RV10-List Archive Browser

Email the information above and your files and photos to: pictures(at)matronics.com ---------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 07, 2007
From: PJ Seipel <seipel(at)seznam.cz>
Subject: Re: : RV10-List:14" Spinner - was James Cowling
Anyone looked at the UHS fiberglass spinners that Aircraft Spruce sells? http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/uhs.php Looks like they have a 14" spinner. Don't know if it would work, but at $174 it might be worth a try. PJ RV-10 #40032 evmeg(at)snowcrest.net wrote: > > > Really!....I had no idea! thanks for the heads up on that one....Goes to > show you that the rule holds true about deviatiating from the plans... > small change=BIG price difference. There must be a reasonable solution to > this one. Seems too simple to me. > Evan > > > >> I'm interested in the James Cowl. I sent a note to them however about the >> 14" spinner required with this cowl. The Hartzell spinner, at $1400, cost >> more than the cowl itself. I asked them if they could do a Van's like 14" >> fiberglass spinner kit to replace the ridiculously overpriced Hartzell >> spinner. They said no. >> >> Carl Froehlich >> RV-8A (320 hrs) >> RV-10 (wings) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of >> evmeg(at)snowcrest.net >> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:53 AM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: James Cowling >> >> >> >> Anybody using the James Cowl on their 10 yet? Besides looking a bit >> sexier, I am wondering if gives the added benefits of the 2 place >> versions. On the smaller airplanes it adds a few knots of speed by >> reducing cooling drag. On the 4 place it may also help with the hot tunnel >> syndrome as there seems to be some merit in the argument that the airflow >> through the cowl is a major part of the problem. At $1200.00 it does not >> seem to expensive if it solves problems.....I dont know how much the >> standard cowling costs. There is obviously an offset in cost if I just >> dont order that with my finish kit. So.....anybody tried it yet? >> Cheers... >> Evan >> >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> This message was sent using SnowCrest WebMail. >> http://www.snowcrest.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using SnowCrest WebMail. > http://www.snowcrest.net > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com>
Subject: : RV10-List:14" Spinner - was James Cowling
Date: May 07, 2007
I contacted them a while back to inquire about using it with the hartzell that Van's sells and they said it would not work. The hartzell uses a back plate aft of the propeller and their 14" spinner is designed to with a mounting plate in front of the propeller. -Ben -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PJ Seipel Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 2:43 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List:14" Spinner - was James Cowling Anyone looked at the UHS fiberglass spinners that Aircraft Spruce sells? http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/uhs.php Looks like they have a 14" spinner. Don't know if it would work, but at $174 it might be worth a try. PJ RV-10 #40032 evmeg(at)snowcrest.net wrote: > > > Really!....I had no idea! thanks for the heads up on that one....Goes to > show you that the rule holds true about deviatiating from the plans... > small change=BIG price difference. There must be a reasonable solution to > this one. Seems too simple to me. > Evan > > > >> I'm interested in the James Cowl. I sent a note to them however about the >> 14" spinner required with this cowl. The Hartzell spinner, at $1400, cost >> more than the cowl itself. I asked them if they could do a Van's like 14" >> fiberglass spinner kit to replace the ridiculously overpriced Hartzell >> spinner. They said no. >> >> Carl Froehlich >> RV-8A (320 hrs) >> RV-10 (wings) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of >> evmeg(at)snowcrest.net >> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:53 AM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: James Cowling >> >> >> >> Anybody using the James Cowl on their 10 yet? Besides looking a bit >> sexier, I am wondering if gives the added benefits of the 2 place >> versions. On the smaller airplanes it adds a few knots of speed by >> reducing cooling drag. On the 4 place it may also help with the hot tunnel >> syndrome as there seems to be some merit in the argument that the airflow >> through the cowl is a major part of the problem. At $1200.00 it does not >> seem to expensive if it solves problems.....I dont know how much the >> standard cowling costs. There is obviously an offset in cost if I just >> dont order that with my finish kit. So.....anybody tried it yet? >> Cheers... >> Evan >> >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> This message was sent using SnowCrest WebMail. >> http://www.snowcrest.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using SnowCrest WebMail. > http://www.snowcrest.net > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Subject: Tru-Trak pitch servo
Date: May 07, 2007
Quick question for those with the pitch servos from Tru Trak for the -10. Is the hole in the elevator bellcrank sized for an AN-3 bolt? Plans on Tru Trak site give a hole size of .200 if I'm reading it correctly. Doesn't make much sense. Want to drill hole now while installing elevators but don't have the servo yet....john John Hasbrouck #40264 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Trutrak pitch servo
Date: May 07, 2007
Size should be 10 or 11 for the AN3. Also be advised that the hole should be .25" aft of specified location for use of the torque enhancer. Also the pitch reversal loop in the programmer connector should be in place. I would call TT. 479-751-0250. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hasbrouck Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 6:50 PM Subject: RV10-List: Tru-Trak pitch servo Quick question for those with the pitch servos from Tru Trak for the -10. Is the hole in the elevator bellcrank sized for an AN-3 bolt? Plans on Tru Trak site give a hole size of .200 if I'm reading it correctly. Doesn't make much sense. Want to drill hole now while installing elevators but don't have the servo yet....john John Hasbrouck #40264 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Oil Separator
Date: May 07, 2007
From: <tdawson-townsend(at)aurora.aero>
What recommendations do folks have for the different models of Air/Oil Separators? Airflow Performance just came out with one that claims to be "designed for the IO-540". TDT Tim Dawson-Townsend 40025 tdt(at)aurora.aero ________________________________________________________________________________
From: kilopapa(at)antelecom.net
Subject: Shipping companies and insurance
Date: May 07, 2007
For those who have shipped an engine: What freight company did you use, were you happy with them, and did you insure it through the shipper or another source? Thanks, Kevin 40494 Pearblossom, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Re: Oil Separator
Date: May 08, 2007
I have a close A&P friend who's worked on my plane and he told me that I would be wasting my money on an oil separator. He seems to feel they don't really work that well. For what ever it's worth. Wayne Edgerton #40336 getting close ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Oil Separator
Date: May 08, 2007
I have used a cheap ACS (or Van's) one as someone else mentioned, but it doesn't have a return. It is just mounted between the breather port and the breather tube and I think it gravity feeds back into the engine when it stops. It seems to have helped a little, but not measurably. I also terminate the tube on the exhaust stack to try to burn off any oil that gets out there to keep it off the belly. I think most belly oil comes from leaks elsewhere if you keep the oil in the sump below 9 or 10 Qts. It seems to blow off down to 9 or so pretty quickly. We usually add a Qt when it gets down to 8.5. If you put 12 in, you will blow a LOT of it off very quickly in our experience. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tdawson-townsend(at)aurora.aero Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:53 PM Subject: RV10-List: Oil Separator What recommendations do folks have for the different models of Air/Oil Separators? Airflow Performance just came out with one that claims to be "designed for the IO-540". TDT Tim Dawson-Townsend 40025 tdt(at)aurora.aero ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Shipping companies and insurance
Date: May 08, 2007
My engine came from Indiana and I used Freightquote.com and insurance obtained through them. It was considerably less expensive and it turned out that it came on one of the carriers that gave me a much higher price when I contacted them directly. Things went well but apparently Freightquote.com has their webpage oriented toward the shipper arranging things instead of the receiver so it was a little awkward for me to set things up but went well and I'm happy and less poor that could have been. Albert Gardner Yuma, AZ PS: Just passed through Pearblossom last weekend on a trip from Yuma to Chowchilla. Stopped in at Mojave airport to look around at Scaled Composites layout as well as the Rotary Rocket on display. -----Original Message----- For those who have shipped an engine: What freight company did you use, were you happy with them, and did you insure it through the shipper or another source? Thanks, Kevin 40494 Pearblossom, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Oil Separator
Date: May 08, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
All of this talk about greasy belly's, just another reason to go Subaru, no noticeable oil burn between oil changes...or so I have heard, my engine will be shipping this week and I will be able to give a first flight report in the next month or so and let you all know how clean the belly is! Dan N289DT RV10E _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 9:18 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Oil Separator I have used a cheap ACS (or Van's) one as someone else mentioned, but it doesn't have a return. It is just mounted between the breather port and the breather tube and I think it gravity feeds back into the engine when it stops. It seems to have helped a little, but not measurably. I also terminate the tube on the exhaust stack to try to burn off any oil that gets out there to keep it off the belly. I think most belly oil comes from leaks elsewhere if you keep the oil in the sump below 9 or 10 Qts. It seems to blow off down to 9 or so pretty quickly. We usually add a Qt when it gets down to 8.5. If you put 12 in, you will blow a LOT of it off very quickly in our experience. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tdawson-townsend(at)aurora.aero Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:53 PM Subject: RV10-List: Oil Separator What recommendations do folks have for the different models of Air/Oil Separators? Airflow Performance just came out with one that claims to be "designed for the IO-540". TDT Tim Dawson-Townsend 40025 tdt(at)aurora.aero http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Shipping companies and insurance
Date: May 08, 2007
From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com>
I've used Roadway on two different occasions. I've been happy with them and the shipments were insured through them. Keep in mind standard shipments are only insured for a maximum of $25 per pound. For the additional coverage needed trucking companies charge ~.30 to .40 cents per $100 of the value. To save money it may be possible to get a one time rider on your home insurance or builders insurance for the shipment. On other money saving tip is look into picking the engine up at the trucking terminal. This saves home delivery charge and possibly a "lift gate charge". Also determine where the FOB (freight on board) point is. If it is FOB origin then you are completely responsibly for the shipment, however if it is FOB destination then it is the sellers responsibility. Upon receiving (before you sign for it) carefully check the crate for any damage. This includes damage to the bottom corners just in case it was dropped. Open up the crate if they will let you (some large terminals don't allow for this but you can ask in advance.) If there is any damage note it on the bill of lading. The phrase "Subject to inspection" can be added to your signature if there is any physical damage to the crate. Report any damage the same day! Vern (#324) -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kilopapa(at)antelecom.net Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 9:33 PM Subject: RV10-List: Shipping companies and insurance For those who have shipped an engine: What freight company did you use, were you happy with them, and did you insure it through the shipper or another source? Thanks, Kevin 40494 Pearblossom, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 08, 2007
From: Bill DeRouchey <billderou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Oil Separator
Lots of good comments on this subject by everyone. I installed a "certified" unit on my Piper Archer and it made no change to the oily belly or oil consumption rate (seperated oil routed back to case). My RV-10 belly stays fairly clean and I have not cleaned it yet (80 hrs). I keep oil level at 10qts and routed breather exit close to the muffler and ended tube 1/4" above muffler. I believe this exit location away from fast air flow and close to the hottest end of the exhaust pipe lets the drops hit the hot tube and provides more burn time as the residue migrates down and out. I have this unproven theory that the drops are flying into the airstream and end up on the belly rather than gently dropping onto the exhaust pipe and burning. Perhaps the breather exit geometry accounts for the different experiences. If I were to do this again I would squeeze the end of the breather tube into an oval shape with the long axis of the oval parallel with the exhaust pipe to increase the probability that the drops will fall onto the top center of the exhaust pipe. Bill DeRouchey WTD Aviation Technology N939SB, flying Jesse Saint wrote: v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } I have used a cheap ACS (or Vans) one as someone else mentioned, but it doesnt have a return. It is just mounted between the breather port and the breather tube and I think it gravity feeds back into the engine when it stops. It seems to have helped a little, but not measurably. I also terminate the tube on the exhaust stack to try to burn off any oil that gets out there to keep it off the belly. I think most belly oil comes from leaks elsewhere if you keep the oil in the sump below 9 or 10 Qts. It seems to blow off down to 9 or so pretty quickly. We usually add a Qt when it gets down to 8.5. If you put 12 in, you will blow a LOT of it off very quickly in our experience. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 --------------------------------- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tdawson-townsend(at)aurora.aero Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:53 PM Subject: RV10-List: Oil Separator What recommendations do folks have for the different models of Air/Oil Separators? Airflow Performance just came out with one that claims to be designed for the IO-540. TDT Tim Dawson-Townsend 40025 tdt(at)aurora.aero http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 08, 2007
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it?
I'm still a ways from the fuselage but looking ahead, is the RV10 harness from Vans something I should plan on? What did you do? Just curious at this point. Bill "just ordered TT servos and trying to get QB wings ready for bottom sheet rivet" Watson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Subject: Pitch Servo
Date: May 08, 2007
Everyone, Thanks for all of the replys! Talked to Tru-Trak this morning and this is what I found out. First, the pdf on the website for the -10 pitch servo is WRONG. It is the older version. How about that for keeping things up to date? According to Zach at TT the hole for the elevator bellcrank is to be 2.5" up from the center bearing AND .25" aft as was mentioned in an earlier post. Hole size is for an AN-3 bolt which should be a #12 drill. ( Zach said of the hole size, " we try to keep it around .200", about a #8" ) Well Zach's way off on that one. Tim posted earlier that the later versions of the torque multiplier worked OK with the original hole location. Zach said it should work at that location as long as there is full control movement. So here's my dilema. I drilled the hole assuming that the drawing on the web site was correct. I only drilled a guide hole (#30) though. According to Tim this location works fine and if there is plenty of movement in the servo to allow full control movement I'll leave it where it is. Does .25" make that much difference? If it's going to be a problem later I'll just make a new bellcrank. BTW: The servo bracket for the pitch servo is included in the fuselage kit from Vans....John ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pitch Servo
Date: May 08, 2007
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
John, I as well as Tim installed the update kit later after the hole was drilled. It works fine. I would move forward. Randy ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hasbrouck Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:57 AM Subject: RV10-List: Pitch Servo Everyone, Thanks for all of the replys! Talked to Tru-Trak this morning and this is what I found out. First, the pdf on the website for the -10 pitch servo is WRONG. It is the older version. How about that for keeping things up to date? According to Zach at TT the hole for the elevator bellcrank is to be 2.5" up from the center bearing AND .25" aft as was mentioned in an earlier post. Hole size is for an AN-3 bolt which should be a #12 drill. ( Zach said of the hole size, " we try to keep it around .200", about a #8" ) Well Zach's way off on that one. Tim posted earlier that the later versions of the torque multiplier worked OK with the original hole location. Zach said it should work at that location as long as there is full control movement. So here's my dilema. I drilled the hole assuming that the drawing on the web site was correct. I only drilled a guide hole (#30) though. According to Tim this location works fine and if there is plenty of movement in the servo to allow full control movement I'll leave it where it is. Does .25" make that much difference? If it's going to be a problem later I'll just make a new bellcrank. BTW: The servo bracket for the pitch servo is included in the fuselage kit from Vans....John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Pitch Servo
Date: May 08, 2007
One note, if I remember right the servo bracket that Vans provided did not work for me. I had received another one with my servo that did work. I got mine with my servo from Stein... Rene' Felker N423CF 40322 801-721-6080 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hasbrouck Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 11:57 AM Subject: RV10-List: Pitch Servo Everyone, Thanks for all of the replys! Talked to Tru-Trak this morning and this is what I found out. First, the pdf on the website for the -10 pitch servo is WRONG. It is the older version. How about that for keeping things up to date? According to Zach at TT the hole for the elevator bellcrank is to be 2.5" up from the center bearing AND .25" aft as was mentioned in an earlier post. Hole size is for an AN-3 bolt which should be a #12 drill. ( Zach said of the hole size, " we try to keep it around .200", about a #8" ) Well Zach's way off on that one. Tim posted earlier that the later versions of the torque multiplier worked OK with the original hole location. Zach said it should work at that location as long as there is full control movement. So here's my dilema. I drilled the hole assuming that the drawing on the web site was correct. I only drilled a guide hole (#30) though. According to Tim this location works fine and if there is plenty of movement in the servo to allow full control movement I'll leave it where it is. Does .25" make that much difference? If it's going to be a problem later I'll just make a new bellcrank. BTW: The servo bracket for the pitch servo is included in the fuselage kit from Vans....John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Pitch Servo
Date: May 08, 2007
I also used the original hole and it works great. >From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: "RV LIST" >Subject: RV10-List: Pitch Servo Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 13:57:00 -0400 > >Everyone, > Thanks for all of the replys! Talked to Tru-Trak this morning and this >is what I found out. First, the pdf on the website for the -10 pitch servo >is WRONG. It is the older version. How about that for keeping things up >to date? According to Zach at TT the hole for the elevator bellcrank is to >be 2.5" up from the center bearing AND .25" aft as was mentioned in an >earlier post. Hole size is for an AN-3 bolt which should be a #12 drill. >( Zach said of the hole size, " we try to keep it around .200", about a #8" >) Well Zach's way off on that one. Tim posted earlier that the later >versions of the torque multiplier worked OK with the original hole >location. Zach said it should work at that location as long as there is >full control movement. So here's my dilema. I drilled the hole assuming >that the drawing on the web site was correct. I only drilled a guide hole >(#30) though. According to Tim this location works fine and if there is >plenty of movement in the servo to allow full control movement I'll leave >it where it is. Does .25" make that much difference? If it's going to be >a problem later I'll just make a new bellcrank. BTW: The servo bracket >for the pitch servo is included in the fuselage kit from Vans....John _________________________________________________________________ Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? Youll love Windows Live Hotmail. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pitch Servo
Date: May 08, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
The bracket in the kit is not the same one as is need for the new Torque multiplier, they sent me a new bracket when I got my servo's from Stein and I used the original bracket to make a parking brake mount. I can take pictures of the mount and servo if you want, or I think Deem's has some excellent photo's on his site. Dan N289DT RV10E _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hasbrouck Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 1:57 PM Subject: RV10-List: Pitch Servo Everyone, Thanks for all of the replys! Talked to Tru-Trak this morning and this is what I found out. First, the pdf on the website for the -10 pitch servo is WRONG. It is the older version. How about that for keeping things up to date? According to Zach at TT the hole for the elevator bellcrank is to be 2.5" up from the center bearing AND .25" aft as was mentioned in an earlier post. Hole size is for an AN-3 bolt which should be a #12 drill. ( Zach said of the hole size, " we try to keep it around .200", about a #8" ) Well Zach's way off on that one. Tim posted earlier that the later versions of the torque multiplier worked OK with the original hole location. Zach said it should work at that location as long as there is full control movement. So here's my dilema. I drilled the hole assuming that the drawing on the web site was correct. I only drilled a guide hole (#30) though. According to Tim this location works fine and if there is plenty of movement in the servo to allow full control movement I'll leave it where it is. Does .25" make that much difference? If it's going to be a problem later I'll just make a new bellcrank. BTW: The servo bracket for the pitch servo is included in the fuselage kit from Vans....John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 08, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Pitch Servo
Here's the link to several pic's in this album. http://deemsrv10.com/album/Wiring/slides/DSC03208.html Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > The bracket in the kit is not the same one as is need for the new > Torque multiplier, they sent me a new bracket when I got my servo's > from Stein and I used the original bracket to make a parking brake > mount. I can take pictures of the mount and servo if you want, or I > think Deem's has some excellent photo's on his site. > Dan > N289DT RV10E > * > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it?
Date: May 08, 2007
From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com>
Maybe yes, maybe no. Van's harness is for a basic VFR plane. Tim Olsen's website has a PDF file of the instructions and a schematic that come with it. It's in the builders section with the plans. I think most people are not using this harness because it doesn't meet their needs. If you are just on the wings, one option is to run just the wing wiring. Start with what you want in the wings some possibilities are: strobes, nav lights, pitot heat, aileron trim, auto pilot servo, landing lights, stall warning, AOA kit, wing tip antennas (nav, com, marker beacon). At this point some run conduit, other use snap rings or a combination. William Curtis has some nice pictures and schematics on his site. http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ And by all means check out the matronics archives. If you go with conduit Vans' sells corrugated stuff (it can be a pain to pull it through the ribs), other people have used light sprinkler water line. Somewhere on Van's site is a wing rib diagram showing different possible locations for wire runs. John Cox had a marvelous idea of running a length of weed wacker cord with any wire run so that it is easier to pull an extra wire in the future. My EAA Tech. consoler didn't like seeing the strobe wires ran in the same conduit as electrical wiring so I pulled it separately through snap rings and then ran one conduit for antenna wire and another for electrical wiring with a spacing of greater than 6 inch between the runs. As far as supplies there are a number of venders. SteinAir has been very helpful. This is probably more info than you want:) Hope it's helps, Vern Smith (#324 tail cone attachment) -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: RV10-List: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it? I'm still a ways from the fuselage but looking ahead, is the RV10 harness from Vans something I should plan on? What did you do? Just curious at this point. Bill "just ordered TT servos and trying to get QB wings ready for bottom sheet rivet" Watson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa(at)antelecom.net>
Subject: Re: Shipping companies and insurance
Date: May 08, 2007
To all who have responded so far: Thanks for the info and advice. Albert Gardner noted Freightquote.com and they had a good quote thru Roadway however the stock insurance coverage was $10,000 max. A search for third-party shipping/freight insurance found Ramon, Inc http://www.ramonins-usa.com who quoted 25 per $100 for $70 on $28,000. Learning as I go. Kevin 40494 tail/empennage ----- Original Message ----- My engine came from Indiana and I used Freightquote.com and insurance obtained through them. It was considerably less expensive and it turned out that it came on one of the carriers that gave me a much higher price when I contacted them directly. Things went well but apparently Freightquote.com has their webpage oriented toward the shipper arranging things instead of the receiver so it was a little awkward for me to set things up but went well and I'm happy and less poor that could have been. Albert Gardner Yuma, AZ > > I've used Roadway on two different occasions. I've been happy with them > and the shipments were insured through them. Keep in mind standard > shipments are only insured for a maximum of $25 per pound. For the > additional coverage needed trucking companies charge ~.30 to .40 cents > per $100 of the value. > > To save money it may be possible to get a one time rider on your home > insurance or builders insurance for the shipment. On other money saving > tip is look into picking the engine up at the trucking terminal. This > saves home delivery charge and possibly a "lift gate charge". > > Also determine where the FOB (freight on board) point is. If it is FOB > origin then you are completely responsibly for the shipment, however if > it is FOB destination then it is the sellers responsibility. > > Upon receiving (before you sign for it) carefully check the crate for > any damage. This includes damage to the bottom corners just in case it > was dropped. Open up the crate if they will let you (some large > terminals don't allow for this but you can ask in advance.) If there is > any damage note it on the bill of lading. The phrase "Subject to > inspection" can be added to your signature if there is any physical > damage to the crate. Report any damage the same day! > > Vern (#324) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JSMcGrew(at)aol.com
