. It really isn't a big deal but I'm going to replace the whole > fiberglass peice. There would be no scratches or damage at all if I > would have left the rear tie down in. It would have hit the ground. > I never thought it would rock back but it did. It was on a slope and > the wind was blowing pretty hard that pushed the rear of the plane down > even more. > > Moral of the story: Put the eye bolt in and keep it there. Don't be > like me and worry about the .0345256395734 mph that you lose with the > eye bolt. You can still take out the wing bolts. > > Scott Schmidt > N104XP - 72 hours > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2006
Subject: Re: EFIS & GPS Antennas
Russ do you have pics of your GPS mounts under the glare shield? Dean 40449 ________________________________________________________________________
Russ do you have pics of your GPS mounts under the glare shield ?

Dean

40449

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

________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Not about Priming
I finally primed my first parts (most tail surfaces primed at Alexander's Tech Center). The specs: - used the Industrial Wash Primer that Vans says they use on the QB. 1:2 Catalyst mix (should have used 1:1.5 as recommended) - bought a cheapo 'trim gun' from Harbour Freight - 4oz cup - Prepped parts by washing down with Coleman fuel and a red scotchbrite (thanks all for that discussion) - I did scuff the skins after dimpling. It does destroy the scotchbrite especially since I've chosen not to deburr skin holes, but the scotchbrite effectively deburrs 3/32 thin skin holes in my estimation - Did the priming in my hangar, wore a filter mask (no fresh air), ran fans, on a 60deg day. But kept the primer and gun in my 75deg shop until shooting. It all seems to have worked well despite my beginner's spray technique. The thin coat I laid on is translucent greenish gold, rather attractive but not uniform. Seems to have bonded tightly with the aluminum. In a strange way it seems tougher than the 2 part epoxy on my other tail parts even though it is thinner. I'm going to go with it. Just sharing Bill "I hate all paint, finishes, and primers" Watson - stapling up the elevators & trim tabs, ready to dissassemble the tailcone, looking at the QB components littering the hangar. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com>
Tim, I was under the impression the from Direct 2 Avionics that the Pinpoint GPS antenna was not compatible with the Crossbow. I really want to put a standard aircraft GPS antenna next to my Garmin 430 antenna then I know the problem will be fixed. I was told the baud rate was different between the Pinpoint and Crossbow antenna. I will give them a call today. Scott Schmidt sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:16 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt See inline... Scott Schmidt wrote: > > I don't have much to report on the Cheltons vs. the Grand Rapids yet. I > still have not been able to get my magnetometer to work on the Grand > Rapids. I think this then causes some other problems with the moving > map. I have not been at all impressed with the AHRS on the Grand Rapids > yet either. It is only completely level 50% of the time at this point. > Most of that is my fault though. It usually takes 2:30 seconds to align > and I don't have the patience. The Cheltons have been bullet proof on > that. No matter what angle the plane is sitting, I can be moving or > sitting, it is always dead on. The only issue I have with the Chelton's > right now is the GPS antenna. The Crossbow antenna is under my rear > fairing near the Vertical Stab and I lose signal quite often. I would > never try an IFR approach until I upgrade it to the PinPoint AHRS. The > Chelton's are absolutely amazing when it comes to linking with the > autopilot as well. I like the engine page much better on the Grand > Rapids though. I have been spending my time learning the Cheltons and > haven't given the Grand Rapids a fair shake. But if I had to pick one, > the Chelton's by far appear to be more reliable, look nicer and are > easier to work. Just getting the Grand Rapids to GOTO an airport is not > nearly as easy as the Cheltons. I am going to figure out my > magnetometer issue over the next couple of weeks. Once I get everything > working on both I will fly with both, shoot some approaches with both, > and get back to you all. > That antenna location is pretty far from ideal, I hate to say. If you get the antenna from D2AV that you'll use with the pinpoint, or even work a deal with them so you can buy that antenna, and get a credit when your pinpoint ships, then your options get much better. It's interesting that the stinkin' little antenna was actually what was spec'd by your current AHRS manufacturer. You really want to give that thing a good view from the sky. I saw Russ's reply, but what he doesn't know is that your AHRS isn't under the panel, so your best cable length would actually be if you do like me and just mount that antenna forward on the aluminum section of tailcone. The same antenna will work for the pinpoint as the crossbow. You do need to get a short 2' SMA to TNC cable, which I have contact info for if you need. But once you do that, your GPS situation will be great. I've actually never once lost GPS signal, and that's with either AHRS system. > As for the Grand Champion John, I hate to disappoint but I don't have > it. I've been to Oshkosh 12 years in a row and have looked at the Grand > Champions and the guys who just miss and the difference between the > Grand Champion and second place is 5000 hours. The Glasair Grand > Champion (a few years ago) I think spent something like 9000 hours > building his. It takes 6000 - 10000 hours to build a Grand Champion. I > have 3000 hours in mine and it is nice and looks great but I never built > it to be a show winner. I just wanted a nice looking plane that didn't > look "home-made" (as my friends wife calls it). I also plan to fly too > much to ever keep it a show winner. I have been flying now for 58 days > and I have 75.4 hours on the hobbs. I already have a few chips on the > paint around the doors and I have one spot around my pilot window where > my fiberglass tape didn't hold up and I have a 6" crack in the paint at > the joint between the window and the door. So far I've been able to > prevent the crack everywhere else that a few people have been getting at > the joint between the window and the fiberglass with a 1" strip of light > fiberglass cloth. The only way to fix that is to redo the door but I > have way too much fun flying. Maybe I'll fix that if I have a couple of > weeks of bad flying weather. I keep scaring my wife by telling her that > we have almost used up 5% of the engine in the first two months of > flying. Well, your plane looks like you did nicer than me on a few things, but I know exactly how you feel. You're more pilot than builder, and your plane is more "ultra-cool-transportation" than "don't touch me and stand back while while my owner polishes me endlessly" to you. I've got rock chips in the paint, and the usual wear and tear you'd expect at 180 hours, but it's been way more fun flying it than just sitting in the chair admiring it. To me, the true beauty of the plane can only be seen from the front seats, when you're blasting through the clouds to clear skies above....or when you're cruising above some of the beautiful locations on our earth while moving 170kts. When I see people get obsessed over the shape of the interior door handles and things like that, I just chuckle. When I'm flying the plane, I don't even notice the door handles. It's what's in front of your eyes and out your windows that matters. I'm just glad to see you're getting lots of use out of your plane, and that you still report back here to us. Safe Flying, Scott! Tim > > I'll get back to you on the EFIS systems when I feel like I know both of > them much better. > > Scott Schmidt > sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 11:28 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt > > > Scott, my heart goes out to you. > > Randy must have known that, cause the first time I boarded N610RV he was > quick to point out that two humans (of my ballast) cannot mount the > RV-10 aircraft at the same point in time. > > Builders Note: Only one POB on any given step at the same point in > time. Share the excitement of loading for a flight - one at a time. > > Trivia from the latest FAA AC43.13-2A, Chapter Three - Page 14, Section > 38. When installed, the 3/8-16 UNC eyebolt (not provided in the kit) has > a frontal area of about 0.4231875 sq. inches and using the formula from > the AC43.13-1B that would make the factors in Drag = .000327 * Area * > velocity squared. So at that magic 208 mph, your drag might have been > as high as 5.986972368 pounds. That's no light bag of potatoes for us > Hot Rodders. Now what formulation did you use to convert drag factor > into lost mph at cruise? How are the headers working out? Do you have > any input on Grand Rapids vs. Chelton yet? Isn't your engine an > Aerosport? > > Hope the repair goes quickly and your painter is as good at Spot Work as > complete repaint. I am waiting for Sun N' Fun and a Grand Champion > RV-10. May you have gentle breezes, light tailwinds and clear skies into > the spring. > > John Cox > #40600 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:21 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Rear Tie Down Eye Bolt > > Hi guys, just wanted to let you all know about an incident I had today > that could have been prevented. I flew down to Mesquite NV. last > Thursday and was getting ready to fly back today. As I was loading and > getting ready to fly back to Salt Lake City, I took out the eye bolts > for the tie downs. I then loaded two people in the back with luggage. > The plane was pointed slightly up hill and then both me and my friend > stepped on the step and the plane rocked back. I got off but the plane > continued to fall back and the tail hit the ground. It slightly bent > the bottom fuselage skin at the very rear and cracked the rear > fiberglass fairing on the rudder. I will have to replace it and repaint > it. It really isn't a big deal but I'm going to replace the whole > fiberglass peice. There would be no scratches or damage at all if I > would have left the rear tie down in. It would have hit the ground. > I never thought it would rock back but it did. It was on a slope and > the wind was blowing pretty hard that pushed the rear of the plane down > even more. > > Moral of the story: Put the eye bolt in and keep it there. Don't be > like me and worry about the .0345256395734 mph that you lose with the > eye bolt. You can still take out the wing bolts. > > Scott Schmidt > N104XP - 72 hours > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill and Tami Britton" <william(at)gbta.net>
Subject: portable gps systems
Date: Dec 13, 2006
This is a little off beat but if there's any group that knows gps systems, it's this one. I'm looking at buying my wife a portable GPS system for her van for Christmas. I'm going to try to keep it under $500ish. Has anybody done any research on the different units available (TOMTOM, Magellan, Garmin, etc...). It won't get a lot of use (we live in rural Kansas) which is why I want to keep the price down. However, I've been in vehicles with similar units and in my opinion they are very nice for getting around unfamiliar areas. Any ideas/opinions on choices??? Thanks in advance, Bill Britton RV-10 emp (still) #40137 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Not about Priming
Date: Dec 13, 2006
In my estimation, I think the hole deburring is one of the most important steps in the longevity of the rivets and the health of the holes they sit in. The dimple produces a lot of stress to the aluminum and it should be smoothed before it goes into the dimpler...I would reconsider this skipped step! "It does destroy the scotchbrite especially since I've chosen not to deburr skin holes, but the scotchbrite effectively deburrs 3/32 thin skin holes in my estimation" The scotchbrite pad or wheel does not spin inside the hole to do an effective enough job. JMOO JOhn G. I need to make a deburring tool that is held like a grape before you put it in your mouth. >From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: RV10-List Digest Server >Subject: RV10-List: Not about Priming >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:32:53 -0500 > > >I finally primed my first parts (most tail surfaces primed at Alexander's >Tech Center). The specs: >- used the Industrial Wash Primer that Vans says they use on the QB. 1:2 >Catalyst mix (should have used 1:1.5 as recommended) >- bought a cheapo 'trim gun' from Harbour Freight - 4oz cup >- Prepped parts by washing down with Coleman fuel and a red scotchbrite >(thanks all for that discussion) > - I did scuff the skins after dimpling. It does destroy the scotchbrite >especially since I've chosen not to deburr skin holes, but the scotchbrite >effectively deburrs 3/32 thin skin holes in my estimation >- Did the priming in my hangar, wore a filter mask (no fresh air), ran >fans, on a 60deg day. But kept the primer and gun in my 75deg shop until >shooting. > >It all seems to have worked well despite my beginner's spray technique. >The thin coat I laid on is translucent greenish gold, rather attractive but >not uniform. Seems to have bonded tightly with the aluminum. In a strange >way it seems tougher than the 2 part epoxy on my other tail parts even >though it is thinner. I'm going to go with it. > >Just sharing > >Bill "I hate all paint, finishes, and primers" Watson - stapling up the >elevators & trim tabs, ready to dissassemble the tailcone, looking at the >QB components littering the hangar. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2006
Subject: Re: portable gps systems
Bought my parents the Lowrance Iway 500 for Christmas. $488 It has the 5 inch screen where most are the 3.5 inch. Touch screen, audible d irections, etc. The big reason I bought it vs the garmin 330 was readab ility in direct sunlight and the larger screen. Dean 40449 ________________________________________________________________________
Bought my parents the Lowrance Iway 500 for Christmas. &nb sp; $488    It has the 5 inch screen where most are the 3 .5 inch.   Touch screen, audible directions, etc. The bi g reason I bought it vs the garmin 330 was readability in direct sunligh t and the larger screen.

