RV10-List Archive Browser

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-ch
May 19, 2007 - May 25, 2007

go flat, you just recharge it. Another bonus is that it fits the existing battery tray in all RVs without any modifications. I have seen enough neighbors with Odessey batteries laying on shelf as "Paper Weight". Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Start your engine
Date: May 19, 2007
It's odd but my experience has been quite different. I've killed the pc680 in my 6a at least 5 times since completion in 2001. and I'm talking leaving the master on for days before I notice.when I show up to fly I smack my forehead (doh!) throw the charger on for a while ,then go flying.. Now, ,I noticed it does take a bit longer than a wet cell battery to take an initial charge, similar to a deep cycle, but it will come around.. I don't normally test my batts to find discharge rates over time, but I do expect them to work well after a week of sitting out in a western ny winter. If they pass that test their still good. (imho). I've been using this type of batt almost daily in the auto customs we put together, everything from audio, hydraulics, rv's and travel trailers, and have been convinced that this is the best technology we have to date. Just a fyi..kenetik battery makes a 26 lb 800 agm batt that fits the rv10 battery tray almost perfectly. Specifications Weight: 26 lbs. Ah: 36 Amps: 950 Dimensions: 7.6" x 5" x 6" Steven dinieri Iflyrv10.com 40205 _____ 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 topped off and if you are using them for testing I would recommend keeping a charger on them to make sure they are full. They keep their charge exceedingly 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Battery Charger
From: "Jim & Julie Wade" <jwade(at)msdeltawireless.com>
Date: May 19, 2007
I have used the battery minder on the last 3 planes I have had. It works great. I ran the plugin into the baggage area and plug it up when it is parked. You can even boost from the plug of you have to. http://www.vdcelectronics.com/ Jim & Julie 40383 N369JW 95 Hours Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113723#113723 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim C" <tlc2(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: HEADER TANK
Date: May 19, 2007
Shortcoming of the low wing is the fuel must be coaxed to defy gravity Some low wings have header tanks, but usually a high wing gravity set up. The older low wing gravity feed set ups, use a fuel tank situated between the instrument panel and the firewall, which acts as a big header...... Header tanks put the fuel in the fuselage & to some, 'on a bad day' becomes a religious experience. Mechanical fuel pump w/ electric back up & some good dead stick skills ;-) Tim Cold Lk. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Re: Start your engineStart your engine
Date: May 19, 2007
John, Yes it's a good feeling whenever you make some type of measurable progress and this was one of those times. I still have a lot to do but that's another one more thing I can take off the list :>} Yes I have a custom painted Aero Composite prop.The weight of the prop is 50lbs. Keep pluggin away and you will be there before you know it. Wayne Edgerton #40336 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wanna see something cool?
Date: May 19, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
She is on her own 3 legs and wearing her Eggenfellner engine proudly!! Dan N289DT RV10E ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2007
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
Not considering it took more than fifteen years to get there, totally different landing gear, different engine, different fuselage. Remember it started as the C170 in 1948, so there are a lot more changes than you realize. Almost nothing from 1969 on is original. On 5/18/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > > 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 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > 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. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2007
From: "James K Hovis" <james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
Kelly, One thing to remember is in the "old" days, engineering analysis tended to be extremely conservative which resulted in structures that were actually more robust than needed. As better analysis tools came on line (for example NASTRAN), it was easier for Cessna and others to re-look at old designs and show "upgrades" (i.e. weight and HP increases) without altering the basic airframes too much. Aircraft design still tends to be conservative. Why do you think radical design departures take SO long to get FAA approval if a TC is sought (see Beech Starship for composite construction)? Fortunantly for Cirrus, Diamond, and Columbia, Beech spent the money. But the point is, weight increases on TC aircraft aren't just pencil-whipped, there are rational professional analyses behind them. Kevin H. On 5/19/07, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Not considering it took more than fifteen years to get there, totally > different landing gear, different engine, different fuselage. Remember > it started as the C170 in 1948, so there are a lot more changes than > you realize. Almost nothing from 1969 on is original. > > On 5/18/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > > > > 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 > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > 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: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Fw: How to get them to lower gas prices
Date: May 19, 2007
Just forwarding this idea. > > >Subject: How to get them to lower gas prices] > > >_>> > GAS WAR - an idea that WILL work > >> > >> This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from > >> one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. > >> It ' s worth your consideration. > >> > >> Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $4.00 a > >> gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to > >> come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip > >> Hollsworth offered this good idea. > >> > >> This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" > >> campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies >just > >> laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" > >> ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us > >> than it was a problem for them. > >> > >> BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can > >> really work. Please read on and join wi th us! By now you're probably > >> thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is > >> currently $2.79 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil > >> companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the >cost > >> of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take >aggressive > >> action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace ---------not > >> sellers > >> With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need >to > >> take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come >down > >> is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! >And, > >> we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? Since we all rely on our > >> cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas > >> prices if we all act together to force a price war. > >> > >> Here's the idea: > >> > >> For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two > >> biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not > >> selling any > >> gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce > >> their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. > >> > >> But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and > >> Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out at >this > >> point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach > >> millions of people. > >> > >> I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us sends it to at least > >> ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten >more > >> (300 x 10 = 3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches the > >> sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION >consumers > >> If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends >each, > >> then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level > >> further, you guessed it..... THREE > >> >>>>HUNDRED MILLION >>>>PEOPLE!!! > >> > >> Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. (If >you > >> don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is > >> send this to 10 people.... Well, let's face it, you just aren't a > >> mathematician. But I am, so trust me on this one.) > >> > >> How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to >ten > >> more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could > >> conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!! > >> > >> I'll bet you didn't think you and I > >> had that much potential, di d you? > >> > >> Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, > >> please pass this message on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL > >> UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. > >> > >> THIS CAN REALLY WORK. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------- > >> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? > >> Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. > >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Fw: How to get them to lower gas prices
Date: May 19, 2007
This is total BS. The reason that gas prices are high is the US Congress. They prevent the US from finding our own oil on US territory to increase supply. As a result foreign companies including the Chinese are partnering with our enemies to produce oil and gas In the Gulf of Mexico. They refuse to "clear the decks" for building more pipelines and refineries. They inhibit the use of more nuclear power. They fail to legislate the building of the nuclear fuel storage area in Yucca Flats. The author of the gas plan does not understand global markets at all. Oil and gas are commodities and are sold to the highest bidder. So you don't buy from the two biggest, you might hurt their dealer stations maybe but they just switch over and buy some other refiners output for gasoline. The big ones still produce and sell their crude for $65 a barrel (All they can produce). The real problem is supply; the environ(mentals) and Congress have taken it upon themselves to limit supply and tie up anyone is "red tape" who tries to accomplish any thing. Good luck with your boycott. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:20 AM Subject: RV10-List: Fw: How to get them to lower gas prices Just forwarding this idea. > > >Subject: How to get them to lower gas prices] > > >_>> > GAS WAR - an idea that WILL work > >> > >> This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from > >> one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. > >> It ' s worth your consideration. > >> > >> Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $4.00 a > >> gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to > >> come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip > >> Hollsworth offered this good idea. > >> > >> This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" > >> campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies >just > >> laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" > >> ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us > >> than it was a problem for them. > >> > >> BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can > >> really work. Please read on and join wi th us! By now you're probably > >> thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is > >> currently $2.79 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil > >> companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the >cost > >> of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take >aggressive > >> action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace ---------not > >> sellers > >> With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need >to > >> take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come >down > >> is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! >And, > >> we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? Since we all rely on our > >> cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas > >> prices if we all act together to force a price war. > >> > >> Here's the idea: > >> > >> For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two > >> biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not > >> selling any > >> gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce > >> their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. > >> > >> But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and > >> Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out at >this > >> point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach > >> millions of people. > >> > >> I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us sends it to at least > >> ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten >more > >> (300 x 10 = 3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches the > >> sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION >consumers > >> If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends >each, > >> then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level > >> further, you guessed it..... THREE > >> >>>>HUNDRED MILLION >>>>PEOPLE!!! > >> > >> Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. (If >you > >> don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is > >> send this to 10 people.... Well, let's face it, you just aren't a > >> mathematician. But I am, so trust me on this one.) > >> > >> How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to >ten > >> more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could > >> conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!! > >> > >> I'll bet you didn't think you and I > >> had that much potential, di d you? > >> > >> Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, > >> please pass this message on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL > >> UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. > >> > >> THIS CAN REALLY WORK. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------- > >> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? > >> Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. > >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2007
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: nose wheel cocked in flight
Mine is between 20 and 30 pounds...I expect that will change as thing wear in and I plan to check it again after the first several hours...I want as much use out of the $23 1-3/4 Craftsman socket and $7 3/4 to 1/2 adapter. ;) Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2007
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Batterydied
One quick note on batteries....make sure you don't leave them on bare concrete...least that's what I've always been told, sucks the energy right out of them. I heard it a long time ago...it may be a youngs wives tale. Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Wanna see something cool?
Date: May 19, 2007
Congratulations! Hope to see some performance numbers soon. Mark N410MR >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV10-List: Wanna see something cool? >Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 08:10:24 -0400 > >She is on her own 3 legs and wearing her Eggenfellner engine proudly!! >Dan N289DT RV10E ><< DSC00214.JPG >> ><< DSC00212.JPG >> _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows Live Hotmail. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Screw removal
Date: May 19, 2007
Eric, I'm not sure if these will work for you but I bought a set at the Las Vegas SEMA car show and they will take out about any kind of normal soft screw. They are pretty amazing. One end drills the head out, and the opposite is a reverse thread fit that just backs it out. Pretty neat. http://www.aldn.com/grabit/ Hope this helps. Bill S 7a Ark -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric_Kallio Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:50 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 19, 2007
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Batterydied
Actually true, when wet cell batteries were encased in hard rubber cases, which went away probably 30 years or so ago in most applications. You might still find a few. The hard rubber, like all rubber had a degree of permeability. Not an issue with anything in a modern plastic case. On 5/19/07, Rick wrote: > > One quick note on batteries....make sure you don't leave them on bare concrete...least that's what I've always been told, sucks the energy right out of them. I heard it a long time ago...it may be a youngs wives tale. > > Rick S. > 40185 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Batterydied
Date: May 19, 2007
Rick, I'cve recently done some research on this subject (we put up a solar and windmill project at out house) and I found out that concrete energy sucking is a myth. But leaving them sitting around for a long time anywhere will hurt them. Jeff Dalton Wings ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick" <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 3:36 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Batterydied > > One quick note on batteries....make sure you don't leave them on bare > concrete...least that's what I've always been told, sucks the energy right > out of them. I heard it a long time ago...it may be a youngs wives tale. > > Rick S. > 40185 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 19, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
What I am talking about is the changes in the gross weight without changing/ modifying the airframe. Research the history of the aircraft and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to the airframe, rather extensive testing was accomplished and the gross weight was modified. This is what I am referring to in this situation, if the builder is going to change the gross weight than a test period is required to verify it is safe, and as the builder they are the ones that need to determine how much and what testing is necessary to be okay with the change. Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 8:25 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight Not considering it took more than fifteen years to get there, totally different landing gear, different engine, different fuselage. Remember it started as the C170 in 1948, so there are a lot more changes than you realize. Almost nothing from 1969 on is original. On 5/18/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > > 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 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > 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: "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: firewall forward kit
Date: May 19, 2007
I'm just now ordering my fwf kit. Since I'm getting my engine from Mattituck I'll not be needing Van's alternator. Is there any thing else in that kit that I should consider not getting? And does the current Vetterman's exhaust system have the longer tubes versus the earlier models? Thanks, Jay Rowe 40301 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Date: May 19, 2007
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
In a message dated 5/19/2007 10:52:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: Research the history of the aircraft and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to the airframe, Dan which aircraft were paper whipped into increases in gross weight/useful load without any additional work? The Cessna 172's were increased because of increased horsepower, tire size and rating changes and new landing gear modifications...cherokee were increased because of horsepower increases and other modifications. What method are you using to calculate your changes to the 10 that Van's has not gotten correct. I'd think that to really test the higher weights you'd need to develop a test bed wing and frame. One would probably need both a flying and static test bed product. I believe the Mooney factory static test bed they loads bags of shot until the wing deforms or retains it's original formation and attach points at a calculated load bearing weight. The the test pilot fly's the test bed stressing the heck out of the plane in every condition...spins, smap rolls etc and notes the results both with instruments and feel. Who know's estabilishing a new higher gross could include some fun flying...take along a parachaute, tho. It seems that a pilot the other week believed that he could do aerobatics in a baron as he believe the plane was capable of the stresses...it seems the plane broke up and a few folks when with him as he became a fatal test pilot. Patrick ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa(at)antelecom.net>
Subject: Re: Batterydied
Date: May 19, 2007
Some references on whether batteries stored on concrete loose their charge faster or not: http://www.carquest.com/partsBatteryFAQMyths.html#2 If I set a battery on concrete, it will quickly loose its charge. Although it is true that after a period of time batteries do self-discharge, placing them on concrete won't speed the process. What you place your battery on is not as important as the type of environment you expose it to. A battery that is stored at cooler temperatures (not below freezing), and protected from severe extremes, will last much longer than a battery stored at extreme temperatures. http://www.interstatebatteries.com/www_2001/content/faqs/tech_talk/maintenance/faq_tech_maint.htm Will storing my battery on concrete drain the charge? No. Regarding today's batteries, this is a myth. A battery placed on concrete will not discharge any faster, but a battery will discharge over a period of time wherever it is placed. If the battery has a surface layer of acid or grime which is conductive, the battery will self-discharge more rapidly than if it were clean and dry. This myth does have some historical basis. Many years ago, wooden battery cases encased a glass jar with the battery in it. Any moisture on the floor could cause the wood to swell and possibly fracture the glass, causing it to leak. Later came the introduction of the "hard rubber" cases, which were somewhat porous. A current could be conducted through this container, which had a high carbon content, if the moist concrete floor permitted the current to find an electrical ground. The wise advise of the old days to "not store batteries on concrete" has apparently been passed down to us today, but it no longer applies. > > One quick note on batteries....make sure you don't leave them on bare > concrete...least that's what I've always been told, sucks the energy right > out of them. I heard it a long time ago...it may be a youngs wives tale. > > Rick S. > 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 19, 2007
OK, just to stir the pot a little more...what category will your RV-10 operate in? Utility, standard??? How may positive and how many negative g's. It all factors in doesn't it. If you place an operating limit on the aircraft of lets say +2/-.5 g's could you not increase the gross weight using the same test data that van's used? (just ignore the hard landing issue). What is the fuel burn in climb? 19 gallons an hour? .32 gallons a minute, or 1.9 pounds a minute. So can you add 20 pounds to the gross weight, and just assume a 10 minute climb and a reduced capability during climb? Been at work all day instead of being able to work on the plane, so if this does not make sense it is because I am to tired to think.... Rene' Felker N423CF 40322 Finish or something like it, my panel arives on Wednesday form Stein, the pictures look great. 801-721-6080 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:55 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight In a message dated 5/19/2007 10:52:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: Research the history of the aircraft and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to the airframe, Dan which aircraft were paper whipped into increases in gross weight/useful load without any additional work? The Cessna 172's were increased because of increased horsepower, tire size and rating changes and new landing gear modifications...cherokee were increased because of horsepower increases and other modifications. What method are you using to calculate your changes to the 10 that Van's has not gotten correct. I'd think that to really test the higher weights you'd need to develop a test bed wing and frame. One would probably need both a flying and static test bed product. I believe the Mooney factory static test bed they loads bags of shot until the wing deforms or retains it's original formation and attach points at a calculated load bearing weight. The the test pilot fly's the test bed stressing the heck out of the plane in every condition...spins, smap rolls etc and notes the results both with instruments and feel. Who know's estabilishing a new higher gross could include some fun flying...take along a parachaute, tho. It seems that a pilot the other week believed that he could do aerobatics in a baron as he believe the plane was capable of the stresses...it seems the plane broke up and a few folks when with him as he became a fatal test pilot. Patrick _____ See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 19, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
The three Standard categories are Normal, Utility and Aerobatic. The RV-10 has not been tested for more than the most conservative Normal. Utility will require proof of load carrying at higher (more extreme G load limits) and VAN has been quite clear that the wings will not accept Aerobatic so have at it and let us know by email if you survive the Test Flight. Get some rest first. Kitplanes had a great article on stall speeds with higher loads last month. You might read up on that before turning the key. On the other hand the weights both positive and negative are documented. If you can shed enough weight, you might be able to hit the aerobatic G limit with two or three gallons of fuel onboard. Don't forget the Christen Inverted Oil system too. John #600 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene Felker Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:55 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight OK, just to stir the pot a little more.........what category will your RV-10 operate in? Utility, standard??? How may positive and how many negative g's. It all factors in doesn't it. If you place an operating limit on the aircraft of lets say +2/-.5 g's could you not increase the gross weight using the same test data that van's used? (just ignore the hard landing issue). What is the fuel burn in climb? 19 gallons an hour? .32 gallons a minute, or 1.9 pounds a minute. So can you add 20 pounds to the gross weight, and just assume a 10 minute climb and a reduced capability during climb? Been at work all day instead of being able to work on the plane, so if this does not make sense it is because I am to tired to think........ Rene' Felker N423CF 40322 Finish or something like it, my panel arives on Wednesday form Stein, the pictures look great. 801-721-6080 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:55 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight In a message dated 5/19/2007 10:52:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: Research the history of the aircraft and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to the airframe, Dan which aircraft were paper whipped into increases in gross weight/useful load without any additional work? The Cessna 172's were increased because of increased horsepower, tire size and rating changes and new landing gear modifications...cherokee were increased because of horsepower increases and other modifications. What method are you using to calculate your changes to the 10 that Van's has not gotten correct. I'd think that to really test the higher weights you'd need to develop a test bed wing and frame. One would probably need both a flying and static test bed product. I believe the Mooney factory static test bed they loads bags of shot until the wing deforms or retains it's original formation and attach points at a calculated load bearing weight. The the test pilot fly's the test bed stressing the heck out of the plane in every condition...spins, smap rolls etc and notes the results both with instruments and feel. Who know's estabilishing a new higher gross could include some fun flying...take along a parachaute, tho. It seems that a pilot the other week believed that he could do aerobatics in a baron as he believe the plane was capable of the stresses...it seems the plane broke up and a few folks when with him as he became a fatal test pilot. Patrick ________________________________ See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to get them to lower gas prices
From: "Eric_Kallio" <scout019(at)msn.com>
Date: May 20, 2007
Gentlemen, lets remember a few things about the supplies of gasoline, and who to point the finger at. First, I am a pilot for one of the helicopter companies that contract to the oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico and I live in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, so I deal with this regularly. Having said this, Hurricane Katrina's effects are still a major factor in the US ability to refine oil. Our refineries down here are still not up to full production of pre Katrina levels. Part of this is the inflexibility of the environmentalist groups and the EPA. We can't build new refineries because every action is being blocked by Greenpeace or the EPA. The refineries that we had can't be repaired becuse again the environmentalists say that the damage to the environement would be too great if another hurricane occured. This country is stuck in this "not in my backyard" mentality. If we want cheap gas then we need to push our government officials to open up drilling off of Florida, Virginia, California, and Alaska. We also need to build the refineries throughout the country to support our demand. The oil is out there, just get your congressmen to turn a deaf ear to the environmentalists, and let us go get it. Eric Kallio Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113823#113823 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: firewall forward kit
Date: May 20, 2007