Date: May 08, 2007
Subject: Re: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it?
I purchased the wiring kit from Van's. It was great to get all the pieces and parts in one kit with instructions; in that sense it was a great place to start when I wasn't quite sure about many of the details. I made lots of changes and added many circuits and features. Now that I know how it goes together, if I was to build a second plane, I would design the electrical system from scratch... but that's the thing about experience, you don't get it until just after you need it. -Jim 40134 In a message dated 5/8/2007 1:55:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com writes: --> RV10-List message posted by: MauleDriver I'm still a ways from the fuselage but looking ahead, is the RV10 harness from Vans something I should plan on? What did you do? Just curious at this point. Bill "just ordered TT servos and trying to get QB wings ready for bottom sheet rivet" Watson ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 08, 2007
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Shipping companies and insurance
Might also be worth talking to Tony Partain. His trucks generally haul cars and similar stuff on the back hauls to Oregon after delivering RV parts to all y'all. On 5/8/07, KiloPapa wrote: > > To all who have responded so far: > > Thanks for the info and advice. Albert Gardner noted Freightquote.com and > they had a good quote thru Roadway however the stock insurance coverage was > $10,000 max. A search for third-party shipping/freight insurance found > Ramon, Inc http://www.ramonins-usa.com who quoted 25 per $100 for $70 on > $28,000. Learning as I go. > > Kevin > 40494 > tail/empennage > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > My engine came from Indiana and I used Freightquote.com and insurance > obtained through them. It was considerably less expensive and it turned out > that it came on one of the carriers that gave me a much higher price when I > contacted them directly. Things went well but apparently Freightquote.com > has their webpage oriented toward the shipper arranging things instead of > the receiver so it was a little awkward for me to set things up but went > well and I'm happy and less poor that could have been. > Albert Gardner > Yuma, AZ > > > > > > I've used Roadway on two different occasions. I've been happy with them > > and the shipments were insured through them. Keep in mind standard > > shipments are only insured for a maximum of $25 per pound. For the > > additional coverage needed trucking companies charge ~.30 to .40 cents > > per $100 of the value. > > > > To save money it may be possible to get a one time rider on your home > > insurance or builders insurance for the shipment. On other money saving > > tip is look into picking the engine up at the trucking terminal. This > > saves home delivery charge and possibly a "lift gate charge". > > > > Also determine where the FOB (freight on board) point is. If it is FOB > > origin then you are completely responsibly for the shipment, however if > > it is FOB destination then it is the sellers responsibility. > > > > Upon receiving (before you sign for it) carefully check the crate for > > any damage. This includes damage to the bottom corners just in case it > > was dropped. Open up the crate if they will let you (some large > > terminals don't allow for this but you can ask in advance.) If there is > > any damage note it on the bill of lading. The phrase "Subject to > > inspection" can be added to your signature if there is any physical > > damage to the crate. Report any damage the same day! > > > > Vern (#324) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 08, 2007
From: PJ Seipel <seipel(at)seznam.cz>
Subject: Re: : RV10-List:14" Spinner - was James Cowling
Thanks for the info Ben. If anyone hears of an option better than the $1700 that Hartzell wants, I'd sure love to hear about it. PJ Seipel RV-10 #40032 Ben Westfall wrote: > > I contacted them a while back to inquire about using it with the hartzell > that Van's sells and they said it would not work. The hartzell uses a back > plate aft of the propeller and their 14" spinner is designed to with a > mounting plate in front of the propeller. > > -Ben > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PJ Seipel > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 2:43 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List:14" Spinner - was James Cowling > > > Anyone looked at the UHS fiberglass spinners that Aircraft Spruce > sells? http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/uhs.php > Looks like they have a 14" spinner. Don't know if it would work, but at > $174 it might be worth a try. > > PJ > RV-10 #40032 > > evmeg(at)snowcrest.net wrote: > >> >> >> Really!....I had no idea! thanks for the heads up on that one....Goes to >> show you that the rule holds true about deviatiating from the plans... >> small change=BIG price difference. There must be a reasonable solution to >> this one. Seems too simple to me. >> Evan >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >>> I'm interested in the James Cowl. I sent a note to them however about >>> > the > >>> 14" spinner required with this cowl. The Hartzell spinner, at $1400, >>> > cost > >>> more than the cowl itself. I asked them if they could do a Van's like >>> > 14" > >>> fiberglass spinner kit to replace the ridiculously overpriced Hartzell >>> spinner. They said no. >>> >>> Carl Froehlich >>> RV-8A (320 hrs) >>> RV-10 (wings) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of >>> evmeg(at)snowcrest.net >>> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:53 AM >>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: James Cowling >>> >>> >>> >>> Anybody using the James Cowl on their 10 yet? Besides looking a bit >>> sexier, I am wondering if gives the added benefits of the 2 place >>> versions. On the smaller airplanes it adds a few knots of speed by >>> reducing cooling drag. On the 4 place it may also help with the hot >>> > tunnel > >>> syndrome as there seems to be some merit in the argument that the airflow >>> through the cowl is a major part of the problem. At $1200.00 it does not >>> seem to expensive if it solves problems.....I dont know how much the >>> standard cowling costs. There is obviously an offset in cost if I just >>> dont order that with my finish kit. So.....anybody tried it yet? >>> Cheers... >>> Evan >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------- >>> This message was sent using SnowCrest WebMail. >>> http://www.snowcrest.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> This message was sent using SnowCrest WebMail. >> http://www.snowcrest.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 08, 2007
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it?
More info than I want? Right! I had come to the same conclusion, that is, the Van's harness is designed from a basic VFR perspective and yet, it's probably a good start even for an IFR setup. I'm finding that accepting a bit of "wastage" is a good way to get up the learning curve at times. You've confirmed I'm hitting all the right resources because I've managed to see most of the references below. (Still don't know what a snap ring is yet). I'm installing the Gretz pitot, aileron trim, Duckworth lights (cutting holes in the wings is so much fun I'm doing it twice - thanks for HFreight saw Tim). I bought the Vans lighting kit but returned everything except the tail lights. Waiting on an LED kit from Jeff. I've ordered the Trutrak servos from Stein. I'm skipping the AOA probe. I'm thinking archer nav attenna, don't know about comm but want it in the fuse. William's wiring layout in the wings is becoming my model and his wiring schematics/plan is in my notebook. Connectors are a big ? Need to buy some basic crimpers, wire and termination stuff. Slowing getting my head into a electrical plan/schematic but I'm getting a headache. Thanks. Bill "real glad I've got a QB wing because there is more than enought drill/deburr/dimple/priming to do with what's left" Watson Vern W. Smith wrote: > > Maybe yes, maybe no. Van's harness is for a basic VFR plane. Tim Olsen's > website has a PDF file of the instructions and a schematic that come > with it. It's in the builders section with the plans. I think most > people are not using this harness because it doesn't meet their needs. > > If you are just on the wings, one option is to run just the wing wiring. > Start with what you want in the wings some possibilities are: strobes, > nav lights, pitot heat, aileron trim, auto pilot servo, landing lights, > stall warning, AOA kit, wing tip antennas (nav, com, marker beacon). At > this point some run conduit, other use snap rings or a combination. > William Curtis has some nice pictures and schematics on his site. > http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ And by all means check out the matronics > archives. If you go with conduit Vans' sells corrugated stuff (it can be > a pain to pull it through the ribs), other people have used light > sprinkler water line. Somewhere on Van's site is a wing rib diagram > showing different possible locations for wire runs. John Cox had a > marvelous idea of running a length of weed wacker cord with any wire run > so that it is easier to pull an extra wire in the future. > > My EAA Tech. consoler didn't like seeing the strobe wires ran in the > same conduit as electrical wiring so I pulled it separately through snap > rings and then ran one conduit for antenna wire and another for > electrical wiring with a spacing of greater than 6 inch between the > runs. As far as supplies there are a number of venders. SteinAir has > been very helpful. > > This is probably more info than you want:) > Hope it's helps, > > Vern Smith (#324 tail cone attachment) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:43 AM > To: RV10-List Digest Server > Subject: RV10-List: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it? > > > I'm still a ways from the fuselage but looking ahead, is the RV10 > harness from Vans something I should plan on? What did you do? > > Just curious at this point. > > Bill "just ordered TT servos and trying to get QB wings ready for bottom > > sheet rivet" Watson > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 08, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: : RV10-List:14" Spinner - was James Cowling
Aero Composites offers a 14" spinner. For $1000. I'm not sure if it will fit a prop other than their's. The one I have spinner backplate is machined for mounting studs that are integral to their prop hub. Give them a call and find out for sure. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ PJ Seipel wrote: > > Thanks for the info Ben. If anyone hears of an option better than the > $1700 that Hartzell wants, I'd sure love to hear about it. > > PJ Seipel > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: nose wheel cocked in flight
Date: May 08, 2007
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
Just one thing that some of you may not have experienced yet. I have on 2 occasions had the nose wheel cock a little on takeoff. It has been related to dealing with a crosswind and the nose wheel touching just before takeoff. I try to get the nose wheel off early and carry it till lift off but sometimes with a gust of wind or loss of wind the nose wheel will touch just a little and get moved off of straight. I checked the tightness of the nut and all is fine. This past weekend I mentioned it to Van and he said it has happen to him in flight. We both agreed it is annoying because if you have the rudder trimmed to fly nice and true and you end up holding left rudder in to keep from crabbing through the air. He said it happened on a long trip before to him. Anyone else. Van said they looked for a reason like the washers had some wear that may have caused a notch but they were fine. Anyone else had this happen? Randy 006 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris" <toaster73(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it?
Date: May 08, 2007
Why did your tech counselor not want the stobe wires in the same conduit? Chris Lucas #40072 Fuselage top ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:33 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it? > >> > My EAA Tech. consoler didn't like seeing the strobe wires ran in the > same conduit as electrical wiring so I pulled it separately through snap > rings and then ran one conduit for antenna wire and another for > electrical wiring with a spacing of greater than 6 inch between the > runs. As far as supplies there are a number of venders. SteinAir has > been very helpful. > > This is probably more info than you want:) > Hope it's helps, > > Vern Smith (#324 tail cone attachment) > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Pitch Servo
Date: May 08, 2007
Thanks all for the advice. From what I've seen on Deems' and Tim's sites this thing should fly ( pun intended ) as is. And Tim's right, a new bellcrank is short money and very little time to make up. Maybe I could exchange the old bracket for new bellcrank parts. Hmmmmmmmm. Did I mention I'm cheap? Another example of the wealth of info this board provides....john John Hasbrouck #40264 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it?
Date: May 08, 2007
From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com>
QmVjYXVzZSBzdHJvYmVzIHByb2R1Y2UgYSBsb3Qgb2YgZWxlY3RyaWNhbCBub2lzZSBhbmQgYnkg cGh5c2ljYWxseSBzZXBlcmF0aW5nIHRoZSB3aXJlIHJ1bnMgaXQgbGVzc2VucyB0aGUgY2hhbmNl IG9mIHRoZSBlbGVjdHJpY2FsIHdpcmVzIGFjdGluZyBsaWtlIGFuIGFudGVubmEgYW5kIHBpY2t1 cCB0aGUgbm9pc2UgdmlhIGFueSBtYWduZXRpYyBmaWVsZCBzdXJvdW5kaW5nIHRoZSBzdHJvYmUg d2lyaW5nLiBXaGljaCBzb3VuZGVkIHJlYXNvbmFibGUgdG8gbWUuIA0KIA0KVGhlIHN0cm9iZSB3 aXJlIHNoaWVsZCBncm91bmRlZCBhdCB0aGUgcG93ZXIgc3VwcGx5IHNob3VsZCB0YWtlIGNhcmUg b2YgaXQsIGJ1dCBpZiBhIGZldyBidWNrcyBvZiBzbmFwIHJpbmdzIGFuZCBhIGxpdHRsZSB3b3Jr IGhlbHBzLCB3aHkgbm90PyBJJ3ZlIGZsb3duIGluIHRvbyBtYW55IGFpcnBsYW5lcyB3aXRoIHRo ZSBtZWxsb3cgYWxtb3N0IHNvb3RoaW5nIHppdC16aXQteml0IG9mIHRoZSBzdHJvYmUgaW4gdGhl IGhlYWRzZXRzOikgVGhvdWdoIG1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlc2Ugd2VyZSBwcm9iYWJseSBncm91bmRpbmcg aXNzdWVzLg0KIA0KVmVybiBTbWl0aCAoIzMyNCB0YWlsIGNvbmUgYXR0YWNobWVudCkNCg0KCS0t LS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tIA0KCUZyb206IG93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJA bWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbSBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgQ2hyaXMgDQoJU2VudDogVHVlIDUvOC8yMDA3IDQ6 MTQgUE0gDQoJVG86IHJ2MTAtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIA0KCUNjOiANCglTdWJqZWN0OiBS ZTogUlYxMC1MaXN0OiBXaXJpbmcgSGFybmVzcyBmcm9tIFZhbnMgLSBzaG91bGQgSSBwbGFuIHRv IGdldCBpdD8NCgkNCgkNCg0KCS0tPiBSVjEwLUxpc3QgbWVzc2FnZSBwb3N0ZWQgYnk6ICJDaHJp cyIgPHRvYXN0ZXI3M0BlYXJ0aGxpbmsubmV0Pg0KCQ0KCVdoeSBkaWQgeW91ciB0ZWNoIGNvdW5z ZWxvciBub3Qgd2FudCB0aGUgc3RvYmUgd2lyZXMgaW4gdGhlIHNhbWUgY29uZHVpdD8NCglDaHJp cyBMdWNhcw0KCSM0MDA3MiBGdXNlbGFnZSB0b3ANCgkNCgktLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdl IC0tLS0tDQoJRnJvbTogIlZlcm4gVy4gU21pdGgiIDxWZXJuQHRlY2xhYnNpbmMuY29tPg0KCVRv OiA8cnYxMC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20+DQoJU2VudDogVHVlc2RheSwgTWF5IDA4LCAyMDA3 IDQ6MzMgUE0NCglTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogUlYxMC1MaXN0OiBXaXJpbmcgSGFybmVzcyBmcm9tIFZh bnMgLSBzaG91bGQgSSBwbGFuIHRvIGdldCBpdD8NCgkNCgkNCgk+IC0tPiBSVjEwLUxpc3QgbWVz c2FnZSBwb3N0ZWQgYnk6ICJWZXJuIFcuIFNtaXRoIiA8VmVybkB0ZWNsYWJzaW5jLmNvbT4NCgk+ DQoJPj4NCgk+IE15IEVBQSBUZWNoLiBjb25zb2xlciBkaWRuJ3QgbGlrZSBzZWVpbmcgdGhlIHN0 cm9iZSB3aXJlcyByYW4gaW4gdGhlDQoJPiBzYW1lIGNvbmR1aXQgYXMgZWxlY3RyaWNhbCB3aXJp bmcgc28gSSBwdWxsZWQgaXQgc2VwYXJhdGVseSB0aHJvdWdoIHNuYXANCgk+IHJpbmdzIGFuZCB0 aGVuIHJhbiBvbmUgY29uZHVpdCBmb3IgYW50ZW5uYSB3aXJlIGFuZCBhbm90aGVyIGZvcg0KCT4g ZWxlY3RyaWNhbCB3aXJpbmcgd2l0aCBhIHNwYWNpbmcgb2YgZ3JlYXRlciB0aGFuIDYgaW5jaCBi ZXR3ZWVuIHRoZQ0KCT4gcnVucy4gQXMgZmFyIGFzIHN1cHBsaWVzIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBhIG51bWJl ciBvZiB2ZW5kZXJzLiBTdGVpbkFpciBoYXMNCgk+IGJlZW4gdmVyeSBoZWxwZnVsLg0KCT4NCgk+ IFRoaXMgaXMgcHJvYmFibHkgbW9yZSBpbmZvIHRoYW4geW91IHdhbnQ6KQ0KCT4gSG9wZSBpdCdz IGhlbHBzLA0KCT4NCgk+IFZlcm4gU21pdGggKCMzMjQgdGFpbCBjb25lIGF0dGFjaG1lbnQpICAN Cgk+DQoJPg0KCT4NCgkNCglfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KCV8tPSAgICAgICAgICAtIFRoZSBSVjEwLUxpc3QgRW1h aWwgRm9ydW0gLQ0KCV8tPSBVc2UgdGhlIE1hdHJvbmljcyBMaXN0IEZlYXR1cmVzIE5hdmlnYXRv ciB0byBicm93c2UNCglfLT0gdGhlIG1hbnkgTGlzdCB1dGlsaXRpZXMgc3VjaCBhcyB0aGUgU3Vi c2NyaXB0aW9ucyBwYWdlLA0KCV8tPSBBcmNoaXZlIFNlYXJjaCAmIERvd25sb2FkLCA3LURheSBC cm93c2UsIENoYXQsIEZBUSwNCglfLT0gUGhvdG9zaGFyZSwgYW5kIG11Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3JlOg0K CV8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vTmF2aWdhdG9yP1JWMTAtTGlzdA0K CV8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09DQoJXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtIE5FVyBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZPUlVNUyAtDQoJ Xy09IFNhbWUgZ3JlYXQgY29udGVudCBub3cgYWxzbyBhdmFpbGFibGUgdmlhIHRoZSBXZWIgRm9y dW1zIQ0KCV8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vZm9ydW1zLm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20NCglfLT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KCQ0K CQ0KCQ0KCQ0KDQo ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it?
Date: May 08, 2007
From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com>
UmVhZCAic25hcCBidXNoaW5nIiBub3Qgc25hcCByaW5nLiBUaGFua3MgZm9yIGNhdGNoaW5nIHRo YXQuDQogDQpPbmUgd2F5IHRvIGdldCBhIGhhbmRsZSBvbiBzY2htYXRpY3MgaXMgc3RhcnQgd2l0 aCBhIGxhcmdlIHdoaXRlIGJvYXJkLiBUaGVuIG9uIHBvc3QtaXQgbm90ZXMgd3JpdGUgZG93biB0 aGUgY29tcG9uZXRzIHlvdSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIHVzZSwgb25lIHBlciBub3RlIHdpdGggdGhl IGNvbm5lY3Rpb24gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzLiBTdGljayB0aGVtIG9uIHRoZSB3aGl0ZSBib2FyZCB3 aGVyZSB5b3UgdGhpbmsgdGhlIHNob3VsZCBnbyBhbmQgZHJhdyB5b3Ugd2lyZXMgaW4gYmV0d2Vl biB0aGUgcG9zdC1pdHMuIFRoZSBjb29sIHRoaW5nIGFib3V0IHRoaXMgaXMgaXQgaXMgZWFzeSB0 byBtYWtlIGNoYW5nZXMuIFdoZW4geW91IGFyZSBoYXBweSB3aXRoIGl0IGNvbW1pdCBpdCB0byBh IGZpbmFsIGNvcHkgb3IgQ0FEIGRyYXdpbmcuDQogDQpWZXJuIFNtaXRoICgjMzI0KSAgIA0KDQoJ LS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0gDQoJRnJvbTogb3duZXItcnYxMC1saXN0LXNlcnZl ckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBNYXVsZURyaXZlciANCglTZW50OiBUdWUgNS84 LzIwMDcgMzoxMCBQTSANCglUbzogcnYxMC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20gDQoJQ2M6IA0KCVN1 YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBSVjEwLUxpc3Q6IFdpcmluZyBIYXJuZXNzIGZyb20gVmFucyAtIHNob3VsZCBJ IHBsYW4gdG8gZ2V0IGl0Pw0KCQ0KCQ0KDQoJLS0+IFJWMTAtTGlzdCBtZXNzYWdlIHBvc3RlZCBi eTogTWF1bGVEcml2ZXIgPE1hdWxlRHJpdmVyQG5jLnJyLmNvbT4NCgkNCglNb3JlIGluZm8gdGhh biBJIHdhbnQ/ICBSaWdodCENCgkNCglJIGhhZCBjb21lIHRvIHRoZSBzYW1lIGNvbmNsdXNpb24s IHRoYXQgaXMsIHRoZSBWYW4ncyBoYXJuZXNzIGlzDQoJZGVzaWduZWQgZnJvbSBhIGJhc2ljIFZG UiBwZXJzcGVjdGl2ZSBhbmQgeWV0LCBpdCdzIHByb2JhYmx5IGEgZ29vZA0KCXN0YXJ0IGV2ZW4g Zm9yIGFuIElGUiBzZXR1cC4gIEknbSBmaW5kaW5nIHRoYXQgYWNjZXB0aW5nIGEgYml0IG9mDQoJ Indhc3RhZ2UiIGlzIGEgZ29vZCB3YXkgdG8gZ2V0IHVwIHRoZSBsZWFybmluZyBjdXJ2ZSBhdCB0 aW1lcy4NCgkNCglZb3UndmUgY29uZmlybWVkIEknbSBoaXR0aW5nIGFsbCB0aGUgcmlnaHQgcmVz b3VyY2VzIGJlY2F1c2UgSSd2ZQ0KCW1hbmFnZWQgdG8gc2VlIG1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIHJlZmVyZW5j ZXMgYmVsb3cuICAoU3RpbGwgZG9uJ3Qga25vdyB3aGF0IGENCglzbmFwIHJpbmcgaXMgeWV0KS4g IEknbSBpbnN0YWxsaW5nIHRoZSBHcmV0eiBwaXRvdCwgYWlsZXJvbiB0cmltLA0KCUR1Y2t3b3J0 aCBsaWdodHMgKGN1dHRpbmcgaG9sZXMgaW4gdGhlIHdpbmdzIGlzIHNvIG11Y2ggZnVuIEknbSBk b2luZyBpdA0KCXR3aWNlIC0gdGhhbmtzIGZvciBIRnJlaWdodCBzYXcgVGltKS4gSSBib3VnaHQg dGhlIFZhbnMgbGlnaHRpbmcga2l0IGJ1dA0KCXJldHVybmVkIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgZXhjZXB0IHRo ZSB0YWlsIGxpZ2h0cy4gIFdhaXRpbmcgb24gYW4gTEVEIGtpdCBmcm9tDQoJSmVmZi4gICBJJ3Zl IG9yZGVyZWQgdGhlIFRydXRyYWsgc2Vydm9zIGZyb20gU3RlaW4uICBJJ20gc2tpcHBpbmcgdGhl DQoJQU9BIHByb2JlLiAgSSdtIHRoaW5raW5nIGFyY2hlciBuYXYgYXR0ZW5uYSwgZG9uJ3Qga25v dyBhYm91dCBjb21tIGJ1dA0KCXdhbnQgaXQgaW4gdGhlIGZ1c2UuICBXaWxsaWFtJ3Mgd2lyaW5n IGxheW91dCBpbiB0aGUgd2luZ3MgaXMgYmVjb21pbmcNCglteSAgbW9kZWwgYW5kIGhpcyB3aXJp bmcgc2NoZW1hdGljcy9wbGFuIGlzIGluIG15IG5vdGVib29rLiAgQ29ubmVjdG9ycw0KCWFyZSBh IGJpZyA/ICBOZWVkIHRvIGJ1eSBzb21lIGJhc2ljIGNyaW1wZXJzLCB3aXJlIGFuZCB0ZXJtaW5h dGlvbiBzdHVmZi4NCgkNCglTbG93aW5nIGdldHRpbmcgbXkgaGVhZCBpbnRvIGEgZWxlY3RyaWNh bCBwbGFuL3NjaGVtYXRpYyBidXQgSSdtIGdldHRpbmcNCglhIGhlYWRhY2hlLg0KCQ0KCVRoYW5r cy4NCgkNCglCaWxsICJyZWFsIGdsYWQgSSd2ZSBnb3QgYSBRQiB3aW5nIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhlcmUg aXMgbW9yZSB0aGFuIGVub3VnaHQNCglkcmlsbC9kZWJ1cnIvZGltcGxlL3ByaW1pbmcgIHRvIGRv IHdpdGggd2hhdCdzIGxlZnQiIFdhdHNvbg0KCQ0KCVZlcm4gVy4gU21pdGggd3JvdGU6DQoJPiAt LT4gUlYxMC1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiAiVmVybiBXLiBTbWl0aCIgPFZlcm5AdGVj bGFic2luYy5jb20+DQoJPg0KCT4gTWF5YmUgeWVzLCBtYXliZSBuby4gVmFuJ3MgaGFybmVzcyBp cyBmb3IgYSBiYXNpYyBWRlIgcGxhbmUuIFRpbSBPbHNlbidzDQoJPiB3ZWJzaXRlIGhhcyBhIFBE RiBmaWxlIG9mIHRoZSBpbnN0cnVjdGlvbnMgYW5kIGEgc2NoZW1hdGljIHRoYXQgY29tZQ0KCT4g d2l0aCBpdC4gSXQncyBpbiB0aGUgYnVpbGRlcnMgc2VjdGlvbiB3aXRoIHRoZSBwbGFucy4gSSB0 aGluayBtb3N0DQoJPiBwZW9wbGUgYXJlIG5vdCB1c2luZyB0aGlzIGhhcm5lc3MgYmVjYXVzZSBp dCBkb2Vzbid0IG1lZXQgdGhlaXIgbmVlZHMuDQoJPg0KCT4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBqdXN0IG9uIHRo ZSB3aW5ncywgb25lIG9wdGlvbiBpcyB0byBydW4ganVzdCB0aGUgd2luZyB3aXJpbmcuDQoJPiBT dGFydCB3aXRoIHdoYXQgeW91IHdhbnQgaW4gdGhlIHdpbmdzIHNvbWUgcG9zc2liaWxpdGllcyBh cmU6IHN0cm9iZXMsDQoJPiBuYXYgbGlnaHRzLCBwaXRvdCBoZWF0LCBhaWxlcm9uIHRyaW0sIGF1 dG8gcGlsb3Qgc2Vydm8sIGxhbmRpbmcgbGlnaHRzLA0KCT4gc3RhbGwgd2FybmluZywgQU9BIGtp dCwgd2luZyB0aXAgYW50ZW5uYXMgKG5hdiwgY29tLCBtYXJrZXIgYmVhY29uKS4gQXQNCgk+IHRo aXMgcG9pbnQgc29tZSBydW4gY29uZHVpdCwgb3RoZXIgdXNlIHNuYXAgcmluZ3Mgb3IgYSBjb21i aW5hdGlvbi4NCgk+IFdpbGxpYW0gQ3VydGlzIGhhcyBzb21lIG5pY2UgcGljdHVyZXMgYW5kIHNj aGVtYXRpY3Mgb24gaGlzIHNpdGUuDQoJPiBodHRwOi8vd2N1cnRpcy5uZXJ2MTAuY29tLyBBbmQg YnkgYWxsIG1lYW5zIGNoZWNrIG91dCB0aGUgbWF0cm9uaWNzDQoJPiBhcmNoaXZlcy4gSWYgeW91 IGdvIHdpdGggY29uZHVpdCBWYW5zJyBzZWxscyBjb3JydWdhdGVkIHN0dWZmIChpdCBjYW4gYmUN Cgk+IGEgcGFpbiB0byBwdWxsIGl0IHRocm91Z2ggdGhlIHJpYnMpLCBvdGhlciBwZW9wbGUgaGF2 ZSB1c2VkIGxpZ2h0DQoJPiBzcHJpbmtsZXIgd2F0ZXIgbGluZS4gU29tZXdoZXJlIG9uIFZhbidz IHNpdGUgaXMgYSB3aW5nIHJpYiBkaWFncmFtDQoJPiBzaG93aW5nIGRpZmZlcmVudCBwb3NzaWJs ZSBsb2NhdGlvbnMgZm9yIHdpcmUgcnVucy4gSm9obiBDb3ggaGFkIGENCgk+IG1hcnZlbG91cyBp ZGVhIG9mIHJ1bm5pbmcgYSBsZW5ndGggb2Ygd2VlZCB3YWNrZXIgY29yZCB3aXRoIGFueSB3aXJl IHJ1bg0KCT4gc28gdGhhdCBpdCBpcyBlYXNpZXIgdG8gcHVsbCBhbiBleHRyYSB3aXJlIGluIHRo ZSBmdXR1cmUuDQoJPg0KCT4gTXkgRUFBIFRlY2guIGNvbnNvbGVyIGRpZG4ndCBsaWtlIHNlZWlu ZyB0aGUgc3Ryb2JlIHdpcmVzIHJhbiBpbiB0aGUNCgk+IHNhbWUgY29uZHVpdCBhcyBlbGVjdHJp Y2FsIHdpcmluZyBzbyBJIHB1bGxlZCBpdCBzZXBhcmF0ZWx5IHRocm91Z2ggc25hcA0KCT4gcmlu Z3MgYW5kIHRoZW4gcmFuIG9uZSBjb25kdWl0IGZvciBhbnRlbm5hIHdpcmUgYW5kIGFub3RoZXIg Zm9yDQoJPiBlbGVjdHJpY2FsIHdpcmluZyB3aXRoIGEgc3BhY2luZyBvZiBncmVhdGVyIHRoYW4g NiBpbmNoIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlDQoJPiBydW5zLiBBcyBmYXIgYXMgc3VwcGxpZXMgdGhlcmUgYXJl IGEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIHZlbmRlcnMuIFN0ZWluQWlyIGhhcw0KCT4gYmVlbiB2ZXJ5IGhlbHBmdWwu DQoJPg0KCT4gVGhpcyBpcyBwcm9iYWJseSBtb3JlIGluZm8gdGhhbiB5b3Ugd2FudDopDQoJPiBI b3BlIGl0J3MgaGVscHMsDQoJPg0KCT4gVmVybiBTbWl0aCAoIzMyNCB0YWlsIGNvbmUgYXR0YWNo bWVudCkgIA0KCT4NCgk+DQoJPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KCT4gRnJvbTog b3duZXItcnYxMC1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQoJPiBbbWFpbHRvOm93bmVyLXJ2 MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIE1hdWxlRHJpdmVyDQoJ PiBTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCBNYXkgMDgsIDIwMDcgMTA6NDMgQU0NCgk+IFRvOiBSVjEwLUxpc3Qg RGlnZXN0IFNlcnZlcg0KCT4gU3ViamVjdDogUlYxMC1MaXN0OiBXaXJpbmcgSGFybmVzcyBmcm9t IFZhbnMgLSBzaG91bGQgSSBwbGFuIHRvIGdldCBpdD8NCgk+DQoJPiAtLT4gUlYxMC1MaXN0IG1l c3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiBNYXVsZURyaXZlciA8TWF1bGVEcml2ZXJAbmMucnIuY29tPg0KCT4N Cgk+IEknbSBzdGlsbCBhIHdheXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgZnVzZWxhZ2UgYnV0IGxvb2tpbmcgYWhlYWQs IGlzIHRoZSBSVjEwDQoJPiBoYXJuZXNzIGZyb20gVmFucyBzb21ldGhpbmcgSSBzaG91bGQgcGxh biBvbj8gICBXaGF0IGRpZCB5b3UgZG8/DQoJPg0KCT4gSnVzdCBjdXJpb3VzIGF0IHRoaXMgcG9p bnQuDQoJPg0KCT4gQmlsbCAianVzdCBvcmRlcmVkIFRUIHNlcnZvcyBhbmQgdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGdl dCBRQiB3aW5ncyByZWFkeSBmb3IgYm90dG9tDQoJPg0KCT4gc2hlZXQgcml2ZXQiIFdhdHNvbg0K CT4NCgk+DQoJPg0KCT4NCgk+DQoJPg0KCT4NCgk+DQoJPg0KCT4NCgk+DQoJPiAgDQoJDQoJDQoJ Xy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT0NCglfLT0gICAgICAgICAgLSBUaGUgUlYxMC1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVtIC0NCglfLT0g VXNlIHRoZSBNYXRyb25pY3MgTGlzdCBGZWF0dXJlcyBOYXZpZ2F0b3IgdG8gYnJvd3NlDQoJXy09 IHRoZSBtYW55IExpc3QgdXRpbGl0aWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgdGhlIFN1YnNjcmlwdGlvbnMgcGFnZSwN CglfLT0gQXJjaGl2ZSBTZWFyY2ggJiBEb3dubG9hZCwgNy1EYXkgQnJvd3NlLCBDaGF0LCBGQVEs DQoJXy09IFBob3Rvc2hhcmUsIGFuZCBtdWNoIG11Y2ggbW9yZToNCglfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDov L3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9SVjEwLUxpc3QNCglfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KCV8tPSAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgLSBORVcgTUFUUk9OSUNTIFdFQiBGT1JVTVMgLQ0KCV8tPSBTYW1lIGdyZWF0IGNv bnRlbnQgbm93IGFsc28gYXZhaWxhYmxlIHZpYSB0aGUgV2ViIEZvcnVtcyENCglfLT0gICAtLT4g aHR0cDovL2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQoJXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCgkNCgkNCgkNCgkNCg0K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Crack in WD-1017
Date: May 08, 2007
A couple of weeks ago while I was working on my nose wheel fairing, I discovered a crack in my WD-1017 (see pictures). I had inspected the 1017 before I installed it last fall and other than pushing the airplane in and out of the hanger once, it has just sat there. You might want to inspect yours. I returned it to Vans and they have provided me a new one. After removing the 1017 to send it back, it looked like the left flange was angled out slightly. Rene' N423CF 40322 801-721-6080 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com>
Date: May 09, 2007
Subject: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight
Just a brief note to say THANKS to Randy and Cheryl tonite once we got i nto Portland for T Training with Mike S. this week. If you have not se een Randy's RV 10 you need too..he did a great job building it. What is most amazing is he PAVED the way for the rest of us and had no one else s to look at for help. Randy gave us a ride then treated us to a BBQ w ith his new GRILL at the hanger. What a great couple to have in the RV family. Thanks again, DEAN 40449
Just a brief note to say THANKS to Randy and Cheryl tonite once we got into Portland for T Training with Mike S. this week.   If you have not seeen Randy's RV 10 you need too..he did a great job bu ilding it. What is most amazing is he PAVED the way for the rest o f us and had no one elses to look at for help.   Ran dy gave us a ride then treated us to a BBQ with his new GRILL at&nb sp;the hanger.   What a great couple to have in the RV family.