Dean 40449

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

________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Not about Priming
There's a simple exercise re deburring that provides some visual evidence of the differences that I picked up from Dan Checkoway, Take a non deburred hole and dimple it then take a magnifying glass and examine the edges. I'll bet that with a hole that was drilled with a drill bit, you will see cracks around the dimpled perimeter, do the same with a properly deburred hole and then compare the difference. Now with all of that said, I'm not sure deburring will cause your plane to fall out of the sky, for me it was a mental peace of mind issue. However Ture confessions: there have been times when I forgot to deburr a few holes prior to riveting and I didn't drill them out and deburr. Some one mentioned that during WWII when they were mass producing P51's that they didn't deburr every hole or sheet metal edge in those at the time. As with everything in an experimental plane you pays your money and takes your chances. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ John Gonzalez wrote: > > In my estimation, I think the hole deburring is one of the most > important steps in the longevity of the rivets and the health of the > holes they sit in. The dimple produces a lot of stress to the aluminum > and it should be smoothed before it goes into the dimpler...I would > reconsider this skipped step! > > "It does destroy the scotchbrite especially since I've chosen not to > deburr skin holes, but the scotchbrite effectively deburrs 3/32 thin > skin holes in my estimation" > > The scotchbrite pad or wheel does not spin inside the hole to do an > effective enough job. > > JMOO > > JOhn G. > > I need to make a deburring tool that is held like a grape before you > put it in your mouth. > > >> From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> >> Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> To: RV10-List Digest Server >> Subject: RV10-List: Not about Priming >> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:32:53 -0500 >> >> >> I finally primed my first parts (most tail surfaces primed at >> Alexander's Tech Center). The specs: >> - used the Industrial Wash Primer that Vans says they use on the QB. >> 1:2 Catalyst mix (should have used 1:1.5 as recommended) >> - bought a cheapo 'trim gun' from Harbour Freight - 4oz cup >> - Prepped parts by washing down with Coleman fuel and a red >> scotchbrite (thanks all for that discussion) >> - I did scuff the skins after dimpling. It does destroy the >> scotchbrite especially since I've chosen not to deburr skin holes, >> but the scotchbrite effectively deburrs 3/32 thin skin holes in my >> estimation >> - Did the priming in my hangar, wore a filter mask (no fresh air), >> ran fans, on a 60deg day. But kept the primer and gun in my 75deg >> shop until shooting. >> >> It all seems to have worked well despite my beginner's spray >> technique. The thin coat I laid on is translucent greenish gold, >> rather attractive but not uniform. Seems to have bonded tightly with >> the aluminum. In a strange way it seems tougher than the 2 part >> epoxy on my other tail parts even though it is thinner. I'm going to >> go with it. >> >> Just sharing >> >> Bill "I hate all paint, finishes, and primers" Watson - stapling up >> the elevators & trim tabs, ready to dissassemble the tailcone, >> looking at the QB components littering the hangar. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Stella" <sstella(at)incisaledge.com>
Subject: Not about Priming
Date: Dec 13, 2006
If you read the Standard Aircraft Handbook that comes with the kit it tells not to deburr holes that will be dimpled. Steve -----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 13, 2006 11:42 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Not about Priming In my estimation, I think the hole deburring is one of the most important steps in the longevity of the rivets and the health of the holes they sit in. The dimple produces a lot of stress to the aluminum and it should be smoothed before it goes into the dimpler...I would reconsider this skipped step! "It does destroy the scotchbrite especially since I've chosen not to deburr skin holes, but the scotchbrite effectively deburrs 3/32 thin skin holes in my estimation" The scotchbrite pad or wheel does not spin inside the hole to do an effective enough job. JMOO JOhn G. I need to make a deburring tool that is held like a grape before you put it in your mouth. >From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: RV10-List Digest Server >Subject: RV10-List: Not about Priming >Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:32:53 -0500 > > >I finally primed my first parts (most tail surfaces primed at Alexander's >Tech Center). The specs: >- used the Industrial Wash Primer that Vans says they use on the QB. 1:2 >Catalyst mix (should have used 1:1.5 as recommended) >- bought a cheapo 'trim gun' from Harbour Freight - 4oz cup >- Prepped parts by washing down with Coleman fuel and a red scotchbrite >(thanks all for that discussion) > - I did scuff the skins after dimpling. It does destroy the scotchbrite >especially since I've chosen not to deburr skin holes, but the scotchbrite >effectively deburrs 3/32 thin skin holes in my estimation >- Did the priming in my hangar, wore a filter mask (no fresh air), ran >fans, on a 60deg day. But kept the primer and gun in my 75deg shop until >shooting. > >It all seems to have worked well despite my beginner's spray technique. >The thin coat I laid on is translucent greenish gold, rather attractive but >not uniform. Seems to have bonded tightly with the aluminum. In a strange >way it seems tougher than the 2 part epoxy on my other tail parts even >though it is thinner. I'm going to go with it. > >Just sharing > >Bill "I hate all paint, finishes, and primers" Watson - stapling up the >elevators & trim tabs, ready to dissassemble the tailcone, looking at the >QB components littering the hangar. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net>
Subject: Re: Not about Priming
Page 5-2 from Van's (The document called "Useful Information") states: "All drilled holes should also be deburred ...... Burrs around holes are a problem mainly in riveting and dimple countersinking..... " -Jim 40384 Steve Stella wrote: > > If you read the Standard Aircraft Handbook that comes with the kit it tells > not to deburr holes that will be dimpled. > > Steve > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Not about Priming
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
You are reading from Van's recommendations in the builders manual, if you go to the aircraft standards book and read about deburring, the only mention is to deburr for parts storage and to prevent scratches from material touching, it states nothing about deburring for hole integrity. Dan N289DT -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:04 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming Page 5-2 from Van's (The document called "Useful Information") states: "All drilled holes should also be deburred ...... Burrs around holes are a problem mainly in riveting and dimple countersinking..... " -Jim 40384 Steve Stella wrote: > > If you read the Standard Aircraft Handbook that comes with the kit it tells > not to deburr holes that will be dimpled. > > Steve > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Stella" <sstella(at)incisaledge.com>
Subject: Not about Priming
Date: Dec 13, 2006
I wonder why the difference of opinion between Vans and the Aircraft Handbook? Steve -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:04 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming Page 5-2 from Van's (The document called "Useful Information") states: "All drilled holes should also be deburred ...... Burrs around holes are a problem mainly in riveting and dimple countersinking..... " -Jim 40384 Steve Stella wrote: > > If you read the Standard Aircraft Handbook that comes with the kit it tells > not to deburr holes that will be dimpled. > > Steve > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Not about Priming
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Just as a follow up to my last, the primary reason to remove burrs would to ensure the rivet or dimple set seats correctly and does not get upset by the burr. While I do agree with Dan and Deems, looking at the hole after deburr it does appear smoother on the lip, but the striations from the drilling process go all the way through the hole, IE even after deburring they are still in the interior of the hole, and you can see this after the dimple is formed because more of the interior of the hole is exposed. Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:04 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming Page 5-2 from Van's (The document called "Useful Information") states: "All drilled holes should also be deburred ...... Burrs around holes are a problem mainly in riveting and dimple countersinking..... " -Jim 40384 Steve Stella wrote: > > If you read the Standard Aircraft Handbook that comes with the kit it tells > not to deburr holes that will be dimpled. > > Steve > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris , Susie Darcy" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Not about Priming
Date: Dec 14, 2006
Oh dear....just ask any aircraft engineer!! You should deburr all edges and holes to stop cracks. Chris 388 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:36 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Not about Priming > > You are reading from Van's recommendations in the builders manual, if > you go to the aircraft standards book and read about deburring, the only > mention is to deburr for parts storage and to prevent scratches from > material touching, it states nothing about deburring for hole integrity. > Dan > N289DT > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:04 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming > > > Page 5-2 from Van's (The document called "Useful Information") states: > > "All drilled holes should also be deburred ...... Burrs around holes are > > a problem mainly in riveting and dimple countersinking..... " > > -Jim 40384 > > > Steve Stella wrote: > >> >> If you read the Standard Aircraft Handbook that comes with the kit it > tells >> not to deburr holes that will be dimpled. >> >> Steve >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris , Susie Darcy" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Not about Priming
Date: Dec 14, 2006
Who cares just deburr!! Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Stella" <sstella(at)incisaledge.com> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:43 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Not about Priming > > I wonder why the difference of opinion between Vans and the Aircraft > Handbook? > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:04 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming > > > Page 5-2 from Van's (The document called "Useful Information") states: > > "All drilled holes should also be deburred ...... Burrs around holes are > a problem mainly in riveting and dimple countersinking..... " > > -Jim 40384 > > > Steve Stella wrote: >> >> If you read the Standard Aircraft Handbook that comes with the kit it > tells >> not to deburr holes that will be dimpled. >> >> Steve >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: "James K Hovis" <james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Not about Priming
Not necessarily. Recent testing shows burrs around fastener holes don't have significant impact on the strength of structure. Main driving factor is skin thickness vs burr height. Thicker stock (used in larger aircraft) can stand larger burrs. Key thing is to prevent burrs. Keep your bits sharp, don't push hard while drilling, and keep your parts well cleco'ed together. I don't know what thickness is typical in the RV-10, I'd assume .032" or .025" stock. If you're getting .004" or less burrs, then anything other than a quick "hit" with scotchbrite is probably a waste of time. Typical deburr operation in the factory is either use as file-like tool (patented by someone I actually know...) to run across the back sides of skins or use a drill-motor and sanding disk. For thin sheet stock, I'd prefer doing it by hand. And if you deburr BEFORE dimpling, you shouldn't have any need to deburr afterwards. Bottom line, deburr probably makes fastener installation easier, but may not do much to improve the structural "soundness" of the airframe. JKH PS: BSAE 1989 U of Mo-Rolla 17+ years aircraft design engineer for a "major" midwest aircraft builder. On 12/13/06, Chris , Susie Darcy wrote: > > Oh dear....just ask any aircraft engineer!! You should deburr all edges and > holes to stop cracks. > > Chris 388 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:36 AM > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Not about Priming > > > > > > You are reading from Van's recommendations in the builders manual, if > > you go to the aircraft standards book and read about deburring, the only > > mention is to deburr for parts storage and to prevent scratches from > > material touching, it states nothing about deburring for hole integrity. > > Dan > > N289DT > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:04 PM > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming > > > > > > Page 5-2 from Van's (The document called "Useful Information") states: > > > > "All drilled holes should also be deburred ...... Burrs around holes are > > > > a problem mainly in riveting and dimple countersinking..... " > > > > -Jim 40384 > > > > > > Steve Stella wrote: > > > >> > >> If you read the Standard Aircraft Handbook that comes with the kit it > > tells > >> not to deburr holes that will be dimpled. > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: De Burring war! No, Tunnel question.
Date: Dec 13, 2006
No body truly answerred my question the other day. Every answer was about the heat in the tunnel, but what I was after is: Did anyone use the tunnel to run any, any of their electrical cables and wire. yah sure I have the side panels openned up but if I run that fatboy wire or whatever it is a called, I am going to be using up some serious space. I have not gotten to the build area where I know whether there is really space in the upper left and right corners of the tunnel, beneath the lid. First is there room and second would it be cool enough to run wire in there? Thanks, John G ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris , Susie Darcy" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Not about Priming
Date: Dec 14, 2006
OK ask Vans!! They say deburr from Ken Kruegar chief engineer Vans!! Chris 388 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: De Burring war! No, Tunnel question.
John, I didn't run any wires in the tunnel, I believe that Mike Sausen ran (or is planning on running his #2 Battery /Starter wire/s in his tunnel, however I think he ran them lower next to the fuel lines. (check his web site on Kitlog.com) I know that a couple of people that have installed air conditioning systems have run the compressor hoses inside the tunnel. One consideration is that you need to drill through the centersection spars if you're going to run wire in there. It gets pretty crowded in there with Scat tubes, fuel lines and control linkages, seems like adding more 'stuff' in an already crowded space would be more difficult than running them down the side. JMHO Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ Trying to align wheel pants/fairings (a game of chance!) John Gonzalez wrote: > > No body truly answerred my question the other day. Every answer was > about the heat in the tunnel, but what I was after is: > > Did anyone use the tunnel to run any, any of their electrical cables > and wire. yah sure I have the side panels openned up but if I run that > fatboy wire or whatever it is a called, I am going to be using up some > serious space. > > I have not gotten to the build area where I know whether there is > really space in the upper left and right corners of the tunnel, > beneath the lid. First is there room and second would it be cool > enough to run wire in there? > > Thanks, > > John G > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: De Burring war! No, Tunnel question.