The Mattituck engine doesn't come with an alternator, does it? None of ours have. Is that new? I believe the current exhaust still has the longer tubes. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com 352-427-0285 Leather interior kit for the RV-10 - www.saintaviation.com/interior -----Original Message----- From: "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr(at)adelphia.net> Sent: 5/19/2007 11:13 PM Subject: RV10-List: firewall forward kit I'm just now ordering my fwf kit. Since I'm getting my engine from Mattituck I'll not be needing Van's alternator. Is there any thing else in that kit that I should consider not getting? And does the current Vetterman's exhaust system have the longer tubes versus the earlier models? Thanks, Jay Rowe 40301 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2007
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Batterydied
It isn't a myth, just out-dated information, assuming you aren't using a rubber case battery..not many of those left around. A myth implies it never was true, this has a basis in fact, just old and no longer applicable. jdalton77 wrote: > > Rick, > > I'cve recently done some research on this subject (we put up a solar > and windmill project at out house) and I found out that concrete > energy sucking is a myth. > > But leaving them sitting around for a long time anywhere will hurt them. > > Jeff Dalton > Wings > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick" <ricksked(at)earthlink.net> > To: > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 3:36 PM > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Batterydied > > >> >> One quick note on batteries....make sure you don't leave them on bare >> concrete...least that's what I've always been told, sucks the energy >> right out of them. I heard it a long time ago...it may be a youngs >> wives tale. >> >> Rick S. >> 40185 >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2007
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
I've flown or examined most models of 172's up until the late '70s. There are very few gross wt changes and a lot of structural changes, some visible, some less obvious, but I doubt any of the gross wt changes were made with no structural changes. C model upped it by 50 lbs with shorter and stronger gear. D model had swept tail, changed fuel tanks, upped it to 2300. No change after that for 20 years, until 1980 went to 2400 after they went to tubular gear and different variant of 160 hp engine, different vertical fin, etc. Cessna changed the landing gear at least 4 times after they made it a nose dragger that I know about. They changed the wing struts at least a couple times. The tail changed at least a couple times. Also complicating the picture is that the plane was certified under CAR3 and many later changes were certified under Part 23. So sum total there was less than a 10% change in gross wt over more than 50 years of production, with over 20 variants produced, all having some structural changes, with horsepower changes from 6 cyl 145 hp to 6 cyl 175 hp, to 4 cyl 150 hp to 4 cy 160hp to 4 cyl 180 hp to six cyl 195 hp and 210 hp, and you think those gross wt changes were just paper calculations? It also was produced under two different type certificates, the second originating with the 175 that became P172, then Cutlass and other variants with gross as high as 2550. So where is there a year that gross changed with NO structural change? How do you know there wasn't a change? Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > > What I am talking about is the changes in the gross weight without > changing/ modifying the airframe. Research the history of the aircraft > and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to > the airframe, rather extensive testing was accomplished and the gross > weight was modified. This is what I am referring to in this situation, > if the builder is going to change the gross weight than a test period is > required to verify it is safe, and as the builder they are the ones that > need to determine how much and what testing is necessary to be okay with > the change. > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly > McMullen > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 8:25 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight > > > Not considering it took more than fifteen years to get there, totally > different landing gear, different engine, different fuselage. Remember > it started as the C170 in 1948, so there are a lot more changes than > you realize. Almost nothing from 1969 on is original. > > On 5/18/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > >> > > >> 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 >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2007
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: firewall forward kit
The standard FWF kit from Vans comes with an automobile style alternater. I would recommend using the 60 A plane Power from Vans, 60 a from B&C or 70 A Plane Power alternator. Others have replaced the Vans hoses with firesleeved hoses. William Curtis has a good write up on one of his web pages. Read it here <http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/20Engine/hose.html> Fire wall penetrations should also be thought about. Although nothing in the FWF kit to replace, consider stainless steel fire wall penetrations like EPM.AV <http://www.epm-avcorp.com/tubeseal.html> and / or spherical metal grommets <http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1179675964-90-9&browse=airframe&product=one_eye> Larry Rosen Jesse Saint wrote: > > The Mattituck engine doesn't come with an alternator, does it? None of ours have. Is that new? > > I believe the current exhaust still has the longer tubes. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > www.saintaviation.com > 352-427-0285 > > Leather interior kit for the RV-10 - > www.saintaviation.com/interior > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr(at)adelphia.net> > To: "matronics" > Sent: 5/19/2007 11:13 PM > Subject: RV10-List: firewall forward kit > > I'm just now ordering my fwf kit. Since I'm getting my engine from Mattituck I'll not be needing Van's alternator. Is there any thing else in that kit that I should consider not getting? And does the current Vetterman's exhaust system have the longer tubes versus the earlier models? Thanks, Jay Rowe 40301 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: firewall forward kit
Date: May 20, 2007
Jesse: Mattituck tries to sell you their Nisson battery...at least it is in their package price. But you can change it to whatever you want, which I have done. Lots of the list folks have recommended either B & C or Plane Power...I've gone with the latter only because it is a little cheaper and has internal regulation. On Larry's recommendation I will call Vetteman's directly abouy the length of the exhaust pipes in relation to the "tunnel heating" and performance. If I hear anything earthshaking I will post it. Thaink, Jay ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:51 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: firewall forward kit > > The Mattituck engine doesn't come with an alternator, does it? None of > ours have. Is that new? > > I believe the current exhaust still has the longer tubes. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > www.saintaviation.com > 352-427-0285 > > Leather interior kit for the RV-10 - > www.saintaviation.com/interior > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr(at)adelphia.net> > To: "matronics" > Sent: 5/19/2007 11:13 PM > Subject: RV10-List: firewall forward kit > > I'm just now ordering my fwf kit. Since I'm getting my engine from > Mattituck I'll not be needing Van's alternator. Is there any thing else in > that kit that I should consider not getting? And does the current > Vetterman's exhaust system have the longer tubes versus the earlier > models? Thanks, Jay Rowe 40301 > > > -- > 7:54 AM > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2007
From: James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net>
Subject: Aligning Fiberglass Wingtips
When you work on the fiberglass wingtips, how do you get it aligned correctly so that the aft end of the tips are even with the ailerons when everything is installed? I can see where a slight misalignment would cause the aft end to vary quite a bit. How did you do it? Any other suggestions on how to do the wingtips would be appreciated! -Jim 40384 (Waiting out the monsoon to work on the tips outside the house) As a side question: Why fiberglass? Why not injection molded plastic? It would cost less and be more precise for non-structural parts... Hmmm.....? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Byron Gillespie" <bgill1(at)charter.net>
Subject: Aligning Fiberglass Wingtips
Date: May 20, 2007
Hi Jim: I just went through the same issue last month. The first wing tip went on great no issues. The second one - after getting it all #40 drilled - was off by 1/4" at the tip. After scratching my head a day or two and fretting about the postings from guys that had to slit the tips and re-fiberglass...I undid everything and found that if I wiggled the tip a bit on the top side and got it sitting a bit better in the wing, the 1/4" was gone... Long story short, it is definitely easy to get the movement that you mentioned. After glassing up the holes on the one side, I made sure that the flaps and aileron were in proper alignment and taped the aft edge in place and made sure that there was no movement as I #40 drilled the holes up from the leading edge. This time it aligned up fine. Just make sure that you can make it fit straight before drilling and then alternate concave to convex side and cleko every hole as you go to the trailing side. Look often as you go to make sure that there is no movement and that fiberglass doesn't build up between the wing and tip. Hopefully everything will align up fine. Byron - N253RV assigned (beginning year two of finishing and firewall forward) -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:29 PM Subject: RV10-List: Aligning Fiberglass Wingtips When you work on the fiberglass wingtips, how do you get it aligned correctly so that the aft end of the tips are even with the ailerons when everything is installed? I can see where a slight misalignment would cause the aft end to vary quite a bit. How did you do it? Any other suggestions on how to do the wingtips would be appreciated! -Jim 40384 (Waiting out the monsoon to work on the tips outside the house) As a side question: Why fiberglass? Why not injection molded plastic? It would cost less and be more precise for non-structural parts... Hmmm.....? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tailcone question
From: "Wiley" <rdone(at)mac.com>
Date: May 20, 2007
New builder here who's been learning tons from this group. Today I got in a hurry and blew it with my unibit. Not sure what to do. On Pg 10-3 step 5 I drilled one of my holes to 11/16 instead of 5/8 on accident. I can't figure out the purpose of the holes. Is it where the rudder cable will pas through and if so is being a little oversized critical? Not sure if I should replase the bulkhead or not. Thanks, Dave Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113869#113869 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2007
From: James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net>
Subject: Re: Tailcone question
Dave, Welcome! You made it further than I did before I blew it! Here's what your options are: 1. Order a new part from Van's (Mostly depends on how you'll 'feel' about it) 2. Email Van's to confirm that it won't be a big deal (use a larger snap bushing). I always get confirmation from Van's if I need to modify/repair a part. 3. Take a scrap piece of aluminum, and rivet a 'patch' over the hole, then use the unibit to make then enlarge a hole in the center to the right size. The part's cheap, so if it were myself, I'd just hang it up on the "Wall of fame" and order a new one. There's plenty to do while waiting for shipping. -Jim 40384 (I HATE fiberglass!) Wiley wrote: > >New builder here who's been learning tons from this group. Today I got in a hurry and blew it with my unibit. Not sure what to do. > >On Pg 10-3 step 5 I drilled one of my holes to 11/16 instead of 5/8 on accident. I can't figure out the purpose of the holes. Is it where the rudder cable will pas through and if so is being a little oversized critical? Not sure if I should replase the bulkhead or not. > >Thanks, >Dave > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113869#113869 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Subject: Aligning Fiberglass Wingtips
Date: May 20, 2007
I waited until the wings were mounted. Set the flaps, then set the ailerons to the flaps. Last align the wing tips to the ailerons and drill. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: "James Hein" <n8vim(at)arrl.net> Sent: 5/20/07 2:28 PM Subject: RV10-List: Aligning Fiberglass Wingtips When you work on the fiberglass wingtips, how do you get it aligned correctly so that the aft end of the tips are even with the ailerons when everything is installed? I can see where a slight misalignment would cause the aft end to vary quite a bit. How did you do it? Any other suggestions on how to do the wingtips would be appreciated! -Jim 40384 (Waiting out the monsoon to work on the tips outside the house) As a side question: Why fiberglass? Why not injection molded plastic? It would cost less and be more precise for non-structural parts... Hmmm.....? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim C" <tlc2(at)telus.net>
Subject: HEADER TANK
Date: May 20, 2007
Below info from Gary, whom had a Custom made Crash resistant racecar type fuel cell from below contacts......Don't know if size would be an issue for a smaller header jpeg attached of his tank>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Lamb, Gary Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:22 PM Subject: RE: Aircar Fuel Tank... ATL custom made the bladder per my drawings. David H. Dack [Ddack(at)atlinc.com] is the person that I worked with at the time. Here is the link to their website: http://www.atlinc.com/US/home.html Eagle Fuel Cells also quoted. Worked with Dan Grosskopf [fuelcell(at)nnex.net] at the time. http://www.eaglefuelcells.com/index.html Both are perfectly capable of doing the work. I believe that I went with ATL because they tended to be a little more responsive to me needs. Hope that helps. Gary ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com>
Date: May 21, 2007
Subject: Re: Motortopia
There are nice advantages to putting the jacks on the rear seat support. I will gladly email them to anyone if you want offline. I think Tim may be overstating his frame size..the rear seats are AMPLE even for lar ge people....... and IF that is the case and your large passengers inter fere with these jacks please double check your W&B and maybe put him/her in the front seat. :) No right or wrong way to do it......YOU are t he builder! Dean 40449 Done painting
There are nice advantages to putting the jacks on the rear seat support. I will gladly email them to anyone if you want offl ine. I think Tim may be overstating his frame size..the rear seats are AMPLE even for large people....... and IF that is the ca se and your large passengers interfere with these jacks please double ch eck your W&B and maybe put him/her in the front seat. :) No right or wrong way to do it......YOU are the builder!

Dean 40449

Done painting

________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2007
From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Oil Cooling Update
I have to give you all an update on my oil cooling. Tim pointed me to his site where he did some work on sealing the engine baffles better as well as applying RTV between the cylinders. Also, I was having my #1 and #2 cylinders going over 400 during my climbs which others were not seeing. I must admit, my first thought was, yea right, all that work will change it 1 degree. When I installed my baffles I cut 1/2 of the baffle material away from the #1 and #2 cylinder and they were still hot. About 2 weeks ago I removed the whole thing and now my #1 and #2 cylinders are right in line with everything else. This most likely reduced oil temps the most. My CHT's on #1 and #2 dropped around 30- 40 degrees by removing this section. I also did some sealing around the front and back of the engine but I need to do alot more. I haven't even put any RTV between the cylinders and I have flown at gross to Bluff UT for the Red Bull races and just got back from some warm flying in AZ this weekend and my CHT's never went above 390 and my oil temp maxed at 210 when I was giving rides at Prescott (90 degree OAT). I have a long way to go to increase the cooling and I must admit, the difference those little changes made have amazed me. For now, I am not going to change anything other than to continue to find holes and gaps where the air can leak out. I still need to put the RTV between the cylinders but I have not stopped flying long enough to allow it to dry properly, but should have time this week. Even though it is getting warmer here, my engine is actually running cooler now. Thanks Tim for the advice. Scott Schmidt scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: My panel is on its way.....the end is near
Date: May 20, 2007
I am about to hit my final major milestone to completion........my panel has been shipped from Stein. I have attached a picture that Stein sent me. I am hoping to be able to get the airframe completed by the end of June and to the paint shop. Other than the airbox and a little baffling work, nothing else needs to be completed. Question, with the pictured panel, I am anticipating 6 10 hour work sessions to fit the panel, attach the glair shield to the airframe and set the windshield. Is that enough time? Rene' N423CF 40322 801-721-6080 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2007
From: Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net>
Subject: Flaps
I'm finding little information on the flap positioning system, just wondering what the majority of the group is doing here. After all, the flaps are different than any airplane I've ever flown. Thanks, Sam Marlow Still wiring ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Flaps
Date: May 21, 2007
I am using the one from Vans. But I am not flying yet. 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 Sam Marlow Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 6:39 AM Subject: RV10-List: Flaps I'm finding little information on the flap positioning system, just wondering what the majority of the group is doing here. After all, the flaps are different than any airplane I've ever flown. Thanks, Sam Marlow Still wiring ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Date: May 21, 2007
Subject: Flaps
Here are your main two options: http://www.aircraftextras.com/FPS-Plus.htm http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1179752413-22-378&b rowse=airframe&product=fps I'm going with the Aircraft Extras product however you have to come up with your own position sensor for theirs. Most people seem to be using a POS-1 2 from Ray Allen for this purpose. http://www.rayallencompany.com/products/indsens.html Michael Sausen -10 #352 Limbo From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Marlow Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:39 AM Subject: RV10-List: Flaps I'm finding little information on the flap positioning system, just wonderi ng what the majority of the group is doing here. After all, the flaps are d ifferent than any airplane I've ever flown. Thanks, Sam Marlow Still wiring ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Flaps
Date: May 21, 2007
The FPS is fantastic. No indicator needed. Just hit the button and let them go to the next position. It's good to have a switch with momentary down but not momentary up, so when you want to put them up you just flip the switch up and they go all the way up. If you have the switch on your stick grip, it is also nice to have your thumb hit the switch from time to time accidentally and realize that it is up. It gives you the comfortable feeling that you know your flaps are all the way up, not set for climb. 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 Sam Marlow Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 8:39 AM Subject: RV10-List: Flaps I'm finding little information on the flap positioning system, just wondering what the majority of the group is doing here. After all, the flaps are different than any airplane I've ever flown. Thanks, Sam Marlow Still wiring ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2007
From: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Baggage door lock arm
I hung my baggage door yesterday with some success... It's in pretty straight and I was able to use the seamer to slightly bend the top and bottom edges to match the fuse skins. However, the lock arm is too short to engage the catch hole (it only sticks out about 1/2" from the door). Here's the lock (from Aircraft Spruce) I'm using... ACS DOOR AND BAGGAGE LOCK SETS P/N 11-01600 $26.60 The door and baggage locks furnished with the ignition switches above are also available separately. Set of two locks (one door and one baggage lock) furnished with one key mated to both locks. The baggage lock may be used as second door lock if preferred. Has anyone else run into this issue? If so, how did you work around it? Is it possible to purchase a longer lock arm? What source? Regards, Jay Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Baggage door lock arm
If I recall accurately, there is a substitute longer arm that come in the kit. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ Jay Brinkmeyer wrote: > Is it > possible to purchase a longer lock arm? What source? > > Regards, > Jay > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2007
From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Baggage door lock arm
The longer arm should have come with the kit. Scott Schmidt scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com ----- Original Message ---- From: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:40:17 AM Subject: RV10-List: Baggage door lock arm I hung my baggage door yesterday with some success... It's in pretty straight and I was able to use the seamer to slightly bend the top and bottom edges to match the fuse skins. However, the lock arm is too short to engage the catch hole (it only sticks out about 1/2" from the door). Here's the lock (from Aircraft Spruce) I'm using... ACS DOOR AND BAGGAGE LOCK SETS P/N 11-01600 $26.60 The door and baggage locks furnished with the ignition switches above are also available separately. Set of two locks (one door and one baggage lock) furnished with one key mated to both locks. The baggage lock may be used as second door lock if preferred. Has anyone else run into this issue? If so, how did you work around it? Is it possible to purchase a longer lock arm? What source? Regards, Jay Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven Roberts" <swrpilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Batterydied
Date: May 21, 2007
I recommend the Power On Board Smart Battery Charger. I have the model VEC1095APOB with up to 25 amp charge and 75 amp start. Sam's Club sells these for about $60. These chargers are amazing, and have settings for most lead-acid battery types. They weigh just a few pounds and include automatic charge rates, volt/amp meter, battery diagnostics and desulfation. The failure mode for new lead-acid batteries that sit unused for a month or two without charge/discharge cycling is usually sulfation of the plates. This battery charger has a 'desulfation' setting that applies a high frequency to the battery that reverses the process. Be sure to disconnect the battery from the vehicle first. Heavily sulfated batteries may need a week or more of 'desulfation', and some may be irreverseable. The failure mode for older batteries tends to be plate erosion and there is no cure for that. A battery tender will prevent sulfation in addition to maintaining a full charge. Many of the newer battery chargers have the desulfation feature, but most cost much more. Jim Weir wrote an article in Kitplanes a few years ago about how to build one if you want to take the time away from the RV-10. Steve Roberts Still lurking ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Edgerton To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:08 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 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2007
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Nose wheel pant/tow bar bolts
Anyone get 3/8" x 24 x 1" cap screws instead of 1-3/4" for the wheel pant bracket and towbar mount? Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Nose wheel pant/tow bar bolts
Date: May 21, 2007
From: "Bobby J. Hughes" <bhughes(at)qnsi.net>
I did. Van's sent new ones. Bobby -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:36 PM Subject: RV10-List: Nose wheel pant/tow bar bolts Anyone get 3/8" x 24 x 1" cap screws instead of 1-3/4" for the wheel pant bracket and towbar mount? Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2007
From: Niko <owl40188(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
I have not been following this list lately so I am going to chime in a bit late on this. In reality if the C172 or any other aircraft needed structural changes or not for a gross weight increase in not relevant to the question of can the 2700lb gross weight be increased on the RV10. If the C172 needed a gross weight increase then the cognizant engineers, who hopefully were very knowledgeable of the structure and qualified, evaluated the structure and decided if something needed to be changed or not. If the structure was overdesigned then nothing needed to be done. If someone is not qualified to do this then its best to just play by the rules and stick to the 2700 lb, specially when you you will be exceeding gross weight exactly because you have other people in it. I can tell you that I have signed many structural drawings and analyzed many parts and I would be reluctant do to this for myself simply because the lack of information to properly evalute it. Van tested a wing that was built in his factory with no fatigue cycles on it. No hard landings, no turbulence, not a couple thousand of hours of vibration and gust loads. Is the wing any individual builder built or the quickbuilt ones from the Phillipines as strong as what Vans crew put together for the test article? You think they might have taken extra care knowing it will be tested? Will another amateur built wing be able to carry the 3.8g's specially after 2000 hrs of flying? I am confident that Van doesn't have the anwers to some of these questions and he has probably done little fatigue analysis on the airframe if any simply because the cost would be prohibitive. The safety factors are there to cover the unknowns so don't assume you have anything other than a 3.8g capability. I have just recently pulled 3g's doing loops in a Decathalon and it feels like a lot of load. That's a couple of SUV's sitting on your wing. A reminder for those that are not aware, some time ago an RV8 wing broke up in level flight with both pilots dying. Vans has said that he doesn't understand how it happened. The wing appeared to have been built per the plans. That should give you a comforting feeling when thinking of pushing the envelopes. The factory RV10 had a crack in the vertical stabilizer so they needed a doubler. Is everyone absolutely positive there is not some other weak area in the structure that has not been discovered yet. ? What if Vans vertical tail was just a bit stronger and didn't crack would any other builder have found the crack during inspection? What if the crack was in a hidden area? A lot bigger airframe designers than Vans have had problems with airplanes going out into the field and shortly starting to develop cracks with parts failing. Its really the same with all major mods. Mods entail a risk to begin with even if you know what you are doing, if you don't know what you are doing and are just guessing then you are playing with fire. A builder flying an airplane at 2900 lbs for an hour or two does not make it safe. Test aircraft are typically instumented during flight test so that the stresses in the structure can be compared to the predicted values and are progressively pushed to the limits while monitoring the stresses. Niko ----- Original Message ---- From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 9:08:55 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight I've flown or examined most models of 172's up until the late '70s. There are very few gross wt changes and a lot of structural changes, some visible, some less obvious, but I doubt any of the gross wt changes were made with no structural changes. C model upped it by 50 lbs with shorter and stronger gear. D model had swept tail, changed fuel tanks, upped it to 2300. No change after that for 20 years, until 1980 went to 2400 after they went to tubular gear and different variant of 160 hp engine, different vertical fin, etc. Cessna changed the landing gear at least 4 times after they made it a nose dragger that I know about. They changed the wing struts at least a couple times. The tail changed at least a couple times. Also complicating the picture is that the plane was certified under CAR3 and many later changes were certified under Part 23. So sum total there was less than a 10% change in gross wt over more than 50 years of production, with over 20 variants produced, all having some structural changes, with horsepower changes from 6 cyl 145 hp to 6 cyl 175 hp, to 4 cyl 150 hp to 4 cy 160hp to 4 cyl 180 hp to six cyl 195 hp and 210 hp, and you think those gross wt changes were just paper calculations? It also was produced under two different type certificates, the second originating with the 175 that became P172, then Cutlass and other variants with gross as high as 2550. So where is there a year that gross changed with NO structural change? How do you know there wasn't a change? Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > > What I am talking about is the changes in the gross weight without > changing/ modifying the airframe. Research the history of the aircraft > and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to > the airframe, rather extensive testing was accomplished and the gross > weight was modified. This is what I am referring to in this situation, > if the builder is going to change the gross weight than a test period is > required to verify it is safe, and as the builder they are the ones that > need to determine how much and what testing is necessary to be okay with > the change. > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly > McMullen > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 8:25 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight > > > Not considering it took more than fifteen years to get there, totally > different landing gear, different engine, different fuselage. Remember > it started as the C170 in 1948, so there are a lot more changes than > you realize. Almost nothing from 1969 on is original. > > On 5/18/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > >> > > >> 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 >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2007