Thanks again,

DEAN 40449

________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)suddenlink.net>
Subject: Re: Overhead Seat Belt Holder Attach
Date: May 09, 2007
In response to Mike Kraus' post a couple of days ago I shoot some pictures of the shoulder harness belt holder that I made and installed. It works great and can be viewed at: http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sholderbeltholder1dk3.jpg You can see the angle which I bent into such holder on a brake here: http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shoulderbeltholder2zs8.jpg You can also see the shoulder belts on such holder here: http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shoulderbeltholder3vj4.jpg For storage you can either cross the belts as shown above or just put them on the holder left and right. When flying without a co-pilot or rear seat passengers I keep the shoulder belts and seat belts buckled up so that they cannot fly around if something happens unexpectedly. Russ Daves N710RV - First Flight 7/28/06 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)suddenlink.net>
Subject: Re: Dash Cover
Date: May 09, 2007
Abby did my interior (minus seats) and I used her new edge trim and like everything a lot. A picture of the headliner and edge trim can be viewed at: http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=headlinerab0.jpg I ordered 90 feet of the edge trim from Abby at $96.00 including shipping. I installed hinge covers using nutplates pop riveted to the cabin top, before install of the headliner, to screw on the hinge covers that I also made out of the extra headliner material. Not shown in the picture are hinge covers I also made to cover the door hinges as well. The give a pretty nice finished look and you don't have to hassle with working the headliner material completely down into the hinge recess in the cabin top. After gluing down, just cut a small X in each recess and glue down the edges. My helper, who does upholstery used a steamer to stretch the headliner material to get a better fit around the edges and curves. It only looks good because of his expertise, not because of my work. Hope to see some of you at the Texas RV flyin May 26, 2007. More info is at: http://www.vansairforce.net/tex/tex.htm Russ Daves N710RV - First Flight 7/28/06 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight
From: "Jim & Julie Wade" <jwade(at)msdeltawireless.com>
Date: May 09, 2007
I talked to Van himself at S&F and he said he has had the same problem on occasion. I fly of a grass strip and have the problem too often. The nose wheel stays cocked in flight no matter what I do I can't straighten it in flight. I can touch and to and it will straighten up. When it is cocked I have to hold a lot of rudder to center the ball. I have taken mine apart and can not work out why. Van says he can't either. If someone comes up with the answer please let us know!!!! Jim Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=111770#111770 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <jim(at)CombsFive.Com>
Subject: Re: Crack in WD-1017
Date: May 09, 2007
Interesting! I just mounted mine and the gap is 2.54 MM (0.097") too tight and because of the way its made I cannot move it. If that gap was open and the tightened bolt closes it, then you have the problem in your pictures. I thought I had two options. Return the part to vans or machine the two mm off the bushing and get all the tolerances right. My plan is to machine the bushing to fit and leave the weldment alone. Hmmmm.. Jim Combs N312F 40192 =========================================================== From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> Date: 2007/05/08 Tue PM 11:56:01 EDT Subject: RV10-List: Crack in WD-1017 A couple of weeks ago while I was working on my nose wheel fairing, I discovered a crack in my WD-1017 (see pictures). I had inspected the 1017 before I installed it last fall and other than pushing the airplane in and out of the hanger once, it has just sat there. You might want to inspect yours. I returned it to Vans and they have provided me a new one. After removing the 1017 to send it back, it looked like the left flange was angled out slightly. Rene' N423CF 40322 801-721-6080 =========================================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Gas leak
Date: May 09, 2007
I am currently getting close to having a DAR come out and hopefully give me his blessings. A few days ago I filled the tanks with fuel and yesterday I was under the wing taking off the inspection plates in preparation for the DAR and, you guessed it, I found a small gas leak coming out from one if the rivets. This is a quick build wing and apparently those guys in the Philippines didn't do a good tanks test. Oh the trials and tribulations we go through to get these things in the air. Oh well move on I guess. Wayne Edgerton #40336 getting closer (I think) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Gas leak
Date: May 09, 2007
You did not ask for a fix but I will tell you in case you did not know. Use Loctite 290. It works wonders. I had the same issue with my QB wings. On May 9, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Wayne Edgerton wrote: > I am currently getting close to having a DAR come out and hopefully > give me his blessings. A few days ago I filled the tanks with fuel > and yesterday I was under the wing taking off the inspection plates > in preparation for the DAR and, you guessed it, I found a small gas > leak coming out from one if the rivets. This is a quick build wing > and apparently those guys in the Philippines didn't do a good tanks > test. > > Oh the trials and tribulations we go through to get these things in > the air. Oh well move on I guess. > > Wayne Edgerton #40336 > > getting closer (I think) > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_- > ============================================================ _- > forums.matronics.com_- > =========================================================== > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2007
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Gas leak
I'm preparing to test my QB tanks. Any hints on what/where to look? Did other QB wing people test the tanks? I intend to use a fuel seal product on the sender unit instead of Pro-seal. I understand that the fuel seal products are designed to seal while remaining pliable enough to be removed later. Rob Kermanj wrote: > You did not ask for a fix but I will tell you in case you did not > know. Use Loctite 290. It works wonders. I had the same issue with > my QB wings. > > On May 9, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Wayne Edgerton wrote: > >> I am currently getting close to having a DAR come out and hopefully >> give me his blessings. A few days ago I filled the tanks with fuel >> and yesterday I was under the wing taking off the inspection plates >> in preparation for the DAR and, you guessed it, I found a small gas >> leak coming out from one if the rivets. This is a quick build wing >> and apparently those guys in the Philippines didn't do a good tanks test. >> >> Oh the trials and tribulations we go through to get these things in >> the air. Oh well move on I guess. >> >> Wayne Edgerton #40336 >> >> getting closer (I think) >> * - The RV10-List Email Forum - class="Apple-converted-space"> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - class="Apple-converted-space"> --> http://forums.matronics.com* >> * >> * > * > * > ** > > > ** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight
Date: May 09, 2007
I don't know if this has happened to us or not because we have rudder trim. With the trim (and no indicator except the ball), it is hard to tell if the nose wheel is cocked to one side. I imagine this creates a great amount of drag. The only thing I can suggest is to relieve a little of the tension on the pivot so it doesn't take as much force to turn the nose wheel, while not making it too loose. I can say that they loosen up from use from the initial setting (26 lbs at the axle), but I imagine they don't loosen up too much after that first adjustment. If you leave it too loose, then you get a shimmy on landing - big time. If you have it too tight, it won't straighten up in flight. Unfortunately, there is a lot of pressure adjustment when just turning one flat on the nut, so there is a limited amount of fine tuning possible. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim & Julie Wade Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:04 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight I talked to Van himself at S&F and he said he has had the same problem on occasion. I fly of a grass strip and have the problem too often. The nose wheel stays cocked in flight no matter what I do I can't straighten it in flight. I can touch and to and it will straighten up. When it is cocked I have to hold a lot of rudder to center the ball. I have taken mine apart and can not work out why. Van says he can't either. If someone comes up with the answer please let us know!!!! Jim Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=111770#111770 -- 10:34 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2007
From: tgesele(at)optonline.net
Subject: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight
Based on a situation I ran into while getting my BFR in a -6A, I would not recommend loosening the nosewheel. The instructor (being in one of his more sadistic moods), wanted to see how I handled a cross wind landing near the limits of the plane. In that instance, I needed to use full rudder and the nosewheel ended up cocking 90 deg to the runway and, when the nosewheel set down, it sounded and felt like the plane was going to shake apart. It did straighten after skipping a few times but we were lucky there was no damage and the nosegear didn't collapse. BTW, I believe this was not long after the plane's annual so it's unlikely the torque on the nosewheel was out of specs... Just something to keep in mind. Tom Gesele #473 Finishing ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Saint Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 9:26 am Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight > > I don't know if this has happened to us or not because we have > rudder trim. > With the trim (and no indicator except the ball), it is hard to > tell if the > nose wheel is cocked to one side. I imagine this creates a > great amount of > drag. The only thing I can suggest is to relieve a little of > the tension on > the pivot so it doesn't take as much force to turn the nose > wheel, while not > making it too loose. I can say that they loosen up from use > from the > initial setting (26 lbs at the axle), but I imagine they don't > loosen up too > much after that first adjustment. If you leave it too loose, > then you get a > shimmy on landing - big time. If you have it too tight, it > won't straighten > up in flight. Unfortunately, there is a lot of pressure > adjustment when > just turning one flat on the nut, so there is a limited amount > of fine > tuning possible. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > www.saintaviation.com > Cell: 352-427-0285 > Fax: 815-377-3694 > >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: OSH predictions anyone
Date: May 09, 2007
> >> > Who's going to the Bob Collins BBQ? > You can find that answer at: http://home.comcast.net/~bcollinsrv7a/eaa/2007_attendees.html ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight
Date: May 09, 2007
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
I know that my nose wheel wasn't too tight as I has expected. It is odd that there isn't enough wheel pant length to act on the wind hitting the side of the wheel pant to align it. Randy ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tgesele(at)optonline.net Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:24 AM Subject: Re: RE: RV10-List: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight Based on a situation I ran into while getting my BFR in a -6A, I would not recommend loosening the nosewheel. The instructor (being in one of his more sadistic moods), wanted to see how I handled a cross wind landing near the limits of the plane. In that instance, I needed to use full rudder and the nosewheel ended up cocking 90 deg to the runway and, when the nosewheel set down, it sounded and felt like the plane was going to shake apart. It did straighten after skipping a few times but we were lucky there was no damage and the nosegear didn't collapse. BTW, I believe this was not long after the plane's annual so it's unlikely the torque on the nosewheel was out of specs... Just something to keep in mind. Tom Gesele #473 Finishing ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Saint Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 9:26 am Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight > > I don't know if this has happened to us or not because we have > rudder trim. > With the trim (and no indicator except the ball), it is hard to > tell if the > nose wheel is cocked to one side. I imagine this creates a > great amount of > drag. The only thing I can suggest is to relieve a little of > the tension on > the pivot so it doesn't take as much force to turn the nose > wheel, while not > making it too loose. I can say that they loosen up from use > from the > initial setting (26 lbs at the axle), but I imagine they don't > loosen up too > much after that first adjustment. If you leave it too loose, > then you get a > shimmy on landing - big time. If you have it too tight, it > won't straighten > up in flight. Unfortunately, there is a lot of pressure > adjustment when > just turning one flat on the nut, so there is a limited amount > of fine > tuning possible. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > www.saintaviation.com > Cell: 352-427-0285 > Fax: 815-377-3694 > >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: OSH predictions anyone
Date: May 09, 2007
> > >> I'm strongly considering just joining the gang in Scholler this > year. I'd actually love to camp by the plane, but I don't think > I'll go that route unless there are at least 10 RV-10s that would > participate. It's nice to keep the gang fairly together, for > camaraderie. The camp site in scholler worked great last year. > We just need to better coordinate the arrivals and departures this > year so we can secure more sites in a group. Michael Sausen lives > really close and last year he volunteered to drive over and stake > out the areas for us. I could also fly over prior to the show > and do that if he can't make it. He'd have better luck snagging > sites though, as he could check to ensure we aren't getting too > late...remember you have to pay from the time you stake it and > use it technically. > I was currently planning on camping in the North 40 next to my Cherokee. I would be very interested in joining a group of 10 builders/flyers in Scholler. My only concern would be how to get the gear from the plane in the North 40 to the campsite and back. Unfortunately, my camping gear isn't easily backpackable. Are the trams running prior to Monday? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight
Date: May 09, 2007
And we know how to fix that. I believe the Cherokee 6 has a fin aft of the pant. _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy DeBauw Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 9:11 AM Subject: RE: RE: RV10-List: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight I know that my nose wheel wasn't too tight as I has expected. It is odd that there isn't enough wheel pant length to act on the wind hitting the side of the wheel pant to align it. Randy _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tgesele(at)optonline.net Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:24 AM Subject: Re: RE: RV10-List: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight Based on a situation I ran into while getting my BFR in a -6A, I would not recommend loosening the nosewheel. The instructor (being in one of his more sadistic moods), wanted to see how I handled a cross wind landing near the limits of the plane. In that instance, I needed to use full rudder and the nosewheel ended up cocking 90 deg to the runway and, when the nosewheel set down, it sounded and felt like the plane was going to shake apart. It did straighten after skipping a few times but we were lucky there was no damage and the nosegear didn't collapse. BTW, I believe this was not long after the plane's annual so it's unlikely the torque on the nosewheel was out of specs... Just something to keep in mind. Tom Gesele #473 Finishing ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Saint Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 9:26 am Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight > > I don't know if this has happened to us or not because we have > rudder trim. > With the trim (and no indicator except the ball), it is hard to > tell if the > nose wheel is cocked to one side. I imagine this creates a > great amount of > drag. The only thing I can suggest is to relieve a little of > the tension on > the pivot so it doesn't take as much force to turn the nose > wheel, while not > making it too loose. I can say that they loosen up from use > from the > initial setting (26 lbs at the axle), but I imagine they don't > loosen up too > much after that first adjustment. If you leave it too loose, > then you get a > shimmy on landing - big time. If you have it too tight, it > won't straighten > up in flight. Unfortunately, there is a lot of pressure > adjustment when > just turning one flat on the nut, so there is a limited amount > of fine > tuning possible. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > www.saintaviation.com > Cell: 352-427-0285 > Fax: 815-377-3694 > >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Gas leak
Date: May 09, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Wayne it is a great idea to retest your tanks before primer and topcoat. It can be a heartbreaker to see the stains develop through the finish when proseal can be placed at the errant rivet to mitigate the QB workmanship. Remember that the wing is going to do a lot of flexing and can break most sealing agents loose with just reasonable future flights. John Cox #600 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 4:21 AM Subject: RV10-List: Gas leak I am currently getting close to having a DAR come out and hopefully give me his blessings. A few days ago I filled the tanks with fuel and yesterday I was under the wing taking off the inspection plates in preparation for the DAR and, you guessed it, I found a small gas leak coming out from one if the rivets. This is a quick build wing and apparently those guys in the Philippines didn't do a good tanks test. Oh the trials and tribulations we go through to get these things in the air. Oh well move on I guess. Wayne Edgerton #40336 getting closer (I think) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight
Date: May 09, 2007
> > From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> > Date: 2007/05/09 Wed PM 12:34:54 EST > To: > Subject: RE: RE: RV10-List: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight > > And we know how to fix that. I believe the Cherokee 6 has a fin aft of the > pant. All the Cherokees have the fin. They put 8 quarts of oil in at the annual and I've been cleaning that darn thing after every flight for the last month. I'll be glad when it drops below quarts and I don't have to clean the bottom side as much. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: OSH predictions anyone
Date: May 09, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
We will have our Expedition, and will be happy to coordinate picking your stuff up and moving it back and forth for you. Dan N289DT RV10E -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvmail(at)thelefflers.com Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Re: RV10-List: OSH predictions anyone > > >> I'm strongly considering just joining the gang in Scholler this > year. I'd actually love to camp by the plane, but I don't think > I'll go that route unless there are at least 10 RV-10s that would > participate. It's nice to keep the gang fairly together, for > camaraderie. The camp site in scholler worked great last year. > We just need to better coordinate the arrivals and departures this > year so we can secure more sites in a group. Michael Sausen lives > really close and last year he volunteered to drive over and stake > out the areas for us. I could also fly over prior to the show > and do that if he can't make it. He'd have better luck snagging > sites though, as he could check to ensure we aren't getting too > late...remember you have to pay from the time you stake it and > use it technically. > I was currently planning on camping in the North 40 next to my Cherokee. I would be very interested in joining a group of 10 builders/flyers in Scholler. My only concern would be how to get the gear from the plane in the North 40 to the campsite and back. Unfortunately, my camping gear isn't easily backpackable. Are the trams running prior to Monday? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV_10" <john_rv10(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Gas leak
Date: May 10, 2007
Wayne, Did you just apply the Loctite 290 to the outside of the offending rivet and let it seep into the joint, or did you do something else? Thanks, John Cleary _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj Sent: Wednesday, 9 May 2007 9:44 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Gas leak You did not ask for a fix but I will tell you in case you did not know. Use Loctite 290. It works wonders. I had the same issue with my QB wings. On May 9, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Wayne Edgerton wrote: I am currently getting close to having a DAR come out and hopefully give me his blessings. A few days ago I filled the tanks with fuel and yesterday I was under the wing taking off the inspection plates in preparation for the DAR and, you guessed it, I found a small gas leak coming out from one if the rivets. This is a quick build wing and apparently those guys in the Philippines didn't do a good tanks test. Oh the trials and tribulations we go through to get these things in the air. Oh well move on I guess. Wayne Edgerton #40336 getting closer (I think) - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - class="Apple-converted-space"> --> <http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Gas leak
Date: May 09, 2007
John, this is Rob. i will send you the Loctite Data sheet to your email address so you can read it. Basically, you put a drop on the rivet, come back the next day and find that the stuff is still liquid and wonder what the heck? The liquid seeps around the rivet and will solidify where there is no air. If the rivet is leaking on the bottom and you have gas in the tank, I suggest that you empty it. However read the directions. n May 9, 2007, at 4:47 PM, RV_10 wrote: > Wayne, > > > Did you just apply the Loctite 290 to the outside of the offending > rivet and let it seep into the joint, or did you do something else? > > > Thanks, > > John Cleary > > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj > Sent: Wednesday, 9 May 2007 9:44 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Gas leak > > > You did not ask for a fix but I will tell you in case you did not > know. Use Loctite 290. It works wonders. I had the same issue with > my QB wings. > > > On May 9, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Wayne Edgerton wrote: > > > I am currently getting close to having a DAR come out and hopefully > give me his blessings. A few days ago I filled the tanks with fuel > and yesterday I was under the wing taking off the inspection plates > in preparation for the DAR and, you guessed it, I found a small gas > leak coming out from one if the rivets. This is a quick build wing > and apparently those guys in the Philippines didn't do a good tanks > test. > > Oh the trials and tribulations we go through to get these things in > the air. Oh well move on I guess. > > Wayne Edgerton #40336 > > getting closer (I think) > > - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - class="Apple-converted- > space"> --> http://forums.matronics.com > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > http://forums.matronics.com > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_- > ============================================================ _- > forums.matronics.com_- > =========================================================== > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)cox.net>
Subject: Gas leak
Date: May 09, 2007
Recommend using proseal on the senders. I have heard of others using fuel lube on the senders, but they started leaking with time. Odds are the leak will start right after you get done painting! If you need to pull a sender, it is not too hard running a putty knife under the proseal to get it out. For that matter, I flew my RV-8A the first 100 hours with just the fiberglass painted (a quick one coat garage job). No fuel leaks until just before taking the plane down for final painting. At that point I found one rivet on the rear baffle of the left tank weeping fuel. Easy to fix before paint - a pain afterward. I'll fly my RV-10 for at least 100 hours before final paint. Carl Froehlich -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of MauleDriver Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:43 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Gas leak I'm preparing to test my QB tanks. Any hints on what/where to look? Did other QB wing people test the tanks? I intend to use a fuel seal product on the sender unit instead of Pro-seal. I understand that the fuel seal products are designed to seal while remaining pliable enough to be removed later. Rob Kermanj wrote: > You did not ask for a fix but I will tell you in case you did not > know. Use Loctite 290. It works wonders. I had the same issue with > my QB wings. > > On May 9, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Wayne Edgerton wrote: > >> I am currently getting close to having a DAR come out and hopefully >> give me his blessings. A few days ago I filled the tanks with fuel >> and yesterday I was under the wing taking off the inspection plates >> in preparation for the DAR and, you guessed it, I found a small gas >> leak coming out from one if the rivets. This is a quick build wing >> and apparently those guys in the Philippines didn't do a good tanks test. >> >> Oh the trials and tribulations we go through to get these things in >> the air. Oh well move on I guess. >> >> Wayne Edgerton #40336 >> >> getting closer (I think) >> * - The RV10-List Email Forum - class="Apple-converted-space"> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - class="Apple-converted-space"> --> http://forums.matronics.com* >> * >> * > * > * > ** > > > ** ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: OSH predictions anyone
From: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>
Date: May 09, 2007
I will be there early but like Gary said, we haven't really coordinated yet. Last year got a little crazy trying to secure spots before they were gone so I'd prefer to get commitments in advance and then secure a section of contiguous sites in the same area as last year. The legally secure the site (actually be able to tag it) you wind up paying from the moment the tag is issued until the last day of AirVenture but can get refunded for days that you leave early. I'll have to look back at a calendar, but I belive that I actually got there the Wednesday before Airventure started and that worked out but there were only about 4 sites actually available along the treeline. Across the "road" to the west it was wide open though. We'll figure something out over the next month or so and then post it on this and the VansAirforce RV-10 forums. I don't see any problem if some folks need an assist with transportation - I will be doing things slightly differently this year and will have a car there in addition to the motorhome. I would imagine that there will be at least a couple of other vehicles available if folks needs help getting equipment back and forth from the North 40. Assuming there's enough interest, it would be no problem at all putting together an RV-10 BBQ. In fact last year we had essentially that on the spur of the moment. I know that Adrian is also planning to bring along another couple of bushels of sweet corn again too! Bob Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=111944#111944 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris" <toaster73(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it?
Date: May 09, 2007
I like that zit.... zit......zit..... too as the engine hummed along. It meant all is well. -Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:02 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get it? > Because strobes produce a lot of electrical noise and by physically > seperating the wire runs it lessens the chance of the electrical wires > acting like an antenna and pickup the noise via any magnetic field > surounding the strobe wiring. Which sounded reasonable to me. > > The strobe wire shield grounded at the power supply should take care of > it, but if a few bucks of snap rings and a little work helps, why not? > I've flown in too many airplanes with the mellow almost soothing > zit-zit-zit of the strobe in the headsets:) Though most of these were > probably grounding issues. > > Vern Smith (#324 tail cone attachment) > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Chris > Sent: Tue 5/8/2007 4:14 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Cc: > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get > it? > > > Why did your tech counselor not want the stobe wires in the same conduit? > Chris Lucas > #40072 Fuselage top > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:33 PM > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Wiring Harness from Vans - should I plan to get > it? > > > > > >> > > My EAA Tech. consoler didn't like seeing the strobe wires ran in the > > same conduit as electrical wiring so I pulled it separately through snap > > rings and then ran one conduit for antenna wire and another for > > electrical wiring with a spacing of greater than 6 inch between the > > runs. As far as supplies there are a number of venders. SteinAir has > > been very helpful. > > > > This is probably more info than you want:) > > Hope it's helps, > > > > Vern Smith (#324 tail cone attachment) > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)suddenlink.net>
Subject: Re: OSH predictions anyone
Date: May 10, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> Subject: OSH predictions anyone Who's going to the Bob Collins BBQ? (I can feel the excitement mounting.......) Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) Check out the currently registered attendees at: http://home.comcast.net/~bcollinsrv7a/eaa/2007_attendees.html It would really help Bob Collins out if you are going to attend to register as soon as you have your plans firmed up. We are coming in Sunday morning and leaving Thursday. Russ Daves N710RV - First Flight 7/28/06 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Re: Gas leak
Date: May 10, 2007
Van's assist center, Bruce, told me I should remove the tank and then turn it over and put the Loctite 290 on the offending rivet and then let it set. Is that what you previous leak experience people did? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 10, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Gas leak
The posts/info that I recall reading on this topic also suggested that you put a 'weak' vacuum on the tank to try and draw the Locktite into the leak area. HOWEVER, that advice also came with a STRONG warning to be careful and NOT collapse the tanks by putting too great a vacuum to it. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ Wayne Edgerton wrote: > Van's assist center, Bruce, told me I should remove the tank and then > turn it over and put the Loctite 290 on the offending rivet and then > let it set. Is that what you previous leak experience people did? > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Additional item to check at condition inspection time.
Date: May 10, 2007
From: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr(at)sprint.com>
I'm in the middle of my rolling condition inspection and one of the things I did for the Firewall Forward was to shim the two top engine mount bolts because initially when I did the cowl, I allowed a little too much (5/16") for engine sag. So I thought that after 245 hours on the plane the engine would have sagged enough to just correct the rest of the spinner alignment by shimming the top engine bolts where the engine mount meets the firewall. Two steel washers measuring 1/8" thick on each side did the trick and the spinner matches the top of the cowl perfectly now. Well with this done, I buttoned up the cowl and went for a test flight. Everything was fine for engine run-up and off I went. At 2000 AGL I leveled off and adjusted throttle and prop to 20 squared. While screwing out the prop, at about 1" out it started to get a lot harder to screw out. I kept going because it wasn't too bad yet, but then all of a sudden the engine went from 2300 rpm to something like 1000 or so. I immediately started to screw the prop back in and headed back to the airport. On my way back I had a few moments to think about this and figured it was the prop linkage hitting the upper air dam. What had happened is the rod-end was up inside the air dam when the prop is fully in, but once you screw it out about 1", it gets to the point where it was hitting the cutout in the air dam, then as I kept screwing it out, it did nothing to the RPM until it finally popped out on the underside of the air dam and this is when the RPM went from 2300 to something really low all at the same time. Once I was back on the ground, I looked at the rod-end bearing at the governor and sure enough, it was hitting the air dam. Since I shimmed the engine by 1/8", it not only dropped the engine at the spinner, but it also moved the engine forward just enough so the prop linkage was hitting the upper air dam. A stupid thing to overlook on my part. Anyway, I thought I would share this with everyone so they check the clearance of the prop linkage as it goes up through the air dam at there condition inspection. This is important because as the engine sags in time, the clearance you had at first flight may be different now and you may need to remove a little more of the upper dam to have the proper clearance. Thank You Ray Doerr 40250 N519RV ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Gas leak
Date: May 10, 2007
I drilled out the leaking rivet prior to painting and replaced it with a cherry max rivet dipped in pro seal. 95 hours later no problems. Mark N410MR Austin, TX >From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: RV10-List: Gas leak >Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 07:10:06 -0500 > >Van's assist center, Bruce, told me I should remove the tank and then turn >it over and put the Loctite 290 on the offending rivet and then let it set. >Is that what you previous leak experience people did? _________________________________________________________________ Now you can see troublebefore he arrives http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_protection_0507 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 10, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: OSH predictions anyone
Wheww !!!!! Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > > I will be flying in, but Trish has to drive our sleeping arrangements! > Dan > N289DT RV10E > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com>
Subject: -10 project for sale
Date: May 10, 2007
They say that life is what happens while you build an airplane, well "they" were right. My RV-10 project is for sale ( regretfully ). Ready for finish kit. Consider it a super-quickbuild. e-mail me off line at: jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com for details. Based at Dayton Wright Bros. (MGY)... John Hasbrouck #40264 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)cableone.net>
Subject: OSH Camping
Date: May 10, 2007
I successfully got my wife to convince me we needed to go to Oshkosh after I found out there's a huge quilting gig on Thursday the 26th! The question I have for the crowd is whether to park the RV-10 on homebuilt row and pitch a tent at Camp Scholler (sp) or stay with the plane at the designated homebuilt camping area. I like the location of the homebuilt camping better and the machine is not yet painted so I'm leaning toward that but would like to hear any experiences one way or the other. I'm certainly not embarrassed by my -10, but it's not going to roll anyone's socks down just yet either without any paint. Thanks, Marcus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Short and to the point
Date: May 10, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
I am often quoted as being too verbose. Until you understand "Hydrogen Embrittlement", use no cleaner (especially not Old Simple Green) on any aircraft component until you "the manufacturer" know what you are placing at risk <> <> . Period. As manufacturer's do what you want. Here are two important documents for the RV 10 University. Extreme Simple Green is not the same product as Old Simple Green. End of discussion. John Cox #600 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Short and to the point
Date: May 10, 2007
That was beautiful, John. Your input/insight is always great, but brevity is beautiful, especially when you use little words that I can understand. While we're on this, what about using Orange cleaner for both scuffing and degreasing? We use some kind of thinner for cleaning before priming, but we scuff and use thinner then alcohol (desengrasante) for exterior paint prep, then go with wash primer, followed by filler primer (the gray stuff), folowed by color and clear. Jesse -----Original Message----- From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> Sent: 5/10/2007 8:39 PM Subject: RV10-List: Short and to the point I am often quoted as being too verbose. Until you understand "Hydrogen Embrittlement", use no cleaner (especially not Old Simple Green) on any aircraft component until you "the manufacturer" know what you are placing at risk <> <> . Period. As manufacturer's do what you want. Here are two important documents for the RV 10 University. Extreme Simple Green is not the same product as Old Simple Green. End of discussion. John Cox #600 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "The McGough Family" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Aileron torque tube help
Date: May 11, 2007
My Aileron torque tube rubs on the W-1013 which is the braket that is riveted to the rear wing spar that holds the Aileron on. Only in the downward position. Anyone else had that problem? Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Short and to the point
Date: May 10, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Scuffing whether with an additive (pumice - Orange stuff) or with accessories (such as Scotchbrite pads) increases the potential for Adhesion - a good thing. Just remember that with Alclad 2024 the surface coating of pure aluminum is Thin 5% of the total on each side. You do the math on 0.025". When it turns dark, you are already through the pure aluminum and into the base hybrid metal stock. I've heard no negatives on the citrus based products. Residue might require more rinsing. The cleaner the substrate (no residue) the quicker the time between cleaning and priming the less oxidation which is happening immediately. More hands, less time is a better thing. Cessna had a problem with filiform corrosion from cleaning aircraft overnight (outside) and then priming and painting the next day. Who said acid rain hasn't reached the "Heartland"? John -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:37 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Short and to the point That was beautiful, John. Your input/insight is always great, but brevity is beautiful, especially when you use little words that I can understand. While we're on this, what about using Orange cleaner for both scuffing and degreasing? We use some kind of thinner for cleaning before priming, but we scuff and use thinner then alcohol (desengrasante) for exterior paint prep, then go with wash primer, followed by filler primer (the gray stuff), folowed by color and clear. Jesse -----Original Message----- From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> Sent: 5/10/2007 8:39 PM Subject: RV10-List: Short and to the point I am often quoted as being too verbose. Until you understand "Hydrogen Embrittlement", use no cleaner (especially not Old Simple Green) on any aircraft component until you "the manufacturer" know what you are placing at risk <> <> . Period. As manufacturer's do what you want. Here are two important documents for the RV 10 University. Extreme Simple Green is not the same product as Old Simple Green. End of discussion. John Cox #600 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Reining" <wreining(at)gmail.com>
Subject: QB Wing Inspection and Questions
Date: May 10, 2007
My son and I took a critical look at our QB wings this evening, following the instructions step by step to verify everything was built correctly. Here are our discoveries, up through section 18 (fuel tanks). o Main Spar - Page 13-3, step 9 calls for the enlargement of an existing 9/32 hole in the left (only) spar and installation of a snap bushing. This was not done. o Main Spar - Page 13-4, step 6 the tie down bracket is cut, tapped and drilled. The tie down bracket in both wings was never tapped! o Fuel Tanks - Page 18-8, step 5 the tanks all installed. A note was included with our QB wings warning that "the fuel tanks are secured for shipping purposes ONLY by a few screws through the tank skin and several bolts through the Z-brackets. It is expected that the builder will install the rest of these critical fasteners before the airplane is inspected or flown." Well, all of the screws and bolts were attached, but about half of the bolts for the Z-brackets were not fully tightened - glad we checked them with the torque wrench! We have a couple of questions: 1. What's the purpose of the bushing through the spar specified on page 13-3? 2. Where are the instructions for testing the fuel tanks for leaks? Bill and Jon Reining 40514 - QB wings ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "The McGough Family" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Aileron tube help
Date: May 11, 2007
My only thought is that the wings are in the cradle so when they are conected to fuse the ailerons will not go down as much and then they will not bind?? Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: The McGough Family To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 2:57 PM Subject: RV10-List: Aileron torque tube help My Aileron torque tube rubs on the W-1013 which is the braket that is riveted to the rear wing spar that holds the Aileron on. Only in the downward position. Anyone else had that problem? Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: QB Wing Inspection and Questions
From: "Michael Wellenzohn" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: May 11, 2007
Hello Bill & John, the snap bushig is used to guide the wire of the stall warning from the leading edge through the spar. It is only requires for the left wing. MY QB Wings were in the exact same state, but all screws were tightend. Anyway I had to remove the left tank to install the stall warning in th eleading edge. The tigh downs are not tapped too, if you tap them make sure that the chips & oil will not drop into the inside of the wing since you can't get to them easlily. Best Regards Michael -------- RV-10 builder (wings) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112194#112194 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2007
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: QB Wing Inspection and Questions
My QB wings were also in the same exact state. You'll need to buy the bushing (get a bunch of the them in differents sizes). It's not exactly clear where to start and with what... you have to jump around a little. You'll need to add all the platenuts around the root of the both top and bottom skins For QB tank testing, Vans has a little low cost kit with 2 tank fittings in it plus instructions that include the use of a ballloon as a pressure guage. I haven't done it yet but net of it is that you want to pressurize the tanks *gently* and use soap suds to check for leaks. The balloon insures less than 1psi is used. Michael Wellenzohn wrote: > > Hello Bill & John, > > the snap bushig is used to guide the wire of the stall warning from the leading edge through the spar. It is only requires for the left wing. > > MY QB Wings were in the exact same state, but all screws were tightend. Anyway I had to remove the left tank to install the stall warning in th eleading edge. > The tigh downs are not tapped too, if you tap them make sure that the chips & oil will not drop into the inside of the wing since you can't get to them easlily. > > Best Regards > Michael > > -------- > RV-10 builder (wings) > #511 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112194#112194 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2007
From: Matt Reeves <mattreeves(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: OSH Camping
Marcus, Personally, my brothers and I LOVE to see the unpainted airplanes the most. It's great to see pictures of work in progress or easy to see finished work. Also, as far as camping goes, since you are with your wife, I'd say, camp as close as you can to the bathrooms and showers. If she has to go, you don't want to hear complaining everytime as to how far you are away. Kids these days!! Matt Marcus Cooper wrote: st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } I successfully got my wife to convince me we needed to go to Oshkosh after I found out there's a huge quilting gig on Thursday the 26th! The question I have for the crowd is whether to park the RV-10 on homebuilt row and pitch a tent at Camp Scholler (sp) or stay with the plane at the designated homebuilt camping area. I like the location of the homebuilt camping better and the machine is not yet painted so I'm leaning toward that but would like to hear any experiences one way or the other. I'm certainly not embarrassed by my -10, but it's not going to roll anyone's socks down just yet either without any paint. Thanks, Marcus --------------------------------- Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: OSH Camping
Date: May 11, 2007
From: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr(at)sprint.com>
I will be in Home Built Camping with my 10 from Sunday through Wednesday. Thank You Ray Doerr 40250 N519RV ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:31 PM Subject: RV10-List: OSH Camping I successfully got my wife to convince me we needed to go to Oshkosh after I found out there's a huge quilting gig on Thursday the 26th! The question I have for the crowd is whether to park the RV-10 on homebuilt row and pitch a tent at Camp Scholler (sp) or stay with the plane at the designated homebuilt camping area. I like the location of the homebuilt camping better and the machine is not yet painted so I'm leaning toward that but would like to hear any experiences one way or the other. I'm certainly not embarrassed by my -10, but it's not going to roll anyone's socks down just yet either without any paint. Thanks, Marcus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Aileron torque tube help
Date: May 11, 2007
Does it hit on the shop head of a rivet or on the actual shaft? If on the rivet, you could try flipping it over to see if the mfg head would provide better clearance. I may have seen this, but I think the problem went away when the controls were rigged. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of The McGough Family Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:57 AM Subject: RV10-List: Aileron torque tube help My Aileron torque tube rubs on the W-1013 which is the braket that is riveted to the rear wing spar that holds the Aileron on. Only in the downward position. Anyone else had that problem? Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aileron torque tube help
Date: May 11, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Do you have both Aileron's on, and have verified full travel with both? They act as stops for each other and it might be rubbing now, and not when both are hooked up. Once you have both hooked up, you can relieve some of the distance with a file, just be careful not to scratch the paint...ask me how I know that painting and saving the finish is way too hard. Dan N289DT RV10E _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of The McGough Family Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:57 AM Subject: RV10-List: Aileron torque tube help My Aileron torque tube rubs on the W-1013 which is the braket that is riveted to the rear wing spar that holds the Aileron on. Only in the downward position. Anyone else had that problem? Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aileron torque tube help
Date: May 11, 2007
From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com>
I noticed the same interference after completing my wings. Van's suggested adjusting the number and thicknesses of the washers between the two sides of the hinge, the inboard and outboard hinges and /or the torque tube rod end to shift the aileron and torque tube away from the W-1013. While making sure not to create any other interference. The other challenge I had was the washers called out in section 21 did not capture the hinge pivot points and allowed the bolt to rotate inside the bearing ball. They said add more washers as needed. These suggestions seemed to help but I won't know if this solves the problems until I get the wings installed and ailerons fully rigged. Vern Smith (#324 tail cone attachment) _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R. Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 6:22 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Aileron torque tube help Do you have both Aileron's on, and have verified full travel with both? They act as stops for each other and it might be rubbing now, and not when both are hooked up. Once you have both hooked up, you can relieve some of the distance with a file, just be careful not to scratch the paint...ask me how I know that painting and saving the finish is way too hard. Dan N289DT RV10E _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of The McGough Family Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:57 AM Subject: RV10-List: Aileron torque tube help My Aileron torque tube rubs on the W-1013 which is the braket that is riveted to the rear wing spar that holds the Aileron on. Only in the downward position. Anyone else had that problem? Chris href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s .com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2007
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Short and to the point
IIRC Cessna also skipped one of the primer steps recommended by the paint manufacturer. Whatever happened to the traditional acid etch/alodine process? Too labor intensive? On 5/10/07, John W. Cox wrote: > > Scuffing whether with an additive (pumice - Orange stuff) or with > accessories (such as Scotchbrite pads) increases the potential for > Adhesion - a good thing. Just remember that with Alclad 2024 the > surface coating of pure aluminum is Thin 5% of the total on each side. > You do the math on 0.025". When it turns dark, you are already through > the pure aluminum and into the base hybrid metal stock. > > I've heard no negatives on the citrus based products. Residue might > require more rinsing. The cleaner the substrate (no residue) the > quicker the time between cleaning and priming the less oxidation which > is happening immediately. More hands, less time is a better thing. > > Cessna had a problem with filiform corrosion from cleaning aircraft > overnight (outside) and then priming and painting the next day. Who > said acid rain hasn't reached the "Heartland"? > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:37 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Short and to the point > > > That was beautiful, John. Your input/insight is always great, but > brevity is beautiful, especially when you use little words that I can > understand. > > While we're on this, what about using Orange cleaner for both scuffing > and degreasing? > > We use some kind of thinner for cleaning before priming, but we scuff > and use thinner then alcohol (desengrasante) for exterior paint prep, > then go with wash primer, followed by filler primer (the gray stuff), > folowed by color and clear. > > Jesse > > -----Original Message----- > From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: 5/10/2007 8:39 PM > Subject: RV10-List: Short and to the point > > I am often quoted as being too verbose. Until you understand "Hydrogen > Embrittlement", use no cleaner (especially not Old Simple Green) on any > aircraft component until you "the manufacturer" know what you are > placing at risk <> <> . > Period. As manufacturer's do what you want. > > Here are two important documents for the RV 10 University. > > Extreme Simple Green is not the same product as Old Simple Green. End > of discussion. > > John Cox > #600 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2007
From: "James K Hovis" <james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Short and to the point
On ALCLAD, you don't need to etch or alodine, only if you have deep scratches to blend out deeper than the clad surface. Remember, the reason for clad is the pure aluminum gets a thin veneer of oxide to protect the rest of the material when exposed to air. Mild cleaning and a light scrubbing should be all you need. A citric product is used in production, not sure what "brand" it is... If there's a material that may lead to hydrogen embrittlement as John notes, RUN AWAY SCREAMING please!!!! Kevin H. On 5/11/07, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > IIRC Cessna also skipped one of the primer steps recommended by the > paint manufacturer. > Whatever happened to the traditional acid etch/alodine process? Too > labor intensive? > > On 5/10/07, John W. Cox wrote: > > > > Scuffing whether with an additive (pumice - Orange stuff) or with > > accessories (such as Scotchbrite pads) increases the potential for > > Adhesion - a good thing. Just remember that with Alclad 2024 the > > surface coating of pure aluminum is Thin 5% of the total on each side. > > You do the math on 0.025". When it turns dark, you are already through > > the pure aluminum and into the base hybrid metal stock. > > > > I've heard no negatives on the citrus based products. Residue might > > require more rinsing. The cleaner the substrate (no residue) the > > quicker the time between cleaning and priming the less oxidation which > > is happening immediately. More hands, less time is a better thing. > > > > Cessna had a problem with filiform corrosion from cleaning aircraft > > overnight (outside) and then priming and painting the next day. Who > > said acid rain hasn't reached the "Heartland"? > > > > John > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:37 PM > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Short and to the point > > > > > > That was beautiful, John. Your input/insight is always great, but > > brevity is beautiful, especially when you use little words that I can > > understand. > > > > While we're on this, what about using Orange cleaner for both scuffing > > and degreasing? > > > > We use some kind of thinner for cleaning before priming, but we scuff > > and use thinner then alcohol (desengrasante) for exterior paint prep, > > then go with wash primer, followed by filler primer (the gray stuff), > > folowed by color and clear. > > > > Jesse > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Sent: 5/10/2007 8:39 PM > > Subject: RV10-List: Short and to the point > > > > I am often quoted as being too verbose. Until you understand "Hydrogen > > Embrittlement", use no cleaner (especially not Old Simple Green) on any > > aircraft component until you "the manufacturer" know what you are > > placing at risk <> <> . > > Period. As manufacturer's do what you want. > > > > Here are two important documents for the RV 10 University. > > > > Extreme Simple Green is not the same product as Old Simple Green. End > > of discussion. > > > > John Cox > > #600 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Visor Update
Date: May 11, 2007
I think we have a winner. I just installed the pilot's side visor and it seems to be just right. I will post pictures after we test it a little more to see if there is any problem that I am not catching. I hope to get with Rosen and send pictures to have them verify that they are happy with it, then hopefully we will be able to make some installation instructions and get the group buy together. As it is, I can get the visor out of the way so it only obstructs a tiny bit of the top of the windshield, and it can shield any part of the windshield or side window. Updates to come hopefully early next week. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV_10" <john_rv10(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Aileron torque tube help
Date: May 12, 2007
We had the same problem with our QB wings. What we noticed was that the aileron attach brackets on one wing in particular were not square to the rear spar. After we squared them up, the clearance was OK. John Cleary (Fuse) _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2007 1:15 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Aileron torque tube help I noticed the same interference after completing my wings. Van's suggested adjusting the number and thicknesses of the washers between the two sides of the hinge, the inboard and outboard hinges and /or the torque tube rod end to shift the aileron and torque tube away from the W-1013. While making sure not to create any other interference. The other challenge I had was the washers called out in section 21 did not capture the hinge pivot points and allowed the bolt to rotate inside the bearing ball. They said add more washers as needed. These suggestions seemed to help but I won't know if this solves the problems until I get the wings installed and ailerons fully rigged. Vern Smith (#324 tail cone attachment) _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R. Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 6:22 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Aileron torque tube help Do you have both Aileron's on, and have verified full travel with both? They act as stops for each other and it might be rubbing now, and not when both are hooked up. Once you have both hooked up, you can relieve some of the distance with a file, just be careful not to scratch the paint...ask me how I know that painting and saving the finish is way too hard. Dan N289DT RV10E _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of The McGough Family Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:57 AM Subject: RV10-List: Aileron torque tube help My Aileron torque tube rubs on the W-1013 which is the braket that is riveted to the rear wing spar that holds the Aileron on. Only in the downward position. Anyone else had that problem? Chris href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com /Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2007
Subject: Firewall Forward kit contents
From: "William Curtis" <wcurtis(at)nerv10.com>
All,=0A=0AI just ordered my Firewall Forward kit form Vans and in add ition to excluding the hoses supplied by Van"s, (I'll be getting all Teflon hoses with integral fire sleeve) I also opted to replace the crappy 60A Ni ppondenso Alternator with the new Plane power alternator with internal regu lator. Attached is an Excel spreadsheet with the Firewall Forward Kit cont ents for those that have not ordered it yet. It is also available here: ht tp://nerv10.com/plans/FirewallForwardKitContents.xls=0A=0A=0AWilli am=0Ahttp://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Dynon FlightDEK D-180 / SL-30 Wiring
Date: May 11, 2007
I'm wiring my SL-30 radio to my Dynon FlightDEK-D180 and have hit a snag. The Dynon FlightDEK-D180 Installation Guide, page 4-6 says "hook the SL30 unit to pin 22 on the FlightDEK's EFIS connector." This input on the Dynon is labeled "FlightDEK-D180 Receive/PC Serial Transmit (RS-232)" Problem is, I can't figure out which pin on the SL30 to hook to it. Also, if this is a RS-232 line aren't they usually a 3 wire setup? Albert Gardner Yuma, AZ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dynon FlightDEK D-180 / SL-30 Wiring
From: "N777TY" <microsmurfer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 11, 2007
It is the RS stuff.. should be pin 5 on SL-30... (double-check, though)... it's the "serial out" or "RS-232 out" or whatever they call it there.. the 3-wire thing you're thinking of is In, Out, and Ground.. if Dynon can't tune the radio, then In would not be connected.. -------- RV-7A N777TY (res) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112370#112370 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Patrick ONeill" <poneill(at)irealms.com>
Subject: Quickbuild wing and fuse delivery guidance
Date: May 11, 2007
Just to follow up with the results from my original post: QB arrived today via Partain. All the advice to use Partain was very very good advice. 8 calendar days from Van's order receipt for QB wings and fuse, to parts in the driveway. I saved $1100 over the FedEx Freight option and unloading problems or crate issues to deal with after the fact. Fantastic customer service too. Great guys. The carpet sling cradles worked great. Paid close attention to pinning the spars at the fixed cradle end. No problems at all. Now I'm just working out where to safely store items the like canopy and windscreen until needed. That canopy is pretty big. It shouldn't surprise me as I knew the dimensions before hand, but on some of these pieces you have to try to store them to appreciate their size. Thanks to everyone for the suggestions on this! It made the delivery completely painless, cost effective, and without problem. Best Regards, Patrick -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Patrick ONeill Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:07 AM Subject: RV10-List: Quickbuild wing and fuse delivery guidance I ordered RV-10 quickbuild wing and fuselage kits which Vans is ready to crate and ship. They offer shipment via FedEx freight but advise that I will need to arrange for pickup of the crates from the local depot or offloading of the truck myself. Given the size and weight of these crates this is obviously problematic. How have other dealt with delivery of their QB kits? I have never had to deal with deliveries of this nature and so this is new territory for me. I do not have a vehicle capable transporting these crates and I am considering renting a 16 ft flatbed truck and making several trips to the depot so that I can better arrange for help. But as others have been through this already, I wanted to see if anyone has any guidance on this to offer. Thank you in advance for any suggestions. Best Regards, Patrick ONeill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joseph D. Rhodes" <joe(at)constructionfolder.com>
Subject: Lost resources (What happen to Mike Howe's site)
Date: May 12, 2007
I talked to mike a last week he is taking in a partner and his site will be back up soon Joe Rhodes _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hurst Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:13 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Lost resources (What happen to Mike Howe's site) I also would like to know what happened to Mike's site. I have found his photographs/log an invaluable resource. A picture really is worth a thousand words. Especially if you're not sure what the plans are saying. Anyone know what happened? His site is surely missed. ----- Original Message ---- From: Vern W. Smith <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 1:58:55 PM Subject: RV10-List: Lost resources (was: OSH predictions anyone) John, I just found the RV Hotline. Are you saying this is the last issue? It's really to bad if it is because it has some great info and links:( Also does anyone know what happened to Mike Howe's website? http://www.etigerrr.com/RV10HomePage.htm It's been off line for at least a week maybe longer. Vern Smith (#324) -----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: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:25 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: OSH predictions anyone Standing with you at not more than 30 in '07. Did everyone else feel the feeling of loss I ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "The McGough Family" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: dimpling tip ribs
Date: May 12, 2007
Anyone got an idea for dimpling the wing skins where th tips atach aprt from grinding down the No 6 dimple dies?? regards Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2007
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: QB Wing Inspection and Questions (fuel sender installation)
Its not fun. From my archives: I built my own tanks but still had a lot of difficulty getting the sender on one side to go thru its full range of motion without hitting/binding on a stiffener at either the top or bottom. It only happened on one side. I finally determined that the angle that the sender unit was mounted to the attach plate was different that the other unit. No amount of bending would help because anything that I did to make it better on one end of the travel only made it worse on the other. They are assembled using a single large rivet. And appparently the quality control is weak. I was able to 'adjust' the angle with some encouragement from the vise and a pair of channel locks, and the problem disappeared as the 'swing plane' was now correct. Deems Davis # 406 Wings- finishing http://deemsrv10.com/ Larry Rosen wrote: This is how I installed the fuel sender into my quickbuild wings I bend the rod per the plans. I attached safety wire to the rod The safety wire was fished through the bottom drain opening (VA-112) I connected a multimeter to the fuel sender and measured the resistance through the range of the fuel sender using the safety wire to move the float up and down. I would shine a flash light through the finger strainer (VA-141) on the inboard side of the wing and try to look through the drain opening with the safety wire to see where the float was hitting. Then remove the fuel sender, tweak / rebend the rod, re-install and check the range of motion with the multimeter. Do this over and over again until you get the full range from the float :-( Real pain in the a$$. In the end I got resistance reading Right tank: empty 247 ohms, full 29 ohms Left tank: empty 246 ohms, full 33 ohms. There is a picture of the safety wire through the drain opening on my website. Now I need to add the commentary to have it make sense. The photo is here <http://lrosen.nerv10.com/Construct/Log/Wings/FuelLevel/index.html> Larry Rosen http://lrosen.nerv10.com Tim Lewis wrote: > > I ran a piece of string through a couple of holes (in the access > plate, as I recall) allowing me to pull the sender up and down (using > the string). I had the same problem with limited movement. > > I suggested to Vans that the fuel sender be included with the QB wing, > and that the sender arm be bent when the tank is being built. > Otherwise, as you noted, it's difficult (I gave up) to get it adjusted > so it moves freely without binding on stiffeners somewhere. > > Tim Dave Leikam wrote: > How do you adjust the fuel sending floats in the QB tanks? You cannot > access the inside of the tanks to adjust travel of the floats. > > Dave Leikam > 40496 > QB wings > * > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: dimpling tip ribs
From: "egohr1" <EGOHR86(at)alumni.carnegiemellon.edu>
Date: May 12, 2007
Take the time and grind the dies. I carefully ground my set and have been able to use them for the rest of the plane. This will not be the also set if die and sets you will need to modify, the fuselage will have a number of riveting and dimpling spots which require modified tools. -------- eric gohr EGOHR86(at)alumni.carnegiemellon.edu Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112401#112401 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2007
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Upper and Lower Cowl Intersecton
I am laying out my cam loc locations. Would someone tell me where the upper and lower cowl meet at the fuselage? At about 3 1/4" down from the intersection of the upper forward fuselage and the lower fuselage side wall there are two rivets with 5/8" spacing (in lieu of the 1" spacing for the rest of the rivets). I believe the cowls meet between these two rivets. -- Larry Rosen RV-10 #356 http://lrosen.nerv10.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: What's an N-Number Worth?
Date: May 12, 2007
Yes, but did you then look-up the address??? That's the address for NIKE (www.nike.com)! Internet rumor was someone sold them the N-number for a handsome profit. _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:00 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: What's an N-Number Worth? Why??? I looked it up: N-number : N1KE Owner Name : HUM-AIR LLC Owner Address : 1 BOWERMAN DR BEAVERTON, OR, 97005-6453 Type of Owner : Corporation ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dean Van Winkle" <dvanwinkle(at)royell.net>
Subject: Re: What's an N-Number Worth?
Date: May 12, 2007
Getting somewhat off subject here, but wasn't that the same G-V that was on national live TV some months ago with a suspected landing gear problem but eventually landed safely=3F Dean Van Winkle ----- Original Message ----- From: rtitsworth To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:38 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: What's an N-Number Worth=3F Yes, but did you then look-up the address=3F=3F=3F That's the address for NIKE (www.nike.com)! Internet rumor was someone sold them the N-number for a handsome profit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server @matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:00 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: What's an N-Number Worth=3F Why=3F=3F=3F I looked it up: N-number : N1KEOwner Name : HUM-A IR LLCOwner Address : 1 BOWERMAN DR BEAVERTON, OR, 97005-6453Type of Owner : Corpora tion =5F-=========================================================== =5F-= - The RV10-List Email Forum - =5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse =5F-= the many List utilities such as the Subscriptions page, =5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, =5F-= Photoshare, and much much more: =5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator=3FRV10-List =5F-=========================================================== =5F-= - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - =5F-= Same great content now also available via the Web Forums! =5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com =5F-=========================================================== -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com>
Date: May 12, 2007
Subject: Transition Training w/Mike S.
Yesterday I completed transition training with Mike S. and still am reli ving every takeoff, flight, and landing. I know this topic has been ban tered about lately but wanted to send a brief message tonite before I ge t a more detailed one sent later with PICS of the airports we landed at and the fun times we had all week. I can sum up the three days of flyin g with Mike as follows: Vans RV 10 kit and components $50,000 IO-540, seats. avionics, ETC. $75,000 Transition Training with Mike S. "PRICELESS" Enjoying the NW RV10 Dinner, Dean 40449 P.S. T-shirts available at OSH '07
Yesterday I completed transition training with Mike S. and stil l am reliving every takeoff, flight, and landing. I know this topi c has been bantered about lately but wanted to send a brief message toni te before I get a more detailed one sent later with PICS of the airports we landed at and the fun times we had all week. I can sum up the three days of flying with Mike as follows:

      Vans RV 10 kit and components& nbsp;        $50,000

       IO-540, seats. avionics, ETC.             $75,000

       Transition Training with Mike S.       "PRICELESS"

Enjoying the NW RV10 Dinner,

Dean 40449   http://webmail.juno.com/RTE/ HTMLRTAImages/Emoticons/75_75.gif">

P.S. T-shirts available at OSH '07

________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Transition Training w/Mike S.
Date: May 12, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
You do get what you pay for. Mike has a connection with the RV products which is unmatched. No offense taken to the scores of other independents trying to tackle this important aspect of safe flying. I am off to the dinner too. John 40600 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1(at)juno.com Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 3:57 PM Subject: RV10-List: Transition Training w/Mike S. Yesterday I completed transition training with Mike S. and still am reliving every takeoff, flight, and landing. I know this topic has been bantered about lately but wanted to send a brief message tonite before I get a more detailed one sent later with PICS of the airports we landed at and the fun times we had all week. I can sum up the three days of flying with Mike as follows: Vans RV 10 kit and components $50,000 IO-540, seats. avionics, ETC. $75,000 Transition Training with Mike S. "PRICELESS" Enjoying the NW RV10 Dinner, Dean 40449 <http://webmail.juno.com/RTE/HTMLRTAImages/Emoticons/75_75.gif> P.S. T-shirts available at OSH '07 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Visit to the Factory
From: "zackrv8" <zackrv8(at)verizon.net>
Date: May 12, 2007
I just returned from a visit to the factory. Got to see and ride in the factory Ten along with seeing Van and Jerry's Rv10 parked outside. Took some pics. Check out the TUFFS on his wing. Scott Risan gave me a ride in the factory ten. Nice fella. Sweet airplane. Piece of cake to fly (typical RV). Stalls very nice. I did a "balls to the wall" speed run to see how fast it goes with 2 people and half tanks. !85kts at 3000ft verified by the GPS. Pretty cool. Pretty fast. Scott gave me a tour of the factory. Busy place. Van was walking out to go fly home when I cornered him and talked for about an half hour. I can tell you this....Van has no plans for a 6 place RV10! Check out his spartan interior. Zack -------- RV8 #80125 RV10 # 40512 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112492#112492 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc07638_126.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc07639_190.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc07641_775.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc07636_158.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc07635_181.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc07632_134.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc07629_192.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc07624_576.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc07623_128.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2007
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Additional item to check at condition inspection time.
Ray, How much engine sag did you experience? After how many hours? Larry Doerr, Ray R [NTK] wrote: > > I'm in the middle of my rolling condition inspection and one of the things I did for the Firewall Forward was to shim the two top engine mount bolts because initially when I did the cowl, I allowed a little too much (5/16") for engine sag. So I thought that after 245 hours on the plane the engine would have sagged enough to just correct the rest of the spinner alignment by shimming the top engine bolts where the engine mount meets the firewall. Two steel washers measuring 1/8" thick on each side did the trick and the spinner matches the top of the cowl perfectly now. Well with this done, I buttoned up the cowl and went for a test flight. Everything was fine for engine run-up and off I went. At 2000 AGL I leveled off and adjusted throttle and prop to 20 squared. While screwing out the prop, at about 1" out it started to get a lot harder to screw out. I kept going because it wasn't too bad yet, but then all of a sudden the engine went from 2300 rpm to something like 10! > 00 or so. I immediately started to screw the prop back in and headed back to the airport. > On my way back I had a few moments to think about this and figured it was the prop linkage hitting the upper air dam. What had happened is the rod-end was up inside the air dam when the prop is fully in, but once you screw it out about 1", it gets to the point where it was hitting the cutout in the air dam, then as I kept screwing it out, it did nothing to the RPM until it finally popped out on the underside of the air dam and this is when the RPM went from 2300 to something really low all at the same time. Once I was back on the ground, I looked at the rod-end bearing at the governor and sure enough, it was hitting the air dam. Since I shimmed the engine by 1/8", it not only dropped the engine at the spinner, but it also moved the engine forward just enough so the prop linkage was hitting the upper air dam. A stupid thing to overlook on my part. > Anyway, I thought I would share this with everyone so they check the clearance of the prop linkage as it goes up through the air dam at there condition inspection. This is important because as the engine sags in time, the clearance you had at first flight may be different now and you may need to remove a little more of the upper dam to have the proper clearance. > > > Thank You > Ray Doerr > 40250 > N519RV > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa(at)antelecom.net>
Subject: Lycoming 540 engine mounts
Date: May 13, 2007
I found a potential source for the small ear engine mount, Lycoming #70456 equivalent, from A.E.R.O. for about $94 (NON PMA'D EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION). http://www.aeroinstock.com/products/540-ENGINE-BRACKET/6203/47458/product _detail/index.html Kevin 40494 tail/empennage ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Additional item to check at condition inspection time.
Date: May 14, 2007
From: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr(at)sprint.com>
After 250 hours on the plane, it sagged around 1/8" - 3/16". Thank You Ray Doerr 40250 N519RV -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 9:13 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Additional item to check at condition inspection time. Ray, How much engine sag did you experience? After how many hours? Larry Doerr, Ray R [NTK] wrote: > > I'm in the middle of my rolling condition inspection and one of the things I did for the Firewall Forward was to shim the two top engine mount bolts because initially when I did the cowl, I allowed a little too much (5/16") for engine sag. So I thought that after 245 hours on the plane the engine would have sagged enough to just correct the rest of the spinner alignment by shimming the top engine bolts where the engine mount meets the firewall. Two steel washers measuring 1/8" thick on each side did the trick and the spinner matches the top of the cowl perfectly now. Well with this done, I buttoned up the cowl and went for a test flight. Everything was fine for engine run-up and off I went. At 2000 AGL I leveled off and adjusted throttle and prop to 20 squared. While screwing out the prop, at about 1" out it started to get a lot harder to screw out. I kept going because it wasn't too bad yet, but then all of a sudden the engine went from 2300 rpm to something like ! 10! > 00 or so. I immediately started to screw the prop back in and headed back to the airport. > On my way back I had a few moments to think about this and figured it was the prop linkage hitting the upper air dam. What had happened is the rod-end was up inside the air dam when the prop is fully in, but once you screw it out about 1", it gets to the point where it was hitting the cutout in the air dam, then as I kept screwing it out, it did nothing to the RPM until it finally popped out on the underside of the air dam and this is when the RPM went from 2300 to something really low all at the same time. Once I was back on the ground, I looked at the rod-end bearing at the governor and sure enough, it was hitting the air dam. Since I shimmed the engine by 1/8", it not only dropped the engine at the spinner, but it also moved the engine forward just enough so the prop linkage was hitting the upper air dam. A stupid thing to overlook on my part. > Anyway, I thought I would share this with everyone so they check the clearance of the prop linkage as it goes up through the air dam at there condition inspection. This is important because as the engine sags in time, the clearance you had at first flight may be different now and you may need to remove a little more of the upper dam to have the proper clearance. > > > Thank You > Ray Doerr > 40250 > N519RV > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: N-numbers
Date: May 14, 2007
From: <tdawson-townsend(at)aurora.aero>
Of course, you could be a lot more creative if the US was like a lot of other countries and used all letters instead of numbers. For example: G-SPIT (British-registered Spitfire) G-FAST (some sort of jet) And a favorite I remember seeing G-NADS Try to get the FAA to go along with that one! Notice that the airlines do buy up blocks of numbers so they can have N-numbers like: N987AA (American Airlines) N342NW (Northwest) N404PA (Pan Am, rip) TDT 40025 Tim Dawson-Townsend tdt(at)aurora.aero 617-401-2522 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: NIKE G5
Date: May 14, 2007
They didn't roll the plane, they shut down the left engine to depressurize the Combined hydraulic system, so they could re-sequence the gear, that had jammed. No aerobatics required. The Gulfstream tecks talked them thru the event. I'm really surprised that the media got it wrong! Chris Hukill finishing up RV8 re-panel then back to work on the 10 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Comm antenna placement
Date: May 14, 2007
From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com>
Hi All, I'm to the point of wanting to install antenna doublers in my airframe. The two options are placing one comm antenna under the rear seat and one on top of the tail cone behind the fiberglass top. Or two comm antennas under the rear seat. My aesthetic preference is for the two belly mounts. However, have those running with just belly mounted comm antennas had any problems with radio communication when talking to ground control, ATC or anyone else for that matter? In searching the archives I've found some discussion but not an answer to this question. Thanks, Vern Smith (#324 tail cone on:) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 14, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: dimpling tip ribs
Nope, That's what I did. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ The McGough Family wrote: > Anyone got an idea for dimpling the wing skins where th tips atach > aprt from grinding down the No 6 dimple dies?? > > regards Chris > * > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lost resources (What happen to Mike Howe's site)
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: May 14, 2007
The RV Hotline is continuing. (See Saturday's issue for the latest). And thanks. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112821#112821 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lost resources (was: OSH predictions anyone)
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: May 14, 2007
Sorry for the duplicates, email folks. I'm posting via the Web. If you saw Saturday's issue, you know that the Hotline is continuing under the firm hand of Rob Riggen. I'll be writing occasionally and have already inundated him with links and interesting stuff I've found regarding RVs of all stripes. That's the best thing folks can do. Doesn't matter where it comes from, but if you find it interesting, send it along. Rob (and I) can be reached at the all-purpose rvhotline(at)expercraft.com. BTW, don't forget to sign up for the BBQ at Osh. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112822#112822 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds(at)macs.net>
Subject: Big Bend State Park - Texas
Date: May 14, 2007
Any recommendations on flying to the Big Bend Area? 1E2 Terlingua Ranch (how big is the "gravel"?) 3TE3 Big Bend State Ranch Richard Reynolds (born in Texas but must live in Virginia because my wife says so) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Max Hegler" <MaxHegler(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Lost resources (What happen to Mike Howe's site)
Date: May 14, 2007
Bob, I took a look at your site and added it to my favorites. Thanks, Max RV-7A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 6:12 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Lost resources (What happen to Mike Howe's site) > > The RV Hotline is continuing. (See Saturday's issue for the latest). And > thanks. > > -------- > Bob Collins > St. Paul, Minn. > RV Builder's Hotline (free!) > http://rvhotline.expercraft.com > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112821#112821 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: First flight fuel load
Date: May 15, 2007
I'm at the stage where I should be leaving terra firma before to long and in Vans first flight write up they indicate not to take a full tank of fuel on the first flight. Is that what you flying people did? I guess I can see some logic in that but I will be filling the tank to calibrate my fuel level in my engine monitoring system and would then need to off load the extra fuel. I'm wavering back and forth on whether this is really necessary or not. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Wayne Edgerton # 40336 getting close ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)cox.net>
Subject: First flight fuel load
Date: May 15, 2007
Half tanks reduce weight, but still more than enough fuel for first flight even if you have a problem shifting tanks. For tank calibration, you do one side at a time. Fill the first tank one gallon at a time and record the level indication. Do this until the tank is full. Now is the time to do the fuel flow test. Disconnect the fuel line at the carb/throttle body and direct the fuel into the 5 gal gas cans. Put a cheap auto filter in line with the hose to the 5 gal can to filter out any junk that may be there. If not already done, you should bypass the airplane fuel filter/gascolator the first couple of times so that you flush the tank junk into the temporary auto filter. Using this process you verify you have adequate fuel flow for flight, and you now know the unusable fuel left in the tank (since you know how much you put in, and measured how much you pump out). Repeat the process on the other tank. When done, split the fuel between both tanks. Carl Froehlich RV-8A (325 hrs) RV-10 (wings) -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:54 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: First flight fuel load I'm at the stage where I should be leaving terra firma before to long and in Vans first flight write up they indicate not to take a full tank of fuel on the first flight. Is that what you flying people did? I guess I can see some logic in that but I will be filling the tank to calibrate my fuel level in my engine monitoring system and would then need to off load the extra fuel. I'm wavering back and forth on whether this is really necessary or not. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Wayne Edgerton # 40336 getting close ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 15, 2007
From: "Kent Ogden" <OgdenK(at)upstate.edu>
Subject: Strobe on vertical stab
Hi all,I am a new builder, and am making progress on the vertical stab. Just wonderingwhat people are doing for strobes on their RV-10's. I am used to having a strobeon the tail of the Warrior I fly, but some of the 10's I've seen pictures of don'thave one there, and I'm pretty sure most are being built to be IFR capable.I just figured it would be easier to run wiring before final assembly of the VS.Thanks for any info, or links to pictures to see what others have done. Kent Ogden (in sunny Syracuse NY)#40710 (N710RX reserved) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Strobe on vertical stab
Date: May 15, 2007
The typical location on RV=92s is a combination light/strobe at the bottom of the rudder. Albert Gardner Yuma, AZ 40-422 N991RV Reserved -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kent Ogden Hi all, I am a new builder, and am making progress on the vertical stab. Just wondering what people are doing for strobes on their RV-10's. I am used to having a strobe on the tail of the Warrior I fly, but some of the 10's I've seen pictures of don't have one there, and I'm pretty sure most are being built to be IFR capable. I just figured it would be easier to run wiring before final assembly of the VS. Thanks for any info, or links to pictures to see what others have done. Kent Ogden (in sunny Syracuse NY) #40710 (N710RX reserved) =B7~=89=B2,=03g'=D3=D3 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: First flight fuel load
Date: May 15, 2007
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
I filled it up before my first flight because it was easier to calibrate the fuel when the tanks are empty. I was going off of a long strip, KUAO and came in at 75 kts and let the speed bleed off. No issues. I did have 100 lbs in the baggage compartment to help minimize the forward CG and that worked perfect. I would pull 25lbs at a time out until after about 10 hours I had 25 lbs in there. Randy 40006 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:54 AM Subject: RV10-List: First flight fuel load I'm at the stage where I should be leaving terra firma before to long and in Vans first flight write up they indicate not to take a full tank of fuel on the first flight. Is that what you flying people did? I guess I can see some logic in that but I will be filling the tank to calibrate my fuel level in my engine monitoring system and would then need to off load the extra fuel. I'm wavering back and forth on whether this is really necessary or not. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Wayne Edgerton # 40336 getting close ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 15, 2007
From: Bill DeRouchey <billderou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: First flight fuel load
Before my first flight I needed a weight and balance, needed to calibrate the fuel tanks, and needed to run taxi tests. All of these require fuel to be accurate. More or less fuel will not affect takeoff performance with one soul on board. Put some weight in the baggage compartment (50 lb) but tie it down since your aft baggage panel may not be installed. Make sure when you push the nose down trim button the elevator tab moves up. Set the elevator tab to 3/8" below the elevator trailing edge for takeoff. Assume on liftoff that the elevator trim may be too sensitive so let it climb a bit until you "test" the elevator trim. Also expect the standard Vans throttle control will back out unless it is locked. I'll guarantee quite a rush. Enjoy. Life doesn't get any better! Bill DeRouchey WTD Aviation Technology N939SB, post rush bill(at)wtdaviationtechnology.com Randy DeBauw wrote: v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } I filled it up before my first flight because it was easier to calibrate the fuel when the tanks are empty. I was going off of a long strip, KUAO and came in at 75 kts and let the speed bleed off. No issues. I did have 100 lbs in the baggage compartment to help minimize the forward CG and that worked perfect. I would pull 25lbs at a time out until after about 10 hours I had 25 lbs in there. Randy 40006 --------------------------------- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:54 AM Subject: RV10-List: First flight fuel load I'm at the stage where I should be leaving terra firma before to long and in Vans first flight write up they indicate not to take a full tank of fuel on the first flight. Is that what you flying people did? I guess I can see some logic in that but I will be filling the tank to calibrate my fuel level in my engine monitoring system and would then need to off load the extra fuel. I'm wavering back and forth on whether this is really necessary or not. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Wayne Edgerton # 40336 getting close http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 15, 2007
From: Dan Benua <danbenua(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Comm antenna placement
Hi All, My RV-6A has one Com antenna on top and one on the bottom. There have been several times when I was on the ground and could not contact an off-field RCO or clearance delivery using the bottom antenna. Switching to the top antenna solved the problem. Of course the antenna position is not the only variable. The two antennas are of different models and connect to radios from different manufacturers. Your mileage may vary, but on my -10 I'm putting one up and one down. - Dan Benua #40001 "Finishing" > I'm to the point of wanting to install antenna doublers in my airframe. > The two options are placing one comm antenna under the rear seat and one > on top of the tail cone behind the fiberglass top. Or two comm antennas > under the rear seat. My aesthetic preference is for the two belly > mounts. However, have those running with just belly mounted comm > antennas had any problems with radio communication when talking to > ground control, ATC or anyone else for that matter? In searching the > archives I've found some discussion but not an answer to this question. > > > Vern Smith (#324 tail cone on:) Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kevin Belue" <kdbelue(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: First flight fuel load
Date: May 15, 2007
I'm not certain what was meant by: "Put some weight in the baggage compartment (50 lb) but tie it down since your aft baggage panel may not be installed." so I thought I should mention that on the 2 place planes, Van's says not to fly without the baggage panel installed because it is required to make the plane airworthy. I haven't seen anything about this on the RV-10, but would suspect that it is required also. No flame intended, just want to be safe. Kevin Belue RV-6A >700 hrs RV-10 finish kit ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill DeRouchey To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:07 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: First flight fuel load Before my first flight I needed a weight and balance, needed to calibrate the fuel tanks, and needed to run taxi tests. All of these require fuel to be accurate. More or less fuel will not affect takeoff performance with one soul on board. Put some weight in the baggage compartment (50 lb) but tie it down since your aft baggage panel may not be installed. Make sure when you push the nose down trim button the elevator tab moves up. Set the elevator tab to 3/8" below the elevator trailing edge for takeoff. Assume on liftoff that the elevator trim may be too sensitive so let it climb a bit until you "test" the elevator trim. Also expect the standard Vans throttle control will back out unless it is locked. I'll guarantee quite a rush. Enjoy. Life doesn't get any better! Bill DeRouchey WTD Aviation Technology N939SB, post rush bill(at)wtdaviationtechnology.com Randy DeBauw wrote: I filled it up before my first flight because it was easier to calibrate the fuel when the tanks are empty. I was going off of a long strip, KUAO and came in at 75 kts and let the speed bleed off. No issues. I did have 100 lbs in the baggage compartment to help minimize the forward CG and that worked perfect. I would pull 25lbs at a time out until after about 10 hours I had 25 lbs in there. Randy 40006 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:54 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: First flight fuel load I'm at the stage where I should be leaving terra firma before to long and in Vans first flight write up they indicate not to take a full tank of fuel on the first flight. Is that what you flying people did? I guess I can see some logic in that but I will be filling the tank to calibrate my fuel level in my engine monitoring system and would then need to off load the extra fuel. I'm wavering back and forth on whether this is really necessary or not. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Wayne Edgerton # 40336 getting close ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 15, 2007
From: "bruce breckenridge" <bbreckenridge(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Off Subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUzjLxqHy5g Just watched the above stunt plane video. I can't believe the pilot was able to continue his routine! Bruce 40018 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GenGrumpy(at)aol.com
Date: May 15, 2007
Subject: fuel selector indicator
Anyone found a good source for a nice fuel tank selector indicator for the top of the tunnel? I got the Van's standard 4 position valve and now putting in Abby's interior, so need a nice position selector to sit on top of her nicely done carpet..... Grumpy 40404 flying with IFR certification complete! ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Comm antenna placement
Date: May 15, 2007
Vern, I took a little different route. I put a bent whip antenna just aft of the baggage compartment, and a $7 copper foil antenna on the roof. I figured I wasn't out a thing to try it and it works great. It also alleviated my concern of shadowing the antenna to tower while on the ground, although I haven't had any issues with my belly mounted antenna which I use with the primary radio. Marcus _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:37 AM Subject: RV10-List: Comm antenna placement Hi All, I'm to the point of wanting to install antenna doublers in my airframe. The two options are placing one comm antenna under the rear seat and one on top of the tail cone behind the fiberglass top. Or two comm antennas under the rear seat. My aesthetic preference is for the two belly mounts. However, have those running with just belly mounted comm antennas had any problems with radio communication when talking to ground control, ATC or anyone else for that matter? In searching the archives I've found some discussion but not an answer to this question. Thanks, Vern Smith (#324 tail cone on:) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Leikam" <DAVELEIKAM(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: Eggenfellner delivered.
Date: May 15, 2007
Congrads on picking up your engine! I know there are many of us waiting to see your success. Was that a paid interview on Eggenfellners site? Dave Leikam 40496 QB Wings and stuff. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Leikam" <DAVELEIKAM(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: QB wing Flap gap fairing
Date: May 15, 2007
To those with QB wings, how did you rivet the flap gap fairing (W-1021 I think) to the rear spar behind the bottom aft inboard skin? I can reach a few rivets on the ends with a bucking bar but that's it. Blind rivets OK here? Dave Leikam 40496 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: QB wing Flap gap fairing
Date: May 15, 2007
Dave: It is very hard to buck the rivets for the flap fairing but with skinny arms, several flashlights, and three people (pounder, bucker, lighter) it can be done. You have to use the wing access holes and the various wing spar lighting holes. However, other than cosmetics I can see no reason not to use pop rivets. Jay Rowe 40301 ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Leikam To: matronics Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:31 AM Subject: RV10-List: QB wing Flap gap fairing To those with QB wings, how did you rivet the flap gap fairing (W-1021 I think) to the rear spar behind the bottom aft inboard skin? I can reach a few rivets on the ends with a bucking bar but that's it. Blind rivets OK here? Dave Leikam 40496 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 5/14/2007 4:46 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "The McGough Family" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: QB wing Flap gap fairing
Date: May 16, 2007
2 people with arm through the lightening holes. Painful but can be done. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Leikam To: matronics Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:31 PM Subject: RV10-List: QB wing Flap gap fairing To those with QB wings, how did you rivet the flap gap fairing (W-1021 I think) to the rear spar behind the bottom aft inboard skin? I can reach a few rivets on the ends with a bucking bar but that's it. Blind rivets OK here? Dave Leikam 40496 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2007
From: Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net>
Subject: Re: Comm antenna placement
Where can I find information on the foil antenna? Thanks, Sam Marlow Marcus Cooper wrote: > > Vern, > > I took a little different route. I put a bent whip antenna just aft of > the baggage compartment, and a $7 copper foil antenna on the roof. I > figured I wasnt out a thing to try it and it works great. It also > alleviated my concern of shadowing the antenna to tower while on the > ground, although I havent had any issues with my belly mounted > antenna which I use with the primary radio. > > Marcus > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Vern W. Smith > *Sent:* Monday, May 14, 2007 10:37 AM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RV10-List: Comm antenna placement > > Hi All, > > Im to the point of wanting to install antenna doublers in my > airframe. The two options are placing one comm antenna under the rear > seat and one on top of the tail cone behind the fiberglass top. Or two > comm antennas under the rear seat. My aesthetic preference is for the > two belly mounts. However, have those running with just belly mounted > comm antennas had any problems with radio communication when talking > to ground control, ATC or anyone else for that matter? In searching > the archives Ive found some discussion but not an answer to this > question. > > Thanks, > > Vern Smith (#324 tail cone on:) > > * * > * * > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > * * > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JSMcGrew(at)aol.com
Date: May 16, 2007
Subject: Re: Comm antenna placement
There's a post at _http://forum.matronics.com_ (http://forum.matronics.com) in the RV-10 list titled Low Drag VHF Antenna regarding the foil antenna I installed just aft of the passenger side door. _http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=6664_ (http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=6664) -Jim 40134 (http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.phpt=6664&highlight=jsmcgrew&sid =e98a17dca7e4dd298739c55713db731d) In a message dated 5/16/2007 2:14:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sam(at)fr8dog.net writes: --> RV10-List message posted by: Sam Marlow Where can I find information on the foil antenna? Thanks, Sam Marlow Marcus Cooper wrote: > > Vern, > > I took a little different route. I put a bent whip antenna just aft of > the baggage compartment, and a $7 copper foil antenna on the roof. I > figured I wasn=99t out a thing to try it and it works great. It als o > alleviated my concern of shadowing the antenna to tower while on the > ground, although I haven=99t had any issues with my belly mounted > antenna which I use with the primary radio. > > Marcus > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Vern W. Smi th > *Sent:* Monday, May 14, 2007 10:37 AM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RV10-List: Comm antenna placement > > Hi All, > > I=99m to the point of wanting to install antenna doublers in my > airframe. The two options are placing one comm antenna under the rear > seat and one on top of the tail cone behind the fiberglass top. Or two > comm antennas under the rear seat. My aesthetic preference is for the > two belly mounts. However, have those running with just belly mounted > comm antennas had any problems with radio communication when talking > to ground control, ATC or anyone else for that matter? In searching > the archives I=99ve found some discussion but not an answer to this > question. > > Thanks, > > Vern Smith (#324 tail cone on:) Jim "Scooter" McGrew _http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)suddenlink.net>
Subject: Re: First flight fuel load
Date: May 16, 2007
I only put 10 gallons in each tank for the first flight. After that I filed the right tank full and during flight testing at altitude ran the left tank empty and then calibrated the left tank to calibrate. The logic behind minimum fuel on the first flight is if there is a forced landing on the first flight you really don't want to have full gas tanks. Russ Daves N710RV - first flight 7/28/06 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Re: First flight fuel load
Date: May 16, 2007
I've heard the same thing that the baggage panel is a structural item and should always be on for flight? Wayne Edgerton #40336 From: "Kevin Belue" <kdbelue(at)charter.net> Subject: Re: First flight fuel load I'm not certain what was meant by: "Put some weight in the baggage compartment (50 lb) but tie it down since your aft baggage panel may not be installed." so I thought I should mention that on the 2 place planes, Van's says not to fly without the baggage panel installed because it is required to make the plane airworthy. I haven't seen anything about this on the RV-10, but would suspect that it is required also. No flame intended, just want to be safe. Kevin Belue RV-6A >700 hrs RV-10 finish kit ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
Date: May 16, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
No, it was not paid, as a matter of fact it was at the end of a long day, and I thought he was taking pics as we were getting ready to put it in the van, but then he kept asking questions and I realized he was recording it. I got the engine home late last night and will mount it this afternoon and be ready to run it in a matter of hours. I have helped several people install engines, baffling etc, and comparing this install to those is night and day. Basically there are 6 bolts, a fuel feed and return and several electrical hookups and the engine is ready to run. The 4 bladed prop is sweet, no ifs, ands or butts! So at least it will look real cool on the ground! Dan N289DT Sleeping on the trailer with me new Egg! _____ From: Dave Leikam [mailto:DAVELEIKAM(at)WI.RR.COM] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:12 AM Subject: Eggenfellner delivered. Congrads on picking up your engine! I know there are many of us waiting to see your success. Was that a paid interview on Eggenfellners site? Dave Leikam 40496 QB Wings and stuff. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
Date: May 16, 2007
Dan, I have a MT three blade prop and its a challenge to get the lower cowl off and not ding the prop with the piano hinge or scrap the the front gear leg fairing. Any issues with the four blade prop and removing the cowl? Mark N410MR >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: "Dave Leikam" , "matronics" > >Subject: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. >Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:07:54 -0400 > >No, it was not paid, as a matter of fact it was at the end of a long >day, and I thought he was taking pics as we were getting ready to put it >in the van, but then he kept asking questions and I realized he was >recording it. I got the engine home late last night and will mount it >this afternoon and be ready to run it in a matter of hours. I have >helped several people install engines, baffling etc, and comparing this >install to those is night and day. Basically there are 6 bolts, a fuel >feed and return and several electrical hookups and the engine is ready >to run. The 4 bladed prop is sweet, no ifs, ands or butts! So at least >it will look real cool on the ground! >Dan >N289DT Sleeping on the trailer with me new Egg! > > _____ > >From: Dave Leikam [mailto:DAVELEIKAM(at)WI.RR.COM] >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:12 AM >To: matronics; Lloyd, Daniel R. >Subject: Eggenfellner delivered. > > >Congrads on picking up your engine! I know there are many of us waiting >to see your success. Was that a paid interview on Eggenfellners site? > >Dave Leikam >40496 >QB Wings and stuff. _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows Live Hotmail. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Comm antenna placement
Date: May 16, 2007
I got the foil antenna from Van's. The part number info is Comm Antenna Part Number = AV ANTENNA, W'SCREEN Price = $7.00 Here's a direct link: http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1179326096-54-723&brow se=avionics&product=lowdrag-antennas Hope this helps, Marcus -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Marlow Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:11 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm antenna placement Where can I find information on the foil antenna? Thanks, Sam Marlow Marcus Cooper wrote: > > Vern, > > I took a little different route. I put a bent whip antenna just aft of > the baggage compartment, and a $7 copper foil antenna on the roof. I > figured I wasn't out a thing to try it and it works great. It also > alleviated my concern of shadowing the antenna to tower while on the > ground, although I haven't had any issues with my belly mounted > antenna which I use with the primary radio. > > Marcus > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Vern W. Smith > *Sent:* Monday, May 14, 2007 10:37 AM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RV10-List: Comm antenna placement > > Hi All, > > I'm to the point of wanting to install antenna doublers in my > airframe. The two options are placing one comm antenna under the rear > seat and one on top of the tail cone behind the fiberglass top. Or two > comm antennas under the rear seat. My aesthetic preference is for the > two belly mounts. However, have those running with just belly mounted > comm antennas had any problems with radio communication when talking > to ground control, ATC or anyone else for that matter? In searching > the archives I've found some discussion but not an answer to this > question. > > Thanks, > > Vern Smith (#324 tail cone on:) > > * * > * * > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > * * > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2007
From: Dave Lammers <davelammers(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: QB wing Flap gap fairing