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
I did not run any wires from front to back using the tunnel. I just drilled a couple of extra holes to match the holes in the fuse. Randy 40006 -----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 13, 2006 12:20 PM Subject: RV10-List: De Burring war! No, Tunnel question. No body truly answerred my question the other day. Every answer was about the heat in the tunnel, but what I was after is: Did anyone use the tunnel to run any, any of their electrical cables and wire. yah sure I have the side panels openned up but if I run that fatboy wire or whatever it is a called, I am going to be using up some serious space. I have not gotten to the build area where I know whether there is really space in the upper left and right corners of the tunnel, beneath the lid. First is there room and second would it be cool enough to run wire in there? Thanks, John G ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris , Susie Darcy" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Running wires in Tunnel
Date: Dec 14, 2006
Yes! ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:20 AM Subject: RV10-List: De Burring war! No, Tunnel question. > > No body truly answerred my question the other day. Every answer was about > the heat in the tunnel, but what I was after is: > > Did anyone use the tunnel to run any, any of their electrical cables and > wire. yah sure I have the side panels openned up but if I run that fatboy > wire or whatever it is a called, I am going to be using up some serious > space. > > I have not gotten to the build area where I know whether there is really > space in the upper left and right corners of the tunnel, beneath the lid. > First is there room and second would it be cool enough to run wire in > there? > > Thanks, > > John G > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Not about Priming
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
They have not updated that section of the manual in a long time, IE before the pre-punch days, so in that sense the builders were drilling thousands of new holes, which had the likely hood of causing large burrs to form and be trapped between surfaces, but since the advent of the prepunched kit, there is very little additional metal being remove, thus there is less likely a burr to form and trap between surfaces. With that being said, I do deburr everything, but am wondering if I am just "drinking the kool-aid" as it really adds nothing to the structure, and if you have a heavy hand might even cause a weaker joint because of removed material. Here is another one to stir the pot and a proverbial war, do you always drill before dimple? If so have you noticed that the hole is actually larger after the dimple, causing the rivet to be sloppy in the hole, should you just dimple the punched hole, which then accepts a -3 rivet without as much slop? I have heard people go both ways on this, personally I match drill. The reason I was given to match drill was that the punch does not make a clean hole like a drill will. So with that being said the reason I ask this is the RV12 will not be match drilled, IE the rivet will be put directly in a pre-punched hole, and if it is okay for that structure why not for the previous punched kits? It would save us a huge amount of time? Just thinking through out the day. Dan N289DT -----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: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming OK ask Vans!! They say deburr from Ken Kruegar chief engineer Vans!! Chris 388 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2006
From: "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: portable gps systems
I can't say enough good things about the Lowrance iWay 500c. We use in the cars, the RV, and on the motorcycles. In a van you might need an external antenna. It has a huge color screen. One drawback is you have to keep cool air flow to the back, especially in the summer if it's next to the windshield. David M. Bill and Tami Britton wrote: > This is a little off beat but if there's any group that knows gps > systems, it's this one. I'm looking at buying my wife a portable GPS > system for her van for Christmas. I'm going to try to keep it under > $500ish. Has anybody done any research on the different units > available (TOMTOM, Magellan, Garmin, etc...). It won't get a lot of > use (we live in rural Kansas) which is why I want to keep the price > down. However, I've been in vehicles with similar units and in my > opinion they are very nice for getting around unfamiliar areas. > > Any ideas/opinions on choices??? > > Thanks in advance, > Bill Britton > RV-10 emp (still) > #40137 > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: One of the best moves I've made yet - Redux
From: "Michael Wellenzohn" <michael(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Dec 14, 2006
Hi Les, in Switzerland it is mandatory to ave your parts inspected once you finished them. I believe it is a good practise. I will give you feedback about the quality of your work and also build a good relationship with the experts. Keep on the good work! Michael (wings) #40511 -------- RV-10 builder (wings) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81449#81449 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Not about Priming
I'm definitely 'drilling' but actually reaming the pre-punched holes where drilling isn't required. Reams seems to produce a better hole. Anyway, what I intend to take a critical look at with a my jewelers loupe (or whatever those things are called) are prepunched 3/32 holes, reamed, dimpled, then deburred with red Scotchbrite -- compared to the same holes reamed, deburred with a tool, then dimpled. It seemed to me that reamed dimple holes could be effectively and productively deburred with a vigorous Scotchbrite scrubbing. Bill "Got my back-rivet plate in place and enjoying some error free progress on the elevators" Watson Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > > They have not updated that section of the manual in a long time, IE > before the pre-punch days, so in that sense the builders were drilling > thousands of new holes, which had the likely hood of causing large burrs > to form and be trapped between surfaces, but since the advent of the > prepunched kit, there is very little additional metal being remove, thus > there is less likely a burr to form and trap between surfaces. > With that being said, I do deburr everything, but am wondering if I am > just "drinking the kool-aid" as it really adds nothing to the structure, > and if you have a heavy hand might even cause a weaker joint because of > removed material. > Here is another one to stir the pot and a proverbial war, do you always > drill before dimple? If so have you noticed that the hole is actually > larger after the dimple, causing the rivet to be sloppy in the hole, > should you just dimple the punched hole, which then accepts a -3 rivet > without as much slop? I have heard people go both ways on this, > personally I match drill. The reason I was given to match drill was that > the punch does not make a clean hole like a drill will. So with that > being said the reason I ask this is the RV12 will not be match drilled, > IE the rivet will be put directly in a pre-punched hole, and if it is > okay for that structure why not for the previous punched kits? It would > save us a huge amount of time? > Just thinking through out the day. > Dan > N289DT > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Not about Priming
Same here. Using #41 bits and reamer. KiloPapa wrote: > > We use a #41 drill bit which allows the rivets to fit a little tighter > after dimpling and non-dimpled holes take the rivet just fine also. > I tip I learned from my mentor, Jack Hakes. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
John G and other - treat yourself to an inexpensive and early Christmas present. Just spend $9.95 on an Electronic version of the AC43.13-1B and 2A. I got mine in minutes on Saturday by going to www.actechbooks.com and ordering SKU 1008A from their website. Loads of reading - 798 pages to be exact. Try researching Section 8 - Electrical and specifically on page 11-44, Paragraph 11-96, subparagraph w. Subparagraph w is a new insert since the older version. Also read on page 11-53 in Paragraph 11-126 on Flammable fluids. Got my copy in seconds. It's a great reference material. I gave copies to friends at an RV-10 social. In a nutshell for the holiday cheapies, 6" separation and electrical routed on top of the fuel line. Many solutions to the "tunnel challenge" are buried within. Plus you will impress your EAA tech advisor and your DAR to boot. Happy Holidays - whatever floats your seasonal boat. John Cox #40600 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Not about Priming
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Just so everyone knows, I do not condone nor recommend in any way not following the builders manual on match drilling and hole prep, and following the best practices when building an airplane. Let me stress this, I do match drill, I do de-burr, I do scuff, I do dimple, I do clean (with Coleman fuel), and I prime (But I am not telling with what). Then I rivet, and I check every rivet with the gauge, some people have said that checking everyone is a waste of time, but as in much of what we do to prep for riveting, it is for our own piece of mind. I am sure to the best of my ability that it is done according to acceptable methods and if I have any questions I have a TC, an A&P, and an IA that come over to verify. The email about not match drilling was just posting a question, because I have been told by many different builders there opinion both ways on this. For me, it was not worth the time savings, much in the same way I assemble and then match drill, rather than like some that just drill separate. Dan N289DT -----Original Message----- From: Lloyd, Daniel R. Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:53 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Not about Priming They have not updated that section of the manual in a long time, IE before the pre-punch days, so in that sense the builders were drilling thousands of new holes, which had the likely hood of causing large burrs to form and be trapped between surfaces, but since the advent of the prepunched kit, there is very little additional metal being remove, thus there is less likely a burr to form and trap between surfaces. With that being said, I do deburr everything, but am wondering if I am just "drinking the kool-aid" as it really adds nothing to the structure, and if you have a heavy hand might even cause a weaker joint because of removed material. Here is another one to stir the pot and a proverbial war, do you always drill before dimple? If so have you noticed that the hole is actually larger after the dimple, causing the rivet to be sloppy in the hole, should you just dimple the punched hole, which then accepts a -3 rivet without as much slop? I have heard people go both ways on this, personally I match drill. The reason I was given to match drill was that the punch does not make a clean hole like a drill will. So with that being said the reason I ask this is the RV12 will not be match drilled, IE the rivet will be put directly in a pre-punched hole, and if it is okay for that structure why not for the previous punched kits? It would save us a huge amount of time? Just thinking through out the day. Dan N289DT -----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: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming OK ask Vans!! They say deburr from Ken Kruegar chief engineer Vans!! Chris 388 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ted French" <ted_french(at)telus.net>
Subject: I0-540 hottest cylinder
Date: Dec 14, 2006
I have installed two Lasar mags on my 10. The controller needs to read the cylinder head temperature of the hottest running cylinder on the engine. I am assuming that would be #5 or #6 but don't know which. What are the flying 10's showing as the hot cylinder ? I'm wiring firewall forward, and I know if I guess I'll get it wrong :>) Ted French RV-10 C-FXCS reserved firewall forward, some painting done. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: Bill DeRouchey <billderou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder
Tough question Ted - you will not know the answer until you have approximately 50 hours on the aircraft (assuming you have a new/rebuilt engine). You may need alternations with the air dams in front of cyls 1 & 2 to change the temps around a bit. My cht's did not settle down for 50 hours. Now my pattern looks like: 330,335,315,315,335,340 during cruise. Suggest you hook one up to #5 and the other electronic box to #6. Bill DeRouchey billderou(at)yahoo.com Flying Ted French wrote: I have installed two Lasar mags on my 10. The controller needs to read the cylinder head temperature of the hottest running cylinder on the engine. I am assuming that would be #5 or #6 but don't know which. What are the flying 10's showing as the hot cylinder ? I'm wiring firewall forward, and I know if I guess I'll get it wrong :>) Ted French RV-10 C-FXCS reserved firewall forward, some painting done. --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
John, Has the FAA taken AC43.13-1b off line? It used to be available for free download if you had the bandwidth. In fact, it still is at http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument&Highlight=43.13-1b Or just go to faa.gov and do a search for it. On 12/14/06, John W. Cox wrote: > > > John G and other treat yourself to an inexpensive and early Christmas > present. Just spend $9.95 on an Electronic version of the AC43.13-1B and 2A. > I got mine in minutes on Saturday by going to www.actechbooks.com and > ordering SKU 1008A from their website. Loads of reading 798 pages to be > exact. > > Try researching Section 8 Electrical and specifically on page 11-44, > Paragraph 11-96, subparagraph w. Subparagraph w is a new insert since the > older version. Also read on page 11-53 in Paragraph 11-126 on Flammable > fluids. Got my copy in seconds. It's a great reference material. I gave > copies to friends at an RV-10 social. In a nutshell for the holiday > cheapies, 6" separation and electrical routed on top of the fuel line. > > Many solutions to the "tunnel challenge" are buried within. Plus you will > impress your EAA tech advisor and your DAR to boot. > > Happy Holidays whatever floats your seasonal boat. > > John Cox > > #40600 > > > -- Please Support Your Lists This Month -- > Gifts!) > Contribution link below to find out more about > Incentive Gifts provided > * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com > www.kitlog.com > Contribution Web Site > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > your generous support! > Admin. > - The RV10-List Email Forum - > to browse > Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, > much more: > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder
Date: Dec 14, 2006
> I have installed two Lasar mags on my 10. The controller needs to read the > cylinder head temperature of the hottest running cylinder on the engine. I > am assuming that would be #5 or #6 but don't know which. > What are the flying 10's showing as the hot cylinder ? > Ted French > RV-10 C-FXCS reserved Ted, Sounds like you already have your controller, but LASAR is available without the CHT sensor circuit for experimentals (but is required for certified installations). The CHT sensor is a known problem area. Once you're flying if you get faults (red indicator light comes on indicating it has gone into conventional mag mode) be sure and check the connection on the CHT sensor wire, it is super sensitive. What the CHT sensor circuit does is to start retarding the timing if it senses CHTs over about 425. It is progressive and starts of with a small retard then increases it if temps go higher. Be sure and have your LASAR system powered by a switch or breaker switch, there may be times in hot conditions where you want to do your climbout with it turned off thus forcing it into conventional mag mode, then turn it back on once you level off. Any electronic ignition will cause your engine to run hotter since it is burning the fuel/air charge more completely and efficiently inside the combustion chamber and thus transferring more heat to the cylinders. Randy Lervold RV-3B, almost done (www.rv-3.com) RV-8, 368 hours & sold (www.rv-8.com) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
The ACs are available online. So are the FAA A&P Tech Questions but now who would be going there? Aircraft Technical Books has just manipulated Adobe Acrobat to provide a more user friendly pdf version than Uncle Sammy. I can't stand 798 pages but then I have 200 pounds of books from school in my wife's former linen closet. For the most technically adroit or the most frugally challenged, I understand. I just offered up a "Time is Money" holiday treat and a teaser to visit their other offerings. Choose your potion of choice for that Holiday Egg Nog. I'll take something with more octane on my days off. This is all about sharing information to the betterment of our fellow builders. Safety First, Safety Today, Safety Always. Oh Yeh, Tim ... Merry Christmas to you and the entire Olson family and thank you all for elevating our part of Matt's Reflector World. John G. - no reference to showers with Tim with or sans soap. John Cox the Turbanator #40600 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:10 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires John, Has the FAA taken AC43.13-1b off line? It used to be available for free download if you had the bandwidth. In fact, it still is at http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCirc ular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument&Highlight=43.13 -1b Or just go to faa.gov and do a search for it. On 12/14/06, John W. Cox wrote: ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