From: James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
>>some time ago an RV8 wing broke up in level flight with both pilots dying. Vans has said that he doesn't understand how it happened. NTSB Identification: *LAX98FA171 *. The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division <http://www.ntsb.gov/info/sources.htm#pib> 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Sunday, May 24, 1998 in RIPLEY, CA Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/31/2000 Aircraft: Vans Aircraft RV-8, registration: N58RV Injuries: 2 Fatal. The aircraft, equipped with dual controls, departed for a demonstration flight with the pilot in the front seat and the pilot-rated passenger in the back. A demonstration flight includes only low-G maneuvers. The aircraft, designed for aerobatics, had, since its manufacture, performed aerobatic maneuvers on previous flights. The maximum allowable gross weight for aerobatics is 1,550 pounds. The aircraft weighed an estimated at 1,639 pounds at the time of the accident. An agricultural pilot reported seeing the aircraft in a shallow climb about 500 feet agl. An eyewitness, over a mile from the accident site, heard an engine surging and looked up. He saw a yellow aircraft flying straight and level, about 1,000 feet agl. As he watched, something fell from the aircraft, which was followed by a loud boom. The aircraft pitched up, nosed over, rolled, entering a spin that continued until impact. The outboard portion of the left wing was found 0.17 miles from the crash site. The main spar had evidence of a ductile fracture due to a positive overload. The spar material met design specifications for metal composition and hardness. There was no evidence of fatigue or corrosion. The outboard section of the left wing did not exhibit any evidence of aeroelastic divergence. A flutter test showed the aircraft design was free from flutter to speeds above its design envelope. Wing load testing showed the wing design was able to support a limit load, +6 g's. The wing also supported an ultimate load, +9 g's, for 3 seconds without failure. The Engine Management System nonvolatile memory readout provided data points equivalent to 191 mph in level flight. Maneuvering speed under the same conditions was 142 mph. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: the intentional or unintentional sudden application of aft elevator control by an undetermined aircraft occupant that exceeded the design stress limits of the aircraft. The aircraft gross weight, which exceeded the maximum allowable for aerobatics, and airspeed, which exceeded the maximum maneuvering speed for the weight, were factors in this accident. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2007
From: Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net>
Subject: Re: Flaps
I thought the flaps were suppose to be at "0" for climb and -3 for cruise? Jesse Saint wrote: > > The FPS is fantastic. No indicator needed. Just hit the button and let > them go to the next position. Its good to have a switch with > momentary down but not momentary up, so when you want to put them up > you just flip the switch up and they go all the way up. If you have > the switch on your stick grip, it is also nice to have your thumb hit > the switch from time to time accidentally and realize that it is up. > It gives you the comfortable feeling that you know your flaps are all > the way up, not set for climb. > > 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(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam Marlow > *Sent:* Monday, May 21, 2007 8:39 AM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RV10-List: Flaps > > I'm finding little information on the flap positioning system, just > wondering what the majority of the group is doing here. After all, the > flaps are different than any airplane I've ever flown. > Thanks, > Sam Marlow > Still wiring > > * * > * * > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > ** > ** > ** > *http://forums.matronics.com* > ** > * * > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim C" <tlc2(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] OT-Cutty Sark Burning
Date: May 21, 2007
Budd, one of the RV-10 list was just there some nice Cutty Shark Pics pics> Left thumbnails bottom> http://www.brinkmeyers.net/Photos/Family/London/index.html Tim C Cold Lk. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Budd Davisson" <buddairbum(at)cox.net> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] OT-Cutty Sark Burning > You're right: a bummer all the way around. Icons should be forever. > > > On 5/21/07 1:18 PM, "husser2000" wrote: > > > Not only has Bo Diddly suffered a stroke, but the Cutty Sark was nearly > > destroyed today in a fire. What a crumy two weeks, GA user fees > > should top this off nicely. > > > > http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1266631,00.html > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bearhawk/ > > <*> Your email settings: > Individual Email | Traditional > > <*> To change settings online go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bearhawk/join > (Yahoo! ID required) > > <*> To change settings via email: > mailto:Bearhawk-digest(at)yahoogroups.com > mailto:Bearhawk-fullfeatured(at)yahoogroups.com > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Bearhawk-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 21, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
I am the culprit who mentioned the observation of the potential for cracks on this list, two weeks before the inspection and subsequent SB was released by Vans. I am not a trained professional engineer but see enough to make reasonable observations for my nightly employment. Testing of the Amateur Built products is not as rigid or complex as for Certified aircraft. A point which should not be lost when Pen whipping paperwork or modifying components of someone else's design. Fly Safe, Fly Often, seek regular recurrent training and understand why Transition training is good for your fellow builders. John #600 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Niko Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:12 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight I have not been following this list lately so I am going to chime in a bit late on this. In reality if the C172 or any other aircraft needed structural changes or not for a gross weight increase in not relevant to the question of can the 2700lb gross weight be increased on the RV10. If the C172 needed a gross weight increase then the cognizant engineers, who hopefully were very knowledgeable of the structure and qualified, evaluated the structure and decided if something needed to be changed or not. If the structure was overdesigned then nothing needed to be done. If someone is not qualified to do this then its best to just play by the rules and stick to the 2700 lb, specially when you you will be exceeding gross weight exactly because you have other people in it. I can tell you that I have signed many structural drawings and analyzed many parts and I would be reluctant do to this for myself simply because the lack of information to properly evalute it. Van tested a wing that was built in his factory with no fatigue cycles on it. No hard landings, no turbulence, not a couple thousand of hours of vibration and gust loads. Is the wing any individual builder built or the quickbuilt ones from the Phillipines as strong as what Vans crew put together for the test article? You think they might have taken extra care knowing it will be tested? Will another amateur built wing be able to carry the 3.8g's specially after 2000 hrs of flying? I am confident that Van doesn't have the anwers to some of these questions and he has probably done little fatigue analysis on the airframe if any simply because the cost would be prohibitive. The safety factors are there to cover the unknowns so don't assume you have anything other than a 3.8g capability. I have just recently pulled 3g's doing loops in a Decathalon and it feels like a lot of load. That's a couple of SUV's sitting on your wing. A reminder for those that are not aware, some time ago an RV8 wing broke up in level flight with both pilots dying. Vans has said that he doesn't understand how it happened. The wing appeared to have been built per the plans. That should give you a comforting feeling when thinking of pushing the envelopes. The factory RV10 had a crack in the vertical stabilizer so they needed a doubler. Is everyone absolutely positive there is not some other weak area in the structure that has not been discovered yet. ? What if Vans vertical tail was just a bit stronger and didn't crack would any other builder have found the crack during inspection? What if the crack was in a hidden area? A lot bigger airframe designers than Vans have had problems with airplanes going out into the field and shortly starting to develop cracks with parts failing. Its really the same with all major mods. Mods entail a risk to begin with even if you know what you are doing, if you don't know what you are doing and are just guessing then you are playing with fire. A builder flying an airplane at 2900 lbs for an hour or two does not make it safe. Test aircraft are typically instumented during flight test so that the stresses in the structure can be compared to the predicted values and are progressively pushed to the limits while monitoring the stresses. Niko ----- Original Message ---- From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 9:08:55 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight I've flown or examined most models of 172's up until the late '70s. There are very few gross wt changes and a lot of structural changes, some visible, some less obvious, but I doubt any of the gross wt changes were made with no structural changes. C model upped it by 50 lbs with shorter and stronger gear. D model had swept tail, changed fuel tanks, upped it to 2300. No change after that for 20 years, until 1980 went to 2400 after they went to tubular gear and different variant of 160 hp engine, different vertical fin, etc. Cessna changed the landing gear at least 4 times after they made it a nose dragger that I know about. They changed the wing struts at least a couple times. The tail changed at least a couple times. Also complicating the picture is that the plane was certified under CAR3 and many later changes were certified under Part 23. So sum total there was less than a 10% change in gross wt over more than 50 years of production, with over 20 variants produced, all having some structural changes, with horsepower changes from 6 cyl 145 hp to 6 cyl 175 hp, to 4 cyl 150 hp to 4 cy 160hp to 4 cyl 180 hp to six cyl 195 hp and 210 hp, and you think those gross wt changes were just paper calculations? It also was produced under two different type certificates, the second originating with the 175 that became P172, then Cutlass and other variants with gross as high as 2550. So where is there a year that gross changed with NO structural change? How do you know there wasn't a change? Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > > What I am talking about is the changes in the gross weight without > changing/ modifying the airframe. Research the history of the aircraft > and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to > the airframe, rather extensive testing was accomplished and the gross > weight was modified. This is what I am referring to in this situation, > if the builder is going to change the gross weight than a test period is > required to verify it is safe, and as the builder they are the ones that > need to determine how much and what testing is necessary to be okay with > the change. > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly > McMullen > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 8:25 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight > > > Not considering it took more than fifteen years to get there, totally > different landing gear, different engine, different fuselage. Remember > it started as the C170 in 1948, so there are a lot more changes than > you realize. Almost nothing from 1969 on is original. > > On 5/18/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote: > >> > > >> 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 >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> 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 >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fuel flow sensor
From: "Michael Wellenzohn" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: May 22, 2007
Hello, soon I'll start with the fuel system and I know that I need to purchase the fuel pump and filter. i would like some advice regarding fuel flow sensors. Can anyone recommand a proven system which would also work with e.g. AF-3500 or other engine monitoring systems. Many thanks Michael -------- RV-10 builder (wings) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114128#114128 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dunne" <acs(at)acspropeller.com.au>
Subject: Re: Fuel flow sensor
Date: May 22, 2007
Michael, you'll find a lot of the EFIS and engine monitoring setups like Dynon or GRT supply you the FloScan transducer as part of the package. John 40315 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Wellenzohn" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:38 PM Subject: RV10-List: Fuel flow sensor > > > Hello, > > soon I'll start with the fuel system and I know that I need to purchase > the fuel pump and filter. i would like some advice regarding fuel flow > sensors. Can anyone recommand a proven system which would also work with > e.g. AF-3500 or other engine monitoring systems. > > Many thanks > Michael > > -------- > RV-10 builder (wings) > #511 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114128#114128 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Incentive!
From: "dmaib(at)mac.com" <dmaib(at)mac.com>
Date: May 22, 2007
Thanks to Tim Olson I got a big shot of incentive yesterday. I was privileged to pick up Rodger Todd at his hotel in St. Paul and take him to KSGS to meet Tim and Andrea who were flying in to pick Rodger up. Tim took me up for a wonderful 45 minute flight in N104CD. What an airplane! It performs like a champ, the Cheltons are awesome, (I might be changing my mind, Stein!)comfortable, and on and on and on. What a treat! Thanks Tim for all you do for this group of enthusiasts. David (enthusiastically pounding rivets) Maib -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114138#114138 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Fuel flow sensor
Date: May 22, 2007
As John said, you really should decide what EMS you are going with before deciding on the fuel flow sensor. I don't know how different they are or how compatible, but I would recommend going with the one recommended by your EMS manufacturer. 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 Michael Wellenzohn Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:39 AM Subject: RV10-List: Fuel flow sensor Hello, soon I'll start with the fuel system and I know that I need to purchase the fuel pump and filter. i would like some advice regarding fuel flow sensors. Can anyone recommand a proven system which would also work with e.g. AF-3500 or other engine monitoring systems. Many thanks Michael -------- RV-10 builder (wings) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114128#114128 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: GNS-430W?
Date: May 22, 2007
Has anybody flown the 430W or 530W yet? If so, have you flown it with an autopilot that has Vertical Steering? If so, please enlighten the group as to your thoughts on it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Fuel flow sensor
Jesse has a good point.... I have a VM1000 which uses a FloScan 200 (IIRC). The backlighting has been a little fritzy lately and with the change in ownership of Vision Microsystems to JPI - I'm not expecting an easy repair cycle...and I haven't even flown yet. Sorry - off topic... Meanwhile, the AF3400EM that I have been looking at can use the same fuel flow sender according to Rob at advanced Flight Systems. I'll know for sure shortly.... Ralph Capen -----Original Message----- >From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> >Sent: May 22, 2007 9:01 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel flow sensor > > >As John said, you really should decide what EMS you are going with before >deciding on the fuel flow sensor. I don't know how different they are or >how compatible, but I would recommend going with the one recommended by your >EMS manufacturer. > >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 Michael >Wellenzohn >Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:39 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: Fuel flow sensor > > >Hello, > >soon I'll start with the fuel system and I know that I need to purchase the >fuel pump and filter. i would like some advice regarding fuel flow sensors. >Can anyone recommand a proven system which would also work with e.g. AF-3500 >or other engine monitoring systems. > >Many thanks >Michael > >-------- >RV-10 builder (wings) >#511 > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114128#114128 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: "James K Hovis" <james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
+3.8G/-1.5G has been, over time, determined to be the "acceptable" limits for normal operations by the industry and the Feds. This means in typically ordinary operations, an airplane will not encounter conditions while flying that'll exceed these limits. However, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, exceeding those limits can be quite easy. Deciding to lower your G limits so you can increase gross weight is still a disaster waiting to happen to me. You've just lowered your margins, so that where before you could have probably tolerated moderate to moderately severe turbulence, you've just limited yourself to only chop to light turbulence. Even then light turbulence could overstress the airframe. This reminds me of my early days in the company. Back then my boss used to share the field difficulty reports from the Air Force with the troops. A certain National Guard unit was transitioning from F-4 to F-15 at that time. One airplane was flown into the base and as the paperwork was reviewed, it was found with a 1G restriction to flight on it. The airplane had a waiver attached, but the pilot who flew it had to have the biggest set of any cock in the coop. Anyway, a 1G restriction basically renders a fighter jet useless, in fact anything less than the operational limits pretty much renders a jet useless. The NG kept questioning why they got this bird and what to do with it. Eventually, it was stripped of useable spare parts and the hulk placed on a pedestal in front of the wing main office. I was fortunant to be part of the airplane/pedestal interface design. Kevin H. On 5/19/07, Rene Felker wrote: > OK, just to stir the pot a little more...what category will your RV-10 > operate in? Utility, standard??? How may positive and how many negative > g's. It all factors in doesn't it. If you place an operating limit on the > aircraft of lets say +2/-.5 g's could you not increase the gross weight > using the same test data that van's used? (just ignore the hard landing > issue). > > > What is the fuel burn in climb? 19 gallons an hour? .32 gallons a minute, > or 1.9 pounds a minute. So can you add 20 pounds to the gross weight, and > just assume a 10 minute climb and a reduced capability during climb? > > > Been at work all day instead of being able to work on the plane, so if this > does not make sense it is because I am to tired to think.... > > > Rene' Felker > > N423CF > > 40322 Finish or something like it, my panel arives on Wednesday form Stein, > the pictures look great. > > 801-721-6080 > > _____ > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:55 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight > > > In a message dated 5/19/2007 10:52:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: > > Research the history of the aircraft > and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to > the airframe, > > Dan which aircraft were paper whipped into increases in gross weight/useful > load without any additional work? The Cessna 172's were increased because > of increased horsepower, tire size and rating changes and new landing gear > modifications...cherokee were increased because of horsepower increases and > other modifications. > > > What method are you using to calculate your changes to the 10 that Van's has > not gotten correct. I'd think that to really test the higher weights you'd > need to develop a test bed wing and frame. One would probably need both a > flying and static test bed product. I believe the Mooney factory static > test bed they loads bags of shot until the wing deforms or retains it's > original formation and attach points at a calculated load bearing weight. > The the test pilot fly's the test bed stressing the heck out of the plane in > every condition...spins, smap rolls etc and notes the results both with > instruments and feel. Who know's estabilishing a new higher gross could > include some fun flying...take along a parachaute, tho. > > > It seems that a pilot the other week believed that he could do aerobatics in > a baron as he believe the plane was capable of the stresses...it seems the > plane broke up and a few folks when with him as he became a fatal test > pilot. > > > Patrick > > > _____ > > See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: "Fred Williams, M.D." <drfred(at)suddenlinkmail.com>
Subject: Fuel flow sensor
Michael; I am at the same point as you are and am starting to locate the parts for the fuel system. I emailed AFS this am to see if we can get a recommendation. I'll post their answer when obtained. If we don't hear back later today, I'll call tomorrow. Fred Williams It's been a good week. Side panels fit to the fuselage and those bends are done. Brand spanking new Barrett 270 HP Lycoming sitting on the shop floor. Purchased the one that Roy posted on the site about two weeks ago. Sweeeeeet. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Establishing gross weight
Date: May 22, 2007
I am surprised that I have only gotten two real replies to my posting. As you can guess, I was taking a look at the gross weight issue from another perspective. Since I am not doing any design changes, how could I justify increasing the gross weight within the constraints of current design. Flying in the intermountain west, Ogden Utah is home base, there is no real way of avoiding all turbulence....maybe not flying at all would avoid it...., so assuming a -.5g is a little unrealistic, but the whole concept of being able to have different gross weights as long as certain operating limitations were placed on the flight still intrigues me. Maybe I will talk to the DAR and see what he thinks...... But, just in case you are wondering, the placard on my airplane will read Gross Weight....2700. I may sell the airplane one day and do not want to accept any more liability than I have to...... Thanks for the replies, I love the exchange of ideas on this forum Rene' Felker N423CF 40322 Finish or something like it. 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:10 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight +3.8G/-1.5G has been, over time, determined to be the "acceptable" limits for normal operations by the industry and the Feds. This means in typically ordinary operations, an airplane will not encounter conditions while flying that'll exceed these limits. However, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, exceeding those limits can be quite easy. Deciding to lower your G limits so you can increase gross weight is still a disaster waiting to happen to me. You've just lowered your margins, so that where before you could have probably tolerated moderate to moderately severe turbulence, you've just limited yourself to only chop to light turbulence. Even then light turbulence could overstress the airframe. This reminds me of my early days in the company. Back then my boss used to share the field difficulty reports from the Air Force with the troops. A certain National Guard unit was transitioning from F-4 to F-15 at that time. One airplane was flown into the base and as the paperwork was reviewed, it was found with a 1G restriction to flight on it. The airplane had a waiver attached, but the pilot who flew it had to have the biggest set of any cock in the coop. Anyway, a 1G restriction basically renders a fighter jet useless, in fact anything less than the operational limits pretty much renders a jet useless. The NG kept questioning why they got this bird and what to do with it. Eventually, it was stripped of useable spare parts and the hulk placed on a pedestal in front of the wing main office. I was fortunant to be part of the airplane/pedestal interface design. Kevin H. On 5/19/07, Rene Felker wrote: > OK, just to stir the pot a little more...what category will your RV-10 > operate in? Utility, standard??? How may positive and how many negative > g's. It all factors in doesn't it. If you place an operating limit on the > aircraft of lets say +2/-.5 g's could you not increase the gross weight > using the same test data that van's used? (just ignore the hard landing > issue). > > > What is the fuel burn in climb? 19 gallons an hour? .32 gallons a minute, > or 1.9 pounds a minute. So can you add 20 pounds to the gross weight, and > just assume a 10 minute climb and a reduced capability during climb? > > > Been at work all day instead of being able to work on the plane, so if this > does not make sense it is because I am to tired to think.... > > > Rene' Felker > > N423CF > > 40322 Finish or something like it, my panel arives on Wednesday form Stein, > the pictures look great. > > 801-721-6080 > > _____ > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:55 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight > > > In a message dated 5/19/2007 10:52:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: > > Research the history of the aircraft > and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to > the airframe, > > Dan which aircraft were paper whipped into increases in gross weight/useful > load without any additional work? The Cessna 172's were increased because > of increased horsepower, tire size and rating changes and new landing gear > modifications...cherokee were increased because of horsepower increases and > other modifications. > > > What method are you using to calculate your changes to the 10 that Van's has > not gotten correct. I'd think that to really test the higher weights you'd > need to develop a test bed wing and frame. One would probably need both a > flying and static test bed product. I believe the Mooney factory static > test bed they loads bags of shot until the wing deforms or retains it's > original formation and attach points at a calculated load bearing weight. > The the test pilot fly's the test bed stressing the heck out of the plane in > every condition...spins, smap rolls etc and notes the results both with > instruments and feel. Who know's estabilishing a new higher gross could > include some fun flying...take along a parachaute, tho. > > > It seems that a pilot the other week believed that he could do aerobatics in > a baron as he believe the plane was capable of the stresses...it seems the > plane broke up and a few folks when with him as he became a fatal test > pilot. > > > Patrick > > > _____ > > See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: Rick <ricksked(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel flow sensor
I believe E.I. makes the red cube flow sensor that comes with the 3400/3500. It has the same electrical specs as the floscan but different mounting holes. If you have a floscan it should work with the AFS system but check with Rob first. AFS sold me the sensor only way in advance so I could get it installed. The only down fall is I had to modify the monting plate from the stock mount Van's provides. I really like thier system and the service and documentation has been really nice. I should be able to report the flying part early this fall.... Rick S. 40185 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: GNS-430W?
Date: May 22, 2007
From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com>
Hi Jesse, I think Rob Kermanj has a 530W. He had a positing around 5/2/07 with the subject line of: RV10-List: G530W, Trutrak and GRT. I saved it in my files so if you can't find it let me know and I will repost the body of it. Also, maybe Rob will give us an expanded report on his system. Vern Smith (#324) _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:03 AM Subject: RV10-List: GNS-430W? Has anybody flown the 430W or 530W yet? If so, have you flown it with an autopilot that has Vertical Steering? If so, please enlighten the group as to your thoughts on it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: Darton Steve <sfdarton(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: GNS-430W?
I have been flying a Caravan with a 530W 430W and KFC225 autopilot for a couple of months now. Both the lateral and vertical guidance is more stable than the ILS it overlays. At KSLC the LNAV/VNAV approaches that I fly overlay the ILS, so I set up the ILS on the number 2 nav. On these approaches there is no difference in the course or glideslope and the autopilot tracks either RNAV or ILS equally well. Steve 40212 --- Jesse Saint wrote: > Has anybody flown the 430W or 530W yet? If so, have > you flown it with an > autopilot that has Vertical Steering? If so, please > enlighten the group as > to your thoughts on it. > > > > Jesse Saint > > Saint Aviation, Inc. > > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > www.saintaviation.com > > Cell: 352-427-0285 > > Fax: 815-377-3694 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Date: May 22, 2007
Subject: Rosen Visors, finally!