Dave, This is a relatively easy, painless, fast, solo job if you devise some sort of extension to a bucking bar. I used the mushroom shaped, hand-held, backrivet bucking bar. (about two inch diameter at the face with a handle about 4 inches long). I inserted this into an appropriate length of scrap 1.5 in. diameter tubing for the extension. Worked great. Too bad I hadn't thought about it before I resorted to pop rivets on the first wing. Dave Lammers starting canopy top (uck--fiberglass) Dave Leikam wrote: > To those with QB wings, how did you rivet the flap gap fairing (W-1021 > I think) to the rear spar behind the bottom aft inboard skin? I can > reach a few rivets on the ends with a bucking bar but that's it. > Blind rivets OK here? > > Dave Leikam > 40496 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Text inserted by Panda Platinum 2005 Internet Security: > > This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited > mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam! > <http://127.0.0.1:6083/Panda?ID=pav_47186&SPAM=true> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
Date: May 16, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
I will have to let you know on this, since one has not been done yet for the 10. I will have the engine mounted and ready to run tonight, then I will have to fit the cowl before the fuse goes to paint next week. As soon as I get the cowl fit I will let you know how this will work out. The 4 blade looks awesome though. Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:26 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. Dan, I have a MT three blade prop and its a challenge to get the lower cowl off and not ding the prop with the piano hinge or scrap the the front gear leg fairing. Any issues with the four blade prop and removing the cowl? Mark N410MR >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: "Dave Leikam" , "matronics" > >Subject: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. >Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:07:54 -0400 > >No, it was not paid, as a matter of fact it was at the end of a long >day, and I thought he was taking pics as we were getting ready to put it >in the van, but then he kept asking questions and I realized he was >recording it. I got the engine home late last night and will mount it >this afternoon and be ready to run it in a matter of hours. I have >helped several people install engines, baffling etc, and comparing this >install to those is night and day. Basically there are 6 bolts, a fuel >feed and return and several electrical hookups and the engine is ready >to run. The 4 bladed prop is sweet, no ifs, ands or butts! So at least >it will look real cool on the ground! >Dan >N289DT Sleeping on the trailer with me new Egg! > > _____ > >From: Dave Leikam [mailto:DAVELEIKAM(at)WI.RR.COM] >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:12 AM >To: matronics; Lloyd, Daniel R. >Subject: Eggenfellner delivered. > > >Congrads on picking up your engine! I know there are many of us waiting >to see your success. Was that a paid interview on Eggenfellners site? > >Dave Leikam >40496 >QB Wings and stuff. _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail-award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2007
From: <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: QB wing Flap gap fairing
I used several blind rivets in this area, bucked all I could though. Sam Marlow ---- Dave Lammers wrote: > Dave, > > This is a relatively easy, painless, fast, solo job if you devise some > sort of extension to a bucking bar. > I used the mushroom shaped, hand-held, backrivet bucking bar. (about two > inch diameter at the face with a handle about 4 inches long). > I inserted this into an appropriate length of scrap 1.5 in. diameter > tubing for the extension. > Worked great. Too bad I hadn't thought about it before I resorted to > pop rivets on the first wing. > > Dave Lammers > starting canopy top > (uck--fiberglass) > > > > Dave Leikam wrote: > > > To those with QB wings, how did you rivet the flap gap fairing (W-1021 > > I think) to the rear spar behind the bottom aft inboard skin? I can > > reach a few rivets on the ends with a bucking bar but that's it. > > Blind rivets OK here? > > > > Dave Leikam > > 40496 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Text inserted by Panda Platinum 2005 Internet Security: > > > > This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited > > mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam! > > <http://127.0.0.1:6083/Panda?ID=pav_47186&SPAM=true> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
Date: May 16, 2007
The MT three blade is sexy. A four blade will be 25% more than sexy. Send pictures and hope all goes well. Talked to Bill Gipson from Conroe, TX this weekend in Brenham (home of Blue Bell Ice Cream) and he is anxiously waiting on his Egg engine to mount in his RV-10. He should be happy to hear they are shipping. Mark N410MR >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. >Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:00:55 -0400 > > >I will have to let you know on this, since one has not been done yet for >the 10. I will have the engine mounted and ready to run tonight, then I >will have to fit the cowl before the fuse goes to paint next week. As >soon as I get the cowl fit I will let you know how this will work out. >The 4 blade looks awesome though. >Dan > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:26 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. > > >Dan, > >I have a MT three blade prop and its a challenge to get the lower cowl >off >and not ding the prop with the piano hinge or scrap the the front gear >leg >fairing. Any issues with the four blade prop and removing the cowl? > >Mark >N410MR > > > >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> > >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > >To: "Dave Leikam" , "matronics" > > > >Subject: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. > >Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:07:54 -0400 > > > >No, it was not paid, as a matter of fact it was at the end of a long > >day, and I thought he was taking pics as we were getting ready to put >it > >in the van, but then he kept asking questions and I realized he was > >recording it. I got the engine home late last night and will mount it > >this afternoon and be ready to run it in a matter of hours. I have > >helped several people install engines, baffling etc, and comparing this > >install to those is night and day. Basically there are 6 bolts, a fuel > >feed and return and several electrical hookups and the engine is ready > >to run. The 4 bladed prop is sweet, no ifs, ands or butts! So at least > >it will look real cool on the ground! > >Dan > >N289DT Sleeping on the trailer with me new Egg! > > > > _____ > > > >From: Dave Leikam [mailto:DAVELEIKAM(at)WI.RR.COM] > >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:12 AM > >To: matronics; Lloyd, Daniel R. > >Subject: Eggenfellner delivered. > > > > > >Congrads on picking up your engine! I know there are many of us >waiting > >to see your success. Was that a paid interview on Eggenfellners site? > > > >Dave Leikam > >40496 > >QB Wings and stuff. > >_________________________________________________________________ >PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail-award-winning >Windows >Live Hotmail. > > _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows Live Hotmail. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Date: May 16, 2007
Subject: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
And just to point out, one of the things I criticized Egg for when he offered the package in the first place was that he seemed to have a history of delivering a year beyond his promised dates. This was based on reports from several of his buyers. I got the usual anti-anything-but-Lycoming rhetoric. Dan, when was it when you ordered again? :-) In all fairness, many of the other things I criticized like HP, re-drive, and supercharger have also all been changed to realistic numbers/solutions. In my research it is those changes, and the subsequent re-engineering on the fly, that tend to drag out his deliveries. Just something to keep in mind when planning guys. Nomex suit engaged. Heh Michael Sausen -10 #352 Limbo -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:59 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. The MT three blade is sexy. A four blade will be 25% more than sexy. Send pictures and hope all goes well. Talked to Bill Gipson from Conroe, TX this weekend in Brenham (home of Blue Bell Ice Cream) and he is anxiously waiting on his Egg engine to mount in his RV-10. He should be happy to hear they are shipping. Mark N410MR >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. >Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:00:55 -0400 > > >I will have to let you know on this, since one has not been done yet for >the 10. I will have the engine mounted and ready to run tonight, then I >will have to fit the cowl before the fuse goes to paint next week. As >soon as I get the cowl fit I will let you know how this will work out. >The 4 blade looks awesome though. >Dan > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:26 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. > > >Dan, > >I have a MT three blade prop and its a challenge to get the lower cowl >off >and not ding the prop with the piano hinge or scrap the the front gear >leg >fairing. Any issues with the four blade prop and removing the cowl? > >Mark >N410MR > > > >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> > >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > >To: "Dave Leikam" , "matronics" > > > >Subject: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. > >Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:07:54 -0400 > > > >No, it was not paid, as a matter of fact it was at the end of a long > >day, and I thought he was taking pics as we were getting ready to put >it > >in the van, but then he kept asking questions and I realized he was > >recording it. I got the engine home late last night and will mount it > >this afternoon and be ready to run it in a matter of hours. I have > >helped several people install engines, baffling etc, and comparing this > >install to those is night and day. Basically there are 6 bolts, a fuel > >feed and return and several electrical hookups and the engine is ready > >to run. The 4 bladed prop is sweet, no ifs, ands or butts! So at least > >it will look real cool on the ground! > >Dan > >N289DT Sleeping on the trailer with me new Egg! > > > > _____ > > > >From: Dave Leikam [mailto:DAVELEIKAM(at)WI.RR.COM] > >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:12 AM > >To: matronics; Lloyd, Daniel R. > >Subject: Eggenfellner delivered. > > > > > >Congrads on picking up your engine! I know there are many of us >waiting > >to see your success. Was that a paid interview on Eggenfellners site? > > > >Dave Leikam > >40496 > >QB Wings and stuff. > >_________________________________________________________________ >PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail-award-winning >Windows >Live Hotmail. > > _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail-award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Date: May 16, 2007
Subject: Re: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
What does the 4 blade weight and what effect does it have on the aircraft's CG since it seems that the 10 is slightly forward CG to begin with? I would have thought that a 4 blade would probably increase climb, smoothness but slow down your cruise speed and add the weight of the additional blade...I'd guess the 4 blades are shorter than a 2 or 3 blade set up but suspect the total weight with hardware etc would be higher? Correct or incorrect? Patrick ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
Date: May 16, 2007
Patrick, If they are composite/wood like the MT three blade prop they may be lighter than the two blade Hartzell. The MT is 20# lighter than the Hartzell two blade. Mark N410MR >From: GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. >Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 18:46:22 EDT > >What does the 4 blade weight and what effect does it have on the aircraft's >CG since it seems that the 10 is slightly forward CG to begin with? I >would >have thought that a 4 blade would probably increase climb, smoothness but >slow >down your cruise speed and add the weight of the additional blade...I'd >guess >the 4 blades are shorter than a 2 or 3 blade set up but suspect the total >weight with hardware etc would be higher? Correct or incorrect? > >Patrick > > >************************************** See what's free at >http://www.aol.com. _________________________________________________________________ Catch suspicious messages before you open themwith Windows Live Hotmail. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 16, 2007
I saw on a weight and balance list at www.rvproject.com/wab/ that there is some differences on selecting a max gross weight. Vans recommends 2700, but used 2758 on their 10, but on this list there's a 2850 and a 2900. How does one come up with the conclusion or decision to increase the gross weight over Vans recommended? My empty weight came in somewhat higher than the others at 1749 but I've put a ton of stuff in the panel and many extra items including a full leather interior, four place O2, overhead console, etc. It is what it is. Obviously it would be nice to have a higher gross weight but I'm not sure how one justifies going beyond the recommended gross weight. Anyone have any great insight into this? I did a archive search but didn't seem to find much. Wayne Edgerton #40336 sent my papers off to the DAR so I'm hopefully getting close ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 16, 2007
I just realized I spoke in error. What I thought was Vans airplane weight wasn't but actually just an average for the RV10. Sorry about that Van :>} I thought that was somewhat odd that they would have a weight higher than they recommended. Just not paying attention well enough. ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Edgerton Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:37 PM Subject: Establishing gross weight I saw on a weight and balance list at www.rvproject.com/wab/ that there is some differences on selecting a max gross weight. Vans recommends 2700, but used 2758 on their 10, but on this list there's a 2850 and a 2900. How does one come up with the conclusion or decision to increase the gross weight over Vans recommended? My empty weight came in somewhat higher than the others at 1749 but I've put a ton of stuff in the panel and many extra items including a full leather interior, four place O2, overhead console, etc. It is what it is. Obviously it would be nice to have a higher gross weight but I'm not sure how one justifies going beyond the recommended gross weight. Anyone have any great insight into this? I did a archive search but didn't seem to find much. Wayne Edgerton #40336 sent my papers off to the DAR so I'm hopefully getting close ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Door Hardware - you'll want these!
I just installed some hardware for the doors that I think many of you will be interested in. http://deemsrv10.com/45-20.htm Background : One of the listers (Joe /Zack C. ) designed some hardware for his doors after sitting in another RV-10 and experiencing 1st hand the issues in closing and insuring the latching of the doors & pins (particularly the rear pins). Joe/Zack is fortunate in that his family has available engineering and CNC machining skills. He got his brother to fabricate a set of this hardware for him, and I got wind of it (I think through this list). Joe/Zack is Dave Czachowrowski's Uncle. Dave is the owner/proprietor of Full Throttle concepts aka RIvethead, that many of us have got CNC parts from. I contacted Dave and asked him if he'd make a set of the door hardware for me, and he agreed to. (time available basis). The hardware replaces the UGLY Delrin blocks that attach to the Cabin Door frame. IMHO these are one of the 3-4 truly UGLY features of the RV-10. >:o Here's some pics of the hardware as it arrived from Dave : http://deemsrv10.com/album/CNC%20Parts/slides/DSC04757.html I've installed some modified door latch hardware and so the installation required some modifications to work for me, I doubt any would be necessary for a standard door latch install. Here's how they look installed: http://deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2045%20Cabin%20Doors%20and%20Transparancies/slides/DSC04754.html http://deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2045%20Cabin%20Doors%20and%20Transparancies/slides/DSC04755.html I have NO $ interest in this or in Rivethead, I'm just another -10 builder that appreciates the genius and work of others. THANKS Joe/Zack and Dave !!!!!!!! I think it is a Great product that looks good and provides a more secure and safer latching situation. I told Dave I thought these were outstanding and that I would post my impressions after I got them installed. so now you have it. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ PS Dave doesn't have these on his Rivethead web site yet. PPS If you didn't get in on Tim O's amazing Axel Extender purchase you should check out these also available from Dave/Rivethead (and the price was way reasonable). http://deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2048%20Gear%20Leg%20&%20Wheel%20Fairings/slides/DSC04737.html http://deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2048%20Gear%20Leg%20&%20Wheel%20Fairings/slides/DSC04736.html http://deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2048%20Gear%20Leg%20&%20Wheel%20Fairings/slides/DSC04681.html ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: motortopia. com
Date: May 16, 2007
Anybody know anything about the new website indicated above? Supposed to be an aircraft site. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2007
From: John Hurst <johnh38(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Door Hardware - you'll want these!
Deems, Are these just prototype units? or are they going to be available to other RV-10 builders at a future dater? I just checked the website http://www.rivethead-aero.com/rv10_005.htm and there isn't a listing. These look 1000% better than the ones Vans supplys. Thanks for the info. John ----- Original Message ---- From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:47:55 PM Subject: RV10-List: Door Hardware - you'll want these! I just installed some hardware for the doors that I think many of you will be interested in. http://deemsrv10.com/45-20.htm Background : One of the listers (Joe /Zack C. ) designed some hardware for his doors after sitting in another RV-10 and experiencing 1st hand the issues in closing and insuring the latching of the doors & pins (particularly the rear pins). Joe/Zack is fortunate in that his family has available engineering and CNC machining skills. He got his brother to fabricate a set of this hardware for him, and I got wind of it (I think through this list). Joe/Zack is Dave Czachowrowski's Uncle. Dave is the owner/proprietor of Full Throttle concepts aka RIvethead, that many of us have got CNC parts from. I contacted Dave and asked him if he'd make a set of the door hardware for me, and he agreed to. (time available basis). The hardware replaces the UGLY Delrin blocks that attach to the Cabin Door frame. IMHO these are one of the 3-4 truly UGLY features of the RV-10. >:o Here's some pics of the hardware as it arrived from Dave : http://deemsrv10.com/album/CNC%20Parts/slides/DSC04757.html I've installed some modified door latch hardware and so the installation required some modifications to work for me, I doubt any would be necessary for a standard door latch install. Here's how they look installed: http://deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2045%20Cabin%20Doors%20and%20Transparancies/slides/DSC04754.html http://deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2045%20Cabin%20Doors%20and%20Transparancies/slides/DSC04755.html I have NO $ interest in this or in Rivethead, I'm just another -10 builder that appreciates the genius and work of others. THANKS Joe/Zack and Dave !!!!!!!! I think it is a Great product that looks good and provides a more secure and safer latching situation. I told Dave I thought these were outstanding and that I would post my impressions after I got them installed. so now you have it. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ PS Dave doesn't have these on his Rivethead web site yet. PPS If you didn't get in on Tim O's amazing Axel Extender purchase you should check out these also available from Dave/Rivethead (and the price was way reasonable). http://deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2048%20Gear%20Leg%20&%20Wheel%20Fairings/slides/DSC04737.html http://deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2048%20Gear%20Leg%20&%20Wheel%20Fairings/slides/DSC04736.html http://deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2048%20Gear%20Leg%20&%20Wheel%20Fairings/slides/DSC04681.html ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: 3 bladed prop issue
Date: May 17, 2007
I have a 3 bladed Aercomposite prop and I had the fellow making my interior make me a set of blade covers for when I take the cowling on or off, see attachment. I saw where some of the 3 bladed props had dings from the cowling removal. It might be worth considering for anyone with more than 2 blades. Wayne Edgerton #40336 Dan, I have a MT three blade prop and its a challenge to get the lower cowl off and not ding the prop with the piano hinge or scrap the front gear leg fairing. Any issues with the four blade prop and removing the cowl? Mark N410MR ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Gear leg geometry
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.com>
G'day all, I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8". Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning the wheel pants? Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal. thanks in advance Ron 187 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
And in all fairness to reply to this, I ordered before he even had a 10 package, and have been working with him to design it. I bugged him every week for about a year after the 10 came out, begging him to design it. Then once he agreed to it, I have worked closely with him to provide what was needed. >From following the engine for over 6 years, I was well aware that delivery dates were always slipping and I planned appropriately, like any good PM would do, and it is that pre-planning that has allowed me to receive the engine at exactly the correct time it was needed to continue to make progress. His delivery date was not an impact to my project, but had I waited until last August to order for this year then I would have been delayed. Yes, what you are saying happens, continually trying to upgrade the engine can cause delays, but now that Gary is on board I think you will see many changes, both in delivery and consistency in the engines that are shipping. Eggenfellner has all of the issues of a small company, they have a product that too many want, IE they have more orders than they can keep up with, and as such they are experiencing growing pains, and that is the key to why Gary was hired. He will establish the procedures for production and process change and keep the company moving forward, while Jan can now focus on just the engineering aspect of the engine and be able to implement the changes. As in any project, timelines slip, but with the correct planning some of these slips can be accounted for and dealt with. So long story short, did the timeline slip, yes, but communication from Jan was continual and he always was open to why and how long it would slip and each time it was for a better product, so I was willing to wait. Dan N289DT RV10E -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen) Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:07 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. And just to point out, one of the things I criticized Egg for when he offered the package in the first place was that he seemed to have a history of delivering a year beyond his promised dates. This was based on reports from several of his buyers. I got the usual anti-anything-but-Lycoming rhetoric. Dan, when was it when you ordered again? :-) In all fairness, many of the other things I criticized like HP, re-drive, and supercharger have also all been changed to realistic numbers/solutions. In my research it is those changes, and the subsequent re-engineering on the fly, that tend to drag out his deliveries. Just something to keep in mind when planning guys. Nomex suit engaged. Heh Michael Sausen -10 #352 Limbo -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:59 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. The MT three blade is sexy. A four blade will be 25% more than sexy. Send pictures and hope all goes well. Talked to Bill Gipson from Conroe, TX this weekend in Brenham (home of Blue Bell Ice Cream) and he is anxiously waiting on his Egg engine to mount in his RV-10. He should be happy to hear they are shipping. Mark N410MR >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. >Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:00:55 -0400 > > >I will have to let you know on this, since one has not been done yet for >the 10. I will have the engine mounted and ready to run tonight, then I >will have to fit the cowl before the fuse goes to paint next week. As >soon as I get the cowl fit I will let you know how this will work out. >The 4 blade looks awesome though. >Dan > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:26 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. > > >Dan, > >I have a MT three blade prop and its a challenge to get the lower cowl >off >and not ding the prop with the piano hinge or scrap the the front gear >leg >fairing. Any issues with the four blade prop and removing the cowl? > >Mark >N410MR > > > >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> > >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > >To: "Dave Leikam" , "matronics" > > > >Subject: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. > >Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:07:54 -0400 > > > >No, it was not paid, as a matter of fact it was at the end of a long > >day, and I thought he was taking pics as we were getting ready to put >it > >in the van, but then he kept asking questions and I realized he was > >recording it. I got the engine home late last night and will mount it > >this afternoon and be ready to run it in a matter of hours. I have > >helped several people install engines, baffling etc, and comparing this > >install to those is night and day. Basically there are 6 bolts, a fuel > >feed and return and several electrical hookups and the engine is ready > >to run. The 4 bladed prop is sweet, no ifs, ands or butts! So at least > >it will look real cool on the ground! > >Dan > >N289DT Sleeping on the trailer with me new Egg! > > > > _____ > > > >From: Dave Leikam [mailto:DAVELEIKAM(at)WI.RR.COM] > >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:12 AM > >To: matronics; Lloyd, Daniel R. > >Subject: Eggenfellner delivered. > > > > > >Congrads on picking up your engine! I know there are many of us >waiting > >to see your success. Was that a paid interview on Eggenfellners site? > > > >Dave Leikam > >40496 > >QB Wings and stuff. > >_________________________________________________________________ >PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail-award-winning >Windows >Live Hotmail. > > _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail-award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
In correct, the prop weighs36-38Lbs, The MT 3 blade weighs 42, and the Hartzell two blade weighs 60+. We weighed each when I was there last summer. The way that the new prop is so light is because the engine is so smooth that Jan was able to work with Sensi for custom blades, and Quinti for a hub. I have not assembled the prop yet, but the blades with the nickel leading edges, and the 14" spinner looks so sweet just sitting there, I should have pics by the weekend of it all together and the initial fit of the cowl done by then. Dan N289DT RV10E _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:46 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered. What does the 4 blade weight and what effect does it have on the aircraft's CG since it seems that the 10 is slightly forward CG to begin with? I would have thought that a 4 blade would probably increase climb, smoothness but slow down your cruise speed and add the weight of the additional blade...I'd guess the 4 blades are shorter than a 2 or 3 blade set up but suspect the total weight with hardware etc would be higher? Correct or incorrect? Patrick _____ See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Gear leg geometry
Date: May 17, 2007
Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC=94 with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the plane sits level when parked, then I wouldn=92t worry about it and just rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be looking up and saying, =93hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers, etc loaded up. Even =BC=94 there probably would be hard to notice over 8=92, because that would be about =BC degree off level if my math is correct. Is it possible that something is =93preloading=94 one of the gear legs either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)? Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry G'day all, I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8". Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning the wheel pants? Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal. thanks in advance Ron 187 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "James K Hovis" <james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
Legally, you can list any gross weight you want for your POH and the paperwork to the Feds. But exceeding the designed gross weight is bad to do for a host of reasons: 1) Affects GC location. If the added weight isn't distributed correctly, you could end up with an unstable aircraft. Think of the singer who was killed by the overgross, badly loaded airplane in the Bahamas awhile back. 2) More weight will require more power to fly at a given speed. At say 200 kts, you'd need 2,900 lbs of lift to stay in level flight if your gross is 2,900 lbs. To generate this lift, you'd need a few more horsepower from your engine and a little higher angle of attack. All the while generating a little more drag which will need a little more horsepower and consuming more fuel which will affect your overall range. Plus, the engine you chose may not have the power output to get you to the goal of 200 kts, so you'd need a bigger engine, which brings it's own viscious cycle of effects noted below. 3) The main issues are structural issues. As noted in no. 2, you might need a bigger motor, but the engine mount/fuselage interface is designed for a certain max weight engine. Will your bigger one exceed that weight? Increased drag will affect flutter tolerance and if you can exceed Vne, well Van has covered that before. Your wing structure may not be able to handle the maximum loadings you could experience if gross was say 2900 lbs. Van's tested this wing for a 2,700 lb gross experiencing 3.8G pull up. They applied a 1.5 margin of safety to this figure so the wing was tested for no failure at 15,390 lbs. This sounds like alot, but is really isn't. If you do a high bank turn, you can get close to max loading, then if you hit a gust or strong updraft, you can eat up the margin of safety. This is why Va is set. At speeds above Va, you should keep any abrupt manuevers to a minimum. Closer you get to top cruise speed, the easier it is to exceed max loading condition if a strong gust or updraft is encountered. Van's did a lot of engineering with this design that you pay for when yuou buy the kit (among other things). My advise would be to trust their numbers and not exceed 2,700 lb gross. This lowers your useful payload if your on the heavy side of empty weight, but this'll keep you from possibly becoming a statistic later on. Otherwise I'd hire an engineer to analize your gross weight increase to be safe. Kevin Hovis. On 5/16/07, Wayne Edgerton wrote: > I saw on a weight and balance list at www.rvproject.com/wab/ that there is > some differences on selecting a max gross weight. Vans recommends 2700, but > used 2758 on their 10, but on this list there's a 2850 and a 2900. How does > one come up with the conclusion or decision to increase the gross weight > over Vans recommended? My empty weight came in somewhat higher than the > others at 1749 but I've put a ton of stuff in the panel and many extra items > including a full leather interior, four place O2, overhead console, etc. It > is what it is. > > Obviously it would be nice to have a higher gross weight but I'm not sure > how one justifies going beyond the recommended gross weight. > > Anyone have any great insight into this? I did a archive search but didn't > seem to find much. > > Wayne Edgerton #40336 > > sent my papers off to the DAR so I'm hopefully getting close ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Gear leg geometry
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Each wheel pant is done independently of the other, IE it does not matter where the other gear leg is. What matters is that the fuse is level, and that you establish a flat plan of reference to measure front and rear of the wheel pant to. Then aligning it to the centerline of the fuse. do this on both side and it will not effect anything. Dan N289DT RV10E _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry G'day all, I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8". Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning the wheel pants? Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal. thanks in advance Ron 187 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Door Hardware - you'll want these!
Dave Czachoworski's e-mail is : dczachorowski(at)comcast.net Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Gear leg geometry
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of each side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower than the other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should not amount to anything, as long as each wheel pant is done correctly. Dan _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC" with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the plane sits level when parked, then I wouldn't worry about it and just rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be looking up and saying, "hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers, etc loaded up. Even =BC" there probably would be hard to notice over 8', because that would be about =BC degree off level if my math is correct. Is it possible that something is "preloading" one of the gear legs either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)? Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry G'day all, I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8". Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning the wheel pants? Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal. thanks in advance Ron 187 finishing http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Date: May 17, 2007
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Wow, Jesse, that has to be one of the most dangerous answers I have seen you post to date and really reflects your lack of actual pilot training. While it is true that the builder can absolutely establish the gross weight at any number he wants, the aircraft was structurally designed to a specif ic number. In the RV-10 case it's 2700 lbs. You exceed that number and th e structural fatigue goes up rapidly. It also cascades down a whole bunch of other things like maneuvering speed, stall speeds, CG, and on and on. Sure you probably won't fall out of the sky anytime soon but you don't know where that magic number is where you may encounter a series of conditions when that part can't handle the extra forces and fail. Not trying to slam you here but messing around with things like gross weight is just slightly better than messing with CG limits. Make sure you have a good understandin g of a subject like this before you comment on it. And for the insurance, Rick or someone in the know here can step in, but I'm fairly certain most insurance companies are going to look at what you i nsured it as and what the vendor has designed it to when they decide if the y want to deny a claim. Michael Sausen -10 #352 limbo From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:27 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight Modifying the gross weight is very little different from a lot of the other non-Van's-approved mods. The plane was engineered for a 260HP (or less) I O-540 with 60 gallons of fuel, 180Kts max cruise, etc. etc. etc. If you wa nt to put in a Subaru, Mazda, turbo-Lycoming, 120Gal tanks, tip tanks, IFR panel (why would you do this unless you were going to fly IFR in a plane th at was designed to be strictly VFR?), etc, you are modifying the design. T he nice thing about the amateur-built experimental category is that you are free to do that, even though you might make Van's mad. Really and truly, I think the gross weight should be established during the fly-off period. How is the builder going to establish a gross weight when he hasn't even flown the plane? But, since you have to (I am sure you, as the repairman, can modify it down the road in the log books if you choose to) establish a pre-airworthy gross weight, then you have to guess. Most p eople will go with the 2,700, many of whom will fly it however feels comfor table, whether it is 2,700 or 3,000. Selecting a gross weight different th an what Van's recommends will really only become an issue if/when there is an accident. If you are flying over your established gross weight and cras h, the insurance company will not want to pay if they can establish that yo u were overweight. If you are flying within a gross weight over what Van's recommends and you crash, the insurance company will not be able to not pa y because of the weight unless there is a clause in the contract that requi res that you build exactly to the plans, which I doubt there is. Then you may start causing problems for other people because insurance rates may go up. Some people modify their gross weight simply because they can. The pl ane will carry 2,900 lbs and still climb to 15,000+ feet (I think ;-) ). F rom there it is completely up to you. Also, even if you put your gross wei ght at 2,700, what are the implications of flying over gross weight? For others (JC's response expected here), what are the implications of flyi ng over you established gross weight? Does that just become an issue if yo u crash and don't burn? Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com<http://www.saintaviation.com> Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:37 PM Subject: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight I saw on a weight and balance list at www.rvproject.com/wab/<http://www.rvp roject.com/wab/> that there is some differences on selecting a max gross w eight. Vans recommends 2700, but used 2758 on their 10, but on this list th ere's a 2850 and a 2900. How does one come up with the conclusion or decisi on to increase the gross weight over Vans recommended? My empty weight came in somewhat higher than the others at 1749 but I've put a ton of stuff in the panel and many extra items including a full leather interior, four plac e O2, overhead console, etc. It is what it is. Obviously it would be nice to have a higher gross weight but I'm not sure h ow one justifies going beyond the recommended gross weight. Anyone have any great insight into this? I did a archive search but didn't seem to find much. Wayne Edgerton #40336 sent my papers off to the DAR so I'm hopefully getting close http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Comm antenna placement