I agree John. I have both loose leave binder copy I made, and a bound copy I purchased...one for home, one for the hangar, as well as on disk for my computers, and included in my IA data subscription. On 12/14/06, John W. Cox wrote: > > The ACs are available online. So are the FAA A&P Tech Questions but now > who would be going there? > > Aircraft Technical Books has just manipulated Adobe Acrobat to provide a > more user friendly pdf version than Uncle Sammy. I can't stand 798 pages > but then I have 200 pounds of books from school in my wife's former > linen closet. > > For the most technically adroit or the most frugally challenged, I > understand. I just offered up a "Time is Money" holiday treat and a > teaser to visit their other offerings. Choose your potion of choice for > that Holiday Egg Nog. I'll take something with more octane on my days > off. This is all about sharing information to the betterment of our > fellow builders. Safety First, Safety Today, Safety Always. > > Oh Yeh, Tim ... Merry Christmas to you and the entire Olson family and > thank you all for elevating our part of Matt's Reflector World. > > John G. - no reference to showers with Tim with or sans soap. > > John Cox > the Turbanator #40600 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly > McMullen > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:10 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical > wires > > > John, > Has the FAA taken AC43.13-1b off line? It used to be available for > free download if you had the bandwidth. In fact, it still is at > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCirc > ular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument&Highlight=43.13 > -1b > Or just go to faa.gov and do a search for it. > > On 12/14/06, John W. Cox wrote: > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
OK so I'm ranting, it's lunch time so here goes.....Ivory soapbox and all The first step in risk management is hazard identification. OK so our hazard = metal fuel lines and high amperage electrical conductor in close proximity. Second step=Lowering or eliminating the risk of the hazard. This can be accomplished several ways....the simplistic way is to eliminate the hazard unless it is not possible...in this case there are many alternative routes for the electrical wire that it would go against practical thinking to route it in the tunnel so ELIMINATE the hazard!! If you had no other option and had to run these two items, the next step is to engineer a system that would lower the hazard to acceptable levels...this should not even be a consideration in this situation BUT the AC 43.13 1B, change 1 gives you some options in the form of conduits and proper postioning. >From day one this book has been in my shop, the binder has worn through and I need to tape it or replace it...really replace since change 1 is out. For those that don't have a copy get one, John, myself and many others have preached for the last almost three years!! Almost every question asked in this forum regarding fuel lines, electrical, acceptable metal practices etc. etc. etc. is right inside that book. I am guessing that many builders have not had the absolute pleasure to work on aircraft in a structured enviroment, Johns experience in commercial an mine in the military maybe gives us a slanted or "Nothing less than perfect will do" attitude. There is technical data that has to be followed for EVERY task that's performed on the aircraft. Step by step, aircraft maintenance forms that document every panel and component removed and replaced along with the required operational checks afterwards. Quality assurance and supervision inspections and final sign offs. You get thick skinned because you just finished up an 8 hour auxillary drive gearbox change and missed safety wiring one bolt that is now almost impossible to get to. It sucks to make a mistake and have it pointed out so you fix it with a smile and swear you won't miss THAT again. Those checks and balances are what makes the safety records what they are today and what yours is going to be tomorrow Get yourself a copy of AC 43.13 and mitigate your risk. It's written in bent sheet metal and blood. Get two copies, one for the shop and one for the bathroom...really good bathroom book. Now back to soap sudsing each other up ;) Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
Good Rant, Rick! Another set of books that I found absolutely essential when building my first airplane, which was plans -built rather than a kit, was the set of four books by Tony Bingelis, published by the EAA. They are "The Sportplane Builder", Sportplane Construction Techniques", Firewall Forward", and "Tony Bingelis on Engines". They are full of must-have information on how to make aircraft parts, and how to assemble all the complex subsystems that go into building an airplane. When building my first plane, I don't know which I used more, the Bingelis books or AC 43.13. The Bingelis books are even better bathroom reading than the AC book. You can find them at: http://shop.eaa.org/html/04_books_bingelis.html?cart_id= Even though these books are geared towards people building planes from scratch, they have a wealth of info that applies to kits. Tony actually built every RV that was available before his death, starting with an RV-3, then an RV-4 and an RV-6. I believe he was working on an RV-8 when he developed cancer. Jack Phillips # 610 Elevators -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:56 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires OK so I'm ranting, it's lunch time so here goes.....Ivory soapbox and all The first step in risk management is hazard identification. OK so our hazard = metal fuel lines and high amperage electrical conductor in close proximity. Second step=Lowering or eliminating the risk of the hazard. This can be accomplished several ways....the simplistic way is to eliminate the hazard unless it is not possible...in this case there are many alternative routes for the electrical wire that it would go against practical thinking to route it in the tunnel so ELIMINATE the hazard!! If you had no other option and had to run these two items, the next step is to engineer a system that would lower the hazard to acceptable levels...this should not even be a consideration in this situation BUT the AC 43.13 1B, change 1 gives you some options in the form of conduits and proper postioning. >From day one this book has been in my shop, the binder has worn >through and I need to tape it or replace it...really replace since >change 1 is out. For those that don't have a copy get one, John, myself and many others have preached for the last almost three years!! Almost every question asked in this forum regarding fuel lines, electrical, acceptable metal practices etc. etc. etc. is right inside that book. I am guessing that many builders have not had the absolute pleasure to work on aircraft in a structured enviroment, Johns experience in commercial an mine in the military maybe gives us a slanted or "Nothing less than perfect will do" attitude. There is technical data that has to be followed for EVERY task that's performed on the aircraft. Step by step, aircraft maintenance forms that document every panel and component removed and replaced along with the required operational checks afterwards. Quality assurance and supervision inspections and final sign offs. You get thick skinned because you just finished up an 8 hour auxillary drive gearbox change and missed safety wiring one bolt that is now almost impossible to get to. It sucks to make a mistake and have it pointed out so you fix it with a smile and swear you won't miss THAT again. Those checks and balances are what makes the safety records what they are today and what yours is going to be tomorrow Get yourself a copy of AC 43.13 and mitigate your risk. It's written in bent sheet metal and blood. Get two copies, one for the shop and one for the bathroom...really good bathroom book. Now back to soap sudsing each other up ;) Rick S. 40185 _ _________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
Hey John, Last thing on the tunnel is the fuel filter which is a total pain to get to. The less you have in the way the better. I have a fiberglass console that has my Com/Nav and audio panel that I have to take out to get in there so it's even more of a pain. I wish I had thought about relocating that before getting this far along if that is even a option. Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Work Table Size
Gary, I built two of these and they have been perfect. Add wheels to the bottom with at least two lockable wheels. It can be one long table like for wings or and "L" or square shape. They are super strudy and easy to build. Heres the link to EAA chapter 1000 workbenches: http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/worktabl/worktabl.htm Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <jim(at)CombsFive.Com>
Subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?
Date: Dec 14, 2006
I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. Here is the response from Garmin as to why: "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS." Hmmm. That really stinks! So does that mean no /G filing? Jim C N312F Finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
Put "VFR GPS" in the comments box... ATC will help you out. -Jim jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote: > >I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. > >Here is the response from Garmin as to why: > >"The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS." > >Hmmm. That really stinks! > >So does that mean no /G filing? > >Jim C >N312F >Finishing > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
Sorry to inform you John, and a bonus for those "holiday cheapies" <http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument> Here is the link to AC 43.13-1B including change 1 all chapters as acrobat pdf, and all for free. Or <http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/> for all sorts of aircraft information. Our taxes at work. Larry #356 John W. Cox wrote: > > John G and other treat yourself to an inexpensive and early > Christmas present. Just spend $9.95 on an Electronic version of the > AC43.13-1B and 2A. I got mine in minutes on Saturday by going to > _www.actechbooks.com_ <http://www.actechbooks.com> and ordering SKU > 1008A from their website. Loads of reading 798 pages to be exact. > > Try researching Section 8 Electrical and specifically on page 11-44, > Paragraph 11-96, subparagraph w. Subparagraph w is a new insert since > the older version. Also read on page 11-53 in Paragraph 11-126 on > Flammable fluids. Got my copy in seconds. Its a great reference > material. I gave copies to friends at an RV-10 social. In a nutshell > for the holiday cheapies, 6 separation and electrical routed on top > of the fuel line. > > Many solutions to the tunnel challenge are buried within. Plus you > will impress your EAA tech advisor and your DAR to boot. > > Happy Holidays whatever floats your seasonal boat. > > John Cox > > #40600 > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Jim and others, I am also planning on putting a Garmin GPS into a panel dock. I was wondering on where you were going to put/mount the antenna? With the freedom we experimental builders have it sure would make sense to somehow mount the antenna under the cowl or canopy and not just have it sitting on the glare shield. Larry #356 James Hein wrote: > > Put "VFR GPS" in the comments box... ATC will help you out. > > -Jim > > jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote: > >> >> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. >> >> Here is the response from Garmin as to why: >> >> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no >> intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go >> with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS." >> >> Hmmm. That really stinks! >> >> So does that mean no /G filing? >> >> Jim C >> N312F >> Finishing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Work Table Size
From: "Jon Reining" <jonathan.w.reining(at)wellsfargo.com>
Date: Dec 14, 2006
I made my table out of all the materials that they used to crate the empennage kit, with the exception of the legs which I just pulled out some scrap 4x4. I doubled up the plywood, ripped the 1x material into stiffeners, and added a shelf. The best part for me is the the 1x4 stiffener that says "High Dollar Aircraft Parts - This Side Up" upside down. :) Having a high table really helps. Routering in a place for the steel plate for back riveting also works well for us. What I'm envious of: a buddy who does custom steel and metal fabrication work (also a pilot) has a 4x4 steel table with a hydraulic lift to raise and lower his work to the most comfortable height. I think something like that would really be the cat's meow. Jon Reining 41514 (with my dad Bill - and occasional emotional support from my wife Christy - who also reads the list emails) Tailcone - interrupted - while house is being remodeled and parents are moving :( Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81608#81608 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: EFDsteve(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 14, 2006
Subject: Re: Work Table Size
I built the 24 inch wide EAA tables, but for the top, I made it 2" wider al l around, and that has worked really well for clamping things to the table. Another consideration is that may have to move these through doors at some point, like I did when I moved about a year and a half ago. If my table ha d been any wider than 28", I would have had a very hard time moving it from o ne house to the other. Steve Weinstock 40230 Yes, you can blame me. I took those plans and did some calculations to efficiently allow them to be built either to 24" or 32". In my case, I'm glad I had 32", but it really is just a personal preference. I had no problem laying a wing on it, and since I didn't solid-mount my C-Frame dimpler, I found the width to be a great help. In addition, you end up getting lots and lots of supplies on the table sometimes, and having the extra width can be a good thing. 32" was not at all too wide to work comfortably on both sides of RV-10 parts. That said, if you're space limited, or prefer skinny tables, then 24" might be just the ticket. It's just personal preference. Some people liked theirs moveable with rollers. I preferred mine to be super solid heavy and unyielding. I really is no big deal either way, and often could be dependent on the rest of your shop. If I had unlimited space, I'd have had a couple more of the ones Like I have, and scattered them around a bit. One thing for sure, when you get yourself a good sturdy set of tables, you'll find building to go smoother. Also, it was handy having a top that you didn't mind drilling into, or painting. One other thing I found infinitely helpful was an overhead pipe system with air outlets every few feet, and a few 5 to 10' air hoses. It's nice sometimes to just have a little piece of hose hanging down so it isn't in the way while you drill, and really beats tripping over a 25' hose on the ground. So yep, I confused the issue by giving 2 options for the standard EAA Plans. Sucks to have options, doesn't it. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive orchidman wrote: > > > owl40188(at)yahoo.com wrote: >> I have used two 8ft by 2 ft tables. Built similarly to those in >> the EAA site. They worked great. A 32 inch table should work >> great also but I wouldn't go any wider than that. I used a 2ft >> depth because I slit a 4x8 plywood sheet in the middle for the two >> table tops. A more important item might be table height.=EF=BD You >> don't want to have to bend down for a long period of time while >> working on your kit. >> >> Niko 40188- > > Thanks, It looks like my problems are because of Tim! Can I blame > him :D > > The plans he has on his site show both 24" and 32" and this is what I > was questioning. Which is best for the 10. Eveyone that has replied > so far has referenced the plans from what looks like the same group > of people but only has the 24" size. No reference to 32" wide. It is > looking like 24" is winning. This is what I needed to know so I can > build them this weekend. > > -------- Gary Blankenbiller RV10 - # 40674 (N410GB reserved) do not > archive > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81590#81590 > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>
Subject: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. Jim, What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified? Let's see: 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration? 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000 While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able to file /G. By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530. GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below: http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Date: Dec 14, 2006
The Garmin decison to reduce the TSO on the 480 sounds like a marketing decision to me. Perhaps someday Garmin will go the way of King which they so heartliy disliked. ----- Original Message ----- From: W. Curtis To: RV10-List(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna >> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. Jim, What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified? Let's see: 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration? 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000 While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able to file /G. By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530. GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below: http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Boone" <david555(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
Date: Dec 14, 2006