For anyone going to OSH, it may be worth waiting until then if the discount is that good. Or if you know someone going they could order them then. Michael From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:26 AM Subject: RV10-List: Rosen Visors, finally! I finally have a price for the visors. Aparently they give pretty deep dis counts at shows like Sun-N-Fun, because I really can't beat those prices on a group buy. The final price of the visor on this group buy will be $317. 97 for the double set and $168.99 for the single visor (half set). This wi ll include the mounting hardware as well. For those who have visors alread y and may just want the replacement lenses, the cost will be $74.28. I wil l be sending an e-mail to everybody I have on my list. This pricing does n ot include shipping. I don't know yet whether they will drop ship them or will ship them to me and I will ship them, but either way it should work fi ne. 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: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GNS-430W?
Date: May 22, 2007
Jesse, I wrote a little about my set up a couple of weeks ago. It should be in the archive. If you need additional information you may contact me at 772-460-3907. I will be flying the 10 to NM on Friday but will return you call when I get back. Vern, The only thing that I can expand on is that LPV approaches are very stable. The needles do not wobble at all unlike ILS approaches. I also like the simplicity of this approach; no localizer frequency to set up. It seems like a small thing, but in real IFR conditions, I think the name of the game is to do as little work as possible and as little cross checking/verifying as possible. If I were to do this again, I would have seriously considered getting the Trutrak Soccer. With my set-up, you have to switch the autopilot to the 530W to do LPVs, track the missed approaches, DME arcs and Procedure Turns. Again, not a very big deal but it is one more thing to remember during the critical part of the flight. Rob. On May 22, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Vern W. Smith wrote: > Hi Jesse, > > > I think Rob Kermanj has a 530W. He had a positing around 5/2/07 > with the subject line of: RV10-List: G530W, Trutrak and GRT. I > saved it in my files so if you can=92t find it let me know and I will > repost the body of it. > > > Also, maybe Rob will give us an expanded report on his system. > > > Vern Smith (#324) > > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:03 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: GNS-430W? > > > Has anybody flown the 430W or 530W yet? If so, have you flown it > with an autopilot that has Vertical Steering? If so, please > enlighten the group as to your thoughts on it. > > > Jesse Saint > > Saint Aviation, Inc. > > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > www.saintaviation.com > > Cell: 352-427-0285 > > Fax: 815-377-3694 > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > http://forums.matronics.com > List > ======================== > ======================== > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: GNS-430W?
Date: May 22, 2007
Will it fly the vertical portion on standard (non-precision) GPS approaches? Does anybody know the percentage of ILS approaches that have a LNAV/VNAV approach to match? Thanks. 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 Darton Steve Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:04 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: GNS-430W? I have been flying a Caravan with a 530W 430W and KFC225 autopilot for a couple of months now. Both the lateral and vertical guidance is more stable than the ILS it overlays. At KSLC the LNAV/VNAV approaches that I fly overlay the ILS, so I set up the ILS on the number 2 nav. On these approaches there is no difference in the course or glideslope and the autopilot tracks either RNAV or ILS equally well. Steve 40212 --- Jesse Saint wrote: > Has anybody flown the 430W or 530W yet? If so, have > you flown it with an > autopilot that has Vertical Steering? If so, please > enlighten the group as > to your thoughts on it. > > > > Jesse Saint > > Saint Aviation, Inc. > > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > www.saintaviation.com > > Cell: 352-427-0285 > > Fax: 815-377-3694 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 22, 2007
I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. GOD BLESS! 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 Bobby J. Hughes Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:50 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Jessie, At $200 count me in. Enjoyed our visit at Lockhart. Bobby Hughes 40116 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:08 PM Subject: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Sorry for the quality, but I have attached some pictures of our Rosen Sun Visor installation. I am getting a quote on our custom mount from a local machine shop and am getting a quote from Rosen on a group buy for the visors. We tried to find a place on the sides to install a visor, but there just isn't a good place to put it that won't block the pilot's vision when he isn't using the visor. This is a 3-axis visor, so it can be used to block sun from the pilot or copilot's front anywhere in the windshield and can also block the pilot's right or copilot's left. Unfortunately we couldn't find any way to block the sun from the pilot's left or copilot's right except a suction cup or static cling piece. The visor base would mount on the cabin top using two of the 4 screws that hold the front bar to the cabin top. Please let me know off the list if you are interested and I will put a list together and let you know when I know how much it would cost. I am hoping to keep it under $200 including the visor (big or small lense) and the custom black-anodized base. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 22, 2007
I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. GOD BLESS! 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 David Boone Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:59 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Count me in. David Boone 40138 ----- Original Message ----- From: Bobby J. Hughes <mailto:bhughes(at)qnsi.net> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:49 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Jessie, At $200 count me in. Enjoyed our visit at Lockhart. Bobby Hughes 40116 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:08 PM Subject: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Sorry for the quality, but I have attached some pictures of our Rosen Sun Visor installation. I am getting a quote on our custom mount from a local machine shop and am getting a quote from Rosen on a group buy for the visors. We tried to find a place on the sides to install a visor, but there just isn't a good place to put it that won't block the pilot's vision when he isn't using the visor. This is a 3-axis visor, so it can be used to block sun from the pilot or copilot's front anywhere in the windshield and can also block the pilot's right or copilot's left. Unfortunately we couldn't find any way to block the sun from the pilot's left or copilot's right except a suction cup or static cling piece. The visor base would mount on the cabin top using two of the 4 screws that hold the front bar to the cabin top. Please let me know off the list if you are interested and I will put a list together and let you know when I know how much it would cost. I am hoping to keep it under $200 including the visor (big or small lense) and the custom black-anodized base. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 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: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 22, 2007
I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. GOD BLESS! 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 berry Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:24 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Jesse, The holes on my brace are 3/4" ctc in both axes. And please put me down for a set also. Jim Berry 40482 Finishing Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=106637#106637 -- 11:52 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LARSON36(at)aol.com
Date: May 22, 2007
Subject: Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Please include me on the full set list. Larry Klein _larson36(at)aol.com_ (mailto:larson36(at)aol.com) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 22, 2007
From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>
Jesse, I want a full set and will just send you a check when you figure it out - just let me know. BTW, any thoughts on Michael's comment about waiting until OSH for a big discount? Bob _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. GOD BLESS! 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 Bobby J. Hughes Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:50 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Jessie, At $200 count me in. Enjoyed our visit at Lockhart. Bobby Hughes 40116 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:08 PM Subject: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Sorry for the quality, but I have attached some pictures of our Rosen Sun Visor installation. I am getting a quote on our custom mount from a local machine shop and am getting a quote from Rosen on a group buy for the visors. We tried to find a place on the sides to install a visor, but there just isn't a good place to put it that won't block the pilot's vision when he isn't using the visor. This is a 3-axis visor, so it can be used to block sun from the pilot or copilot's front anywhere in the windshield and can also block the pilot's right or copilot's left. Unfortunately we couldn't find any way to block the sun from the pilot's left or copilot's right except a suction cup or static cling piece. The visor base would mount on the cabin top using two of the 4 screws that hold the front bar to the cabin top. Please let me know off the list if you are interested and I will put a list together and let you know when I know how much it would cost. I am hoping to keep it under $200 including the visor (big or small lense) and the custom black-anodized base. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: Robert Wright <flywrights(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Upper Fwd Fuse
Is it feasible to cleco in the upper fwd fuse, then fit and install the canopy, and then remove the upper fwd fuse so I can play with my panel and sub-panel? Later on I'd then slide the fwd fuse back into place and rivet it once my sub-panel mods are complete. Rob Wright #392 Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: "Fred Williams, M.D." <drfred(at)suddenlinkmail.com>
Subject: Visors
Jesse ; Put "hot rodder" down for left side visor. Fred Williams drfred(at)suddenlinkmail.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Upper Fwd Fuse
Date: May 22, 2007
That is the way I am doing it. It is the last airframe item I have left to put on. 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 Robert Wright Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:06 PM Subject: RV10-List: Upper Fwd Fuse Is it feasible to cleco in the upper fwd fuse, then fit and install the canopy, and then remove the upper fwd fuse so I can play with my panel and sub-panel? Later on I'd then slide the fwd fuse back into place and rivet it once my sub-panel mods are complete. Rob Wright #392 Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48518/*http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/;_ylc=X3o DMTE3NWsyMDd2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDY2FyLWZpbmRlcg-- hot CTA = Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rosen Visors, finally!
Date: May 22, 2007
From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com>
Waiting may not help. At Sun-N-Fun Rosen offered me the discounted price of $320 for a set of two visors. Jesse has done a neat thing here. And as my sister says "He who hesitates gets no cookies." Vern Smith (#324) Don not archive _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen) Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Visors, finally! For anyone going to OSH, it may be worth waiting until then if the discount is that good. Or if you know someone going they could order them then. Michael From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:26 AM Subject: RV10-List: Rosen Visors, finally! I finally have a price for the visors. Aparently they give pretty deep discounts at shows like Sun-N-Fun, because I really can't beat those prices on a group buy. The final price of the visor on this group buy will be $317.97 for the double set and $168.99 for the single visor (half set). This will include the mounting hardware as well. For those who have visors already and may just want the replacement lenses, the cost will be $74.28. I will be sending an e-mail to everybody I have on my list. This pricing does not include shipping. I don't know yet whether they will drop ship them or will ship them to me and I will ship them, but either way it should work fine. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 ; - The RV10-List Email Forarch & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, _; --> http://www.matronics.bsp; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FO; <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JSMcGrew(at)aol.com
Date: May 22, 2007
Subject: Re: Upper Fwd Fuse
Rob, I think that would be tough, though maybe not impossible. There might be some rivets that are hard to get to near the point that the canopy rests on the upper forward fuse. I was looking at these pictures of my canopy installation to see if there was anything that would prevent from doing things in that order; I'm not really sure, but maybe they'll help you. -Jim 40134 In a message dated 5/22/2007 2:12:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, flywrights(at)yahoo.com writes: Is it feasible to cleco in the upper fwd fuse, then fit and install the canopy, and then remove the upper fwd fuse so I can play with my panel and sub-panel? Later on I'd then slide the fwd fuse back into place and rivet it once my sub-panel mods are complete. Rob Wright #392 Jim "Scooter" McGrew _http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: Robert Wright <flywrights(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: upper fwd fuse
Hopefully I'm not sending this multiple times.... Is it feasible to cleco in the upper fwd fuse, then fit and install the canopy, and then remove the upper fwd fuse so I can play with my panel and sub-panel? Later on I'd then slide the fwd fuse back into place and rivet it once my sub-panel mods are complete. Rob Wright to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rosen Visors, finally!
Date: May 22, 2007
amen! On May 22, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Vern W. Smith wrote: > Waiting may not help. At Sun-N-Fun Rosen offered me the discounted > price of $320 for a set of two visors. Jesse has done a neat thing > here. And as my sister says =93He who hesitates gets no cookies.=94 > > > Vern Smith (#324) > > Don not archive > > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen) > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:48 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Visors, finally! > > > For anyone going to OSH, it may be worth waiting until then if the > discount is that good. Or if you know someone going they could > order them then. > > > Michael > > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:26 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Rosen Visors, finally! > > > I finally have a price for the visors. Aparently they give pretty > deep discounts at shows like Sun-N-Fun, because I really can=92t beat > those prices on a group buy. The final price of the visor on this > group buy will be $317.97 for the double set and $168.99 for the > single visor (half set). This will include the mounting hardware > as well. For those who have visors already and may just want the > replacement lenses, the cost will be $74.28. I will be sending an > e-mail to everybody I have on my list. This pricing does not > include shipping. I don=92t know yet whether they will drop ship > them or will ship them to me and I will ship them, but either way > it should work fine. > > > Jesse Saint > > Saint Aviation, Inc. > > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > www.saintaviation.com > > Cell: 352-427-0285 > > Fax: 815-377-3694 > > > ; - The RV10-List Email Forarch & Download, 7-Day Browse, > Chat, FAQ, > _; --> http://www.matronics.bsp; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FO; > http://forums.matronics.com > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > http://forums.matronics.com > List > ======================== > ======================== > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: When to start on the panel
From: "Jon Reining" <jonathan.w.reining(at)wellsfargo.com>
Date: May 22, 2007
My dad and I are making good progress on the quickbuild wings (I know, they came almost done, but it still feels good) and we're starting to seriously think about the panel. Our thoughts are centering around a 3 panel Chelton system with all the appropriate gizmos to help them perform at peak proficiency. When would you start ordering equipment? How much of a delay is there from the point of ordering to receiving? If we go with a panel builder, what are the delays on that end - how much time is it taking the pros to build panels once all the parts come in? With all the new technology coming out on such a regular basis, we're reluctant to order anything before its time. But, recognizing that the panel will probably take a lot of time to get all together, we don't want to be waiting forever either. Thanks for the thoughts Jon and Bill Reining 40514 - wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114241#114241 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: When to start on the panel
Date: May 22, 2007
I would say it depends on the fuse. If you are just working on the wings and don't even have the fuse sitting there ready to work on, then you can wait quite a while. It also depends on how fast you plan to work. I would say that it is safe, if you are going to build the panel yourself, to start ordering 3-4 months before you expect to want your panel up and running. If you are going to have someone like Stein put it together for you, then you will want to talk with him about lead times. It is a good practice, IMHO, to not run wires while you are building the airplane. I have shared my viewpoint on this in the past, but if you run conduit and stuff like that, then pull/push your wires after things are closed up, then you know that you can access anywhere you need to access, so when (not if) you want to modify or rewire things in the future, you know that you can do it. The same goes for installing your panel. If you build the panel into the upper forward fuse on the bench, then install it and build the plane around it, there is a much better chance of having something back in there that is inaccessible in the future. If you wire everything after it is mounted, then you KNOW that you can get at everything, because you put it in there in the same state as you will be getting back at it. This is just my opinion, having done this several times, but I have only done it this way, so I only have experience from this viewpoint. So, in short, it depends on how you want to approach things and how fast you expect to be building. You can wait until you have your airframe completely done, your engine hung, and your interior in (besides seats and close-out panels, of course, if you want to. It has been done and is being done. Bracing for the attacks! 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 Jon Reining Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:44 PM Subject: RV10-List: When to start on the panel My dad and I are making good progress on the quickbuild wings (I know, they came almost done, but it still feels good) and we're starting to seriously think about the panel. Our thoughts are centering around a 3 panel Chelton system with all the appropriate gizmos to help them perform at peak proficiency. When would you start ordering equipment? How much of a delay is there from the point of ordering to receiving? If we go with a panel builder, what are the delays on that end - how much time is it taking the pros to build panels once all the parts come in? With all the new technology coming out on such a regular basis, we're reluctant to order anything before its time. But, recognizing that the panel will probably take a lot of time to get all together, we don't want to be waiting forever either. Thanks for the thoughts Jon and Bill Reining 40514 - wings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114241#114241 -- 2:01 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
Rene' I have talked with Van about this at Oshkosh last year. Of course he feels that the plane should never be flown above gross. There is more to the calculations than just reducing the positive and negative g's for the wings when flying over gross. I know many people have put higher gross weight numbers on their aircraft in order to eliminate any problems with a ramp check. The fact is, most planes are flown over gross from time to time. If you ever see 3 or 4 people get into a Cirrus you can almost be guaranteed it is flying over gross. I have 2700 lbs on my plate as well. Scott Schmidt scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com ----- Original Message ---- From: Rene Felker <rene(at)felker.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:45:03 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight I am surprised that I have only gotten two real replies to my posting. As you can guess, I was taking a look at the gross weight issue from another perspective. Since I am not doing any design changes, how could I justify increasing the gross weight within the constraints of current design. Flying in the intermountain west, Ogden Utah is home base, there is no real way of avoiding all turbulence....maybe not flying at all would avoid it...., so assuming a -.5g is a little unrealistic, but the whole concept of being able to have different gross weights as long as certain operating limitations were placed on the flight still intrigues me. Maybe I will talk to the DAR and see what he thinks...... But, just in case you are wondering, the placard on my airplane will read Gross Weight....2700. I may sell the airplane one day and do not want to accept any more liability than I have to...... Thanks for the replies, I love the exchange of ideas on this forum Rene' Felker N423CF 40322 Finish or something like it. 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:10 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight +3.8G/-1.5G has been, over time, determined to be the "acceptable" limits for normal operations by the industry and the Feds. This means in typically ordinary operations, an airplane will not encounter conditions while flying that'll exceed these limits. However, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, exceeding those limits can be quite easy. Deciding to lower your G limits so you can increase gross weight is still a disaster waiting to happen to me. You've just lowered your margins, so that where before you could have probably tolerated moderate to moderately severe turbulence, you've just limited yourself to only chop to light turbulence. Even then light turbulence could overstress the airframe. This reminds me of my early days in the company. Back then my boss used to share the field difficulty reports from the Air Force with the troops. A certain National Guard unit was transitioning from F-4 to F-15 at that time. One airplane was flown into the base and as the paperwork was reviewed, it was found with a 1G restriction to flight on it. The airplane had a waiver attached, but the pilot who flew it had to have the biggest set of any cock in the coop. Anyway, a 1G restriction basically renders a fighter jet useless, in fact anything less than the operational limits pretty much renders a jet useless. The NG kept questioning why they got this bird and what to do with it. Eventually, it was stripped of useable spare parts and the hulk placed on a pedestal in front of the wing main office. I was fortunant to be part of the airplane/pedestal interface design. Kevin H. On 5/19/07, Rene Felker wrote: > OK, just to stir the pot a little more...what category will your RV-10 > operate in? Utility, standard??? How may positive and how many negative > g's. It all factors in doesn't it. If you place an operating limit on the > aircraft of lets say +2/-.5 g's could you not increase the gross weight > using the same test data that van's used? (just ignore the hard landing > issue). > > > What is the fuel burn in climb? 19 gallons an hour? .32 gallons a minute, > or 1.9 pounds a minute. So can you add 20 pounds to the gross weight, and > just assume a 10 minute climb and a reduced capability during climb? > > > Been at work all day instead of being able to work on the plane, so if this > does not make sense it is because I am to tired to think.... > > > Rene' Felker > > N423CF > > 40322 Finish or something like it, my panel arives on Wednesday form Stein, > the pictures look great. > > 801-721-6080 > > _____ > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:55 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight > > > In a message dated 5/19/2007 10:52:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes: > > Research the history of the aircraft > and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to > the airframe, > > Dan which aircraft were paper whipped into increases in gross weight/useful > load without any additional work? The Cessna 172's were increased because > of increased horsepower, tire size and rating changes and new landing gear > modifications...cherokee were increased because of horsepower increases and > other modifications. > > > What method are you using to calculate your changes to the 10 that Van's has > not gotten correct. I'd think that to really test the higher weights you'd > need to develop a test bed wing and frame. One would probably need both a > flying and static test bed product. I believe the Mooney factory static > test bed they loads bags of shot until the wing deforms or retains it's > original formation and attach points at a calculated load bearing weight. > The the test pilot fly's the test bed stressing the heck out of the plane in > every condition...spins, smap rolls etc and notes the results both with > instruments and feel. Who know's estabilishing a new higher gross could > include some fun flying...take along a parachaute, tho. > > > It seems that a pilot the other week believed that he could do aerobatics in > a baron as he believe the plane was capable of the stresses...it seems the > plane broke up and a few folks when with him as he became a fatal test > pilot. > > > Patrick > > > _____ > > See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com>
Subject: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 22, 2007
Jesse, I am 6'3" tall and am wondering if when folded up (not in use) will the visor become an obstruction? Do you think taller pilots/passengers heads might bump into the visors when folded back along the roofline? -Ben ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e(at)grandecom.net>
Subject: Leaking gas tank
Date: May 22, 2007
Just as a follow up to my earlier post on having a leak in my right gas tank at a rivet. After much discussion I decided to drill out the rivet that was leaking and I then drilled it out to a #27. If anyone does this, make sure to vacuum out of the tank for any drilling debris and also the back side of the rivet. Mine was stuck somewhat in the old pro seal so I had to wedge it loose. It wasn't easy to get at but I bent a piece of fuel line to get at it. I used that same piece of fuel line, hooked to my vacuum, to get out the debris. Anyway, once it was ready to put back together I inserted a glob of pro seal up into the rivet hole and then put pro seal on the end of a cherry max rivet and riveted it in. I've refilled the tank and ran the engine since then and it seems to have solved the problem. Hopefully this might help anyone that runs into the same issue. Wayne Edgerton #40336 DAR coming out on Monday :>} ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: Darton Steve <sfdarton(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: GNS-430W?