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com>
Marcus, Have you had a chance to compare the performance of the foil roof mount to your bent whip? Vern (#324) _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:52 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm antenna placement Vern, I took a little different route. I put a bent whip antenna just aft of the baggage compartment, and a $7 copper foil antenna on the roof. I figured I wasn't out a thing to try it and it works great. It also alleviated my concern of shadowing the antenna to tower while on the ground, although I haven't had any issues with my belly mounted antenna which I use with the primary radio. Marcus ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
You can think of it anyway you like, and you can rationalize it anyway you like, but Gross weight is determined and set by engineering with facts and data. If you've made modifications to your plane and you believe the modifications warrant an adjustment in the Gross Weight, then calculate the difference based upon the same principles, equations and irrefutable laws of physics that were used to establish the 2700 lbs. Then add in the safety margin. Anything else is a crap shoot. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ > * > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2007
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Establishing gross weight
OK, since I was poked to chime in I'll do so with the understanding that this is generic info and coverage and the determination to indemnify your loss are very POLICY specific. Read the exclusions to determine what is NOT covered!!!!!!!! This is the most important thing. Step one for everyone...read your policy, there is a reason the exclusions or the in better words the reasons the insurance company will use to deny your claim are listed in the back of the policy. It's because by the time you get to that part your already just skimming the contents out of shear boredom. Policy format has been changing over the past years and exclusions may be listed after each peril definition. Read, read, read your policy...Take it to your lawyer for interpretation if needed. When the insurance company accepts you as a risk, there are conditions they are required to comply with and there are conditions your are required to comply with. For this contract or agreement to work for both parties, both must stay within the terms of the agreement. If the terms require you to operate your aircraft within design limitations set by the designer and you fail to do so, then the insurance company has the right to question their responsibility to provide coverage.......Now the tricky part is that unless it is specifically excluded in writing in the policy, you most likely will be covered. I always like the statement I heard once in the never ending continuing education classes "We insure stupidity". You may argue that since this is an experimental aircraft that you are the designer and allowed to set your gross at what you think is safe for flight. If you end up in litigation you better make sure you are more qualified to establish this than the original designer or manufacturer. The defense (insurance company) will argue that you are not more qualified and should have adhered to the recommendations of the designer. FWIW, "Expert Witnesses" will almost always agree with the party that hired them and rightly so, it's your job or your attorney's job to prove them wrong and that your right. Unless by virtue of "YOUR" education and experience you can prove you were correct in exceeding the designers recommendations you may not have a credible, defendable reason for doing so. If you wreck your car under the influence of a controlled substance are you covered? Same thing applies, it is policy specific, read your policy and exclusions that's the key, state laws vary as well. remember that if you contest your insurance company's decision to provide coverage that it's all on you to fight the decision. I know of several company's in the past, it's much better now that would almost always decline coverage if there was ANY chance an exclusion could be interpreted as applicable to your claim and it "might" hold up in court. When you have a full compliment of defense counsel at your beck and call...why not? Most company's will accept your claim and pay damages as long as there is not a specific exclusion AND you as an insured acted in good faith by holding up your end of the contract between you and the insurance company. We are lucky that the few aviation insurance companys that extend coverage to us are very good at what they do and know when to pay and when to fight. So, now that I've rambled on this very ambiguous subject, remember a few things: 1) Read your policy and know what is NOT covered. 2) Don't knowingly violate the conditions of your policy. 3) Think about safety first. If you die, especially if it was preventable who suffers besides you? 4) If your airframe fails in flight, you most likely will DIE, do you want your family members trying to prove that you had the right stuff to engineer your own aircraft? Picture in your mind the defense stating along with visual aids showing Van's gross weight and then your aircraft gross weight which you willfully & knowingly exceeded despite the manufactures recommendations, you can see how easily the judge (a lot of coverage claims are summary judgments)or the jury can rule in favor of the insurance company. Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JSMcGrew(at)aol.com
Date: May 17, 2007
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
The design safety margins are established to account for variations in construction, fatigue, turbulence, variations in piloting, engineering mistakes etc. etc., all of which are fairly difficult to predict when they will happen or what the effect will be. Furthermore, an aircraft experiences many different stresses during the course of a flight (besides just holding the airplane up in level flight). You need a thorough engineering analysis to understand the effects a deviation from the design conditions will have on the airframe in various flight conditions. I recommend sticking to Van's established limits (weight limits and all others) unless one is willing and capable of performing such an analysis. -Jim McGrew 40134 Jim "Scooter" McGrew _http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew) In a message dated 5/17/2007 11:35:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: --> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." Let me clarify my position, Like you have stated the plane has already had a static test of its 2700 lbs, which means the wing will need to support 3.8 times that to be in the standard category, which means theoretically both wings together will withstand 10,260 lbs and not fail. With this being said, it would not be a long stretch stating that an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an issue during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did not state that it was a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I did state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary. Dan N289DT RV10E ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
We are not talking safety margins, we are talking an aircraft rated in the standard category and as such will sustain 3.8G's without structural failure. Nuff said. If the location of the additional 200 LBS keeps the plane in CG than there will not be an issue in standard flight conditions, what is unknown is how the plane will react when the plane is stressed past the max load breaking point of 3.8G's x 2700lbs or 10,260LBS total. Then once you get past this point there is the safety margin that is built in, but unless you go past the 10,260 LBS limit then there is nothing new being discovered. Dan _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:00 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight The design safety margins are established to account for variations in construction, fatigue, turbulence, variations in piloting, engineering mistakes etc. etc., all of which are fairly difficult to predict when they will happen or what the effect will be. Furthermore, an aircraft experiences many different stresses during the course of a flight (besides just holding the airplane up in level flight). You need a thorough engineering analysis to understand the effects a deviation from the design conditions will have on the airframe in various flight conditions. I recommend sticking to Van's established limits (weight limits and all others) unless one is willing and capable of performing such an analysis. -Jim McGrew 40134 Jim "Scooter" McGrew http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew In a message dated 5/17/2007 11:35:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: Let me clarify my position, Like you have stated the plane has already had a static test of its 2700 lbs, which means the wing will need to support 3.8 times that to be in the standard category, which means theoretically both wings together will withstand 10,260 lbs and not fail. With this being said, it would not be a long stretch stating that an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an issue during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did not state that it was a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I did state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary. Dan N289DT RV10E _____ See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: FW: [OhioValleyRVators] Clinic Pics & the 'RV Flight'
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Formation flight clinic this weekend and all RV models in attendance. Check out the pics Dan _____ From: OhioValleyRVators(at)yahoogroups.com [mailto:OhioValleyRVators(at)yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Gray Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:22 AM Subject: [OhioValleyRVators] Clinic Pics & the 'RV Flight' I had the honor of leading an 'RV Flight' at our Formation Clinic that consisted of an RV10 (Rick Gray-FFI Flight Lead), RV9A (owner Ted Chang/Pilot Mike Stewart-FFI Check Pilot), RV8 (Stu McCurdy-FFI Check Pilot), RV7A (Tad Sargent-FFI Wingman), RV6 (Danny Kight-FFI Flight Lead), RV4 (Bob Goodman-FFI Flight Lead), & RV3 (Dave Hirschman). As far as I/we know this is the first time that there has been a flight of each of Vans models from the RV3 to the RV10??? Should be a 'keeper' for Vans calendar next year :^). Here are a couple pics from Rob Logan's site (thanks BIG TIME to Rob): http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_3961 <http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_3961> http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_04053 <http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_04053> http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_3969 <http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_3969> Rick at the Buffalo Farm __._,_.___ Messages in this topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/message/14679;_ylc=X3o D MTM3ZmUxYWFvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4 MwRtc2dJZAMxNDY3OQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzgEdHBjSWQD MTQ2Nzk-> (1) Reply (via web post) <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydmVm M jBmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRtc2dJZ AMxNDY3OQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg-?act=reply&messa g eNum=14679> | Start a new topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaXFk d mtqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZ nRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg-> Messages <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJm Y 2p0b3RtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZ WMDZnRyBHNsawNtc2dzBHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg-> | Files <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMXN m N29jBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMD ZnRyBHNsawNmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4> | Photos <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm E yYmNmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWM DZnRyBHNsawNwaG90BHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg-> | Links <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMWU 4 b3VxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMD ZnRyBHNsawNsaW5rcwRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4> | Database <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJk Y TY2NHFiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZ WMDZnRyBHNsawNkYgRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4> | Polls <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbzV 2 MHRiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMD ZnRyBHNsawNwb2xscwRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4> | Members <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd W JuMmVvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZW MDZnRyBHNsawNtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg-> | Calendar <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJl N WExbmpqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZ WMDZnRyBHNsawNjYWwEc3RpbWUDMTE3OTE1NjEzOA--> Yahoo! Groups <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldHFzZ3RhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElk A zExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTE3O TE1NjEzOA--> Change settings via the Web <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMWEy Y nA4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZ nRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4> (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcjNkZG9sB F 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBH NsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMTE3OTE1NjEzOA--> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe Recent Activity * 5 New Members <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnd n VnNDQyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZW MDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4> Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators;_ylc=X3oDMTJmODdyOTBqB F 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDdnRsBH NsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg-> * Experimental aircraft <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdjE5NW1kBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9w A zEEZ3JwSWQDMTEyNTA4NzUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Nzg2MDgzBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxM Tc5MTU2MTM4?t=ms&k=Experimental+aircraft&w1=Experimental+aircraft&w 2=Exp erimental+aircraft+engine&w3=Aviation&w4=Aviation+art&w5=Aviation+c olleg es&c=5&s=116&g=2&.sig=Tb4UVxh7Ad3v9Zkc-2MDiA> * Experimental aircraft engine <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYzE1YzM1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9w A zIEZ3JwSWQDMTEyNTA4NzUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Nzg2MDgzBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxM Tc5MTU2MTM4?t=ms&k=Experimental+aircraft+engine&w1=Experimental+air craft &w2=Experimental+aircraft+engine&w3=Aviation&w4=Aviation+art&w5=A viation +colleges&c=5&s=116&g=2&.sig=vRJGjh7jU0t6gND7o-58Pw> * Aviation <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdHByYTJ1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9w A zMEZ3JwSWQDMTEyNTA4NzUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Nzg2MDgzBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxM Tc5MTU2MTM4?t=ms&k=Aviation&w1=Experimental+aircraft&w2=Experimen tal+air craft+engine&w3=Aviation&w4=Aviation+art&w5=Aviation+colleges&c=5 &s=116& g=2&.sig=iiZmHXacYOaX_NN6FKUf6Q> * Aviation art <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNmx1ajV2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9w A zQEZ3JwSWQDMTEyNTA4NzUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Nzg2MDgzBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxM Tc5MTU2MTM4?t=ms&k=Aviation+art&w1=Experimental+aircraft&w2=Exper imental +aircraft+engine&w3=Aviation&w4=Aviation+art&w5=Aviation+colleges&c =5&s 116&g=2&.sig=wPjI_vaynTkr16MntQSicQ> * Aviation colleges <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcDR2MGhiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9w A zUEZ3JwSWQDMTEyNTA4NzUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Nzg2MDgzBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxM Tc5MTU2MTM4?t=ms&k=Aviation+colleges&w1=Experimental+aircraft&w2= Experim ental+aircraft+engine&w3=Aviation&w4=Aviation+art&w5=Aviation+colle ges&c =5&s=116&g=2&.sig=DJXDY5gc-ZEvuOW7mNcn5Q> Health Zone Look your best! <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jh1g243/M=493064.10302120.10954213.997 769 3/D=groups/S=1705786083:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1179163338/A=4430620/R= 0/SIG=11fh bjsi1/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/healthandfitness/> Groups to help you look & feel great. Yahoo! News World News <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12ioroa64/M=493064.9803190.10510181.8674 578 /D=groups/S=1705786083:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1179163338/A=3848606/R= 0/SIG=12t5n 1ri6/*http://news.yahoo.com/i/721;_ylt=A9FJqZeOvK5EKmgAbwsLMxIF;_ylu= X3o DMTA2NWJlcmlsBHNlYwN0bg--> Get the latest world news now Yahoo! Finance It's Now Personal <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jo28vvf/M=493064.10512181.11138666.867 457 8/D=groups/S=1705786083:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1179163338/A=4507179/R= 0/SIG=12de 4rskk/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=50284/*http://finance.yahoo.com/perso n al-finance> Guides, news, advice & more. . <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=11250875/grpspId=170578 6083/ msgId=14679/stime=1179156138/nc1=4430620/nc2=3848606/nc3=450717 9> __,_._,___ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
Also, remember that although the airframe was designed to withstand 3.8 g's at 2700 lbs gross weight with a 1.5X safety factor, there is no requirement for it to come through that test unscathed. That is an ULTIMATE LOAD test, which means it needs to survive it, once. Another consideration is the landing gear. Typically, landing gear is designed to withstand no more than 3.5 times the design gross weight. The LG is not designed to withstand the same loads as the airframe so that the gear can absorb the energy of a hard landing and break if necessary before it transfers too much load to the airframe. So if you raise your gross weight arbitrarily, the landing gear might not be able to survive a hard landing that a lighter aircraft could easily handle. Jack Phillips #40610 Tailcone -----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, May 17, 2007 10:47 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight You can think of it anyway you like, and you can rationalize it anyway you like, but Gross weight is determined and set by engineering with facts and data. If you've made modifications to your plane and you believe the modifications warrant an adjustment in the Gross Weight, then calculate the difference based upon the same principles, equations and irrefutable laws of physics that were used to establish the 2700 lbs. Then add in the safety margin. Anything else is a crap shoot. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ > * > * _________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa(at)antelecom.net>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 17, 2007
Those replies suggesting that the gross weight figure is a choice of the builder need to read the responses by Kevin Hovis again. This is not an issue of "builders prerogative" at all but simply one of structural design. I am really surprised at those who would take it so lightly. Kevin 40494 tail/empennage ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "James K Hovis" <james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
Aircraft design is a study in compromise. Every action you do has some effect elsewhere. Kevin H. On 5/17/07, KiloPapa wrote: > > Those replies suggesting that the gross weight figure is a choice of the > builder need to read the responses by Kevin Hovis again. This is not an > issue of "builders prerogative" at all but simply one of structural design. > I am really surprised at those who would take it so lightly. > > Kevin > 40494 > tail/empennage > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JSMcGrew(at)aol.com
Date: May 17, 2007
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
Dan, I'm only responding because I think builders should think long and hard before making the decision to increase Van's recommended limits. I don't want to see any statistics in our group. The RV-10 was designed to handle 3.8G's with a ~1.5 safety margin (~5.7G ultimate). Anything you do beyond the design conditions cuts into said safety margin. By your argument the C-5 Galaxy with a maximum gross weight of 840,000 lbs x 3.8G's can handle 3,192,000# of load. So when at low fuel weight (374,000#) it should be able to pull 3,192,000# / 374,000# = 8.5 G's. That would be something to see, however, that is simply not the case; it just doesn't work that way. You can justify all you want. I still don't recommend it. -Jim In a message dated 5/17/2007 12:27:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: We are not talking safety margins, we are talking an aircraft rated in the standard category and as such will sustain 3.8G's without structural failure. Nuff said. If the location of the additional 200 LBS keeps the plane in CG than there will not be an issue in standard flight conditions, what is unknown is how the plane will react when the plane is stressed past the max load breaking point of 3.8G's x 2700lbs or 10,260LBS total. Then once you get past this point there is the safety margin that is built in, but unless you go past the 10,260 LBS limit then there is nothing new being discovered. Dan ____________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:00 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight The design safety margins are established to account for variations in construction, fatigue, turbulence, variations in piloting, engineering mistakes etc. etc., all of which are fairly difficult to predict when they will happen or what the effect will be. Furthermore, an aircraft experiences many different stresses during the course of a flight (besides just holding the airplane up in level flight). You need a thorough engineering analysis to understand the effects a deviation from the design conditions will have on the airframe in various flight conditions. I recommend sticking to Van's established limits (weight limits and all others) unless one is willing and capable of performing such an analysis. -Jim McGrew 40134 Jim "Scooter" McGrew _http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew) In a message dated 5/17/2007 11:35:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: --> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." Let me clarify my position, Like you have stated the plane has already had a static test of its 2700 lbs, which means the wing will need to support 3.8 times that to be in the standard category, which means theoretically both wings together will withstand 10,260 lbs and not fail. With this being said, it would not be a long stretch stating that an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an issue during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did not state that it was a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I did state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary. Dan N289DT RV10E Jim "Scooter" McGrew _http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "The McGough Family" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Gear leg geometry
Date: May 18, 2007
Gear leg geometryYes mine was the same. Also the gear leg supports on the right side had to be redrilled as all the bolts were on a angle. Very very poor workmanship from the Philiphines. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: Lloyd, Daniel R. To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 12:11 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of each side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower than the other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should not amount to anything, as long as each wheel pant is done correctly. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC" with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the plane sits level when parked, then I wouldn't worry about it and just rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be looking up and saying, "hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers, etc loaded up. Even =BC" there probably would be hard to notice over 8', because that would be about =BC degree off level if my math is correct. Is it possible that something is "preloading" one of the gear legs either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)? Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry G'day all, I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8". Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning the wheel pants? Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal. thanks in advance Ron 187 finishing http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Screw removal
From: "Eric_Kallio" <scout019(at)msn.com>
Date: May 17, 2007
Well it was only a matter of time. I had a little assistance in installing the mounting screws for the fuel tank while I was off working on my thesis for grad school. 3 screws are stripped. Grit on the scrwedriver and my Proto screw removers have all failed to remove the screws. Any other methods out there that have worked for you? Got to get the wings out of the shop so I have room for the Fuse next week. Thanks. Eric Kallio 40518 Finishing SB wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113451#113451 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: AHRS/magnetometer location
Date: May 17, 2007
Group: After lots of head scratching I am going with dual GRT screens but now I need to know where to put the AHRS units and the magnetometers. It seems that Grand Rapids is not all that fussy about their locations (wing tips, subpanel, fuselage) but I would like to know what others have recommended and done. Are there indeed preferred locations in terms of functionality and ease of construction? Thanks, Jay Rowe #40301 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: AHRS/magnetometer location
Date: May 17, 2007
From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>
Jay, I have my magnetometer on a small shelf in the top of the tailcone (aft part of the same bay as batteries). This gets better than 24" separation from anything else is reasonably accessible. The AHRS is on the right side of the right panel rib forward of the subpanel. I made a shelf that is attached to both the rib and the F-1001B. Lots of choices for location but these worked out well for me (I'm not yet flying however) based on physical location and the limited electrical testing that I've done. Bob #40105 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:49 PM Subject: RV10-List: AHRS/magnetometer location Group: After lots of head scratching I am going with dual GRT screens but now I need to know where to put the AHRS units and the magnetometers. It seems that Grand Rapids is not all that fussy about their locations (wing tips, subpanel, fuselage) but I would like to know what others have recommended and done. Are there indeed preferred locations in terms of functionality and ease of construction? Thanks, Jay Rowe #40301 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JSMcGrew(at)aol.com
Date: May 17, 2007
Subject: Re: AHRS/magnetometer location
I put BMA magnetometer just aft of the baggage compartment on a level plate attached to the side of the fuse. I don't recommend this. The EMF from the master relay, the autopilot motor and the swinging of the rear seat belt cables raises hell with my heading. I will be relocating it. I would recommend putting it outboard in the wing that doesn't have an autopilot servo, aileron trim servo or pitot heat. -Jim 40134 Jim "Scooter" McGrew _http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Gear leg geometry
Date: May 18, 2007
From: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.com>
Guys, Thanks for the replies both on and off list. Jesse - no preloading, weldments were a bitch to install, but fit fine with no shims or hole misalignment. Vans suggest I am indeed being a bit too anal and that I am '. . . a victim of manufacturing tolerance stackup.' They commend the idea of installing the pants while the fuse is on the bench (as previously endorsed by the list). After sleeping on it and doing the math, best I can calculate is that if there is a 3/8" height difference between the gear legs, there will be about 1.5" difference in height between the wingtips. As Dan points out, indiscernable after the acft is loaded. The key factor is to ensure that the fairings are properly aligned during flight, so the strategy appears to be to press on, make sure the acft is absolutely level and treat each pant separately. Pity she will have a bit of a lean (if you look reeeeal closely) when parked. cheers, Ron ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R. Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:42 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of each side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower than the other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should not amount to anything, as long as each wheel pant is done correctly. Dan ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC" with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the plane sits level when parked, then I wouldn't worry about it and just rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be looking up and saying, "hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers, etc loaded up. Even =BC" there probably would be hard to notice over 8', because that would be about =BC degree off level if my math is correct. Is it possible that something is "preloading" one of the gear legs either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)? Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry G'day all, I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8". Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning the wheel pants? Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal. thanks in advance Ron 187 finishing http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "The McGough Family" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Gear leg geometry
Date: May 18, 2007
Gear leg geometryWell Ron park next to mine and no one will know! Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: McGANN, Ron To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:16 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Guys, Thanks for the replies both on and off list. Jesse - no preloading, weldments were a bitch to install, but fit fine with no shims or hole misalignment. Vans suggest I am indeed being a bit too anal and that I am '. . . a victim of manufacturing tolerance stackup.' They commend the idea of installing the pants while the fuse is on the bench (as previously endorsed by the list). After sleeping on it and doing the math, best I can calculate is that if there is a 3/8" height difference between the gear legs, there will be about 1.5" difference in height between the wingtips. As Dan points out, indiscernable after the acft is loaded. The key factor is to ensure that the fairings are properly aligned during flight, so the strategy appears to be to press on, make sure the acft is absolutely level and treat each pant separately. Pity she will have a bit of a lean (if you look reeeeal closely) when parked. cheers, Ron ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R. Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:42 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of each side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower than the other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should not amount to anything, as long as each wheel pant is done correctly. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC" with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the plane sits level when parked, then I wouldn't worry about it and just rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be looking up and saying, "hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers, etc loaded up. Even =BC" there probably would be hard to notice over 8', because that would be about =BC degree off level if my math is correct. Is it possible that something is "preloading" one of the gear legs either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)? Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry G'day all, I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8". Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning the wheel pants? Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal. thanks in advance Ron 187 finishing http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Comm antenna placement
Date: May 17, 2007
Vern, I use the whip primarily as it is tied to my Garmin 480 and the foil is connected to the SL-30. I have never not been able to contact anyone on the SL-30 and therefore switch to the 480 and have used it intentionally numerous times to see how it works. During initial testing I did a number of radio checks with the tower and it sounded like they couldn't tell the difference (I wasn't that far away though). My primary mode is to use the bent whip setup as primary and get ATIS/talk to Unicom on the foil with great success. I figured worst case I'd have to add another whip antenna and I'd only be out $7 plus the coax to try it. Marcus _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:26 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm antenna placement Marcus, Have you had a chance to compare the performance of the foil roof mount to your bent whip? Vern (#324) _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:52 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm antenna placement Vern, I took a little different route. I put a bent whip antenna just aft of the baggage compartment, and a $7 copper foil antenna on the roof. I figured I wasn't out a thing to try it and it works great. It also alleviated my concern of shadowing the antenna to tower while on the ground, although I haven't had any issues with my belly mounted antenna which I use with the primary radio. Marcus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)cableone.net>
Subject: AHRS/magnetometer location
Date: May 17, 2007
I built a small shelf just aft of the baggage compartment abeam the longerons and mounted both to it. It has worked great for 130 hours with no issues except one. On a few frequencies, when I key the mic the attitude pitches up slightly. Doesn't matter which antenna (one on the bottom aft of the baggage compartment, another foil antenna on the forward cabin top). I suspect it is not the AHRS location as much as either a grounding issue or shielding issue on the wires going to the AHARS (ie there isn't any which I thought was odd but pressed). No heading issues for me regarding trim motor or other activity in the area. Marcus _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:49 PM Subject: RV10-List: AHRS/magnetometer location Group: After lots of head scratching I am going with dual GRT screens but now I need to know where to put the AHRS units and the magnetometers. It seems that Grand Rapids is not all that fussy about their locations (wing tips, subpanel, fuselage) but I would like to know what others have recommended and done. Are there indeed preferred locations in terms of functionality and ease of construction? Thanks, Jay Rowe #40301 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dogsbark(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Gear leg geometry
Date: May 18, 2007
Just come to Colorado Springs around August and fly around 4:00pm. We will surely have a nice crosswind and high density altitude for you to help clunk it down just enough to adjust one side. Sean Blair #40225 -------------- Original message -------------- From: "The McGough Family" <VHMUM(at)bigpond.com> Well Ron park next to mine and no one will know! Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: McGANN, Ron Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:16 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Guys, Thanks for the replies both on and off list. Jesse - no preloading, weldments were a bitch to install, but fit fine with no shims or hole misalignment. Vans suggest I am indeed being a bit too anal and that I am '. . . a victim of manufacturing tolerance stackup.' They commend the idea of installing the pants while the fuse is on the bench (as previously endorsed by the list). After sleeping on it and doing the math, best I can calculate is that if there is a 3/8" height difference between the gear legs, there will be about 1.5" difference in height between the wingtips. As Dan points out, indiscernable after the acft is loaded. The key factor is to ensure that the fairings are properly aligned during flight, so the strategy appears to be to press on, make sure the acft is absolutely level and treat each pant separately. Pity she will have a bit of a lean (if you look reeeeal closely) when parked. cheers, Ron From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R. Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:42 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of each side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower than the other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should not amount to anything, as long as each wheel pant is done correctly. Dan From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the plane sits level when parked, then I wouldnt worry about it and just rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be looking up and saying, hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers, etc loaded up. Even there probably would be hard to notice over 8, because that would be about degree off level if my math is correct. Is it possible that something is preloading one of the gear legs either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)? Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry G'day all, I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8". Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning the wheel pants? Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal. thanks in advance Ron 187 finishing http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Just come to Colorado Springs around August and fly around 4:00pm. We will surely have a nice crosswind and high density altitude for you to help clunk it down just enough to adjust one side.