I would like to comment about the use of a panel dock and a 296/396/496, I originally thought it was a great idea, until I installed one in my 182. I really like the 396 and when it was on the yoke it was used as my primary VFR navigation. (instead of the garmin 430) When it is mounted in the panel it can be hard and frustating to use the "rocker" button, particularly in turbulance. The "rocker" button is used in many of the navigation functions and in almost all of the weather functions. I will be mounting the 396 in the RV10 on an E mount protruding from the panel, directly above the stick.The airplane will also have the 430, SL30, Grand Rapids 3 screen, but for local VFR flying, its hard to beat the 396/496. ----- Original Message ----- From: <jim(at)CombsFive.Com> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:13 PM Subject: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR? > > I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The > Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. > > Here is the response from Garmin as to why: > > "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions to > certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129 > certified box if you want to an IFR GPS." > > Hmmm. That really stinks! > > So does that mean no /G filing? > > Jim C > N312F > Finishing > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GenGrumpy(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 14, 2006
Subject: RV 10 designation with FAA
For those interested, I sent the following to van's today (might help if you also prodded them) Grumpy #40404 Vans, While working with FltPlan.com in trying to build my RV 10 (#40404) database, and from which I file flight plans with the FAA, the RV-10 is not included as an identified model in Section 5 (page 5-1-82) of the FAA Order 7340.1Y. It lists RV models 3 through 9 only. Paragraph 1-3-3 (page 1-3-1) provides instructions on how to request an aircraft-type designator be added to the approved identifiers. All of us RV 10 fliers (and those to fly later) would appreciate it if Van's would request that the -10 be added to FAA's list. Thanks - John Miller #40404 with 40 hrs and counting!! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <jim(at)CombsFive.Com>
Subject: Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Date: Dec 14, 2006
>From my "Inexperienced" point of view: - The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver. - It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff - They (Garmin) already have certified database for use So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly know nothing about) These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue. As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up. Fewer units sold also drive the cost up. This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning as I go. This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback. Thanks, Jim C N312F =========================================================== From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com> Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 09:32:41 EST Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna >> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. Jim, What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified? Let's see: 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration? 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000 While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able to file /G. By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530. GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below: http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ =========================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <jim(at)CombsFive.Com>
Subject: Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Date: Dec 14, 2006
Dang it - All these responses are making me rethink my plans! Jim C N312F =========================================================== From: <jim(at)CombsFive.Com> Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 10:32:19 EST Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna >From my "Inexperienced" point of view: - The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver. - It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff - They (Garmin) already have certified database for use So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly know nothing about) These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue. As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up. Fewer units sold also drive the cost up. This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning as I go. This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback. Thanks, Jim C N312F =========================================================== From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com> Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 09:32:41 EST Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna >> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. Jim, What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified? Let's see: 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration? 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000 While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able to file /G. By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530. GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below: http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ =========================================================== =========================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RV 10 designation with FAA
Date: Dec 14, 2006
FWIW, same issue when filing through DUATS. Oddly enough though, if you file over the phone you show as a RV-10. Tracking on FlightAware.com has shown me as a RV-10 if a file by phone. For now if filing through DUATS I call myself a RV-6/G and then in the remarks say it's really a RV-10 but I'm not sure it's made a difference. Marcus 40286 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GenGrumpy(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:19 PM Subject: RV10-List: RV 10 designation with FAA For those interested, I sent the following to van's today (might help if you also prodded them) Grumpy #40404 Vans, While working with FltPlan.com in trying to build my RV 10 (#40404) database, and from which I file flight plans with the FAA, the RV-10 is not included as an identified model in Section 5 (page 5-1-82) of the FAA Order 7340.1Y. It lists RV models 3 through 9 only. Paragraph 1-3-3 (page 1-3-1) provides instructions on how to request an aircraft-type designator be added to the approved identifiers. All of us RV 10 fliers (and those to fly later) would appreciate it if Van's would request that the -10 be added to FAA's list. Thanks - John Miller #40404 with 40 hrs and counting!! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Work Table Size
The EAA tables are great - I did 3 of them. I thought hard about more than 24 inches but the 24 really is right. I second the MDF - makes a great surface. The only reason why you might want to go a few inches wider or longer is to get an edge you can clamp to. However, I find the bar clamps to be very effective in clamping to to the 2X4 that holds the top. Bigger seems better but not necessarily in this case. 2 is better than 1 and 3 better than 2. The only variation on the tables I did was to leave off the doublers on the bottom of the legs. You certainly don't need it for strength and leaving it off makes it a little lighter and may make it a little easier to slide on the floor - if you don't use wheels. Remember to use glue for a solid table. orchidman wrote: > > In the past there have been many topics discussing the minimum size to build a 10 but I have not seen any discussion as to work tables. Tims site talks about using an 8 foot and a 4 foot table but no reference to depth. The pictures look like his were not 48. I suspect 24 or 32. > I hope to be doing my inventory on the Emp kit next weekend and I am trying to get the work area ready. I already have a 4 x 8 table for general work but for the construction, it looks like most people are using much less then 48 of depth. A shallower table allows easier working from both sides. > If I go with a 4 ft and 8 ft table, can I get by with a 24 depth or do I need 32 or even wider? > I am also considering adding a cutout in the 4 foot table for a 'Hand Riveting and Dimpling Tool' that I can drop in when needed that will allow the aluminum being worked on to rest on the table at the tools work height. Are others finding this arangement useful? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
The 396, and presumably the 496, doesn't have approaches in it anyway. They have some fixes but you *can't* use them for approaches, certified or not. What Tim said as far as IFR panel planning. I think it is very difficult to do effectively without either 1) having used the ticket or 2) copying someone who knows what they are doing. Flying IFR with a homebuilt panel seems to me to be a lot more serious business than flying a homebuilt aircraft to this pilot. jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote: > > I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. > > Here is the response from Garmin as to why: > > "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS." > > Hmmm. That really stinks! > > So does that mean no /G filing? > > Jim C > N312F > Finishing > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
There is a minor flaw in both Garmin's logic and Avionics West's opinion. The manufacturer can NOT make a service bulletin mandatory for Part 91, and they can NOT take away an FAA granted certification. ONLY the FAA can do that. Unless you are flying a type certified aircraft for hire, where service bulletins must be complied with, you can ignore said service bulletin until/if the FAA decides to make it an AD. Not sure why sole means of navigation is an issue anyway, since the unit has VOR built in. Perhaps you would want to be extra cautious about an LPV approach, but until more info comes out that is about all you need to do. In fact, the document itself says it is a non-problem in the real world: "Garmin notified the FAA of a discrepancy in a test specification relating to the Initial Acquisition and Reacquisition of GPS Satellites in the presence of high noise and interference levels. These high noise levels do not exist in any real-world situation at this time so there is little if any impact to GNS 480 (CNX80) users. However, Garmin is committed to resolving the issue quickly and removing any limitations on our WAAS navigators." KM A&P/IA On 12/14/06, W. Curtis wrote: > >> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The > >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. > > Jim, > > What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR > certified? > > Let's see: > 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system > configuration? > 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000 > > While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements > for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet > these requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have > a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare > shield. It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't > have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as > "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs > you definitely will not be able to file /G. > > By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the > WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's > 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so > long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530. > > GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below: > http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf > > http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf > > http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm > > > William Curtis > http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Leikam" <DAVELEIKAM(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
Date: Dec 14, 2006
O.K. I'll get the book. Where? Dave Leikam 40496 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick" <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:56 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires > > OK so I'm ranting, it's lunch time so here goes.....Ivory soapbox and all > > The first step in risk management is hazard identification. > > OK so our hazard = metal fuel lines and high amperage electrical conductor > in close proximity. > > Second step=Lowering or eliminating the risk of the hazard. > > This can be accomplished several ways....the simplistic way is to > eliminate the hazard unless it is not possible...in this case there are > many alternative routes for the electrical wire that it would go against > practical thinking to route it in the tunnel so ELIMINATE the hazard!! > > If you had no other option and had to run these two items, the next step > is to engineer a system that would lower the hazard to acceptable > levels...this should not even be a consideration in this situation BUT the > AC 43.13 1B, change 1 gives you some options in the form of conduits and > proper postioning. > >>From day one this book has been in my shop, the binder has worn through >>and I need to tape it or replace it...really replace since change 1 is >>out. > > For those that don't have a copy get one, John, myself and many others > have preached for the last almost three years!! > > Almost every question asked in this forum regarding fuel lines, > electrical, acceptable metal practices etc. etc. etc. is right inside that > book. > > I am guessing that many builders have not had the absolute pleasure to > work on aircraft in a structured enviroment, Johns experience in > commercial an mine in the military maybe gives us a slanted or "Nothing > less than perfect will do" attitude. > > There is technical data that has to be followed for EVERY task that's > performed on the aircraft. Step by step, aircraft maintenance forms that > document every panel and component removed and replaced along with the > required operational checks afterwards. Quality assurance and supervision > inspections and final sign offs. You get thick skinned because you just > finished up an 8 hour auxillary drive gearbox change and missed safety > wiring one bolt that is now almost impossible to get to. It sucks to make > a mistake and have it pointed out so you fix it with a smile and swear you > won't miss THAT again. Those checks and balances are what makes the safety > records what they are today and what yours is going to be tomorrow > > Get yourself a copy of AC 43.13 and mitigate your risk. > > It's written in bent sheet metal and blood. Get two copies, one for the > shop and one for the bathroom...really good bathroom book. > > Now back to soap sudsing each other up ;) > > Rick S. > 40185 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2006
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
All IFR navigation systems have to have monitoring to ensure they are on the air and accurate. Ground based equipment have permanent receivers nearby the fulfill that need and sound alarms in a tower or FSS if they are out of tolerance. GPS has to use RAIM or a WAAS prediction program to ensure enough satellites will be in view. Portables don't have that function. You have to have an indicator in your scan for course guidance...on screen indications not acceptable. You have to have an annunciator to tell you what mode it is in, alert you to messages and warnings..and other stuff in the TSO. You have to ensure no avionics interference, which requires a fixed location. After all that, most critical, the FAA has said they will never approve a portable, end of discussion. jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote: > > >From my "Inexperienced" point of view: > > - The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver. > - It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff > - They (Garmin) already have certified database for use > > So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly know nothing about) > > These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue. > > As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up. Fewer units sold also drive the cost up. > > This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning as I go. > > This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback. > > Thanks, Jim C > N312F > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2006
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
Sorry to inform you John, and a bonus for those "holiday cheapies" <http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument> Here is the link to AC 43.13-1B including change 1 all chapters as acrobat pdf, and all for free. Or <http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/> for all sorts of aircraft information. Our taxes at work. Dave Leikam wrote: > > O.K. > > I'll get the book. Where? > > Dave Leikam > 40496 > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick" <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:56 PM > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires > > >> >> OK so I'm ranting, it's lunch time so here goes.....Ivory soapbox and >> all >> >> The first step in risk management is hazard identification. >> >> OK so our hazard = metal fuel lines and high amperage electrical >> conductor in close proximity. >> >> Second step=Lowering or eliminating the risk of the hazard. >> >> This can be accomplished several ways....the simplistic way is to >> eliminate the hazard unless it is not possible...in this case there >> are many alternative routes for the electrical wire that it would go >> against practical thinking to route it in the tunnel so ELIMINATE the >> hazard!! >> >> If you had no other option and had to run these two items, the next >> step is to engineer a system that would lower the hazard to >> acceptable levels...this should not even be a consideration in this >> situation BUT the AC 43.13 1B, change 1 gives you some options in the >> form of conduits and proper postioning. >> >>> From day one this book has been in my shop, the binder has worn >>> through and I need to tape it or replace it...really replace since >>> change 1 is out. >> >> For those that don't have a copy get one, John, myself and many >> others have preached for the last almost three years!! >> >> Almost every question asked in this forum regarding fuel lines, >> electrical, acceptable metal practices etc. etc. etc. is right inside >> that book. >> >> I am guessing that many builders have not had the absolute pleasure >> to work on aircraft in a structured enviroment, Johns experience in >> commercial an mine in the military maybe gives us a slanted or >> "Nothing less than perfect will do" attitude. >> >> There is technical data that has to be followed for EVERY task that's >> performed on the aircraft. Step by step, aircraft maintenance forms >> that document every panel and component removed and replaced along >> with the required operational checks afterwards. Quality assurance >> and supervision inspections and final sign offs. You get thick >> skinned because you just finished up an 8 hour auxillary drive >> gearbox change and missed safety wiring one bolt that is now almost >> impossible to get to. It sucks to make a mistake and have it pointed >> out so you fix it with a smile and swear you won't miss THAT again. >> Those checks and balances are what makes the safety records what they >> are today and what yours is going to be tomorrow >> >> Get yourself a copy of AC 43.13 and mitigate your risk. >> >> It's written in bent sheet metal and blood. Get two copies, one for >> the shop and one for the bathroom...really good bathroom book. >> >> Now back to soap sudsing each other up ;) >> >> Rick S. >> 40185 >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N127KR(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 15, 2006