Jesse, I can,t remember the exact numbers. At a WAAS seminar I attended 2 months ago they said there are currently 6-800 GPS approaches with vertical guidance and 1400 ILS's. In the next two years they expect 26-2800 GPS approaches with vertical guidance. Steve 40212 --- Jesse Saint wrote: > > > Will it fly the vertical portion on standard > (non-precision) GPS approaches? > Does anybody know the percentage of ILS approaches > that have a LNAV/VNAV > approach to match? > > Thanks. > > 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 Darton Steve > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:04 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: GNS-430W? > > > > I have been flying a Caravan with a 530W 430W and > KFC225 autopilot for a couple of months now. Both > the > lateral and vertical guidance is more stable than > the > ILS it overlays. At KSLC the LNAV/VNAV approaches > that > I fly overlay the ILS, so I set up the ILS on the > number 2 nav. On these approaches there is no > difference in the course or glideslope and the > autopilot tracks either RNAV or ILS equally well. > Steve 40212 > --- Jesse Saint wrote: > > > Has anybody flown the 430W or 530W yet? If so, > have > > you flown it with an > > autopilot that has Vertical Steering? If so, > please > > enlighten the group as > > to your thoughts on it. > > > > > > > > Jesse Saint > > > > Saint Aviation, Inc. > > > > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > > > www.saintaviation.com > > > > Cell: 352-427-0285 > > > > Fax: 815-377-3694 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > > Web Forums! > > > > > Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Date: May 22, 2007
Just another view but picking the right panel becomes a lot easier if you define the mission first. Chelton are great, Fully coupled autopilots are wonderful, WAAS GPS supreme and you can get it all for only a gazillion dollars. The question in my mind is how much do we really need,... Granted if it's a "want" then all the discussion about price and package is moot. ( BTW, Tim defined his mission as "a real geek, and a pilot who looks at that grey thick wet layer of clouds as a perfect day" so if that is not you, it will make a difference") For example, I fly a lot in the south, Ark, LA, Texas, Ok and normally approaches flown to mins plus 500 are good enough. I would guess that to be 80% of the time when you actually need an approach which is an even smaller amount of your total flight time. This is from memory but I have flown about 40 cross country trips in the last two years (200-400) miles. All have been filed IFR, of them only 5 or 6 actually required an approach at the end and then only one was to mins plus about 300. Everything else was basically just to let down through a layer to about 1,000 agl. BTW, My whole attitude/experience would be different if I flew in the North East or in California Coastal fog! All of the really nice IFR stuff is only needed at the mins so you are buying a lot of equipment for the rare approach to mins. In most cases, you are put on vectors, intercept the approach NAV course from vectors, and then descend from the FAF at a fixed rate of 400-800 fpm to mins plus 400- 500 or more. Given that, any equipment that will let you fly with a heading bug while holding altitude, while monitoring the approach VOR or GPS but preferentially by GPS for spatial awareness will comfortably work for any but the most die hard IFR pilots. At the FAF, dial in your descent rate and leave the NAV coupled and you really don't need a coupled glide slope to get comfortably to mins plus 500 or so. Now, all of this is up for grabs if you really want to fly to 200' mins on the rare occasion but reasonable risk management on the ground prior to take-off makes even the most basic equipment more than adequate "most" of the time. Bottom line is that you can have a nice economical IFR panel that will work well with nominal flight management or a really high dollar system that will take you to mins with your hands off. Knowing which you will be comfortable with should be the first part of the planning process. In some cases, we just can't afford the stuff we would like to have and fly with less but manage the risk better. Your call, but knowing what you really want to do "most" of the time is important. The other question you have to ask is "if I buy this fancy system, will I (the pilot) be ready to take it to mins when the time comes." If you plan on serious IFR and need that kind of panel for really hard IFR, then don't forget that heated pitot and static ports and fuel vents are things to consider just like wing and prop de-ice. All nice but more complexity and more dollars. HOWEVER if you fly IFR at all, you just gotta have a Garmin 396/496 with weather! It's the real minimum IFR equipment in my mind. Pick the mission, then pick the panel. Just my .02 Bill S 7a Ark -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:11 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W This list cracks me up sometimes. ;) I have to say, to me, a real geek, and a pilot who looks at that grey thick wet layer of clouds as a perfect day to go for a pleasure flight and build some experience, the panel is my favorite part of the plane. It's not a status thing, or an ego thing, but a genuine interest in actually taking a creation I made, and have it do flights with ease that were painful to me only 2,3, or 5 years ago. There is no comparison to the old equipment when you l ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Upper Fwd Fuse
Date: May 22, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
I did it this way and there is no issues that I can think of. The rivets get bucked from the inside channel and there is plenty of room. Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew(at)aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:50 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: Upper Fwd Fuse Rob, I think that would be tough, though maybe not impossible. There might be some rivets that are hard to get to near the point that the canopy rests on the upper forward fuse. I was looking at these pictures of my canopy installation to see if there was anything that would prevent from doing things in that order; I'm not really sure, but maybe they'll help you. -Jim 40134 In a message dated 5/22/2007 2:12:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, flywrights(at)yahoo.com writes: Is it feasible to cleco in the upper fwd fuse, then fit and install the canopy, and then remove the upper fwd fuse so I can play with my panel and sub-panel? Later on I'd then slide the fwd fuse back into place and rivet it once my sub-panel mods are complete. Rob Wright #392 Jim "Scooter" McGrew http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew _____ See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
I recall vividly going through all of the 'FOG' when deciding on my panel components. there has already been a lot of good advice in response to this. So I'll limit it to this: 1. DON'T just follow someone else's decision/logic. YOUR panel is probably the most intimate set of decisions you will make regarding YOUR plane. MAKE SURE that you have a really SOLID understanding of WHAT YOUR, requirements/wants/needs/preferences are. something that someone else says / does may sound good/logical at the moment, but if it doesn't' match your spec's, it's interesting but not relevant. This goes for panel builders / vendors as well. e.g one of my factors in EFIS choice was the amount of information displayable on a single screen, I like a LOT, I know of one other builder that made their EFIS choice because they specifically did NOT want a lot of info simultaneously displayed. 2. IT IS CONFUSING - at least at first, but I recommend that everyone take the time to wade through the options on their own. My 1st challenge was just to understand all of the acronyms and what they meant (ADC, AHRS, EFIS, MFD, PFD , EIS, WAAS, ....... on and on). The process is EXTREMELY educational and informative, it will tell you a LOT about what IS or IS NOT important to you. The education that you get will be invaluable to you in operating and troubleshooting your plane/panel. Don't short cut your learning opportunity. 3. The printed information from the vendors is unfortunately, not always that revealing, particularly when it come to system limitations. TAKE every advantage to talk 1st hand to the vendors, OSH and other shows are great opportunities, but don't be afraid to pick up the phone and call direct. The response will tell you something about the company you are considering dealing with. 4. If you ask another builder/pilot if they 'LIKE' their particular system and they say YES, don't necessarily put too much weight into that single comment. I've read/seen lots of posts and I've yet to see one from someone that says 'I made a terrible mistake, this thing is a pile of !#@$#" We all tend to be very proud of our decisions and tend to defend them strongly. Very few if any of us have significant flight experience with ALL of even MOST of the systems available. We tend to like what we know and are most familiar with. My 2 cents Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Upper Fwd Fuse
Date: May 22, 2007
Rather than putting this little gusset on the outside as the plans indicate, several builders are riveting it on the inside where it is less obvious. Albert Gardner Yuma, AZ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2007
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Bill Schlatterer wrote: > > Just another view but picking the right panel becomes a lot easier if you > define the mission first. Chelton are great, Fully coupled autopilots are > wonderful, WAAS GPS supreme and you can get it all for only a gazillion > dollars. The question in my mind is how much do we really need,... Granted > if it's a "want" then all the discussion about price and package is moot. ( > BTW, Tim defined his mission as "a real geek, and a pilot who looks at that > grey thick wet layer of clouds as a perfect day" so if that is not you, it > will make a difference") > Actually, that statement I made was less of my "mission", but much more my "style". My "mission" might better be summed up like this slightly edited reply to an offline comment I got. "When people say I don't "need" all that stuff in the panel, I think....as far as I'm concerned, I'm not willing to trust my "superior" (laughing) skills are good enough to put my families life on the line with, risking their lives unnecessarily. For me, what I "need" is "the best I can do". It may cost a few dollars, but I want every bit of ease, safety, and help that I can get, so that I can be more assured that I'll have another day to fly another flight." For me, it's about totally enjoying IFR flight, but putting all the technology to good use in actually keeping my family and passengers alive. IFR flight isn't something you dabble in. VFR and IFR are absolute black and white, when you play by the rules. For a VFR only pilot, I wouldn't get any of the high-end systems, and my main GPS would just be a 496 even as a gadget guy. For an IFR pilot, there is a lot more at stake. The accident records clearly state the highly increased risk in GA IFR flight, especially single-pilot. Having a very good system at your hands is like having a 2nd pilot. In fact, when I first began my actual IFR experience post-training, I immediately purchased an autopilot for my old plane, because I was not willing to even consider flying my family IFR without an autopilot. This is just an extension of that caution, brought about by a little more experience, and, because it's possible to GREATLY increase the survival chances in an IFR aircraft with the technology today. There are so absolutely many accidents that need never happen. I remember reading an article recently where a plane flew a few hundred feet below the glideslope due to some misc. errors in reading when to descend on final. With todays synthetic vision approaches, that kind of thing just doesn't need to happen. It's a world where the slightest mis-interpretation of a piece of paper can mean sudden death. Even WITH the equipment, there is plenty of risk, but for those who fly their families (IFR), what do you want to do to minimize it? I'm selfish enough in that I love IFR flight so much that I'll actually be willing to FLY IFR with them on board, whereas I could just adamantly become a VFR pilot, and ignore that risk. But, I'm also not willing to make it harder than I have to, to ensure their long-term health. Many have seen my kids photos.....what do YOU think I should consider Danielle's value as.....$5,000, $20,000, or $50,000? And is Colleen worth more, or less? Quite literally, the money I spent has the potential to save just one, very minor, mistake while in IMC, at some point in our lives, that will make even $100,000 for that extra "software feature" worth every penny. So my mission is the ability to fly in IMC with as little risk of life and limb as possible. Also, I know that this kind of discussion bores the ba-jeeses out of some people, but keep in mind that in that survey done by Van's way back as to what kind of plane (IFR or VFR) the builders were building, the vast majority were building IFR aircraft. So, I usually prefer to consider meaningful panel discussions as IFR panel discussions. If it's a VFR panel, there's very little that is critical about planning a panel. Wouldn't it be cool if 5 years from now, the accident record for IFR flight were to actually equal what it is for VFR flight...and then some!?! (If we could just get people to fill up with fuel when needed, that would even help the VFR's safety record) > For example, I fly a lot in the south, Ark, LA, Texas, Ok and normally > approaches flown to mins plus 500 are good enough. I would guess that to be > 80% of the time when you actually need an approach which is an even smaller > amount of your total flight time. This is from memory but I have flown > about 40 cross country trips in the last two years (200-400) miles. All > have been filed IFR, of them only 5 or 6 actually required an approach at > the end and then only one was to mins plus about 300. Everything else was > basically just to let down through a layer to about 1,000 agl. BTW, My > whole attitude/experience would be different if I flew in the North East or > in California Coastal fog! Very true...but now you're arguing that a person who's only going to be doing minimal low approaches should maybe think about lesser equipment, right? IMHO, it's probably the opposite, and your point would be perfectly valid. Here's my thought.... It's hard enough for a private pilot to stay IFR current, with plenty of IMC experience. If you're going to fly approaches in IMC, the pilot with less currency could probably benefit more from some of the more substantial equipment than the guy who does it every week, which your 40 flights is quite a portion of a year. You may indeed have the "superior" skills that I laughingly mentioned about myself above. Then, it's just a matter of the same economics of what is the value to you in life and limb dollars? (Keep in mind I really believe that some of today's technology has the breakthrough possibility of changing the accident rate....and SOMEBODY is going to die doing it, so why not err on the safe side?) > > All of the really nice IFR stuff is only needed at the mins so you are > buying a lot of equipment for the rare approach to mins. In most cases, you > are put on vectors, intercept the approach NAV course from vectors, and then > descend from the FAF at a fixed rate of 400-800 fpm to mins plus 400- 500 or > more. Given that, any equipment that will let you fly with a heading bug > while holding altitude, while monitoring the approach VOR or GPS but > preferentially by GPS for spatial awareness will comfortably work for any > but the most die hard IFR pilots. At the FAF, dial in your descent rate and > leave the NAV coupled and you really don't need a coupled glide slope to get > comfortably to mins plus 500 or so. > I don't disagree with your thoughts for the most part. That's how I feel about my backup gauges....I mean, how much do you absolutely need when the crap hits the fan? With ATC help, and radar contact, you can probably pull off a whole lot if you stay calm. As far as I'm concerned, you have it exactly right for how I feel if I have a major EFIS failure. Other than that though, for a few bucks I have the opportunity to keep that safety level up. For what it's worth, some of my more fearful moments were not on the low portion of an approach. In fact, on the last few seconds before breaking out, it hasn't been bad at all. For me the climb phase, and some enroute and vectoring phase time has been pretty tough. Spatial disorientation is something I became acutely aware of, along with vertigo. Interestingly, while I commonly at least felt the "leans" in turbulent IMC before, I haven't had that experience with synthetic vision. I can only surmise that this is partly due to the added "visibility" I'm now seeing. There are times, that I can honestly say that I had my hands full just keeping myself hand-flying the plane to keep it upright while feeling the leans in a big way. Having that experience was pretty humbling. I do understand that it's something that can be overcome, but, does the *average* IFR pilot fly enough approaches to realistically keep their proficiency to what is *really* required for safety? (Not the standard legal definition of currency) Also, it wouldn't be responsible of me to tell someone that there's such a thing as "light" IFR where you just go busting through thin layers and then continue on top. You truly can get yourself into some situations that way. I catch your comment about if you were in the North East or California's coastal fog, but in almost all areas of the country you can find some tough IFR flying, and the question is are you planning to take your plane all over the country and just fly VFR when you get some soggy clouds in your way? > Now, all of this is up for grabs if you really want to fly to 200' mins on > the rare occasion but reasonable risk management on the ground prior to > take-off makes even the most basic equipment more than adequate "most" of > the time. > > Bottom line is that you can have a nice economical IFR panel that will work > well with nominal flight management or a really high dollar system that will > take you to mins with your hands off. Knowing which you will be comfortable > with should be the first part of the planning process. In some cases, we > just can't afford the stuff we would like to have and fly with less but > manage the risk better. Your call, but knowing what you really want to do > "most" of the time is important. The other question you have to ask is "if > I buy this fancy system, will I (the pilot) be ready to take it to mins when > the time comes." > All good points. I do agree that financial things do play a part in the decision process. For me, I would probably be more of an IFR avoider with the family on board without the gear, yet I feel that experience is experience, and the only way to actually GET the experience is to DO the flight, if Convection, hail, ice, and lightning, and turbulence aren't involved. Personally, knowing that not everyone can afford exactly what they want, I would encourage people to do whatever they can from a proficiency and personal-minimums standpoint to minimize their risk. Proficiency is expensive though too, as it costs $50/hr just for the fuel to keep proficient. Also, I agree with your sentiments about will the pilot be ready, if they are used to flying the fancy system. Having that fancy system also requires you to stay proficient at it's operation...the same as any GPS/NAV/COM of course. I worried about how it would be if not only the EFIS failed, but what if I had to hand-fly with or without the EFIS. So far I haven't felt like I will have a problem keeping hand-flying proficient, although it's tough to fly as good as the computer these days. It pays to try to stay current in all regards. There again, the pilots best friend in an emergency is his autopilot...if it's still working. > If you plan on serious IFR and need that kind of panel for really hard IFR, > then don't forget that heated pitot and static ports and fuel vents are > things to consider just like wing and prop de-ice. All nice but more > complexity and more dollars. HOWEVER if you fly IFR at all, you just gotta > have a Garmin 396/496 with weather! It's the real minimum IFR equipment in > my mind. Also great points. You're absolutely right about the Wx. It's one of those things that I don't know what I'd do without. Attached is a WSI screenshot from Saturday. It was very helpful knowing exactly which direction held the large cells, and how thick the line was. It was a VFR flight, which is much more comfortable when you have any red spots in your area. The visual picture said go, but only when diverting from the direct route. FWIW, I actually had the offer of wing de-ice, but decided to pass on that one in favor of avoiding ice altogether. But since I passed, a good buddy o'pal of mine will now get the honors of having the first de-ice'd RV-10 out there. Yep, it's coming available down the road. Add my .02 to everyone's .02, and pretty soon we'll be millionaires! Just read Deems's post. Totally wonderful information there as well. I especially agree with #4. While I know some of the limitations of some of the other systems, I don't know all of the exact positive features, so I speak mainly to my own knowledge base of the Chelton. Many of the others got scratched off the list as I went along when I found something that was a deal-breaker to me...but that doesn't mean that it's not something that fits your goals. I love talking about the capabilities of what I have. Unlike when you talk about the RV-10 and have to admit that the doors suck, when I talk EFIS I really have very little to complain about, and that's after getting married to it and having the honeymoon pass. Tim > > Pick the mission, then pick the panel. > > Just my .02 > > Bill S > 7a Ark > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:11 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W > > > This list cracks me up sometimes. ;) > > I have to say, to me, a real geek, and a pilot who looks at that grey thick > wet layer of clouds as a perfect day to go for a pleasure flight and build > some experience, the panel is my favorite part of the plane. > It's not a status thing, or an ego thing, but a genuine interest in actually > taking a creation I made, and have it do flights with ease that were painful > to me only 2,3, or 5 years ago. There is no comparison to the old equipment > when you l > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel flow sensor
From: "Michael Wellenzohn" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: May 23, 2007
Thanks guys for all the replies. I decided to order the sensor kit from Advanced Flieght Systems after I had a call with them yesterday and the fuel flow sensor comes with that. Cheers Michael (who quit his job to get the plane done ;-) ) -------- RV-10 builder (wings) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114332#114332 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 23, 2007
I am 6'1" and have plenty of room. The best place to stow the visor when not in use would be straight forward towards the windscreen. Actually, the taller a person is, the further back their seat will be (probably), so head room is not as much as an issue as you would think because of the slant of the seat rails. Others, please chime in here with added info on height. I don't think it would be an issue even if you folded it back. With the 4-axis movement, you can put the lense right up against the headliner if you want. 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 Ben Westfall Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:40 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Jesse, I am 6'3" tall and am wondering if when folded up (not in use) will the visor become an obstruction? Do you think taller pilots/passengers heads might bump into the visors when folded back along the roofline? -Ben ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JSMcGrew(at)aol.com
Date: May 23, 2007
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Tim, Try putting up an EFIS Wiki and let us do the work. -Jim In a message dated 5/22/2007 8:13:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Tim(at)MyRV10.com writes: How do you get the knowledge for all the systems? How do you keep it updated with all the changes going on? How HUGE of a list of features do you want to list? Can you get reviewers to objectively list the good and the bad? If *I* wrote the list, would anyone even trust if I were objective? Who in their right mind has the time for such a project? and many more... Jim "Scooter" McGrew _http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2007
From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
The Cheltons are more than wonderful, they are amazing. I read the same article about the IFR accidents in Aftermath and thought the same thing,"If those pilots had Cheltons and had their flight plan in it, they would probably all be alive today." When I fly IFR I load the 430 which then transfers all the data over to Grand Rapids, then I load the Chelton with the flight plan. The situational awareness of the HITS is where the Cheltons shine. I have both the Grand Rapids and the Cheltons in my panel and if I were to do it all over again I would put a three screen Chelton system in. Now the price difference is huge, I paid around $10K for my Grand Rapids and the Cheltons were $27K and I still may have to purchase the PinPoint AHRS down the road which is another $3K I think. The Cheltons are also great for VFR flight but the Grand Rapids are just as good for that application. It is very nice to have the HITS for VFR approaches to unfamiliar airports especially when they have parallel runways. I like the customization of the engine page on Grand Rapids better but it isn't that big of a deal. I really like the support over at Grand Rapids although Chelton has already done much better than Direct2Avionics ever did. I have about 12 hours behind the G1000, and now have 180 hours behind the Cheltons and Grand Rapids and I can say the Cheltons really have impressed me beyond what I thought. Just like anything, and like Tim said, go fly behind them and see the difference yourself. Three screens really would be nice for the Cheltons because of all the different screen options. The OP Technologies stuff look really cool too. I can't wait to play with that at Oshkosh. By the way, I am going to upgrade my 430 to WAAS sometime this year just to have it but my Cheltons will still be driving the autopilot and I will only monitor the 430W. One other observation I have heard from non-pilots that I take up is how relaxed they feel when the see those Cheltons and Grand Rapids in the panel. There is always some anxiety when passengers first here about going flying in an experimental but after they fly I have heard that the panel is not what they expected and they felt safer because of it, kind of interesting. Scott Schmidt scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com ----- Original Message ---- From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:31:29 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W Bill Schlatterer wrote: > > Just another view but picking the right panel becomes a lot easier if you > define the mission first. Chelton are great, Fully coupled autopilots are > wonderful, WAAS GPS supreme and you can get it all for only a gazillion > dollars. The question in my mind is how much do we really need,... Granted > if it's a "want" then all the discussion about price and package is moot. ( > BTW, Tim defined his mission as "a real geek, and a pilot who looks at that > grey thick wet layer of clouds as a perfect day" so if that is not you, it > will make a difference") > Actually, that statement I made was less of my "mission", but much more my "style". My "mission" might better be summed up like this slightly edited reply to an offline comment I got. "When people say I don't "need" all that stuff in the panel, I think....as far as I'm concerned, I'm not willing to trust my "superior" (laughing) skills are good enough to put my families life on the line with, risking their lives unnecessarily. For me, what I "need" is "the best I can do". It may cost a few dollars, but I want every bit of ease, safety, and help that I can get, so that I can be more assured that I'll have another day to fly another flight." For me, it's about totally enjoying IFR flight, but putting all the technology to good use in actually keeping my family and passengers alive. IFR flight isn't something you dabble in. VFR and IFR are absolute black and white, when you play by the rules. For a VFR only pilot, I wouldn't get any of the high-end systems, and my main GPS would just be a 496 even as a gadget guy. For an IFR pilot, there is a lot more at stake. The accident records clearly state the highly increased risk in GA IFR flight, especially single-pilot. Having a very good system at your hands is like having a 2nd pilot. In fact, when I first began my actual IFR experience post-training, I immediately purchased an autopilot for my old plane, because I was not willing to even consider flying my family IFR without an autopilot. This is just an extension of that caution, brought about by a little more experience, and, because it's possible to GREATLY increase the survival chances in an IFR aircraft with the technology today. There are so absolutely many accidents that need never happen. I remember reading an article recently where a plane flew a few hundred feet below the glideslope due to some misc. errors in reading when to descend on final. With todays synthetic vision approaches, that kind of thing just doesn't need to happen. It's a world where the slightest mis-interpretation of a piece of paper can mean sudden death. Even WITH the equipment, there is plenty of risk, but for those who fly their families (IFR), what do you want to do to minimize it? I'm selfish enough in that I love IFR flight so much that I'll actually be willing to FLY IFR with them on board, whereas I could just adamantly become a VFR pilot, and ignore that risk. But, I'm also not willing to make it harder than I have to, to ensure their long-term health. Many have seen my kids photos.....what do YOU think I should consider Danielle's value as.....