Sean Blair

#40225

Well Ron park next to mine and no one will know!

Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: McGANN, Ron

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:16 AM

Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry

Guys,

Thanks for the replies both on and off list.   Jesse - no preloading, weldments were a bitch to install, but fit fine with no shims or hole misalignment. Vans suggest I am indeed being a bit too anal and that I am '. . . a victim of manufacturing tolerance stackup.'   They commend the idea of installing the pants while the fuse is on the bench (as previously endorsed by the list).

After sleeping on it and doing the math, best I can calculate is that if there is a 3/8" height difference between the gear legs, there will be about 1.5" difference in height between the wingtips. As Dan points out, indiscernable after the acft is loaded.

The key factor is to ensure that the fairings are properly aligned during flight, so the strategy appears to be to press on, make sure the acft is absolutely level and treat each pant separately. Pity she will have a bit of a lean (if you look reeeeal closely) when parked.

cheers,

Ron

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:42 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry

Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of each side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower than the other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should not amount to anything, as long as each wheel pant is done correctly.

Dan

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry

Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the plane sits level when parked, then I wouldnt worry about it and just rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be looking up and saying, hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers, etc l oaded up. Even there probably would be hard to notice over 8, because that would be about degree off level if my math is correct.

Is it possible that something is preloading one of the gear legs either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)?

Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

www.saintaviation.com

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry

G'day all,

I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8".

Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning the wheel pants?

Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal.

thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing

< FONT face="Courier New" color=black size=2>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DejaVu" <wvu(at)ameritel.net>
Subject: Re: AHRS/magnetometer location
Date: May 17, 2007
Mine are centered on a shelf which is mounted on the longerons in the tailc one back against the next bulkhead after the baggage bulkhead. No issues. I don't have antennas back there. I do have the pitch servo on one side o f the battery, and the strobe power pack on the other side. Anh N591VU - Flying - 60 hrs ----- Original Message ----- From: Jay Rowe To: matronics Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:49 PM Subject: RV10-List: AHRS/magnetometer location Group: After lots of head scratching I am going with dual GRT screens bu t now I need to know where to put the AHRS units and the magnetometers. It seems that Grand Rapids is not all that fussy about their locations (wing tips, subpanel, fuselage) but I would like to know what others have recomme nded and done. Are there indeed preferred locations in terms of functional ity and ease of construction? Thanks, Jay Rowe #40301 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Leikam" <DAVELEIKAM(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 17, 2007
I am just building the plane light. Lower the empty weight and increase useful load. How can you arbitrarily raise the designed gross weight and feel comfortable, much less flight test the thing like that? What if the plane stalls and you can't recover? When I was a brand new pilot I took my father-in-law (we each go better than 200 lbs.) for a ride in the C-150 I trained in at Rainbow airport in Franklin, WI (Y78 now gone.) Filled it with gas and took off on a nice hot afternoon. Field elevation was only about 750 MSL. The plane barely climbed out of ground effect, but did end up getting us over the trees just past the end of the runway, barely. I think the sweat I burned off hoping to climb helped. How much over gross do you think we were? OAT play any roll in this? The first and last time I flew without paying attention to weight, balance and performance issues. Never told my father-in-law there was a problem. If Van's says gross is 2700, it's 2700 max or no go in my book. Stay safe please, builders. Dave Leikam 40496 ----- Original Message ----- From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa(at)antelecom.net> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight > > Those replies suggesting that the gross weight figure is a choice of the > builder need to read the responses by Kevin Hovis again. This is not an > issue of "builders prerogative" at all but simply one of structural > design. I am really surprised at those who would take it so lightly. > > Kevin > 40494 > tail/empennage > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Start your engine
Date: May 18, 2007
There comes a time with every builder when he or she hears someone deep inside the hangar say "Gentlemen start your engine" :>} and today was that day for me. I was able to roll the plane out of the hangar and fired this bird up. There were a few small glitch's, like you've got to remember to turn on the fuel value :>} I had trouble with my EI engine monitor going off line each time I tried to start the engine. We ended up putting an analog gauge on the engine for oil pressure and forged on. The EI unit has a know problem that when there is a voltage drop, like starting the engine, the unit shuts down. But as soon as the engine starts it comes back on line. I have to send the unit in for an update to it to fix the problem. The RPM was also acting goofy. Hell at one point I got 3800 RPM. This problem was to do with the Lazar system emitting to much interference and they are sending me out a noise filtering unit to fix that problem. We had to adjust the mixture and idle a couple of times, luckily for me a neighbor on the field and a good friend is great with engines so he saved my bacon. One other problem I ran into was that my battery wouldn't turn over the engine enough to start it so we had to jump start it with battery cables. I'm overnight charging the battery but I think the battery is either going or already gone to battery heaven. It's a new Odyssey battery ! Anyway I thought I would report my progress. I've attached a couple of pictures for your perusal. Small RV grin in place right now with a bigger one hopefully to follow shortly :>} Wayne Edgerton #40336 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: OSH RV-10 Operatonr seminar was: Establishing gross weight
Let's do it! How can we make this happen? I'm willing to assist, with the caveat, that I am NOT qualified to provide the content but willing to help assist in the organization, administration and delivery. Perhaps this could be a step towards a Pilot Proficiency program? Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ John W. Cox wrote: > OSH > > Anybody want to talk about an RV-10 Operators Seminar at OSH like > Lancair does? So we can hammer out these issues. > > John Cox > > * > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Date: May 18, 2007
Subject: Start your engine
Just a reminder to anyone using Odyssey style batteries, they do not like being run flat. Check them every couple months to make sure they are topp ed off and if you are using them for testing I would recommend keeping a ch arger on them to make sure they are full. They keep their charge exceeding ly well when in storage but they still need to be checked. If you run them flat they are basically a paperweight. And congratulations Wayne, that's another big milestone! Michael Sausen -10 #352 Limbo From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:49 AM Subject: RV10-List: Start your engine There comes a time with every builder when he or she hears someone deep ins ide the hangar say "Gentlemen start your engine" :>} and today was that da y for me. I was able to roll the plane out of the hangar and fired this bir d up. There were a few small glitch's, like you've got to remember to turn on the fuel value :>} I had trouble with my EI engine monitor going off line each time I tried to start the engine. We ended up putting an analog gauge on the engine for oi l pressure and forged on. The EI unit has a know problem that when there is a voltage drop, like starting the engine, the unit shuts down. But as soon as the engine starts it comes back on line. I have to send the unit in for an update to it to fix the problem. The RPM was also acting goofy. Hell at one point I got 3800 RPM. This problem was to do with the Lazar system emi tting to much interference and they are sending me out a noise filtering un it to fix that problem. We had to adjust the mixture and idle a couple of times, luckily for me a n eighbor on the field and a good friend is great with engines so he saved my bacon. One other problem I ran into was that my battery wouldn't turn over the eng ine enough to start it so we had to jump start it with battery cables. I'm overnight charging the battery but I think the battery is either going or a lready gone to battery heaven. It's a new Odyssey battery ! Anyway I thought I would report my progress. I've attached a couple of pict ures for your perusal. Small RV grin in place right now with a bigger one hopefully to follow shor tly :>} Wayne Edgerton #40336 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2007
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Start your engine
Congrats. My UBG16 manual specifically requires it to be off during start. Only takes it about 5 secs to boot up when I switch it on. On 5/18/07, Wayne Edgerton wrote: > > There comes a time with every builder when he or she hears someone deep > inside the hangar say "Gentlemen start your engine" :>} and today was that > day for me. I was able to roll the plane out of the hangar and fired this > bird up. There were a few small glitch's, like you've got to remember to > turn on the fuel value :>} > > I had trouble with my EI engine monitor going off line each time I tried to > start the engine. We ended up putting an analog gauge on the engine for oil > pressure and forged on. The EI unit has a know problem that when there is a > voltage drop, like starting the engine, the unit shuts down. But as soon as > the engine starts it comes back on line. I have to send the unit in for an > update to it to fix the problem. The RPM was also acting goofy. Hell at one > point I got 3800 RPM. This problem was to do with the Lazar system emitting > to much interference and they are sending me out a noise filtering unit to > fix that problem. > > We had to adjust the mixture and idle a couple of times, luckily for me a > neighbor on the field and a good friend is great with engines so he saved my > bacon. > > One other problem I ran into was that my battery wouldn't turn over the > engine enough to start it so we had to jump start it with battery cables. > I'm overnight charging the battery but I think the battery is either going > or already gone to battery heaven. It's a new Odyssey battery ! > > Anyway I thought I would report my progress. I've attached a couple of > pictures for your perusal. > > Small RV grin in place right now with a bigger one hopefully to follow > shortly :>} > > Wayne Edgerton #40336 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2007
From: "James K Hovis" <james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
A quick (hopefully) education on material properties. Metals when placed under load will stretch or compress a certain amount proportional to the load applied. When the load is removed, the metal will go back to its original shape. This is called elastic deformation. Increasing loads will stretch or compress the metal elastically in a linear fashion up to a certain stress level called the "Yield Point". The stress at this point is "Yield Stress". Loads applied beyond the yield point will deform the metal plastically, meaning when such a load is removed, the metal DOES NOT return to its original shape. This will continue up to a point where the metal will actually break, the "Ultimate Stress". Look at FAR 23.305, limit loads (3.8G for Normal cat.)must not permanently deform the structure and the structure must withstand the ultimate loads (5.7G) for three seconds without failure (breaking). Therefore, yield stress is often used at limit load to size the structure. Any loading exceeding the limit load will deform the structure rendering unuseable, but hopefully not breaking. However, I don't know what philosophy Van's used. I assume a very conservative approach. Kevin H. On 5/17/07, JSMcGrew(at)aol.com wrote: > > > Dan, > > I'm only responding because I think builders should think long and hard > before making the decision to increase Van's recommended limits. I don't > want to > see any statistics in our group. The RV-10 was designed to handle 3.8G's > with > a ~1.5 safety margin (~5.7G ultimate). Anything you do beyond the design > conditions cuts into said safety margin. > > By your argument the C-5 Galaxy with a maximum gross weight of 840,000 lbs > x > 3.8G's can handle 3,192,000# of load. So when at low fuel weight (374,000#) > it should be able to pull 3,192,000# / 374,000# = 8.5 G's. That would be > something to see, however, that is simply not the case; it just doesn't > work that > way. > > You can justify all you want. I still don't recommend it. > > -Jim > > In a message dated 5/17/2007 12:27:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: > > We are not talking safety margins, we are talking an aircraft rated in the > standard category and as such will sustain 3.8G's without structural > failure. > Nuff said. If the location of the additional 200 LBS keeps the plane in CG > than there will not be an issue in standard flight conditions, what is > unknown > is how the plane will react when the plane is stressed past the max load > breaking point of 3.8G's x 2700lbs or 10,260LBS total. Then once you get > past > this point there is the safety margin that is built in, but unless you go > past > the 10,260 LBS limit then there is nothing new being discovered. > > Dan > > > ____________________________________ > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew(at)aol.com > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:00 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight > > > The design safety margins are established to account for variations in > construction, fatigue, turbulence, variations in piloting, engineering > mistakes > etc. etc., all of which are fairly difficult to predict when they will > happen > or what the effect will be. Furthermore, an aircraft experiences many > different stresses during the course of a flight (besides just holding the > airplane > up in level flight). You need a thorough engineering analysis to understand > the effects a deviation from the design conditions will have on the > airframe in > various flight conditions. > > I recommend sticking to Van's established limits (weight limits and all > others) unless one is willing and capable of performing such an analysis. > > -Jim McGrew > 40134 > > > Jim "Scooter" McGrew > _http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew) > > > In a message dated 5/17/2007 11:35:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." > > Let me clarify my position, Like you have stated the plane has already > had a static test of its 2700 lbs, which means the wing will need to > support 3.8 times that to be in the standard category, which means > theoretically both wings together will withstand 10,260 lbs and not > fail. With this being said, it would not be a long stretch stating that > an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an issue > during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did not state > that it was a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I did > state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary. > > Dan N289DT RV10E > > > Jim "Scooter" McGrew > _http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew) > > > ************************************** See what's free at > http://www.aol.com. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 18, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Jim I agree with you, but if you read my post I stated that testing of the new weight was a requirement. Since you bring in the military, lets point this out, the DC3 was designed for 26k lbs, and when it was put into military service as a C-47, the max weight was increased to 28K, this increased weight was determined acceptable by testing, and all I am saying is that it is okay to increase the max gross weight and test to make sure it is ok. Another option in this scenario is that a max takeoff weight, and a max landing weight be established and a fuel jettison system be installed, it is routine practice to overload an aircraft, knowing that fuel burn in flight will allow the aircraft to return within limits, so if Wayne wanted to he could designate a max takeoff weight that matches his adjusted gross and then put in the op limitations that when landing it is not to exceed Vans recommended weight, and this could be accomplished by fuel burn/ jettison. The venerable Cessna 172 has had its max weight increased several times during its life, equaling several hundred pounds and without structural modification. This was accomplished by continued testing and analyzing the results. This is all I am recommending him to do. We are experimental builders after all and the purpose is to experiment, if you are not willing to do that then buy a certified plane and be assured that the plane was tested by someone else. But if you are wanting to further yourself and your skills, and learn what testing is about then buy an experimental and experiment, that is our right as builders and test pilots. Dan N289DT RV10E (Experimenting with an alternative power plant and loving every minute of not doing what is accepted by Van's, I am such a rebel!) _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:40 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight Dan, I'm only responding because I think builders should think long and hard before making the decision to increase Van's recommended limits. I don't want to see any statistics in our group. The RV-10 was designed to handle 3.8G's with a ~1.5 safety margin (~5.7G ultimate). Anything you do beyond the design conditions cuts into said safety margin. By your argument the C-5 Galaxy with a maximum gross weight of 840,000 lbs x 3.8G's can handle 3,192,000# of load. So when at low fuel weight (374,000#) it should be able to pull 3,192,000# / 374,000# = 8.5 G's. That would be something to see, however, that is simply not the case; it just doesn't work that way. You can justify all you want. I still don't recommend it. -Jim In a message dated 5/17/2007 12:27:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: We are not talking safety margins, we are talking an aircraft rated in the standard category and as such will sustain 3.8G's without structural failure. Nuff said. If the location of the additional 200 LBS keeps the plane in CG than there will not be an issue in standard flight conditions, what is unknown is how the plane will react when the plane is stressed past the max load breaking point of 3.8G's x 2700lbs or 10,260LBS total. Then once you get past this point there is the safety margin that is built in, but unless you go past the 10,260 LBS limit then there is nothing new being discovered. Dan _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:00 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight The design safety margins are established to account for variations in construction, fatigue, turbulence, variations in piloting, engineering mistakes etc. etc., all of which are fairly difficult to predict when they will happen or what the effect will be. Furthermore, an aircraft experiences many different stresses during the course of a flight (besides just holding the airplane up in level flight). You need a thorough engineering analysis to understand the effects a deviation from the design conditions will have on the airframe in various flight conditions. I recommend sticking to Van's established limits (weight limits and all others) unless one is willing and capable of performing such an analysis. -Jim McGrew 40134 Jim "Scooter" McGrew http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew In a message dated 5/17/2007 11:35:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: Let me clarify my position, Like you have stated the plane has already had a static test of its 2700 lbs, which means the wing will need to support 3.8 times that to be in the standard category, which means theoretically both wings together will withstand 10,260 lbs and not fail. With this being said, it would not be a long stretch stating that an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an issue during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did not state that it was a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I did state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary. Dan N289DT RV10E Jim "Scooter" McGrew http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew _____ See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Gear leg geometry
Date: May 18, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Just keep more fuel in the high side and she will sit proud! Dan _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:16 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Guys, Thanks for the replies both on and off list. Jesse - no preloading, weldments were a bitch to install, but fit fine with no shims or hole misalignment. Vans suggest I am indeed being a bit too anal and that I am '. . . a victim of manufacturing tolerance stackup.' They commend the idea of installing the pants while the fuse is on the bench (as previously endorsed by the list). After sleeping on it and doing the math, best I can calculate is that if there is a 3/8" height difference between the gear legs, there will be about 1.5" difference in height between the wingtips. As Dan points out, indiscernable after the acft is loaded. The key factor is to ensure that the fairings are properly aligned during flight, so the strategy appears to be to press on, make sure the acft is absolutely level and treat each pant separately. Pity she will have a bit of a lean (if you look reeeeal closely) when parked. cheers, Ron _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R. Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:42 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of each side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower than the other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should not amount to anything, as long as each wheel pant is done correctly. Dan _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC" with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the plane sits level when parked, then I wouldn't worry about it and just rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be looking up and saying, "hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers, etc loaded up. Even =BC" there probably would be hard to notice over 8', because that would be about =BC degree off level if my math is correct. Is it possible that something is "preloading" one of the gear legs either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)? Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry G'day all, I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8". Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning the wheel pants? Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal. thanks in advance Ron 187 finishing http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Start your engine
Date: May 18, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Wayne that is most encouraging news and well appreciated here. Is that a custom painted AeroComp propeller and what did the whole thing weigh as installed? It makes me excited to think of your final paint job coming. John #600 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:49 AM Subject: RV10-List: Start your engine There comes a time with every builder when he or she hears someone deep inside the hangar say "Gentlemen start your engine" :>} and today was that day for me. I was able to roll the plane out of the hangar and fired this bird up. There were a few small glitch's, like you've got to remember to turn on the fuel value :>} I had trouble with my EI engine monitor going off line each time I tried to start the engine. We ended up putting an analog gauge on the engine for oil pressure and forged on. The EI unit has a know problem that when there is a voltage drop, like starting the engine, the unit shuts down. But as soon as the engine starts it comes back on line. I have to send the unit in for an update to it to fix the problem. The RPM was also acting goofy. Hell at one point I got 3800 RPM. This problem was to do with the Lazar system emitting to much interference and they are sending me out a noise filtering unit to fix that problem. We had to adjust the mixture and idle a couple of times, luckily for me a neighbor on the field and a good friend is great with engines so he saved my bacon. One other problem I ran into was that my battery wouldn't turn over the engine enough to start it so we had to jump start it with battery cables. I'm overnight charging the battery but I think the battery is either going or already gone to battery heaven. It's a new Odyssey battery ! Anyway I thought I would report my progress. I've attached a couple of pictures for your perusal. Small RV grin in place right now with a bigger one hopefully to follow shortly :>} Wayne Edgerton #40336 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JSMcGrew(at)aol.com
Date: May 18, 2007
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
Dan, Sure. I'm not against modifications, just modifications without proper testing and analysis. I don't want builders in general to justify modifications arbitrarily. I certainly don't have anything against you, please don't take my previous post personally. I've had a lot of experience in military flying and engineering and things don't always go optimally. For example I was flying in a T-38 on an instrument check ride one day in clear VFR and got hit by turbulence plus minus about 3 G's. I've never been thumped so hard out of the blue. I hit my head on the canopy and got a splitting headache (that didn't help the check pilot's attitude either). Think about negative G limits for the RV-10 as well, they are a lot less. You never know when you might experience some rough turbulence. I've personally chose to keep the weight limits at 2700. I ended up with a 1570# empty weight and that works out great for useful load. I spoke to Ken at Van's about the design process they used. It's really hard to test and analyze all different possible stresses on an airframe. So, my understanding is that they did point testing and analysis to ensure certain conditions were met (like load testing the wing for ultimate loading). Then designed so that the infinite number of in-between conditions would be met. It's just hard to be certain you're OK without the know how and resources available to Van's engineering team, the military, or Cessna etc. Just food for thought. Good luck and keep building. I hope to see you at a fly-in in the near future. -Jim Jim "Scooter" McGrew _http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew) In a message dated 5/18/2007 9:45:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: Jim I agree with you, but if you read my post I stated that testing of the new weight was a requirement. Since you bring in the military, lets point this out, the DC3 was designed for 26k lbs, and when it was put into military service as a C-47, the max weight was increased to 28K, this increased weight was determined acceptable by testing, and all I am saying is that it is okay to increase the max gross weight and test to make sure it is ok. Another option in this scenario is that a max takeoff weight, and a max landing weight be established and a fuel jettison system be installed, it is routine practice to overload an aircraft, knowing that fuel burn in flight will allow the aircraft to return within limits, so if Wayne wanted to he could designate a max takeoff weight that matches his adjusted gross and then put in the op limitations that when landing it is not to exceed Vans recommended weight, and this could be accomplished by fuel burn/ jettison. The venerable Cessna 172 has had its max weight increased several times during its life, equaling several hundred pounds and without structural modification. This was accomplished by continued testing and analyzing the results. This is all I am recommending him to do. We are experimental builders after all and the purpose is to experiment, if you are not willing to do that then buy a certified plane and be assured that the plane was tested by someone else. But if you are wanting to further yourself and your skills, and learn what testing is about then buy an experimental and experiment, that is our right as builders and test pilots. Dan N289DT RV10E (Experimenting with an alternative power plant and loving every minute of not doing what is accepted by Van's, I am such a rebel!) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Start your engine
Date: May 18, 2007
Congratulations! Have you already had your inspection? If not, when? I will respond below. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 7:49 AM Subject: RV10-List: Start your engine There comes a time with every builder when he or she hears someone deep inside the hangar say "Gentlemen start your engine" :>} and today was that day for me. I was able to roll the plane out of the hangar and fired this bird up. There were a few small glitch's, like you've got to remember to turn on the fuel value :>}[Jesse Saint] Isn't that a great feeling? You're not the first one on the fuel valve issue. I had trouble with my EI engine monitor going off line each time I tried to start the engine. We ended up putting an analog gauge on the engine for oil pressure and forged on. The EI unit has a know problem that when there is a voltage drop, like starting the engine, the unit shuts down. But as soon as the engine starts it comes back on line. I have to send the unit in for an update to it to fix the problem. The RPM was also acting goofy. Hell at one point I got 3800 RPM. This problem was to do with the Lazar system emitting to much interference and they are sending me out a noise filtering unit to fix that problem. [Jesse Saint] This is a great time to mention the settings on the RPM gauge on anybody's engine monitor. We have had times that it read way low and we couldn't figure out why it wasn't getting full power and then realized that the sensor setting on the EMS was not correct. Before changing anything with the Prop Governor or engine, get a visual tach, point it at the prop and see what you are getting. That can help avoid big problems. Of course, if you are reading higher than you are spinning, then it is not necessarily as dangerous, but you still want to fix the reading before you start adjusting. On the engine monitor, if the option is available to have a backup battery, that is always a good way to go so you can have it on when you start. I run my EFIS/EMS as the only instrument that comes on with the master so it will be on for starting. We had to adjust the mixture and idle a couple of times, luckily for me a neighbor on the field and a good friend is great with engines so he saved my bacon. One other problem I ran into was that my battery wouldn't turn over the engine enough to start it so we had to jump start it with battery cables. I'm overnight charging the battery but I think the battery is either going or already gone to battery heaven. It's a new Odyssey battery ! Anyway I thought I would report my progress. I've attached a couple of pictures for your perusal. Small RV grin in place right now with a bigger one hopefully to follow shortly :>} Wayne Edgerton #40336 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Ackerman <johnag5b(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 18, 2007
> With this being said, it would not be a long stretch stating that > an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an issue > during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. > So, among other things, we need to know... What is a "long stretch"? How do we know what a "long stretch" is? CG aside, what is a "right location" and what is not? How do we know? > ...and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did not state that it was > a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I did > state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary. > > Really and truly, I think the gross weight should be established > during the fly-off period. What are we going to find out from a "flight test", assuming, of course that the airplane does not flutter, bend detectably, or come apart? How do we conduct such a test? How (quantitatively) do you adjust GW based on test results? How do you know the test has not overstressed the airplane already, and thus lowered the allowable weight? I suspect that _at least_ education equivalent to that of a B.S. with an emphasis on structures would be required to take on these issues. Has anyone tried exiting the 10 while wearing a parachute, even stopped on the ground? One could make a pretty good argument for _decreasing_ the gross weight that we actually fly to. The reason is that -as far as I know- we have no way to know that our wings are capable of withstanding the same loads as Van's test article - regardless of whether they are slow build or fast build. Likewise, we have no way of knowing by how much they might deviate. My personal approach is to decrease the airspeed rather than the gross weight, though. > We are not talking safety margins, we are talking an aircraft rated > in the standard category and as such will sustain 3.8G's without > structural failure. Nuff said. No, most assuredly _not_ enough said. We have some really wide latitude with experimental amateur-built aircraft, and rights that are probably the envy of pilots and builders worldwide. With rights come corresponding responsibilities. I submit that the rights accrue to us as individuals, but the responsibilities are to our passengers, families, ourselves, and the families of anyone who might fly or ride in the aircraft down the line, possibly long after we are gone. Oh, yeah - and to our fellow builders who would share in the effects of any negative result of our actions. Thanks to Rick for the excellent insurance discussion, and to James Hovis for the continuing rational, understated engineering perspective. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gary" <speckter(at)comcast.net>
Subject: OSH
Date: May 18, 2007
Bob Condry and I have consulted and while we don't know a lot I though I would pass along what we do know. Bob will arrive at OSH on the 13th or 14th. Bob is then leaving for sightseeing and returning toward the end of the week. I will arrive on the 17thand stay through the convention. We will try and get a spot at the same location as last year or maybe if we are very lucky one row closer under the trees. Either of us is willing to stake out additional sites for anyone who would like one. Just send either of us a check for the total days from when you want it reserved until the end of the show times $19. You get a refund when you leave for unused days. I know some folks come early and others come late. We need a good way to put each in touch with the other so they can in effect take over (sell the unused portion) the same site and be with the group. Suggestions? We will have several meals together for those who like. Bob and I are willing to run and get the food etc. and provide wheels for those who need them. We will put out a free will offering basket and let you know about how much we have in food costs. We don't want to make money on this. We will also need to have a sign up sheet to give us an idea how many to prepare for. What nights are the RV barbeque and Van's meal? We don't have all the details worked out and are open to suggestions. We are just willing to serve. Let us know your thoughts and we will refine the plan. Gary Specketer 770-403-3450 40274 working on instrument panel ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 18, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
The beauty of the experimental category is that each of us gets to determine what is right and wrong in the way of testing. With that being said the correct amount of testing is what makes you as the builder satisfied as to the safety of the aircraft and what you determine the max allowable weight to be. Once again it is up to the builder to set these parameters, whether they actually test the aircraft themselves or pay to have the aircraft tested, it is the builder that is ultimately responsible for this, regardless of what the builder community feels they can not stop an individual from doing what they want as long as it meets the regulation requirements set by the FAA. As for a responsibility to others who ride in the plane, there is a placard that is required that says it does not meet the standards and as such they need to make the decision before they get in to determine whether they trust the builder or not, and whether they are willing to put their life on the line based on that trust. It is all about personal responsibility, not what others place on you, and you as the builder need to determine if it is safe or not. IMHO (my opinion) many people are willing to fly their certified aircraft over gross, and as such they would be willing to fly their experimental over gross, regardless of what the listed gross was. So,once again IMHO the placard is there and it is listed but the pilot will in the long run do what they want to regardless. Remember how this conversation got started, it was Wayne that asked to change his weight not me, so lets keep that in perspective, because as the builder I would not solicit the opinion of all the arm chair quarterbacks that are on this list, rather I would solicit it from the people I know who have experience in this field and the ramifications would become readily apparent from that discussion, rather than the pure conjecture that is taking place. Dan _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Ackerman Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:36 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight With this being said, it would not be a long stretch stating that an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an issue during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. So, among other things, we need to know... What is a "long stretch"? How do we know what a "long stretch" is? CG aside, what is a "right location" and what is not? How do we know? ...and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did not state that it was a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I did state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary. Really and truly, I think the gross weight should be established during the fly-off period. What are we going to find out from a "flight test", assuming, of course that the airplane does not flutter, bend detectably, or come apart? How do we conduct such a test? How (quantitatively) do you adjust GW based on test results? How do you know the test has not overstressed the airplane already, and thus lowered the allowable weight? I suspect that _at least_ education equivalent to that of a B.S. with an emphasis on structures would be required to take on these issues. Has anyone tried exiting the 10 while wearing a parachute, even stopped on the ground? One could make a pretty good argument for _decreasing_ the gross weight that we actually fly to. The reason is that -as far as I know- we have no way to know that our wings are capable of withstanding the same loads as Van's test article - regardless of whether they are slow build or fast build. Likewise, we have no way of knowing by how much they might deviate. My personal approach is to decrease the airspeed rather than the gross weight, though. We are not talking safety margins, we are talking an aircraft rated in the standard category and as such will sustain 3.8G's without structural failure. Nuff said. No, most assuredly _not_ enough said. We have some really wide latitude with experimental amateur-built aircraft, and rights that are probably the envy of pilots and builders worldwide. With rights come corresponding responsibilities. I submit that the rights accrue to us as individuals, but the responsibilities are to our passengers, families, ourselves, and the families of anyone who might fly or ride in the aircraft down the line, possibly long after we are gone. Oh, yeah - and to our fellow builders who would share in the effects of any negative result of our actions. Thanks to Rick for the excellent insurance discussion, and to James Hovis for the continuing rational, understated engineering perspective. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2007
From: "James K Hovis" <james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
Thanks. Part of my job is to explain engineering rationale to less educated, but highly skilled production workers. Sometimes I do a better job of it than at other times. I've never said "that's the way it is, don't question it!". Kevin H. On 5/18/07, John Ackerman wrote: > > > > With this being said, it would not be a long stretch stating that > > an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an issue > > during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. > > > So, among other things, we need to know... > > What is a "long stretch"? > How do we know what a "long stretch" is? > CG aside, what is a "right location" and what is not? How do we know? > > > ...and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did not state that it was > > a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I did > > state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary. > > > > Really and truly, I think the gross weight should be established > > during the fly-off period. > > What are we going to find out from a "flight test", assuming, of > course that the airplane does not flutter, bend detectably, or come > apart? > How do we conduct such a test? How (quantitatively) do you adjust GW > based on test results? How do you know the test has not overstressed > the airplane already, and thus lowered the allowable weight? I > suspect that _at least_ education equivalent to that of a B.S. with > an emphasis on structures would be required to take on these issues. > > Has anyone tried exiting the 10 while wearing a parachute, even > stopped on the ground? > > One could make a pretty good argument for _decreasing_ the gross > weight that we actually fly to. The reason is that -as far as I know- > we have no way to know that our wings are capable of withstanding the > same loads as Van's test article - regardless of whether they are > slow build or fast build. Likewise, we have no way of knowing by how > much they might deviate. My personal approach is to decrease the > airspeed rather than the gross weight, though. > > > We are not talking safety margins, we are talking an aircraft rated > > in the standard category and as such will sustain 3.8G's without > > structural failure. Nuff said. > > No, most assuredly _not_ enough said. > We have some really wide latitude with experimental amateur-built > aircraft, and rights that are probably the envy of pilots and > builders worldwide. With rights come corresponding responsibilities. > I submit that the rights accrue to us as individuals, but the > responsibilities are to our passengers, families, ourselves, and the > families of anyone who might fly or ride in the aircraft down the > line, possibly long after we are gone. Oh, yeah - and to our fellow > builders who would share in the effects of any negative result of our > actions. > > Thanks to Rick for the excellent insurance discussion, and to James > Hovis for the continuing rational, understated engineering perspective. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Date: May 18, 2007
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
In a message dated 5/18/2007 12:23:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: IMHO (my opinion) many people are willing to fly their certified aircraft over gross, and as such they would be willing to fly their experimental over gross, regardless of what the listed gross was. Dan, Every pilot makes the final decision on their safety of flight...but having said this, if you over load your plane and you have an incident/accident there is the likelyhood that your insurance company will not honor your insurance policy since you knowingly violated the standards which you created. But results may vary...or the widow and children left on the ground. Patrick ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy" <brinker(at)suddenlink.net>
Subject: Re: OSH
Date: May 18, 2007
Does a RV10 require a header tank for the fuel system ? I am not building one but was told any high horse power plane needs one to keep the fuel flow going. Otherwise it can be starved for fuel in un-coordinated or unusual flight. Randy ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy" <brinker(at)suddenlink.net>
Subject: HEADER TANK
Date: May 18, 2007
Does a RV10 require a header tank for the fuel system ? I am not building one but was told any high horse power plane needs one to keep the fuel flow going. Otherwise it can bestarved for fuel in un-coordinated or unusual flight. Sorry I forgot to change the subject last time. Randy ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Batterydied
Date: May 18, 2007
I made a post yesterday that my battery died and wouldn't start the plane. It did die but I said it was an Odyssey but it actual is a Concorde RG25XC. I bought this battery in Feb this year and when I went to start the plane yesterday for the first time it was DOA. I charged it slow charge overnight, which made no change in it's cranking power. In talking to the people at TexAir they said that you don't want to buy this battery and let it set because it will go bad like mine did. They never seem to tell you that type of stuff up front do they. Just an FYI for those like me who got a battery in advance of first start. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Date: May 18, 2007
Subject: HEADER TANK
Haven't heard of anyone putting one in yet. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 2:51 PM Subject: RV10-List: HEADER TANK Does a RV10 require a header tank for the fuel system ? I am not building one but was told any high horse power plane needs one to keep the fuel flow going. Otherwise it can bestarved for fuel in un-coordinated or unusual flight. Sorry I forgot to change the subject last time. Randy ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Screw removal
From: "Eric_Kallio" <scout019(at)msn.com>
Date: May 18, 2007
I used easy outs from work. and they didn't work either. Including myself 3 A&Ps have looked at them and they aren't coming out without a fight. The problem is the metal is so soft that the heads just hollow out. I may end up having to drill the whole thing out, removing the tank completely, replace the nutplates, and then re-install the tanks. 30 some years of combined maintenance exerience and no one here has seen screws this tough to remove. Guess I will have to keep trying until something works. Thanks for your help. Eric Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113668#113668 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Screw removal
Date: May 18, 2007
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
Eric, have you tried Left hand drill bits. They work great. You use a smaller size than you think you need. As you drill it is grabbing and trying to unscrew the bad screw. If it doesn't get it go to the next size larger. I buy them at a local bolt house. Randy 40006 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric_Kallio Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 2:50 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Screw removal I used easy outs from work. and they didn't work either. Including myself 3 A&Ps have looked at them and they aren't coming out without a fight. The problem is the metal is so soft that the heads just hollow out. I may end up having to drill the whole thing out, removing the tank completely, replace the nutplates, and then re-install the tanks. 30 some years of combined maintenance exerience and no one here has seen screws this tough to remove. Guess I will have to keep trying until something works. Thanks for your help. Eric Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113668#113668 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2007
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
The C172 increases came with gear changes and later engine change. It went from 2200 to 2300, and eventually I think 2400...not a major increase. Also, the airframe was designed as a taildragger, so gear and gearbox had to be designed stronger. Those weren't paper changes but fully tested, and there were structural changes. Different gear legs, different struts, etc. On 5/18/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > The venerable Cessna 172 has had its max weight increased several times > during its life, equaling several hundred pounds and without structural > modification. This was accomplished by continued testing and analyzing the > results. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Hertner" <effectus(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Battery Charger
Date: May 18, 2007
Hi Everyone, A little while ago someone posted something about a good battery charger that was available through Walmart under a different name. I am getting to the point where I want to start charging my batteries and I can't find the reference to the charger. Dave Hertner #40164 Working on wing guts! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2007
From: Bruce Patton <bpattonsoa(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Screw removal
After doing several annuals on my RV-6, here is my solution to phillips screws. First is to buy a new, very good bit for my power screwdriver. I take all the brass screws, and there are hundreds of them removed at each annual, and place them in one big plastic bag. The occasional one that goes completely bad while removing, I use a easy-out. Occasionally the head is drilled off and then I either replace the nut plate or remove the screw from the backside. The bag goes home, and then at TV time, I sort the screws into trash and ones that look absolutely untouched. I never reuse one that even has a shine. End up replacing about 30-50% of the screws at every annual, but the lack of stress the next time is well worth it. When reassembly damages a screw, take it out then and scrap it. Bruce Patton ----- Original Message ---- From: Randy DeBauw <Randy(at)abros.com> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 3:03:15 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Screw removal Eric, have you tried Left hand drill bits. They work great. You use a smaller size than you think you need. As you drill it is grabbing and trying to unscrew the bad screw. If it doesn't get it go to the next size larger. I buy them at a local bolt house. Randy 40006 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric_Kallio Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 2:50 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Screw removal I used easy outs from work. and they didn't work either. Including myself 3 A&Ps have looked at them and they aren't coming out without a fight. The problem is the metal is so soft that the heads just hollow out. I may end up having to drill the whole thing out, removing the tank completely, replace the nutplates, and then re-install the tanks. 30 some years of combined maintenance exerience and no one here has seen screws this tough to remove. Guess I will have to keep trying until something works. Thanks for your help. Eric Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113668#113668 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Date: May 18, 2007
Subject: Batterydied
Sounds right. The RG style battery is like any other flooded lead-acid t ype of battery and needs to be kept charged or it will eventually go dead a nd be useless. The AGM batteries like Odyssey are very good at maintaining a charge while in storage, in some cases for years without being charged. Bottom line is to keep your batteries topped off for maximum life. Michael From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 3:09 PM Subject: RV10-List: Batterydied I made a post yesterday that my battery died and wouldn't start the plane. It did die but I said it was an Odyssey but it actual is a Concorde RG25XC. I bought this battery in Feb this year and when I went to start the plane yesterday for the first time it was DOA. I charged it slow charge overnight , which made no change in it's cranking power. In talking to the people at TexAir they said that you don't want to buy thi s battery and let it set because it will go bad like mine did. They never s eem to tell you that type of stuff up front do they. Just an FYI for those like me who got a battery in advance of first start. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2007
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Charger
From Tim: I purchased a Schumacher SC-2500A <http://store.schumachermart.com/25ampchsc.html> charger (actually I bought the WM-2500A...Wal-Mart's model number for that charger.. read it here <http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20070401/index.html> I have the battery tender jr, as do others and it works fine, but it does not have the volt read out that the Schumacher has. Larry David Hertner wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > A little while ago someone posted something about a good battery > charger that was available through Walmart under a different name. I > am getting to the point where I want to start charging my batteries > and I can't find the reference to the charger. > > Dave Hertner > #40164 > Working on wing guts! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2007
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Battery Charger
David, It may have been me...not sure. Here's a link http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20070401/index.html Tim David Hertner wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > A little while ago someone posted something about a good battery charger > that was available through Walmart under a different name. I am getting > to the point where I want to start charging my batteries and I can't > find the reference to the charger. > > Dave Hertner > #40164 > Working on wing guts! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 19, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Not true for all of the weight changes in the history of the 172, but like you said 200 lbs is not a major increase? -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:36 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight The C172 increases came with gear changes and later engine change. It went from 2200 to 2300, and eventually I think 2400...not a major increase. Also, the airframe was designed as a taildragger, so gear and gearbox had to be designed stronger. Those weren't paper changes but fully tested, and there were structural changes. Different gear legs, different struts, etc. On 5/18/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > The venerable Cessna 172 has had its max weight increased several times > during its life, equaling several hundred pounds and without structural > modification. This was accomplished by continued testing and analyzing the > results. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa(at)antelecom.net>
Subject: Re: Start your engine
Date: May 18, 2007
Good info. Kevin 40494 tail/empennage ----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Kermanj To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:13 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Start your engine At the risk of starting a battery brand war, I would like to offer an alternative to Odessey. I have been using Sears handicap battery for 15 years in my planes. This battery, combined with a L model Skytech starter, will crank your IO540 for ever (especially when you have trouble with Hot Starts). I have actually never seen the end of the life on this battery, I just replace it every three years as a precaution. This battery costs less, lasts longer, It is available to pick up 7 days a week and if you let it

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-cg

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-cg