Subject: Another New RV-10 Builder
After reading the note from Gary regarding his decision to purchase an RV -10 kit, I felt like he was reading my mind. I also have read, reread and surfed all of the web sites pertaining to RV-10 construction. Not only is the Matronics List a valuable tool, but the plethora of data from all of the web sites are amazing. I received my kit on the 12th and as of tonight I have finished deburring the VS skin and will start on the ribs tomorrow. If I recall, there was a request to Gary as to his location.... well if anybody wants to know mine, I am located in Somerville, TN (about 50 miles east of KMEM). Thanks to all who have contributed their thoughts, perceptions and gotchas. Rusty Bliss 40668 _rbliss1015(at)aol.com_ (mailto:rbliss1015(at)aol.com) Somerville, TN ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Another New RV-10 Builder
From: "Michael Wellenzohn" <michael(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Dec 15, 2006
Welcome! I guess most of us went through this process of surfing the web and one day then you take the first step and order the kit. Have fun building and all the best from Zuerich, Switzerland Michael [url]www.wellenzohn.net P.S. If someone visits my website could you please give me feedback if the loading time of the java menu to the left is acceptable?[/url] -------- RV-10 builder (wings) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81686#81686 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder
Date: Dec 15, 2006
On the issue of hottest cylinder. I bought my engine from Aero Sport Power with the Lasar system and they test ran the engine before shipping it to me and included a printed report with the engine when they delivered it. From this report I could figure out which was the hottest cylinder. Depending on where you got your engine, maybe it's in the paper work they sent. Wayne Edgerton #40336 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2006
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
>I really like the 396 and when it was on the yoke it was used as my >primary VFR navigation. (instead of the garmin 430) David, Do yourself a favor and connect your 396 to your Garmin 430. That way weather VFR or IFR, the active route on your 430 will feed down to the portable 396. Then you only have to program one device and if your panel goes dark, you still have the active flight plan in the portable. Get the 396/496 power data cable and connect RxData in to one of the GNS-430 serial out configured for Aviation Data. > The Garmin decison to reduce the TSO on the 480 sounds like a marketing > decision to me. Perhaps someday Garmin will go the way of King which > they so heartliy disliked. How so? Garmin was founded by ex-King engineers and I think on their worst day, their customer service is better than King on their best. Just my opinion. William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Boone" <david555(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
Date: Dec 15, 2006
Thanks for the info. David ----- Original Message ----- From: W. Curtis To: RV10-List(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 8:02 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? >I really like the 396 and when it was on the yoke it was used as my >primary VFR navigation. (instead of the garmin 430) David, Do yourself a favor and connect your 396 to your Garmin 430. That way weather VFR or IFR, the active route on your 430 will feed down to the portable 396. Then you only have to program one device and if your panel goes dark, you still have the active flight plan in the portable. Get the 396/496 power data cable and connect RxData in to one of the GNS-430 serial out configured for Aviation Data. > The Garmin decison to reduce the TSO on the 480 sounds like a marketing > decision to me. Perhaps someday Garmin will go the way of King which > they so heartliy disliked. How so? Garmin was founded by ex-King engineers and I think on their worst day, their customer service is better than King on their best. Just my opinion. William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Date: Dec 15, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
We asked the local FSDO their opinion on this issue with the portables, and the feedback we got is that there has been allot of conversation on making portables Legal for IFR but the main concern is not the unit itself, rather the antenna, and its placement, this is what makes a portable dangerous, because some just throw the puck up on the glare shield and it could easily fall or somehow get blocked from receiving a signal. The last thing you want to be doing is scrambling around in zero vis and looking for your main nav source antenna. As for the units, they say as long as they are hooked to ships power they feel they are just as reliable as panel mounted units. For what it is worth, I am also putting in the 496, but it will be backing up the Chelton Freeflight so I can file /g. This of course is after I get my IFR ticket, I did pass the written over Thanksgiving and am about 10 hours into the flying portion. Dan N289DT RV10E -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jim(at)CombsFive.Com Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:32 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna >From my "Inexperienced" point of view: - The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver. - It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff - They (Garmin) already have certified database for use So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly know nothing about) These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue. As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up. Fewer units sold also drive the cost up. This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning as I go. This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback. Thanks, Jim C N312F =========================================================== From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com> Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 09:32:41 EST Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna >> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. Jim, What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified? Let's see: 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration? 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000 While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able to file /G. By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530. GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below: http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ =========================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2006
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
Try the here: http://www.buildersbooks.com/ Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Date: Dec 15, 2006
I agree; having used the Loran C system, the Garmin 90, Garmin 150, Garmin pilot III and the Garmin 295, I found that the only time I lost a fiz was when the antenna was shielded and/or when the GPS satelittes were outputing lower power. I used to be unable to get a lock inside a wood frame house but now the power output is sufficent to get a lock in my living room. Another concern of the FAA I am sure is whether there is sufficent computing power in the handheld to process the incoming data and update the moving map at a display rate which is adequate for the speed of the aircraft (had the 295 lockup while using the WAAS sfotware that was available). Most of the TSOed units will handle speeds of 900+ kts. It would probably be helpful if a laymens guide to the GPS theory was provided. Another concern would be the testing and update controls on the software. Do not archive. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:30 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna > > We asked the local FSDO their opinion on this issue with the portables, > and the feedback we got is that there has been allot of conversation on > making portables Legal for IFR but the main concern is not the unit > itself, rather the antenna, and its placement, this is what makes a > portable dangerous, because some just throw the puck up on the glare > shield and it could easily fall or somehow get blocked from receiving a > signal. The last thing you want to be doing is scrambling around in zero > vis and looking for your main nav source antenna. As for the units, they > say as long as they are hooked to ships power they feel they are just as > reliable as panel mounted units. > For what it is worth, I am also putting in the 496, but it will be > backing up the Chelton Freeflight so I can file /g. This of course is > after I get my IFR ticket, I did pass the written over Thanksgiving and > am about 10 hours into the flying portion. > Dan > N289DT RV10E > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > jim(at)CombsFive.Com > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:32 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna > > >>From my "Inexperienced" point of view: > > - The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver. > - It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff > - They (Garmin) already have certified database for use > > So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which > I admittedly know nothing about) > > These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable > should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO > requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue. > > As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up. > Fewer units sold also drive the cost up. > > This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning > as I go. > > This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback. > > > Thanks, Jim C > N312F > =========================================================== > From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com> > Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 09:32:41 EST > To: RV10-List(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna > >>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The >>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. > > Jim, > > What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT > IFR certified? > > Let's see: > 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable > system configuration? > 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at > $11,000 > > While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the > requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no > portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time. > That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with > the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR > certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would > be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, > however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able > to file /G. > > By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced > the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly > TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took > Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530. > > GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below: > http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf > > http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf > > http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm > > > William Curtis > http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ > =========================================================== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Date: Dec 15, 2006
> > One benefit to the 480 is that you can couple it to the TruTrak's > and it will fly both laterally and vertically, so it does have > that one upside. > Now that the 430w is available, I would think that this is no longer a differentiator. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
Yes, they include only minimal approach information - Perhaps just the final fix with initial fixes eliminated. Whatever, it's not enough to fly an approach. Legal reasons I'm sure. Tim Olson wrote: > > I agree with your statements. Also, I'm not sure if this is > correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin > set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info > you'd need to complete an approach? I mean, they give > you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought > I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the > final approach data. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
Date: Dec 15, 2006
You will find that the approach intersections are there (in the database) but do not come up when an approach is selected. Example the RFD RNAV (GPS) Z 19 calls out NADME, JORMO, WAGET, all of which are in my G295 database of 4/13/06. As a backup map you could add them to the flight plan in the portable. ----- Original Message ----- From: "MauleDriver" <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR? > > Yes, they include only minimal approach information - Perhaps just the > final fix with initial fixes eliminated. Whatever, it's not enough to fly > an approach. Legal reasons I'm sure. > Tim Olson wrote: >> >> I agree with your statements. Also, I'm not sure if this is >> correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin >> set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info >> you'd need to complete an approach? I mean, they give >> you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought >> I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the >> final approach data. >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
Date: Dec 15, 2006
One other thing to consider, the FAA has to set the TSO so that "EVEN A CAVEMAN CAN DO IT". No knowledge of UHF electronics, computer programming, spherical geometry or mathematical statistics required. ----- Original Message ----- From: "MauleDriver" <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR? > > Yes, they include only minimal approach information - Perhaps just the > final fix with initial fixes eliminated. Whatever, it's not enough to fly > an approach. Legal reasons I'm sure. > Tim Olson wrote: >> >> I agree with your statements. Also, I'm not sure if this is >> correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin >> set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info >> you'd need to complete an approach? I mean, they give >> you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought >> I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the >> final approach data. >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
David McNeill wrote: > You will find that the approach intersections are there (in the > database) but do not come up when an approach is selected. Example the > RFD RNAV (GPS) Z 19 calls out NADME, JORMO, WAGET, all of which are in > my G295 database of 4/13/06. As a backup map you could add them to the > flight plan in the portable. Yes, they are in the 396 too but having to add them manually into a second unit just about negates their use in practical IFR flight for this pilot. Arguably non-standard, yet supported use of even certified GPS systems can lead to problems. A recent classic is the King Air accident at Martinsville VA. Check out September's AOPA mag or the NTSB http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 041104X01760&key=1 It was a localizer approach with an NDB fix. The King Air had everything it needed plus some. What appeared to trip them up was the use of a KLN90B (2nd gen GPS) for waypoint sequencing. That is, using it to track passage of the NDB fix, and the DME-based missed approach fix. If you can read the IFR jargon, the AOPA (and Flying) mag writeups are fascinating reading. Everything about the operation was by the book or beyond. And yet use of the GPS as a backup aid seemed to trick the trained, proficient, and otherwise compentent crew, sending them into the hills. For me, it crystallized some changes I had recently made to my GPS/IFR work - that is, I no longer try to recreate non-GPS approaches on my 2nd Gen Garmin 300XL. If I use it in place of an ADF, VOR, or DME, that's all I do with it. The single pilot IFR cockpit can be a busy place and simplicity has helped me, even in my crawling Maule. Of course, the new equipment makes me drool. What is it that the FAA says, building experimental aircraft is for the education of the builder. I think you can do a lot of experimentation on aircraft design and construction and learn a lot. Experimenting with IFR equipment, procedures, or anything is another matter. If you do no experimentation with IFR equipment and procedures, you'll learn plenty. How did the airmail pilots learn about IMC? By sending another pilot and a/c into the next cloud. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lorenz_Malmstr=F6m?= <LM(at)malmstrom.ch>
Subject: Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ?