$5,000, $20,000, or $50,000? And is Colleen worth more, or less? Quite literally, the money I spent has the potential to save just one, very minor, mistake while in IMC, at some point in our lives, that will make even $100,000 for that extra "software feature" worth every penny. So my mission is the ability to fly in IMC with as little risk of life and limb as possible. Also, I know that this kind of discussion bores the ba-jeeses out of some people, but keep in mind that in that survey done by Van's way back as to what kind of plane (IFR or VFR) the builders were building, the vast majority were building IFR aircraft. So, I usually prefer to consider meaningful panel discussions as IFR panel discussions. If it's a VFR panel, there's very little that is critical about planning a panel. Wouldn't it be cool if 5 years from now, the accident record for IFR flight were to actually equal what it is for VFR flight...and then some!?! (If we could just get people to fill up with fuel when needed, that would even help the VFR's safety record) > For example, I fly a lot in the south, Ark, LA, Texas, Ok and normally > approaches flown to mins plus 500 are good enough. I would guess that to be > 80% of the time when you actually need an approach which is an even smaller > amount of your total flight time. This is from memory but I have flown > about 40 cross country trips in the last two years (200-400) miles. All > have been filed IFR, of them only 5 or 6 actually required an approach at > the end and then only one was to mins plus about 300. Everything else was > basically just to let down through a layer to about 1,000 agl. BTW, My > whole attitude/experience would be different if I flew in the North East or > in California Coastal fog! Very true...but now you're arguing that a person who's only going to be doing minimal low approaches should maybe think about lesser equipment, right? IMHO, it's probably the opposite, and your point would be perfectly valid. Here's my thought.... It's hard enough for a private pilot to stay IFR current, with plenty of IMC experience. If you're going to fly approaches in IMC, the pilot with less currency could probably benefit more from some of the more substantial equipment than the guy who does it every week, which your 40 flights is quite a portion of a year. You may indeed have the "superior" skills that I laughingly mentioned about myself above. Then, it's just a matter of the same economics of what is the value to you in life and limb dollars? (Keep in mind I really believe that some of today's technology has the breakthrough possibility of changing the accident rate....and SOMEBODY is going to die doing it, so why not err on the safe side?) > > All of the really nice IFR stuff is only needed at the mins so you are > buying a lot of equipment for the rare approach to mins. In most cases, you > are put on vectors, intercept the approach NAV course from vectors, and then > descend from the FAF at a fixed rate of 400-800 fpm to mins plus 400- 500 or > more. Given that, any equipment that will let you fly with a heading bug > while holding altitude, while monitoring the approach VOR or GPS but > preferentially by GPS for spatial awareness will comfortably work for any > but the most die hard IFR pilots. At the FAF, dial in your descent rate and > leave the NAV coupled and you really don't need a coupled glide slope to get > comfortably to mins plus 500 or so. > I don't disagree with your thoughts for the most part. That's how I feel about my backup gauges....I mean, how much do you absolutely need when the crap hits the fan? With ATC help, and radar contact, you can probably pull off a whole lot if you stay calm. As far as I'm concerned, you have it exactly right for how I feel if I have a major EFIS failure. Other than that though, for a few bucks I have the opportunity to keep that safety level up. For what it's worth, some of my more fearful moments were not on the low portion of an approach. In fact, on the last few seconds before breaking out, it hasn't been bad at all. For me the climb phase, and some enroute and vectoring phase time has been pretty tough. Spatial disorientation is something I became acutely aware of, along with vertigo. Interestingly, while I commonly at least felt the "leans" in turbulent IMC before, I haven't had that experience with synthetic vision. I can only surmise that this is partly due to the added "visibility" I'm now seeing. There are times, that I can honestly say that I had my hands full just keeping myself hand-flying the plane to keep it upright while feeling the leans in a big way. Having that experience was pretty humbling. I do understand that it's something that can be overcome, but, does the *average* IFR pilot fly enough approaches to realistically keep their proficiency to what is *really* required for safety? (Not the standard legal definition of currency) Also, it wouldn't be responsible of me to tell someone that there's such a thing as "light" IFR where you just go busting through thin layers and then continue on top. You truly can get yourself into some situations that way. I catch your comment about if you were in the North East or California's coastal fog, but in almost all areas of the country you can find some tough IFR flying, and the question is are you planning to take your plane all over the country and just fly VFR when you get some soggy clouds in your way? > Now, all of this is up for grabs if you really want to fly to 200' mins on > the rare occasion but reasonable risk management on the ground prior to > take-off makes even the most basic equipment more than adequate "most" of > the time. > > Bottom line is that you can have a nice economical IFR panel that will work > well with nominal flight management or a really high dollar system that will > take you to mins with your hands off. Knowing which you will be comfortable > with should be the first part of the planning process. In some cases, we > just can't afford the stuff we would like to have and fly with less but > manage the risk better. Your call, but knowing what you really want to do > "most" of the time is important. The other question you have to ask is "if > I buy this fancy system, will I (the pilot) be ready to take it to mins when > the time comes." > All good points. I do agree that financial things do play a part in the decision process. For me, I would probably be more of an IFR avoider with the family on board without the gear, yet I feel that experience is experience, and the only way to actually GET the experience is to DO the flight, if Convection, hail, ice, and lightning, and turbulence aren't involved. Personally, knowing that not everyone can afford exactly what they want, I would encourage people to do whatever they can from a proficiency and personal-minimums standpoint to minimize their risk. Proficiency is expensive though too, as it costs $50/hr just for the fuel to keep proficient. Also, I agree with your sentiments about will the pilot be ready, if they are used to flying the fancy system. Having that fancy system also requires you to stay proficient at it's operation...the same as any GPS/NAV/COM of course. I worried about how it would be if not only the EFIS failed, but what if I had to hand-fly with or without the EFIS. So far I haven't felt like I will have a problem keeping hand-flying proficient, although it's tough to fly as good as the computer these days. It pays to try to stay current in all regards. There again, the pilots best friend in an emergency is his autopilot...if it's still working. > If you plan on serious IFR and need that kind of panel for really hard IFR, > then don't forget that heated pitot and static ports and fuel vents are > things to consider just like wing and prop de-ice. All nice but more > complexity and more dollars. HOWEVER if you fly IFR at all, you just gotta > have a Garmin 396/496 with weather! It's the real minimum IFR equipment in > my mind. Also great points. You're absolutely right about the Wx. It's one of those things that I don't know what I'd do without. Attached is a WSI screenshot from Saturday. It was very helpful knowing exactly which direction held the large cells, and how thick the line was. It was a VFR flight, which is much more comfortable when you have any red spots in your area. The visual picture said go, but only when diverting from the direct route. FWIW, I actually had the offer of wing de-ice, but decided to pass on that one in favor of avoiding ice altogether. But since I passed, a good buddy o'pal of mine will now get the honors of having the first de-ice'd RV-10 out there. Yep, it's coming available down the road. Add my .02 to everyone's .02, and pretty soon we'll be millionaires! Just read Deems's post. Totally wonderful information there as well. I especially agree with #4. While I know some of the limitations of some of the other systems, I don't know all of the exact positive features, so I speak mainly to my own knowledge base of the Chelton. Many of the others got scratched off the list as I went along when I found something that was a deal-breaker to me...but that doesn't mean that it's not something that fits your goals. I love talking about the capabilities of what I have. Unlike when you talk about the RV-10 and have to admit that the doors suck, when I talk EFIS I really have very little to complain about, and that's after getting married to it and having the honeymoon pass. Tim > > Pick the mission, then pick the panel. > > Just my .02 > > Bill S > 7a Ark > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:11 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W > > > This list cracks me up sometimes. ;) > > I have to say, to me, a real geek, and a pilot who looks at that grey thick > wet layer of clouds as a perfect day to go for a pleasure flight and build > some experience, the panel is my favorite part of the plane. > It's not a status thing, or an ego thing, but a genuine interest in actually > taking a creation I made, and have it do flights with ease that were painful > to me only 2,3, or 5 years ago. There is no comparison to the old equipment > when you l > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
From: "jim berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net>
Date: May 23, 2007
Jesse, I would like a full set. Thanks. Jim Berry 6033 S Beeler St, Greenwood Village, Co 80111-5225 Ph 303-779-3607 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114404#114404 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2007
From: "Don Fanning" <drdonfa(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
I would like a full set. We can install it this summer when I come down for the annual and the ADI install (if it comes out). Don On 5/22/07, Jesse Saint wrote: > > I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail > and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half > set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address > and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a > check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a > flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they > charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. > > > GOD BLESS! > > > 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 *Bobby J. Hughes > *Sent:* Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:50 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy > > > Jessie, > > > At $200 count me in. > > > Enjoyed our visit at Lockhart. > > > Bobby Hughes > > 40116 > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jesse Saint > *Sent:* Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:08 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy > > Sorry for the quality, but I have attached some pictures of our Rosen Sun > Visor installation. I am getting a quote on our custom mount from a local > machine shop and am getting a quote from Rosen on a group buy for the > visors. We tried to find a place on the sides to install a visor, but there > just isn't a good place to put it that won't block the pilot's vision when > he isn't using the visor. This is a 3-axis visor, so it can be used to > block sun from the pilot or copilot's front anywhere in the windshield and > can also block the pilot's right or copilot's left. Unfortunately we > couldn't find any way to block the sun from the pilot's left or copilot's > right except a suction cup or static cling piece. The visor base would > mount on the cabin top using two of the 4 screws that hold the front bar to > the cabin top. > > > Please let me know off the list if you are interested and I will put a > list together and let you know when I know how much it would cost. I am > hoping to keep it under $200 including the visor (big or small lense) and > the custom black-anodized base. > > > Jesse Saint > > Saint Aviation, Inc. > > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > www.saintaviation.com > > Cell: 352-427-0285 > > Fax: 815-377-3694 > > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > ** > > * * > > * > > * > > -- Don Liberty University Of: 434-592-4127 Cel: 434-944-5347 email: drdonfa(at)gmail.com Skype: drdonfanning MSN Messenger: dfanning(at)liberty.edu Web: www.luglobal.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 23, 2007
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
Don, Where are you located? Randy 40006 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Fanning Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:52 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy I would like a full set. We can install it this summer when I come down for the annual and the ADI install (if it comes out). Don On 5/22/07, Jesse Saint wrote: I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. GOD BLESS! 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(at)matronics.com ] On Behalf Of Bobby J. Hughes Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:50 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Jessie, At $200 count me in. Enjoyed our visit at Lockhart. Bobby Hughes 40116 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:08 PM Subject: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Sorry for the quality, but I have attached some pictures of our Rosen Sun Visor installation. I am getting a quote on our custom mount from a local machine shop and am getting a quote from Rosen on a group buy for the visors. We tried to find a place on the sides to install a visor, but there just isn't a good place to put it that won't block the pilot's vision when he isn't using the visor. This is a 3-axis visor, so it can be used to block sun from the pilot or copilot's front anywhere in the windshield and can also block the pilot's right or copilot's left. Unfortunately we couldn't find any way to block the sun from the pilot's left or copilot's right except a suction cup or static cling piece. The visor base would mount on the cabin top using two of the 4 screws that hold the front bar to the cabin top. Please let me know off the list if you are interested and I will put a list together and let you know when I know how much it would cost. I am hoping to keep it under $200 including the visor (big or small lense) and the custom black-anodized base. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com <http://www.saintaviation.com/> Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com -- Don Liberty University Of: 434-592-4127 Cel: 434-944-5347 email: drdonfa(at)gmail.com Skype: drdonfanning MSN Messenger: dfanning(at)liberty.edu Web: www.luglobal.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cal Hoffman" <cehoffman(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 23, 2007
Count me in - I am at the right point to install. Cal Hoffman 97 Myrick Street Barnwell, SC 29812 803-541-5242 cehoffman(at)bellsouth.net I would like a full set of visors. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Saint To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:32 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. GOD BLESS! Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neal George" <neal.george(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: FS: MT Prop Gov
Date: May 23, 2007
Listers - I have a new MT prop governor for sale. $1075, shipped. Neal E. George 2023 Everglades Drive Navarre, FL 32566 Home - 850-515-0640 Cell - 850-218-4838 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: FS: MT Prop Gov
Date: May 23, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Why would you sell? What are you going to run with? John ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Neal George Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:40 PM Subject: RV10-List: FS: MT Prop Gov Listers - I have a new MT prop governor for sale. $1075, shipped. Neal E. George 2023 Everglades Drive Navarre, FL 32566 Home - 850-515-0640 Cell - 850-218-4838 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 23, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Okay, call me jaded but I just received an invitation to migrate over to the RV-10 web reflector offered by Doug Reeves. Question #1 - Now, am I the only one? Question #2, is it correct that this list has become a private conversation between Saint Aviation and individuals who cannot take private conversations private? Cause I am not on any list for Rosen Visors or Saint Aviation business endevours nor see value in the build for knowing who they all are. Tim, is that how you handled the axle extension offer? At one time this was a sharing forum for diverse builders with common interests. John Cox #40600 ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cal Hoffman Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Count me in - I am at the right point to install. Cal Hoffman 97 Myrick Street Barnwell, SC 29812 803-541-5242 cehoffman(at)bellsouth.net I would like a full set of visors. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:32 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. GOD BLESS! Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: May 23, 2007
Subject: Re: FS: MT Prop Gov
It would be nice if you listed the MT governor part number. That way the correct engine usage could be determined. Perhaps from my MT Propeller Governor page on my website, _www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com) Regards, Jim Ayers Less Drag Products, Inc. 805-795-5377 In a message dated 05/23/2007 7:41:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, neal.george(at)mchsi.com writes: Listers - I have a new MT prop governor for sale. $1075, shipped. Neal E. George 2023 Everglades Drive Navarre, FL 32566 Home - 850-515-0640 Cell - 850-218-4838 ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neal George" <neal.george(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: FS: MT Prop Gov
Date: May 24, 2007
I bought the governor before I made the final decision on the prop. Greg Anderson says my WW 200RV would be perfectly happy with the MT. He offers a different governor, and that sounds a lot like a recommendation - one I'm inclined to follow. neal Why would you sell? What are you going to run with? John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 24, 2007
#1. Nope, got no private invite. Have tried to use his site from time to time, but find this one easier, friendlier, more informative, although I would like to encourage more participation by those who feel too shy or too hurried or too self absorbed to help the group think and learning process. Don't really care if he's putting his kids through college, but do care about unsolicited editing. #2. Have no care whatsoever, and in fact encourage that Jesse or Tim or anyone else publicly helping folks create a solution, and, although I commented to Jesse off-line, am not at all offended by the email traffic. $3. How 'bout them Red Sox? Lost 2 of 3 from the Bombers. Sky is falling! John J #328 _____ 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 23, 2007 8:09 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Okay, call me jaded but I just received an invitation to migrate over to the RV-10 web reflector offered by Doug Reeves. Question #1 - Now, am I the only one? Question #2, is it correct that this list has become a private conversation between Saint Aviation and individuals who cannot take private conversations private? Cause I am not on any list for Rosen Visors or Saint Aviation business endevours nor see value in the build for knowing who they all are. Tim, is that how you handled the axle extension offer? At one time this was a sharing forum for diverse builders with common interests. John Cox #40600 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cal Hoffman Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Count me in - I am at the right point to install. Cal Hoffman 97 Myrick Street Barnwell, SC 29812 803-541-5242 cehoffman(at)bellsouth.net I would like a full set of visors. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com> Saint Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:32 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. GOD BLESS! Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Cram" <johncram(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 24, 2007
It's still early John.. We were due for the slump..... John Cram 40569 ----- Original Message ----- From: John Jessen<mailto:jjessen(at)rcn.com> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:09 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy #1. Nope, got no private invite. Have tried to use his site from time to time, but find this one easier, friendlier, more informative, although I would like to encourage more participation by those who feel too shy or too hurried or too self absorbed to help the group think and learning process. Don't really care if he's putting his kids through college, but do care about unsolicited editing. #2. Have no care whatsoever, and in fact encourage that Jesse or Tim or anyone else publicly helping folks create a solution, and, although I commented to Jesse off-line, am not at all offended by the email traffic. $3. How 'bout them Red Sox? Lost 2 of 3 from the Bombers. Sky is falling! John J #328 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 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 23, 2007 8:09 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Okay, call me jaded but I just received an invitation to migrate over to the RV-10 web reflector offered by Doug Reeves. Question #1 - Now, am I the only one? Question #2, is it correct that this list has become a private conversation between Saint Aviation and individuals who cannot take private conversations private? Cause I am not on any list for Rosen Visors or Saint Aviation business endevours nor see value in the build for knowing who they all are. Tim, is that how you handled the axle extension offer? At one time this was a sharing forum for diverse builders with common interests. John Cox #40600 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cal Hoffman Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:56 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Count me in - I am at the right point to install. Cal Hoffman 97 Myrick Street Barnwell, SC 29812 803-541-5242 cehoffman(at)bellsouth.net I would like a full set of visors. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Saint<mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:32 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. GOD BLESS! Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com<http://www.saintaviation.com/> Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 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 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List igator?RV10-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
Date: May 24, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Of course you did, he has to invite people so that he can justify his outrageous rates for advertising. Are we forgetting how he does not "EDIT" anyone's responses, as long as they do not say anything negative about any paying vendor on his site that is. He is once again trying to sway the market with a new set of builders and especially a group of builders that have deeper pockets, so he can raise the advertising rates for his advertisers to reach a higher end target market? Call me jaded, but at least Matt is letting us post our opinions freely, and attachments to boot! Dan N289DT RV10E _____ 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 23, 2007 11:09 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Okay, call me jaded but I just received an invitation to migrate over to the RV-10 web reflector offered by Doug Reeves. Question #1 - Now, am I the only one? Question #2, is it correct that this list has become a private conversation between Saint Aviation and individuals who cannot take private conversations private? Cause I am not on any list for Rosen Visors or Saint Aviation business endevours nor see value in the build for knowing who they all are. Tim, is that how you handled the axle extension offer? At one time this was a sharing forum for diverse builders with common interests. John Cox #40600 _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cal Hoffman Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy Count me in - I am at the right point to install. Cal Hoffman 97 Myrick Street Barnwell, SC 29812 803-541-5242 cehoffman(at)bellsouth.net I would like a full set of visors. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:32 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. GOD BLESS! Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com Cell: 352-427-0285 Fax: 815-377-3694 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net>
Subject: Tax the internet
Date: May 24, 2007
Just a heads up. Congress is out to tax the internet again. If you want to see the results of the AL Gore tax to internet the schools, watch them waste tax dollars to rip out the wires to go wireless. Or look at the extra books the kids bring home from school this time of year, many are hardly used. All paid for by our tax dollars at the direction of Teddy and the "no child left behind". ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Tax the internet
Date: May 24, 2007
>From someone who does not watch the television, only reads the news and/or listens to NPR, (not R. Limbaugh, A. Colter, or H. Stern) I don't really comprehend sound bites too well. Perhaps you can explain to me on or offline what exactly you are trying to say so that I may better educate myself on what it is that you feel is happening. What books are hardly used. Is it that the books are supposed to be read by the students, but aren't, therefore the books are hardly used or is it a conspiracy to have the children only carry the books so that there backs and abdominal muscles get stronger so their minds will wither away. While going wireless, it is pretty obvious that pulling out all the copper from the wires will help net a profit to some large corporations as they sell all the copper to China. Then China can sell it back to us at Wall Mart in the form of toasters, blenders, toys and other electric motor stuff. The problems, I think the country's coffer is running out of money and some rich people need to make so more money. The country need more money. The little people need more happiness. We need more advertising on television so we can buy more stuff. Buying more stuff will keep us HAPPY. Buying more stuff in the end, will raise more taxes. I don't like high taxes either, especially when the money it raises is wasted. John Gonzalez( No Relation to Alberto) Tarnishing the last name as far as I am concerned! >From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV10-List: Tax the internet >Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 07:12:51 -0700 > >Just a heads up. Congress is out to tax the internet again. If you want to >see the results of the AL Gore tax to internet the schools, watch them >waste >tax dollars to rip out the wires to go wireless. Or look at the extra books >the kids bring home from school this time of year, many are hardly used. >All >paid for by our tax dollars at the direction of Teddy and the "no child >left >behind". > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tax the internet
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: May 24, 2007
I agree. This is not a place for politics; let's keep it to airplanes. -------- #40572 Empennage done, starting QB Wings N711JG reserved Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114607#114607 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: mid seat rail support
Date: May 24, 2007