Date: Dec 15, 2006
Hello group I am quickly approaching section 32 where you attach the tailcone. As I am heavily =91shop space challenged=92, I=92d like to postpone this step as long as possible. My idea is to: - Temporarily attach (cleco) the tailcone and do what can be done in the baggage area. - Remove the tailcone and finish the rest of the fuselage (including cabin cover). - Install the engine, cowling & panel. - Finally install the tailcone completely. Jesse had an image recently where the cabin cover was installed without tailcone so it seems to be possible. What are the traps and gotchas with this approach? What can be done in the baggage area and what not? Thanks everybody in advance. Lorenz. #40280 http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2006
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where >that is real world it will be great. Huh? How do you come up with a statement like that? I fly a 430 IFR in the busy Northeast where you NEVER (at least I've never) get to fly direct. "It doesn't have airways" only means that you can't enter an airway in the flight planning section and they are not displayed on the map. In practicality this only means that on the 430, you can't put in MIV V1 JAX and have it determine all 12 intermediate points. With proper flight planning you should have all these points anyway and not have to let a navigator determine them for you. Otherwise, the flight planning section in the 430 is pretty good. Get to know it and see for yourself. So I guess I don't understand you statement about the 430 designed only "to go direct" and "a VFR tool." If this is the way you are using a 430 then you are not using it to even a small amount of its potential. I think a truer statement is that a 430 is a effective VFR AND and IFR tool, while a 480 in ONLY a IFR tool. >Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger screen. Let's see, the 430W will list for $10,750, the 530W $16,495. The 480 used to lists for $12,000. ???? The economies of scale will make the 430W MUCH less expensive than the 480. I've had my 430 since '99 and there are over 40,000 now in service and continue to sell. Anyone care to wager on the 480 being available new in 5 years? William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris , Susie Darcy" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Window weight
Date: Dec 16, 2006
For those who have not put there front window in I just did ours and wasn't happy with just putting a weight on the window to hold in place so if you have a look at pic I used a bit of scrap bar with a bolt threw it into where the support arm goes. Just tighten up and its done !! Chris 388 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
ou may be used to the 430, obviously you don't know the 480. Fact remains that you can't enter more than one segment of an airway at a time on the 430. If you get a reroute, you will be doing a lot of heads down time, or just entering one or two fixes ahead at a time. The 480 can do everything the 430 does in spades and more, whether VFR or IFR. Also kind of hard to fly an offset to an airway when you don't have it, piece of cake for the 480. Flying in the Northeast means relatively short flights. Maybe the 430 is right for you. I routinely fly coast to coast and having airways mapped is extremely useful. See Doug Preston's comments as one who has owned both units. Not to mention it is available now. What do you suppose the delivery on a 430W is, given there is a 6 month or more backlog for upgrades? Not to mention that the 430 is a considerably older design, and much of it will remain older even with the upgrade. It looks like from various on-line vendors you are within $500 of each other right now, although most listings are for the 430, not the 430W, appearing discounted about $2000 from the 430W. Not hard at all to find the 480 advertised for $9000, probably less on unadvertised price. On 12/15/06, W. Curtis wrote: > >The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where > >that is real world it will be great. > > Huh? How do you come up with a statement like that? > > I fly a 430 IFR in the busy Northeast where you NEVER (at least I've never) > get to fly direct. "It doesn't have airways" only means that you can't enter > an airway in the flight planning section and they are not displayed on the > map. In practicality this only means that on the 430, you can't put in MIV > V1 JAX and have it determine all 12 intermediate points. With proper flight > planning you should have all these points anyway and not have to let a > navigator determine them for you. Otherwise, the flight planning section in > the 430 is pretty good. Get to know it and see for yourself. So I guess I > don't understand you statement about the 430 designed only "to go direct" > and "a VFR tool." If this is the way you are using a 430 then you are not > using it to even a small amount of its potential. > > I think a truer statement is that a 430 is a effective VFR AND and IFR > tool, while a 480 in ONLY a IFR tool. > > >Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger > screen. > > Let's see, the 430W will list for $10,750, the 530W $16,495. The 480 used > to lists for $12,000. ???? > The economies of scale will make the 430W MUCH less expensive than the 480. > I've had my 430 since '99 and there are over 40,000 now in service and > continue to sell. Anyone care to wager on the 480 being available new in 5 > years? > > William Curtis > http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Smokin Rivets
Date: Dec 15, 2006
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Now that builders have painted the landscape with why and why not to drill, then deburr, then dimple vs. deburr, dimple then drill or just skip it all together and just pop rivet. Let's move the discussion to the next level. I don't know if any RV-10s that have enough time on them yet but no one has addressed the cause for them, where they are likely to occur (so you can be watching), what corrective action can be taken or more importantly which of the two or three techniques being used is less likely to contribute to them. We are all prideful of our selected technique but a lot of builders might find the discussion enlightening. - not to be confused with Lightning and the need for static suppression wicks. Deems, you referenced Dan Checkoway's advise (the self promoted high guru on Sheetmetal). What say Dan? Let's hear discussion about tensile vs. shear, wet rivets, use of reams vs. drill bits, fitment of the rivet to the opening and proper prep, or rivets in composite. VAN's says "forgetaboutit" cause the RV-12 is going to skip steps in the effort to find a faster build and lazy group of builders. How about the advantages and applications of Icebox rivets, Monel or the common 1100 rivets? Come on Kelly - let's play. During last night's Pacific NW storm we were hit by a rash of lightning strikes and smoking rivets all over the NW (scores of aircraft). Anyone remember Honest Abe's math on Four Score? We are building the finest High Speed, IFR cruisers at low cost out there right? John Cox #40600 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Date: Dec 15, 2006
Dan, maybe the local FDSO knows something but it goes deeper than that with the 396/496. Questions on filing /g with a non-certified unit assume that it is used only on the enroute phase(not sure it's legal but some do anyway). I may be wrong on this point, but when you file /g you are telling ATC that you have equipment on board capable of flying a full GPS approach and not just the enroute leg. The AIM says that /g means "GPS with enroute AND terminal capability". Since the 396 and 496 don't show anything other than the FAF segment, it doesn't appear that you have the "terminal" capability required to fly the full approach. Until Garmin adds the full approach procedures to the 396/496 all the other questions would seem moot. Of course, it is a chicken and the egg thing so maybe if the FDSO loosened up some, Garmin might add them. Does the Chelton Freeflight have certified a GPS built in? If so back up with the 496 is gold, if not it's just two x non-certified. Maybe some AIM scholar will weigh in ;-) Just my .02 Bill S 7a engine -----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 15, 2006 8:31 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna --> We asked the local FSDO their opinion on this issue with the portables, and the feedback we got is that there has been allot of conversation on making portables Legal for IFR but the main concern is not the unit itself, rather the antenna, and its placement, this is what makes a portable dangerous, because some just throw the puck up on the glare shield and it could easily fall or somehow get blocked from receiving a signal. The last thing you want to be doing is scrambling around in zero vis and looking for your main nav source antenna. As for the units, they say as long as they are hooked to ships power they feel they are just as reliable as panel mounted units. For what it is worth, I am also putting in the 496, but it will be backing up the Chelton Freeflight so I can file /g. This of course is after I get my IFR ticket, I did pass the written over Thanksgiving and am about 10 hours into the flying portion. Dan N289DT RV10E -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jim(at)CombsFive.Com Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:32 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna >From my "Inexperienced" point of view: - The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver. - It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff - They (Garmin) already have certified database for use So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly know nothing about) These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue. As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up. Fewer units sold also drive the cost up. This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning as I go. This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback. Thanks, Jim C N312F =========================================================== From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com> Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 09:32:41 EST Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna >> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. Jim, What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified? Let's see: 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration? 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000 While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able to file /G. By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530. GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below: http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ =========================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris , Susie Darcy" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Smokin Rivets
Date: Dec 16, 2006
Smokin Rivetsmaaate WHO CARES JUST BUILD!!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: John W. Cox To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 3:08 PM Subject: RV10-List: Smokin Rivets Now that builders have painted the landscape with why and why not to drill, then deburr, then dimple vs. deburr, dimple then drill or just skip it all together and just pop rivet. Let's move the discussion to the next level. I don't know if any RV-10s that have enough time on them yet but no one has addressed the cause for them, where they are likely to occur (so you can be watching), what corrective action can be taken or more importantly which of the two or three techniques being used is less likely to contribute to them. We are all prideful of our selected technique but a lot of builders might find the discussion enlightening. - not to be confused with Lightning and the need for static suppression wicks. Deems, you referenced Dan Checkoway's advise (the self promoted high guru on Sheetmetal). What say Dan? Let's hear discussion about tensile vs. shear, wet rivets, use of reams vs. drill bits, fitment of the rivet to the opening and proper prep, or rivets in composite. VAN's says "forgetaboutit" cause the RV-12 is going to skip steps in the effort to find a faster build and lazy group of builders. How about the advantages and applications of Icebox rivets, Monel or the common 1100 rivets? Come on Kelly - let's play. During last night's Pacific NW storm we were hit by a rash of lightning strikes and smoking rivets all over the NW (scores of aircraft). Anyone remember Honest Abe's math on Four Score? We are building the finest High Speed, IFR cruisers at low cost out there right? John Cox #40600 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Well sort of. The Chelton system (SV-Sport) is not certified. Built into the Pinpoint GADAHRS is a GPS. The optional FreeFlight 1101 WAAS GPS has full integrity monitoring. The Chelton SV-Sport is "based" on their certified system. The FreeFlight 1101 GPS according to Chelton is the same as the certified 1201 but without the TSO sticker. So, it is not certified. I believe it meets the standard, but you can decide for your self. The closest Chelton will come to saying if you can legally fly IFR with there system is this, "As an option, add to your SV-10 the FreeFlight WAAS GPS with full integrity monitoring, and your SV-10 can be used for stand-alone IFR GPS navigation. Larry Rosen #356 Bill Schlatterer wrote: > > ..... > > Does the Chelton Freeflight have certified a GPS built in? If so back up > with the 496 is gold, if not it's just two x non-certified. > > Maybe some AIM scholar will weigh in ;-) > > Just my .02 > Bill S > 7a engine > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Share GPS Antenna
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: "Robin Marks" <robin1(at)mrmoisture.com>
RV Guru's, Is there a way to share / split a GPS antenna between a Garmin 396 & Garmin XL250? I have the exterior mounted XL250 antenna and I think it would be a cleaner installation if both units could share the same feed. Robin RV-4 Sold RV-6A 330 Hours RV-10 Parts ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ?
Date: Dec 16, 2006
I didn't see Jesse's picture concerning attachment of the cabin top without attachment of the tailcone but I suspect it must have been merely a sitting on of the cabin top to the fuselage and not an install. Not having attempted to do any work in the baggage area without the tailcone attached I can't say for sure what is and is not possible but I would not recommend removing the tailcone and attempting to do the cabin top before attachment. Russ Daves N710RV First Flight 7/28/06 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>Fact remains that you can't enter more than one segment of an >airway at a time on the 430. If you get a reroute, you will be >doing a lot of heads down time, or just entering one or two fixes >ahead at a time. Kelly, Help me understand this-what do you mean by "more than one segment of an airway?" Three fixes constitute two segments. Are you telling folks they can't enter more than 2 fixes with a 430? This is at best misinformed, at worst disingenious. I mentioned getting to know the flight planning section of the 430, it seems all you know about is the Direct-To button. >The 480 can do everything the 430 does in spades and more, >whether VFR or IFR. It has WAAS and airways over the 430, only airways over the 430W-- is this your definition of "spades and more?" >Also kind of hard to fly an offset to an airway when you don't have >it, piece of cake for the 480. >Flying in the Northeast means relatively short flights. >Maybe the 430 is right for you. I routinely fly coast to coast >and having airways mapped is extremely useful. If by short you mean NJ to Charlotte or NJ to Jacksonville, then yes that's short compared to coast to coast. What's the range of an RV-10 again? --that of any typical high performance single? Now tell me what "relatively short flight" have to do with the navigator you use? >It looks like from various on-line vendors you are within $500 of each >other right now, although most listings are for the 430, not the 430W, >appearing discounted about $2000 from the 430W. Not hard at all to find >the 480 advertised for $9000, probably less on unadvertised price. Like your air navigation I don't understand you economics. Previously I posted list prices, so let's look at street prices. The best you can get a 480 for is about $9,000. You can get better from Stark, but from Van's you can get a 430 for $6,760. Add $1,500 for WAAS and you are still almost $1,000 less than a 480. What am I missing? I too have flown both units but admittedly I'm biased towards the 430. After factoring in what the 480 offers, the user interface and the cost, I determined that the 430 was still better for me and the type of flying I do. I DO NOT regularly fly "coast to coast", I more routinely fly 4-600 mile legs. I can't say what is best for Jet A burning coast to coast flyer's only what is best for me and my typically mission. I always use the flight plan and only use the Direct-To when ATC clears me to some fix ahead already in the flight plan. This is what typically happens in the real world and this is MUCH easier on the 430. William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 16, 2006
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
Jim consider buying a "certified" IFR GPS like a 300xl and use the 496 as situational awareness system... P ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>Sorry, but it just irks me when someone with a completely one >sided viewpoint keeps hammering on with a closed mind, when they >don't have experience on the other end. Tim, I understand what you are saying but what you have said is the EXACT thing that got me on this "rant." Which is more on sided and/or inaccurate; any of the things I've stated about the 480 or the below comments about the 430? Comments such as: >>The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where >>that is real world it will be great. >>Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger >>screen. >>An IFR tool vs a VFR tool. My responses were to show why the above comments were inaccurate. Tell me why you think mine are one sided and closed minded? William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net>
Subject: Re: Share GPS Antenna
It certainly is possible, but I don't know of any "off the shelf" solutions. What you would need to do is provide: 1. A splitter to compensate for the changed impedance of the line (Think CATV 'splitters') 2. An inline capacitor of the correct value (I would have to do the calculations) on one line to block the DC feed to the antenna (The antenna is powered by a DC feed; The RF signal passes through the capacitor) -Jim 40384 (I am an RF Engineer.. Working on Bottom Wing Skins) Robin Marks wrote: > *RV Guru's,* > *Is there a way to share / split a GPS antenna between a Garmin 396 & > Garmin XL250? I have the exterior mounted XL250 antenna and I think it > would be a cleaner installation if both units could share the same feed.* > ** > *Robin* > *RV-4 Sold* > *RV-6A 330 Hours* > *RV-10 Parts* > >* > > >* > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
On 12/16/06, W. Curtis wrote: > >Sorry, but it just irks me when someone with a completely one > >sided viewpoint keeps hammering on with a closed mind, when they > >don't have experience on the other end. > > Tim, > > I understand what you are saying but what you have said is the EXACT thing > that got me on this "rant." Which is more on sided and/or inaccurate; any of > the things I've stated about the 480 or the below comments about the 430? > > Comments such as: > > >>The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where > >>that is real world it will be great. You haven't refuted the fact that you have to enter each segment, begining and ending waypoints, same as a VFR direct to handheld. > >>Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger > >>screen. I had seen cheaper prices quoted earlier, Tim confirms the 480 is available at under $9000, is available with STC, which for TC aircraft means no local FSDO approval needed, unlike the 430, which reduces cost for those aircraft, and it is a fact the screen is bigger than the 430. Lets see what the real price of a 430W becomes. Garmin has gone back on their $1500 upgrade price at least once, to their credit they seem to have come back to it, but you still have the hassle of getting the upgrade separately on somebody else's schedule, not your build schedule, not your flying schedule. Market prices and relative prices fluctate every day for many reasons. The fact the two units are as close as they are in price is surprising. > >>An IFR tool vs a VFR tool. Airways are the fact of life in most parts of the country for IFR ATC operations. Being able to call those up on screen is the difference between having to constantly divide your attention to a paper chart and not. Just my opinon, obviously not yours. I fly a lot in mountainous areas where off airway direct often isn't feasible without going above 15K. Where doglegs in airways are very common, just like the one around Indiantown Gap in your area, just different purpose. > > My responses were to show why the above comments were inaccurate. Tell me > why you think mine are one sided and closed minded? > So pricing has changed on me...the rest of what I said is more accurate than not, and supported by what others have said, here and elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>
Subject: Re: Share GPS Antenna
>I did not ask if it was legal to put your handheld in serial with >a certified IFR GPS unit but I'd suspect that it's not legal to do this >whether the aircraft is an experimental or certified. This IS legal and approved by Garmin and the FAA (at least the Allentown FSDO) and is probably why when this is done, the connection is ONE way from the panel unit to the portable. That is, the panel unit can send info to the portable, but the portable is NOT allowed to talk to the panel unit. I have this configuration (GNS-430 to GPSMAP 195) in my certified Cardinal and will do the same in the RV-10. William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Cabin Top Mold Release
Getting ready to start finishing the inside of the cabin top. There are some large voids (surprise surprise) that have a yellow to orange residue. Is this mold release? Should I use a solvent to remove it? Would acetone work? -- Larry Rosen RV-10 #356 http://lrosen.nerv10.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: PJ Seipel <seipel(at)seznam.cz>
Subject: Re: Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ?
If you permanently attach the cabin top before you attach the tailcone, you're going to have a heck of a time getting the tailcone on later. I had a hard time getting things lined up properly with 2 people and the top wide open where I could see what I was doing and had access to everything, I can't imagine trying to do it with the cabin top in the way. I also don't think you can do a whole lot in the baggage area without the tailcone on. PJ RV-10 #40032 Lorenz Malmstrm wrote: > > Hello group > > I am quickly approaching section 32 where you attach the tailcone. As > I am heavily shop space challenged, Id like to postpone this step > as long as possible. My idea is to: > > - Temporarily attach (cleco) the tailcone and do what can be done in > the baggage area. > > - Remove the tailcone and finish the rest of the fuselage (including > cabin cover). > > - Install the engine, cowling & panel. > > - Finally install the tailcone completely. > > Jesse had an image recently where the cabin cover was installed > without tailcone so it seems to be possible. What are the traps and > gotchas with this approach? What can be done in the baggage area and > what not? > > Thanks everybody in advance. > > Lorenz. > > #40280 > > http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
The Chelton has two different ones to choose from one with the TSO and one without. As for the Portable Garmins, they do have the information, and the capability to do it, they have just been disabled through software programming. IE the FAA says do not enable it, and to comply and not allow the functionality Garmin disabled it from displaying it. The two things that need to be resolved to using a handheld is consistent power and antenna placement. Once there is a way to force that then the software can be enabled, do I think it will happen? No, but we can always hope. The 496 is definitely a faster processor and screen refresh rates are great in comparison, they have WAAS, just need the software. My .02 Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Schlatterer Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 11:52 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna Dan, maybe the local FDSO knows something but it goes deeper than that with the 396/496. Questions on filing /g with a non-certified unit assume that it is used only on the enroute phase(not sure it's legal but some do anyway). I may be wrong on this point, but when you file /g you are telling ATC that you have equipment on board capable of flying a full GPS approach and not just the enroute leg. The AIM says that /g means "GPS with enroute AND terminal capability". Since the 396 and 496 don't show anything other than the FAF segment, it doesn't appear that you have the "terminal" capability required to fly the full approach. Until Garmin adds the full approach procedures to the 396/496 all the other questions would seem moot. Of course, it is a chicken and the egg thing so maybe if the FDSO loosened up some, Garmin might add them. Does the Chelton Freeflight have certified a GPS built in? If so back up with the 496 is gold, if not it's just two x non-certified. Maybe some AIM scholar will weigh in ;-) Just my .02 Bill S 7a engine -----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 15, 2006 8:31 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna --> We asked the local FSDO their opinion on this issue with the portables, and the feedback we got is that there has been allot of conversation on making portables Legal for IFR but the main concern is not the unit itself, rather the antenna, and its placement, this is what makes a portable dangerous, because some just throw the puck up on the glare shield and it could easily fall or somehow get blocked from receiving a signal. The last thing you want to be doing is scrambling around in zero vis and looking for your main nav source antenna. As for the units, they say as long as they are hooked to ships power they feel they are just as reliable as panel mounted units. For what it is worth, I am also putting in the 496, but it will be backing up the Chelton Freeflight so I can file /g. This of course is after I get my IFR ticket, I did pass the written over Thanksgiving and am about 10 hours into the flying portion. Dan N289DT RV10E -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jim(at)CombsFive.Com Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:32 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna >From my "Inexperienced" point of view: - The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver. - It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff - They (Garmin) already have certified database for use So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly know nothing about) These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue. As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up. Fewer units sold also drive the cost up. This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning as I go. This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback. Thanks, Jim C N312F =========================================================== From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com> Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 09:32:41 EST Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna >> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified. Jim, What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified? Let's see: 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration? 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000 While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able to file /G. By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530. GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below: http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ =========================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Cabin Top Mold Release
If I'm understanding correctly, and if the yellowish areas are hard, I believe these are voids that the fiberglass vendor has filled with and epoxy/filler solution, try scratching these to see\ if they act like epoxy. Mold release is a wax like substance that is soft. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ Larry Rosen wrote: > > Getting ready to start finishing the inside of the cabin top. There > are some large voids (surprise surprise) that have a yellow to orange > residue. Is this mold release? Should I use a solvent to remove it? > Would acetone work? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS
I've been waiting on delivery of a certified Freeflight WAAS GPS for months now. Here's what I've been told from the people @ Op Tech who I'm attempting to purchase it through. 1. FreeFlight had one of their hardware components "go to end of life" 2. Causing them to find a replacement component 3. Once found they had to re certify the 1201 4. The certification standards today are more strict than when they originally certified the unit 5.The latest is that the re-designed receiver is being subjected to a testing standard that is revised and moredifficult to meet than the one that was in place years ago when they first introduced the product. The new receiver isn't passing an over-temperature test. 6. They don't know how long a fix is going to take. 7. They are not now and have not for some time shipped 1201 units. 8. They are offering the 1101 as a 'non-certified alternative' As I read the FAA they are still saying that to be legal to fly WAAS gps you need to have a certified TSO 146 device. I know that D2 has a white paper on their website authored by a Phd that offers his opinion that it's not required for experimental a/c, but....... Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > >The Chelton has two different ones to choose from one with the TSO and >one without. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Date: Dec 16, 2006
William, Is that the "only" think you can conclude? What about the objective facts? For example, I also concluded that there are functional differences such as "you can't enter an airway into the 430". A fact - correct? Why, after all the diatribe, do you brush away all the facts and revert to subjective personal opinion? Worse yet, you revert to public opinion/market economics rather than sound science/engineering? Perhaps a proven political move - but very bad science/engineering! There was a time when (most) everyone thought the world was flat and/or that heavier than air flight was impossible (oops). Personally, I expect more from the members of this group. _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of W. Curtis Kelly, Thank you for you comments. I guess the only thing we can conclude is that you like the 480 and I like the 430. What we think is largely irrelevant as the market will ultimately decide. Does this mean you will take the wager:-)? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS
Date: Dec 16, 2006
Like I said , The FAA standards are set so that "EVEN A CAVE MAN DO IT" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deems Davis" <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS > > I've been waiting on delivery of a certified Freeflight WAAS GPS for > months now. Here's what I've been told from the people @ Op Tech who I'm > attempting to purchase it through. > > 1. FreeFlight had one of their hardware components "go to end of life" > 2. Causing them to find a replacement component > 3. Once found they had to re certify the 1201 > 4. The certification standards today are more strict than when they > originally certified the unit > 5.The latest is that the re-designed receiver is being subjected to a > testing standard that is revised and moredifficult to meet than the one > that was in place years ago when they first introduced the product. The > new receiver isn't passing an over-temperature test. > 6. They don't know how long a fix is going to take. > 7. They are not now and have not for some time shipped 1201 units. > 8. They are offering the 1101 as a 'non-certified alternative' > > As I read the FAA they are still saying that to be legal to fly WAAS gps > you need to have a certified TSO 146 device. I know that D2 has a white > paper on their website authored by a Phd that offers his opinion that it's > not required for experimental a/c, but....... > > Deems Davis # 406 > Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) > http://deemsrv10.com/ > > Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > >> >>The Chelton has two different ones to choose from one with the TSO and >>one without. >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Date: Dec 16, 2006
Daniel said: "The two things that need to be resolved to using a handheld is consistent power and antenna placement" What about predictive RAIM? I do not know of any handheld with that required functionality and annunciation (perhaps I am uninformed)? What about the CDI? To view that on most portables, you need to leave the map display mode. Seems that the advantages of map based situational awareness are lost when you do that (i.e. why not then just use a Nav radio and CDI). Furthermore, the scale of the CDI needs to automatically adjust based on your position within the approach. I do not know of any handheld with the capability to do that (perhaps I am uninformed)? What about approaches with outbound procedure turns and course reversals? What about DME arcs? Perhaps my investigation into handhelds has missed something. But it seems that most handheld inquiries do not comprehend the full functionality suite of a certified IFR GPS. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Date: Dec 16, 2006
More importantly, it will allow you to enter an airway that has turns along it without needing to enter each intermediate fix (turn). Very nice in areas where snaking airways are needed to provide terrain and/or airspace avoidance. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Schlatterer Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna Tim, I missed something here! Are you saying the 480 will let you enter an airway just like you would enter a fix and then give you the closest entry point. That would be pretty helpful from time to time. I fly a 430 and have to pull out the chart and find a fix to enter to get to the airway. Maybe I missed something in the 430 manual as well :-) Realistically, in the south central states, it seems to be very unusual for ATC to move you off direct and put on an airway but it does happen. IME Bill S ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS
Got to love it. They will sell the 'non-certified alternative' that will not pass the testing standard set for their certified unit. As always buyer beware. Larry Deems Davis wrote: > > I've been waiting on delivery of a certified Freeflight WAAS GPS for > months now. Here's what I've been told from the people @ Op Tech who > I'm attempting to purchase it through. > > 1. FreeFlight had one of their hardware components "go to end of life" > 2. Causing them to find a replacement component > 3. Once found they had to re certify the 1201 > 4. The certification standards today are more strict than when they > originally certified the unit > 5.The latest is that the re-designed receiver is being subjected to a > testing standard that is revised and moredifficult to meet than the > one that was in place years ago when they first introduced the > product. The new receiver isn't passing an over-temperature test. > 6. They don't know how long a fix is going to take. > 7. They are not now and have not for some time shipped 1201 units. > 8. They are offering the 1101 as a 'non-certified alternative' > > As I read the FAA they are still saying that to be legal to fly WAAS > gps you need to have a certified TSO 146 device. I know that D2 has a > white paper on their website authored by a Phd that offers his opinion > that it's not required for experimental a/c, but....... > > Deems Davis # 406 > Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) > http://deemsrv10.com/ > > Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > >> >> >> The Chelton has two different ones to choose from one with the TSO and >> one without. >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
I fly that setup now as installed in my Maule with the 300XL installed over 6 years ago and the 396 mounted 2 years ago. Flown a good deal of IMC approaches and such. Very serviceable. The weather on the 396 is worth it's weight in gold. However, I would suggest that going that route now is to miss 2 whole generations of GPS development. And I don't think giving up the newer technology will save you much money (look closely at what the 300XL install requires - it's more than just the box) The real challenge is that 1) you will have to thoroughly have to learn and stay proficient on the 300XL in order to use it for GPS approaches. 2) no matter how much you try to use the 396 for IFR enroute and terminal work, you simply can't/shouldn't do the approaches on it because they aren't there. So you will be faced with using both systems on typical flight to get optimal utility from both. Since they can't be connected for sharing route information, you will be entering a lot of route information on both. And believe me, when stuff gets busy, losing track of what's entered on which system can get you. I love my setup just as a steam guage using, ADF proficient, dual Nav equipped 'Bo driver treasures her skills - but it's old school now. The 396/496 is an excellent weather provider, sat music source, flight info DB, and last resort backup in an IFR machine. Using it as a primary IFR device is dreaming. Please get a real panel. Bill "inventorying the QB, with no autopilot, no ADF, and no dual Nav on my crawling Maule" Watson GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote: > Jim consider buying a "certified" IFR GPS like a 300xl and use the 496 > as situational awareness system... > > P > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Agreed. For people in most of the less densely populated, less mountainous areas, airways seems to be the exception rather than the rule. For me, flying the southern atlantic seaboard, airway use is limited to Wash DC ADIZ and the Florida eastern shoreline FWIW. Bill Schlatterer wrote: > Realistically, in > the south central states, it seems to be very unusual for ATC to move you > off direct and put on an airway but it does happen. IME > > Bill S > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>
Subject:
>Is that the "only" think you can conclude? What about the objective facts? >For example, I also concluded that there are functional differences such as >"you can't enter an airway into the 430". A fact - correct? Why, after all >the diatribe, do you brush away all the facts and revert to subjective >personal opinion? Worse yet, you revert to public opinion/market economics >rather than sound science/engineering? Perhaps a proven political move - >but very bad science/engineering! rtitsworth, Since you haven't figured it out, that was my way of saying that this debate is pointless. Again, If you go back and RE-READ my first post, I stated this very fact--there is no need for a conclusion on that since this was never debated. I am searching for a new fact, science/engineering in your post. Tell me what facts I have brushed away? I'm also still waiting for someone to tell me what negative or non "sound science/engineering" comments I'm made regarding the 480. William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2006
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com>

December 07, 2006 - December 16, 2006

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-bv