Way back on page 28-16 step 2 I put the F-1057 (L&R) together and, as the directions said "laid them aside". I am now putting on the landing gear and wheels, and the F-1057's are still "laid aside". I have searched and researched the plans but I'll be damn if I can find where the instructions are for mounting these guys. Seems straight forward with 8 AN3 bolts but am I supposed to wait until some time later (FWF kit, first flight, or even later)? Help. Jay Rowe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Date: May 24, 2007
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
has anyone flown the handheld Cheeta system...FL 190 or something like that? P ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Reining" <wreining(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Air Tank Tip
Date: May 24, 2007
Due to insufficient electrical power to run my air compressor where I need it, I have been faced with using a 50 foot =BC inch air line to my work area from the compressor. As expected, the air delivery was terrible. So I tried a little experiment, which has worked out quite well. I happened to also have a portable air tank from Sears, the kind one uses to carry out to a vehicle and pump up the tires. I put a tee together such that I can plug in the 50 foot line from the compressor, fill the air tank, and provide air for drilling and spray painting. It works like a charm. The compressor is an old Sears 1=BD horse. If anyone reading this is faced with the same problem, try it. I don=92t think I paid more than $35 for the air tank. Be careful not to set the compressor pressure higher than the max for the air tank (125 in this case). Bill (and Jon) Reining 40514 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Upper Fwd Fuse
Date: May 25, 2007
From: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.com>
hey Rob Yes - that is what I have done. I have the cabin deck, engine mount and gear on while the upper fuse is still removable. Just be aware that some of the fwd fuse rib - firewall and fwd fuse skin - cowl hinge rivets may be hard to set with the engine mount in place. cheers, Ron 187 finishing ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert Wright Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2007 3:36 AM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Upper Fwd Fuse Is it feasible to cleco in the upper fwd fuse, then fit and install the canopy, and then remove the upper fwd fuse so I can play with my panel and sub-panel? Later on I'd then slide the fwd fuse back into place and rivet it once my sub-panel mods are complete. Rob Wright #392 Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48518/*http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/;_yl c =X3oDMTE3NWsyMDd2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDY2FyLWZpbmRlcg - - hot CTA = Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Date: May 24, 2007
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
In a message dated 5/24/2007 11:06:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net writes: HOWEVER, there simply is no argument that more equipment is safer if you are truly backed into a corner. Bill, I think your point is well taken but having flown in a glass machine, one really needs to stay perfectient to be comfortable..sitting monitoring all the wonderful machines and also to know when one has a hic-up takes some skill building time. I'm really not that impressed with the Cessna G 1000 solution to back up instruments. They're OK but not great. They are now introducing the Garmin autopilots but the current King AP's require a turn indicator, and they have it buried behind the screens so that it absolutely zero help in an emergency situation. I think a good back up electric DG is not a bad option with it's own back up power would be a nice item to have along with the screens. I don't know what's come of a recent accident investgation where an all glass piper went in but the scuttle butt was that the G 1000's had some problems and may have shut down, and the pilot lost control and the back up instruments were either not enough or they were also off line. I would think a good electric DG with a vertical card compass and maybe a good handheld GPS would be a good strong back up to the all glass machines, especially if the hand held had good internal back up battery power...at least 2+ hours of time. I've got a feeling the old radio nav system is not going away all that soon. P ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Date: May 24, 2007
I have flown the Sorcerer, and will have to say that it is an absolutely fantastic A/P. You can literally fly hands-off from rotate to flare. This little $10K treasure is worth its weight in gold (forunately it is incredibly lightweight). Driving instrument aside, being able to control the plane with a button push or 3 fro the very simple and intuitive interface is a big plus. No matter what else you have on your panel, you will IMHO be safer with the Sorcerer if you know how to use it. We flew from X35 to OSH last year almost completely with that, including climbout and descent. The "left-seater" had to turn it off a couple times to convince himself that he was still PIC. If you are going $5K over budget somewhere, this isn't a bad place to do it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com 352-427-0285 Leather interior kit for the RV-10 - www.saintaviation.com/interior -----Original Message----- From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: 5/24/2007 11:03 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Date: May 24, 2007
I have flown the Sorcerer, and will have to say that it is an absolutely fantastic A/P. You can literally fly hands-off from rotate to flare. This little $10K treasure is worth its weight in gold (forunately it is incredibly lightweight). Driving instrument aside, being able to control the plane with a button push or 3 fro the very simple and intuitive interface is a big plus. No matter what else you have on your panel, you will IMHO be safer with the Sorcerer if you know how to use it. We flew from X35 to OSH last year almost completely with that, including climbout and descent. The "left-seater" had to turn it off a couple times to convince himself that he was still PIC. If you are going $5K over budget somewhere, this isn't a bad place to do it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com 352-427-0285 Leather interior kit for the RV-10 - www.saintaviation.com/interior -----Original Message----- From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: 5/24/2007 11:03 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget" ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2007
From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Trueflight 190
I am actually in the process of purchasing that system. After reading about and talking with them I am very impressed with it and I recently received a free Samsung Q1 and thought I might as well give it a try. It has all the weather that the 496 has plus more, and you can get all the approach charts, taxi diagrams, and low IFR charts on it. Your plane can overlay on all the charts I just mentioned as well. The also have all the IFR approaches loaded into the system so you can fly the approach on the moving map. They said within the next couple of week they will have forward 3D synthetic vision with HITS. Later this year they will have outputs for digital autopilots. For around $2500 for a total system they seem pretty cool. www.aviationsafety.com Weather for my plane is something I have really struggled with over the past year. My options have been a Garmin 396 or 496, WSI for the Chelton, Grand Rapids XM weather, Anywhere map, True Flight, or just WX WORX. They all have their positives and negatives. Garmin 396 or 496 - Nice package, good support, simple to use, nice screen, but is a Garmin and they are expensive to keep current relative to the others. From what I hear they shut down guidance when on an approach so you don't use it as a primary source (not a big deal). I also like the fact that I could take this from the plane, throw it in the car or my motorcycle and have dual purposes for it. WSI for Chelton - By far the most expensive to purchase and monthly subscription is a little more. The huge advantage is the fact that I don't have to have another piece of equipment in the plane and I can see my current flight plan on the screen. But the system is around $5,000 to purchase. Grand Rapids XM Weather - Looks pretty cool and for $1500 it is hard to beat. The screen resolution isn't the best but for practical purposes it seems like it would do the job. Doesn't have all the screen options that the Garmin or others have. Anywhere map - This is a do-all system with weather, approach charts and maps. I have played with this system alot at Oshkosh but I think True Flight has a few more features. WX Worx - Great system if you just need weather, lacks approach charts, IFR airways, maps True Flight - Has just about everything the other systems plus more. There are things I don't like about the screen setup, but overall it looks pretty complete. In talking with the them, I had concerns about the hard drive crashing on the Samsung like I have heard with the Motion Computing. Apparently, the Motion Computing suffers from an overheating issue, not a hard drive crashing issue. At the higher altitudes the CPU doesn't have the air required to keep the chip cool. They have tested the Samsung to 19,000 and not had any issues. I don't see flying above that much. I was at 15,500 the other day at gross, and it didn't look like I had much climb performance left. This selection is as frustrating as planning the perfect panel. Once I get it I will let you know how I like it. Scott Schmidt scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com ----- Original Message ---- From: "GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com" <GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:48:34 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W has anyone flown the handheld Cheeta system...FL 190 or something like that? P See what's free at AOL.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Date: May 24, 2007
I have flown the Sorcerer, and will have to say that it is an absolutely fantastic A/P. You can literally fly hands-off from rotate to flare. This little $10K treasure is worth its weight in gold (forunately it is incredibly lightweight). Driving instrument aside, being able to control the plane with a button push or 3 fro the very simple and intuitive interface is a big plus. No matter what else you have on your panel, you will IMHO be safer with the Sorcerer if you know how to use it. We flew from X35 to OSH last year almost completely with that, including climbout and descent. The "left-seater" had to turn it off a couple times to convince himself that he was still PIC. If you are going $5K over budget somewhere, this isn't a bad place to do it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com 352-427-0285 Leather interior kit for the RV-10 - www.saintaviation.com/interior -----Original Message----- From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: 5/24/2007 11:03 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Date: May 24, 2007
I have flown the Sorcerer, and will have to say that it is an absolutely fantastic A/P. You can literally fly hands-off from rotate to flare. This little $10K treasure is worth its weight in gold (forunately it is incredibly lightweight). Driving instrument aside, being able to control the plane with a button push or 3 fro the very simple and intuitive interface is a big plus. No matter what else you have on your panel, you will IMHO be safer with the Sorcerer if you know how to use it. We flew from X35 to OSH last year almost completely with that, including climbout and descent. The "left-seater" had to turn it off a couple times to convince himself that he was still PIC. If you are going $5K over budget somewhere, this isn't a bad place to do it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com 352-427-0285 Leather interior kit for the RV-10 - www.saintaviation.com/interior -----Original Message----- From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: 5/24/2007 11:03 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Date: May 24, 2007
I have flown the Sorcerer, and will have to say that it is an absolutely fantastic A/P. You can literally fly hands-off from rotate to flare. This little $10K treasure is worth its weight in gold (forunately it is incredibly lightweight). Driving instrument aside, being able to control the plane with a button push or 3 fro the very simple and intuitive interface is a big plus. No matter what else you have on your panel, you will IMHO be safer with the Sorcerer if you know how to use it. We flew from X35 to OSH last year almost completely with that, including climbout and descent. The "left-seater" had to turn it off a couple times to convince himself that he was still PIC. If you are going $5K over budget somewhere, this isn't a bad place to do it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com 352-427-0285 Leather interior kit for the RV-10 - www.saintaviation.com/interior -----Original Message----- From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: 5/24/2007 11:03 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W Interesting discussion on value versus safety. I went with the GRT system but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget" ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2007
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Your perfect panel just got less perfect, as FAA moves to establish Garmin monopoly: FAA policy change restricts many IFR GPS receivers GPS receiver Those older IFR-certified GPS receivers (and some brand-new ones) that you've been relying on for years may now be unapproved for flying many instrument procedures, thanks to some recent FAA policy changes. "This doesn't make any sense. In most cases, this is not a safety of flight issue," said Randy Kenagy, AOPA senior director of strategic planning. "Pilots affected will lose access to approaches and published routes unnecessarily." AOPA has brought the matter to the FAA's attention. The issue came about in March when the FAA updated avionics compliance tables in Advisory Circular 90-100A and made changes to the Aeronautical Information Manual. It means that up to 26,000 GPS users no longer comply with a 1996 FAA policy that allows GPS to be used in lieu of ADF or DME. Only three GPS models the Garmin 400-, 500-, and G1000-series are legal, according to the FAA documents. Other models made by Garmin, including the new GNS 480 WAAS receiver, as well as receivers manufactured by Chelton, Honeywell, Northstar, and Trimble are listed as "noncompliant." See the avionics chart. Many members have removed ADF and DME navigation equipment from their aircraft because of the 1996 policy, and they will no longer have access to conventional and precision approaches where the equipment is a required element. Complicating matters further, the older GPS boxes are prohibited from flying RNAV routes and terminal RNAV procedures. AOPA told the FAA that all IFR-certified systems should still be approved for use in lieu of ADF and DME and for flying T routes and certain departure procedures where pilots manually enter the waypoints. Except for major metropolitan airports, the use of older boxes should not be restricted. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2007
From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Rear Heat Vent Tube
Does anyone know if I can cover or partially cover the hole in the right rear baffle that feeds the rear heat during these summer months or does it need air going through the heat muff to keep it cool? I would like to cover at least half of it to increase the pressure and cooling. Scott Schmidt scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel - The Perfect airplane
Date: May 25, 2007
One of the best discussions we have had in some time. I think the points made to honestly do the best job possible defining the mission, have some means of accessing real time weather and, if IFR is to be part of the mission, an autopilot, are great advice. I've had a ball flying a 4 for 10 years. Great memories flying all over the country, much of it in groups of other RVs in large formations. I will miss the little fighter, aerobatics, and every thing else that makes the smaller Van's airplanes so much fun. In 10 years there were relatively few occassions when weather prevented a planned trip. "Justification" for building a 10 was to provide a more practical traveling airplane (dog, no reasonable baggage limit, more comfort for the passenger(s) etc.) In short an airplane that the rest of the family could enjoy and use. Van has just completed a very simple VFR only RV10 which could be duplicated for less than the price of most LSAs and would provide a tremendous value for the cost to build. Even restricted to VFR only it is a terriffic airplane. The other part of the "justification" in my mind at least is that I hope to realize satisfaction and enjoyment flying a very capable airplane in the real IFR environment in an airplane every bit as capable as those selling for nearly half a million bucks for a fraction of that cost. Once the decision to provide for the best possible IFR panel for the budget is made and all the easy to get information is in hand, the hard choices of which combination of components to choose have to be made. The choices are expanding all most monthly, that's a good thing I think. IMHO the challenges are finding the best combination of components that will work well together with a minimum of pilot input. Short of seeing the various combinations work in a real fligt environment (the best option) ask the dealers how the various IFR scenarios would be accomplished with X Y & Z combinations. John Jesssen's advice is great. Just one example that took a awhile to understand was the significant differences between the DigiFlight and Sorcerer autopilots. One has it's own brain (Sorcerer) and can fly most any scenario on it's own while the DigiFlight requires some other component to do the heavy thinking. Finally, ask how the various sensors 480, 430, 530 Freeflight etc. would talk to the flight display of choice. One could spend a lot of money on the top of the line everything but if they don't talk to each other easily one might end up with a great video game but not a vary practical user friendly IFR panel. Tim's scenarios sound like all you have to do is issue a voice command:"fly approach" and the airplane responds. His is a great state of the art system but, he knows a thing or two about switchology and has read the book. Same holds true I'm sure for any of the advanced systems, they require lot's of study and practice to gain the full benefit of the available capability. In corporate and airline training more days and sim time are spent on the EFIS/flight management system than any other in the airplane. The costs envolved in a modern safe IFR EFIS panel are probably the biggest single expense catagory in the project, but if well planned and executed should provide and equally valuable sense of acomplishment. Now, let's see how do I get this new soft ware version out of the email and into my EFIS? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Rear Heat Vent Tube
Date: May 25, 2007
Scott, Vans told me you needed air going thru the heat muff. I used the "Y" adapter at the back of the right baffle and ran one scat tube to the heat muff and one to the cabin for cool air. The scat tube off the rear of the heat muff is run out the bottom of the cowling. Mark N410MR >From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: RV-10 List >Subject: RV10-List: Rear Heat Vent Tube >Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:07:42 -0700 (PDT) > >Does anyone know if I can cover or partially cover the hole in the right >rear baffle that feeds the rear heat during these summer months or does it >need air going through the heat muff to keep it cool? >I would like to cover at least half of it to increase the pressure and >cooling. > >Scott Schmidt >scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows Live Hotmail. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)suddenlink.net>
Subject: Trueflight 190The Perfect Panel
Date: May 25, 2007
I installed the GRT WX Weather module and wired it to feed all three of my GRT screens (displayed over the moving map). I love it. On a recent trip it really helped fly around some really bad weather. I could have flown around such weather as I was VFR but I would have gone a long way around instead of picking and choosing my route. ATC (flight following) asked if I had onboard radar and my response was "Yes that is why I am now heading due West instead of Northwest" ATC said that a pilot reported ice at 14000 feet. I feel real sorry for anybody who flew through the middle of that system on an IFR flight plan. You can see screen shots of the route I flew through the weather cells at: http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sjtabiweather2go5.jpg http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sjtabiweather1yr4.jpg http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sjtlbbweather1og4.jpg The screen shots cover the last part of the flight around the weather. I wished I had shot a picture when the weather system was directly ahead of me before I turned west to fly around it. My route was KERV direct to KLBB but southeast of KSJT I turned west as the weather system was painted from just west of KSJT TO at least 50 miles east of KDYS. After turning west and going around KSJT I then fly back Northeast between KSJT and KBPG and then headed North between KBPG and KSWW. Had I not had onboard radar I would have flown west probably west of KMAF before turning back north and then coming into KLBB from the west side (headed East). I cannot say enough about how great the customer service is at GRT as well. Russ Daves N710RV - First flight 7/28/06 - 110 hours and counting ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
Subject: Re: Trueflight 190
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
We have had the Flight Cheetah in N256H for about 250 hours. It is not as intuitive as the 396 or 496, but the information it gives you is great. I have not seen another display of weather that is as useful as TrueFlight's. The fastest and cheapest flight level page is also very helpful, so you don't have to try to figure which winds will help the best or hurt the least. When you load an approach, one button switches back and forth between the moving map with the overlaid approach and the approach plate so you can become familiar with the procedure and minimums, etc. I would not have recommended it a year ago, but since we got the solid state hard drive it has been very stable. It has a few little quirks, but for $200 a year for updates on everything (navaids, approaches, plates, software), it's hard to beat. I haven't looked into their new stuff recently, but this instrument is great for situational awareness. Scott, I don't think you'll be disappointed. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com www.saintaviation.com 352-427-0285 Scott Schmidt wrote: > I am actually in the process of purchasing that system. After reading > about and talking with them I am very impressed with it and I recently > received a free Samsung Q1 and thought I might as well give it a try. It > has all the weather that the 496 has plus more, and you can get all the > approach charts, taxi diagrams, and low IFR charts on it. Your plane can > overlay on all the charts I just mentioned as well. The also have all the > IFR approaches loaded into the system so you can fly the approach on the > moving map. They said within the next couple of week they will have > forward 3D synthetic vision with HITS. Later this year they will have > outputs for digital autopilots. For around $2500 for a total system they > seem pretty cool. www.aviationsafety.com > > Weather for my plane is something I have really struggled with over the > past year. My options have been a Garmin 396 or 496, WSI for the Chelton, > Grand Rapids XM weather, Anywhere map, True Flight, or just WX WORX. > They all have their positives and negatives. > > Garmin 396 or 496 - Nice package, good support, simple to use, nice > screen, but is a Garmin and they are expensive to keep current relative to > the others. From what I hear they shut down guidance when on an approach > so you don't use it as a primary source (not a big deal). I also like the > fact that I could take this from the plane, throw it in the car or my > motorcycle and have dual purposes for it. > > WSI for Chelton - By far the most expensive to purchase and monthly > subscription is a little more. The huge advantage is the fact that I > don't have to have another piece of equipment in the plane and I can see > my current flight plan on the screen. But the system is around $5,000 to > purchase. > > Grand Rapids XM Weather - Looks pretty cool and for $1500 it is hard to > beat. The screen resolution isn't the best but for practical purposes it > seems like it would do the job. Doesn't have all the screen options that > the Garmin or others have. > > Anywhere map - This is a do-all system with weather, approach charts and > maps. I have played with this system alot at Oshkosh but I think True > Flight has a few more features. > > WX Worx - Great system if you just need weather, lacks approach charts, > IFR airways, maps > > True Flight - Has just about everything the other systems plus more. > There are things I don't like about the screen setup, but overall it looks > pretty complete. > > In talking with the them, I had concerns about the hard drive crashing on > the Samsung like I have heard with the Motion Computing. Apparently, the > Motion Computing suffers from an overheating issue, not a hard drive > crashing issue. At the higher altitudes the CPU doesn't have the air > required to keep the chip cool. They have tested the Samsung to 19,000 > and not had any issues. I don't see flying above that much. I was at > 15,500 the other day at gross, and it didn't look like I had much climb > performance left. > > This selection is as frustrating as planning the perfect panel. Once I > get it I will let you know how I like it. > > Scott Schmidt > scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com" <GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:48:34 PM > Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W > > > has anyone flown the handheld Cheeta system...FL 190 or something like > that? > > P > > > See what's free at AOL.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Traffic
Date: May 25, 2007
From: <tdawson-townsend(at)aurora.aero>
To go with your fancy panel, don't forget to get an active traffic system, so you don't get whacked by somebody while you're both heads-down looking at the pretty HITS displays. Avidyne TAS system will display on Garmin, Avidyne, and Chelton displays, amongst others. Jeez, and I don't even work there anymore! P.S. Your life will be easier if you consider this before you install a headliner, since the top antenna needs a foil ground plane installed . . . Cheers, TDT Tim Dawson-Townsend Aurora Flight Sciences tdt(at)aurora.aero 617-401-2522 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: "Fred Williams, M.D." <drfred(at)suddenlinkmail.com>
Subject: Page 29-14
Question: 29-14 step 4: "match drill #30 holes in the lower flange of the F-1040-L and R Upper Fuse Channels into the WD-1002 L and R upper Firewall brackets" Problem: easy to do up until you get to the most forward hole. It is blocked by the flange of the F-1001 M left side angle and the F-1001D rt side angle. Same problem goes for the upper most forward hole of the F-1041 lower fuse channels. The only way that I can see to be able to drill (and then rivet) is to a)trim the flange on the F-1001 M and F-1001D 's. _or_ b) Not drill or put a rivet in that hole. I'm sure someone else has had to cross this bridge. Thanks. Fred Williams ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: "Don Fanning" <drdonfa(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy
I live in Lynchburg, VA and teach at Liberty University. Right now, I am at Mountain Air, near Burnsville, NC. through Monday. Don On 5/23/07, Randy DeBauw wrote: > > Don, Where are you located? Randy 40006 > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Don Fanning > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:52 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy > > > I would like a full set. We can install it this summer when I come down > for the annual and the ADI install (if it comes out). > > > Don > > > On 5/22/07, *Jesse Saint* wrote: > > I have you on my list for the Rosen Visors. Please reply to this e-mail > and let me know if you want a full set for $317.97 plus shipping or a half > set for $168.99. Please include on your e-mail the desired shipping address > and phone number. I will e-mail an invoice that you can send in with a > check after I figure out the shipping charges. I should be able to do a > flat-rate USPS box or something like that. I do accept paypal, but they > charge a fee, so I would need the fee added to the amount you send. > > > GOD BLESS! > > > 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 *Bobby J. Hughes > *Sent:* Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:50 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy > > > Jessie, > > > At $200 count me in. > > > Enjoyed our visit at Lockhart. > > > Bobby Hughes > > 40116 > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jesse Saint > *Sent:* Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:08 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RV10-List: Rosen Sun Visor Group Buy > > Sorry for the quality, but I have attached some pictures of our Rosen Sun > Visor installation. I am getting a quote on our custom mount from a local > machine shop and am getting a quote from Rosen on a group buy for the > visors. We tried to find a place on the sides to install a visor, but there > just isn't a good place to put it that won't block the pilot's vision when > he isn't using the visor. This is a 3-axis visor, so it can be used to > block sun from the pilot or copilot's front anywhere in the windshield and > can also block the pilot's right or copilot's left. Unfortunately we > couldn't find any way to block the sun from the pilot's left or copilot's > right except a suction cup or static cling piece. The visor base would > mount on the cabin top using two of the 4 screws that hold the front bar to > the cabin top. > > > Please let me know off the list if you are interested and I will put a > list together and let you know when I know how much it would cost. I am > hoping to keep it under $200 including the visor (big or small lense) and > the custom black-anodized base. > > > Jesse Saint > > Saint Aviation, Inc. > > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > www.saintaviation.com > > Cell: 352-427-0285 > > Fax: 815-377-3694 > > > * * > > * * > > * * > > > * <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>* > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > > * * > > * * > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > > * * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > * * > > > -- > Don > Liberty University > Of: 434-592-4127 > Cel: 434-944-5347 > email: drdonfa(at)gmail.com > Skype: drdonfanning > MSN Messenger: dfanning(at)liberty.edu > Web: www.luglobal.com > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > * * > > * > > * > > -- Don Liberty University Of: 434-592-4127 Cel: 434-944-5347 email: drdonfa(at)gmail.com Skype: drdonfanning MSN Messenger: dfanning(at)liberty.edu Web: www.luglobal.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Traffic
Date: May 25, 2007
I understand that it would be nice having traffic in the panel, but isn't that what ATC is there for? They can give you weather info, but not nearly as well as seeing it in color on your moving map, but is it distracting seeing all of the planes that are around you? I have talked to a number of pilots who don't want to know about traffic. ATC will tell you about the ones that matter, but the others, well, don't matter. This may prompt a nice discussion about what traffic options are available and how helpful they are. 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: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: RV10-List: Traffic To go with your fancy panel, don't forget to get an active traffic system, so you don't get whacked by somebody while you're both heads-down looking at the pretty HITS displays. Avidyne TAS system will display on Garmin, Avidyne, and Chelton displays, amongst others. Jeez, and I don't even work there anymore! P.S. Your life will be easier if you consider this before you install a headliner, since the top antenna needs a foil ground plane installed . . . Cheers, TDT Tim Dawson-Townsend Aurora Flight Sciences tdt(at)aurora.aero 617-401-2522 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: PJ Seipel <seipel(at)seznam.cz>
Subject: Re: Page 29-14
After looking at the pictures on a lot of other people's web pages, I trimmed the flange just enough to get to the hole. PJ RV-10 #40032 Fred Williams wrote: > > > Question: > > 29-14 step 4: "match drill #30 holes in the lower flange of the > F-1040-L and R Upper Fuse Channels into the WD-1002 L and R upper > Firewall brackets" > > Problem: easy to do up until you get to the most forward hole. It is > blocked by the flange of the F-1001 M left side angle and the F-1001D > rt side angle. Same problem goes for the upper most forward hole of > the F-1041 lower fuse channels. > The only way that I can see to be able to drill (and then rivet) is to > a)trim the flange on the F-1001 M and F-1001D 's. _or_ b) Not > drill or put a rivet in that hole. > I'm sure someone else has had to cross this bridge. > Thanks. > > Fred Williams > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509(at)msn.com>
Subject: Traffic
Date: May 25, 2007
Jesse, I couldn't disagree more. Having traffic on the CMX 200 and 430 is a huge help in the "see and avoid" environment of uncontrolled airports and VFR local flights without flight following. The value of knowing which way to look for traffic should not be underestimated - especially on hazy low visibility days. Mark N410MR >From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Traffic >Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 10:02:57 -0400 > >I understand that it would be nice having traffic in the panel, but isn't >that what ATC is there for? They can give you weather info, but not nearly >as well as seeing it in color on your moving map, but is it distracting >seeing all of the planes that are around you? I have talked to a number of >pilots who don't want to know about traffic. ATC will tell you about the >ones that matter, but the others, well, don't matter. > > >This may prompt a nice discussion about what traffic options are available >and how helpful they are. > > >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: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:02 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: Traffic > > >To go with your fancy panel, don't forget to get an active traffic system, >so you don't get whacked by somebody while you're both heads-down looking >at >the pretty HITS displays. > > >Avidyne TAS system will display on Garmin, Avidyne, and Chelton displays, >amongst others. > > >Jeez, and I don't even work there anymore! > > >P.S. Your life will be easier if you consider this before you install a >headliner, since the top antenna needs a foil ground plane installed . . . > > >Cheers, > > >TDT > > >Tim Dawson-Townsend > >Aurora Flight Sciences > >tdt(at)aurora.aero > >617-401-2522 > > _________________________________________________________________ Catch suspicious messages before you open themwith Windows Live Hotmail. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Page 29-14
Date: May 25, 2007
From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com>
Trimming of the flange is what was done on a quick build fuselage I saw at Van's factory. Also remember you need enough clearance to get a rivet set or squeezers in to set the rivet. Vern (#324 fuselage) -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PJ Seipel Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:11 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Page 29-14 After looking at the pictures on a lot of other people's web pages, I trimmed the flange just enough to get to the hole. PJ RV-10 #40032 Fred Williams wrote: > > > Question: > > 29-14 step 4: "match drill #30 holes in the lower flange of the > F-1040-L and R Upper Fuse Channels into the WD-1002 L and R upper > Firewall brackets" > > Problem: easy to do up until you get to the most forward hole. It is > blocked by the flange of the F-1001 M left side angle and the F-1001D > rt side angle. Same problem goes for the upper most forward hole of > the F-1041 lower fuse channels. > The only way that I can see to be able to drill (and then rivet) is to > a)trim the flange on the F-1001 M and F-1001D 's. _or_ b) Not > drill or put a rivet in that hole. > I'm sure someone else has had to cross this bridge. > Thanks. > > Fred Williams > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Traffic
Date: May 25, 2007
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
I agree with you Mark. I'll never forget the time I was on an IFR flight plan (in VMC) and had a Bonanza whiz below me, on an almost reciprocal heading about 100' below me. He was close enough I could tell what color hair he had (actually, he was balding). No warning whatever from ATC. I called and told Washington Center that a Bonanza had narrowly missed me and the controller said "...uh, traffic no factor." No fooling. He was already past me when I told ATC about him. Don't rely on ATC to tell you about traffic. Just because they say "radar contact" does not mean you are off the hook for looking for traffic. Remember the old saying "If the pilot screws up, the pilot dies. If ATC screws up, the pilot dies." Jack Phillips Planning to avoid building and put some time on the RV-4 this weekend -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:39 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Traffic Jesse, I couldn't disagree more. Having traffic on the CMX 200 and 430 is a huge help in the "see and avoid" environment of uncontrolled airports and VFR local flights without flight following. The value of knowing which way to look for traffic should not be underestimated - especially on hazy low visibility days. Mark N410MR >From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> >Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Traffic >Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 10:02:57 -0400 > >I understand that it would be nice having traffic in the panel, but >isn't that what ATC is there for? They can give you weather info, but >not nearly as well as seeing it in color on your moving map, but is it >distracting seeing all of the planes that are around you? I have >talked to a number of pilots who don't want to know about traffic. ATC >will tell you about the ones that matter, but the others, well, don't matter. > > >This may prompt a nice discussion about what traffic options are >available and how helpful they are. > > >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: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:02 AM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: Traffic > > >To go with your fancy panel, don't forget to get an active traffic >system, so you don't get whacked by somebody while you're both >heads-down looking at the pretty HITS displays. > > >Avidyne TAS system will display on Garmin, Avidyne, and Chelton >displays, amongst others. > > >Jeez, and I don't even work there anymore! > > >P.S. Your life will be easier if you consider this before you install >a headliner, since the top antenna needs a foil ground plane installed . . . > > >Cheers, > > >TDT > > >Tim Dawson-Townsend > >Aurora Flight Sciences > >tdt(at)aurora.aero > >617-401-2522 > > _________________________________________________________________ Catch suspicious messages before you open them-with Windows Live Hotmail. _________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Date: May 25, 2007
Subject: Traffic
Jesse, I would suggest you acquire a better understanding on what exactly ATC is required to provide under different conditions and flight rules. M ight I suggest a pilot's license as a starting point. Bottom line is don't EVER trust that ATC is 100% keeping you out of harm's way. The PIC has ul timate responsibility for safety of flight, including rejecting vectors if ATC decides to drive you into another aircraft and your MARK1 eyeballs or o nboard equipment tell you it's a bad idea. 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: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:03 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Traffic I understand that it would be nice having traffic in the panel, but isn't t hat what ATC is there for? They can give you weather info, but not nearly as well as seeing it in color on your moving map, but is it distracting see ing all of the planes that are around you? I have talked to a number of pi lots who don't want to know about traffic. ATC will tell you about the one s that matter, but the others, well, don't matter. This may prompt a nice discussion about what traffic options are available and how helpful they are. 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 tdawson-townsend(at)aurora.aero Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: RV10-List: Traffic To go with your fancy panel, don't forget to get an active traffic system, so you don't get whacked by somebody while you're both heads-down looking a t the pretty HITS displays. Avidyne TAS system will display on Garmin, Avidyne, and Chelton displays, a mongst others. Jeez, and I don't even work there anymore! P.S. Your life will be easier if you consider this before you install a he adliner, since the top antenna needs a foil ground plane installed . . . Cheers, TDT Tim Dawson-Townsend Aurora Flight Sciences tdt(at)aurora.aero 617-401-2522 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
This has all made me try to think around this issue a different way. Give a realistic assessment of a future the owner's capabilities, missions and desires, perhaps a less considered sweet spot is the VFR cruiser. Assume for a minute that the owner is not instrument rated (but plans to be sometime in the future), or is not able/willing to always remain current per the regs (me). Assume that the '10 will be a serious cross country machine (weekender bag, cooler, mate, extra shoes for mate), and you live in the eastern US (just can't comment on fly-styles west of the Mississip). I've been thinking of a guy I've been listening to on Rec.aviation.pilot for a few years. He's been flying a VFR Pathfinder quite happily for some years - Jay Honeck: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/welcome_to_the_inn.htm Many times Jay has been asked to defend his VFR-only flying, as in "Jay, you need an IFR rating - it will make your travels so much easier". But he argues that VFR is right for him and his family and frankly he makes a lot of sense. Following his flying exploits, I wonder if many/most of us will end up doing what he does. And if we do, we'll die very happy. What is out there weather-wise is a lot of very flyable VFR weather and destinations. A simple steam guage VFR '10 like Van's is a super machine. But as homebuilders, we are sorely tempted to juice it up. So how would you juice up a VFR '10? Weather is still the issue. A 396 or better is practically mandatory from a cost-benefit standpoint. It turns many marginal VFR sky gropes out over the horizon, into more safer, fully informed journeys into calm waters. What is also needed are tools to fly in the near-IFR conditions we all fly in every summer. I'm not talking clouds or fog, or flying into deteriorating conditions but just plain summer haze. Make it westbound in the evening with smoke from a few distant fires and you really can benefit from use of the gyro panel... or a low end glass EFIS. Add an autopilot - anywhere from a wing leveler to a sorcerer - and you can truly remain VFR because you are actually looking out the window. Remember, anyone can trim a cruiser to maintain altitude, it's the wing leveling that you really need. And if it's driven by your GPS, wow! So a low end glass EFIS, GPS, autopilot, and a backup GPS with Satellite weather and 101 music channels makes this a very comfortable and capable VFR cruiser. To complete the safety package, add traffic awareness. It looks state of the art, it flys state of the art, it is state of the art. And it may realistically reflect the true capabilities, mission, and desires of many of us owner/pilots to be. You've skipped heated pitots, some Nav equipment, extensive backups, certification(?), and the costs of getting and staying instrument proficient. So how many $$ are needed to realize this dream? I don't know but it's maybe it's worth a run. Below is one of Jay's latest postings to rec.aviation.piloting: We were flying back from Springfield last Sunday, arcing into a setting sun the size of a pie tin. It was one of those flights where you keep catching yourself turning off course, just to get the sun behind the windshield post and out of your eyes... We'd been silent most of the way, just enjoying the ride and the afterglow of a day well-spent visiting old friends, when my daughter, age 13, asked me to play the theme song from "One Six Right" on the CD player. Mary and I both looked at each other, shocked that Becca even knew the name of the album, much less the song itself -- but I quickly slid the disk into the player, and listened as the fabulous opening bars began to play... (For those who don't know the music, listen to it here, for free: http://www.onesixright.com/ ) There was a scattered layer of clouds below, and a few above, and the sun played behind them, scattering the light into a million separate beams, lighting the verdant farmland far below with a burning, heavenly glow. The view was simply breath-taking. My daughter, usually oblivious to the flying she has done so often since birth, suddenly asked me to "Do the soaring thing to the music, Dad, like you did before..." Hesitant to deviate from straight and level while talking to Chicago Center, I started a little dipping and rolling to the music. I glanced over to see that her eyes were closed, the sunshine was lighting her face like an angel, and she was simply *feeling* the flight with all of her senses. She was grinning from ear to ear. Inspired, I let my inhibitions go, and began giant swoops and gentle push-overs, all in time to the orchestral crescendos of "One Six Right". Soon, I found myself closing *my* eyes, and feeling the weightlessness at the top of the arc, and the one-G steep turns, back and forth, all to the beat of the music. It was magical. Throat tightening, chest bursting, I wanted to cry with joy. If there is a heaven, it must feel very much like this. And my daughter was "getting it"! When we landed, Becca -- vocally against the very notion of learning to fly for so many years -- said "Dad, maybe I *will* learn to fly some day..." :-) -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Date: May 25, 2007
Subject: Re: Traffic
In a message dated 5/25/2007 10:06:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jesse(at)saintaviation.com writes: ATC will tell you about the ones that matter, but the others, well, don =99t matter. Jesse, as far as I know traffic is advisory only unless you are in positive control zones...class A and Class B airspaces...all the other air space is j ust advisory and not control...time permitting, only. Patrick ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel - The Perfect airplane
From: "William Curtis" <wcurtis(at)nerv10.com>
Richard, > Just one example that took a awhile to understand was the significant > differences between the DigiFlight and Sorcerer autopilots. One has it's > own brain (Sorcerer) and can fly most any scenario on it's own while the > DigiFlight requires some other component to do the heavy thinking. Just a minor correction. Both the DigiFlight and the Sorcerer "have a brain." Each can fly the airplane on its own using the built in heading gyro and altitude sensor. What the Sorcerer adds is VHF/NAV capability. That is, it can fly a coupled VOR/LOC/ILS approach from any plain old VHF/NAV radio. The DigiFlight can do this only if you are flying an overlay approach on your IFR GPS and it is controlling the autopilot. Since most IFR GPS will provide a lateral overlay, and now the "W" GPS will also provide vertical guidance, the benefits of the Sorcerer over a DigiFlight II VSGV are not worth the extra $5K IMHO. Also if you truly want the DigiFlight to fly a VOR/LOC/ILS, not just the overlay, you could drive if from any HSI/EFIS with an ARINC 429 interface and GPSS-V. The TruTrak RV-10 Autopilot is the Sorcerer with the VHF/NAV capability removed and a yaw dampener added. > The costs envolved in a modern safe IFR EFIS panel are probably the biggest > single expense catagory in the project, but if well planned and executed > should provide and equally valuable sense of acomplishment. I've seen many use this term -- What exactly is an "IFR EFIS"? I know what an IFR GPS is as there are many TSOs and documents relating to it but for those that use this term, can you explain what makes one EFIS IFR and one not? William http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Traffic
Date: May 25, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
ATC is not there for traffic avoidance for VFR pilots, only as work load permits, or basically when they feel like it. Even when flying on an IFR flight plan in VFR conditions, it is still primarily the PIC's responsibility to visually scan and act on collision avoidance. In other words ATC is there to help, but as PIC you are still ultimately responsible. There has been many times that traffic could not be seen until to late, think high wing versus low wing in the traffic pattern. It is a reality, and especially for the North East coast people the traffic corridor is highly congested and any tool that can aid in the detection and avoidance of traffic would be a great add to the situational awareness, I just wish I could afford the Avidyne solution or others for that matter. 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: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:03 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Traffic I understand that it would be nice having traffic in the panel, but isn't that what ATC is there for? They can give you weather info, but not nearly as well as seeing it in color on your moving map, but is it distracting seeing all of the planes that are around you? I have talked to a number of pilots who don't want to know about traffic. ATC will tell you about the ones that matter, but the others, well, don't matter. This may prompt a nice discussion about what traffic options are available and how helpful they are. 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: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: RV10-List: Traffic To go with your fancy panel, don't forget to get an active traffic system, so you don't get whacked by somebody while you're both heads-down looking at the pretty HITS displays. Avidyne TAS system will display on Garmin, Avidyne, and Chelton displays, amongst others. Jeez, and I don't even work there anymore! P.S. Your life will be easier if you consider this before you install a headliner, since the top antenna needs a foil ground plane installed . . . Cheers, TDT Tim Dawson-Townsend Aurora Flight Sciences tdt(at)aurora.aero 617-401-2522 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Date: May 25, 2007
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
In a message dated 5/25/2007 11:21:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com writes: What is also needed are tools to fly in the near-IFR conditions we all fly in every summer. I'm not talking clouds or fog, or flying into deteriorating conditions but just plain summer haze. I'm sure you're serious about this statement but if you want to over fly your visibility you might want to consider getting IFR and filing...flying a Cherokee at 120kts is one thing, flying an RV 10 into the same haze at 160kts is another...a hand held is wonder as opposted to nothing but having better situational awareness equipment is better and I'd think a requirement if you want to bust through haze and smoke often. In the past year, I've had ultralight flying through controlled airspace untagged, been cut off on final by a skyjocky flying a King Air at over 200 kts shooting a GPS approach to a non-towered airport and he was not on the local freq until he was over the fence--he claimed he was protected because PHL approach had cleared him for the approach--big problem PHL does not own the airspace at non-towered airports...yet he flew by me with in a couple of hundred yards in the haze and muck...the G1000 tagged him so I was able to see him at the last minute and avoid some noise pollution. While the pilot was an ATP he did not know or remember the rules of flying a non-towered GPS approach. There are lots of crazy's out their flying, our job is to avoid them at all costs and having a good setup is part of the equation IMHO if you can afford it do it but don't fool yourselves with stuff that's designed for situation awareness into thinking it's certified for operations. Using portable devices and thinking of them as IFR stuff is a formula for disaster...knowing and understanding the difference between active radar and return info or TIS for TCAS etc., may lead one down the path to a chain of events. It's interesting that many people who invest in TIS equipment don't understand that most of the information they are looking for is only available in limited area coverage and that will probably go away in the next decade. I was flying a while back and a guy in a Cherokee 140 calls back to the tower when given an advisory for traffic that he had the target on the "T-CAS"...a TCAS system would cost more than his plane was worth...and he did not have a radar pod on his wing either. Probably had a portable TIS reader and while better than nothing it certainly is not TCAS. Who was it a while back who could not believe that he could not file "G" because he had a 396 or 496...ever wonder why Garmin does not have all the IFR stuff in these little boxes..they have a lot of good quality awareness information but they are not IFR equipment. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Traffic
Not much I can add. I am always too late on these responses. I need to pl ug my brain into this forum like others have. =0A =0ASeriously, TIS is tot ally awesome, even around Salt Lake where I don't get alot of coverage. Bu t you get coverage typically when you need it. It is so nice to come home from a trip and look down at the screen and before Salt Lake Approach even tells me anything, I can see how many planes are in the pattern at my home airport which is right next to Class B airspace. Because of the Garmin 330 , lately I don't call approach because I can see all the planes as good as he can which was the only reason why I called in when I was getting close a nd half the time when I do call in they only give you traffic warnings when they are within 500 feet of yourself it seems. Of course the best way to go is to be IFR or talking to approach control or flight following while us ing the traffic system. I have both the 330 and the TrafficScope VRX syste m which I also like. I'd like to upgrade to the Zaon XRX. When my TIS isn 't working I watch that close and when it tells me about traffic that is close I can normally find them. It all helps and is not distracti ng. One thing really nice about today's EFIS systems is the ability look ou t the window more. You would think you be looking inside more with all tha t equipment but on the ground you input your flight plan so that as you are flying you actually look outside more because you are not having to worry about airspace violations and you really don't have to monitor the engine b ecause it will talk to you if anything gets in the yellow or red depending on how you have it set up. =0A =0AScott Schmidt=0Ascottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com =0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: RV Builder (Michael Sausen) =0ATo: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" =0ASent: Friday, May 25, 2007 8:14:36 AM=0ASubject: RE: RV10-List: Tr affic=0A=0A=0A Jesse, I would suggest you acquire a better understanding o n what exactly ATC is required to provide under different conditions and fl ight rules. Might I suggest a pilot=A2s license as a starting point. Bott om line is don=A2t EVER trust that ATC is 100% keeping you out of harm=A2s way. The PIC has ultimate responsibility for safety of flight, including r ejecting vectors if ATC decides to drive you into another aircraft and your MARK1 eyeballs or onboard equipment tell you it=A2s a bad idea.=0A =0AMich ael Sausen=0A-10 #352 Limbo=0A =0AFrom: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.co m [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint=0A Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:03 AM=0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: RE: RV10-List: Traffic=0A =0AI understand that it would be nice having tra ffic in the panel, but isn=A2t that what ATC is there for? They can give y ou weather info, but not nearly as well as seeing it in color on your movin g map, but is it distracting seeing all of the planes that are around you? I have talked to a number of pilots who don=A2t want to know about traffic . ATC will tell you about the ones that matter, but the others, well, don =A2t matter.=0A =0AThis may prompt a nice discussion about what traffic opt ions are available and how helpful they are.=0A =0AJesse Saint=0ASaint Avia tion, Inc.=0Ajesse(at)saintaviation.com=0Awww.saintaviation.com=0ACell: 352-42 7-0285=0AFax: 815-377-3694=0A=0A=0A=0AFrom: owner-rv10-list-server@matronic s.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tdawson-to wnsend(at)aurora.aero=0ASent: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:02 AM=0ATo: rv10-list@mat ronics.com=0ASubject: RV10-List: Traffic=0A =0A =0ATo go with your fancy pa nel, don=A2t forget to get an active traffic system, so you don=A2t get wha cked by somebody while you=A2re both heads-down looking at the pretty HITS displays.=0A =0AAvidyne TAS system will display on Garmin, Avidyne, and Che lton displays, amongst others.=0A =0AJeez, and I don=A2t even work there an ymore!=0A =0AP.S. Your life will be easier if you consider this before you install a headliner, since the top antenna needs a foil ground plane insta lled . . .=0A =0ACheers,=0A =0ATDT=0A =0A =0ATim Dawson-Townsend=0AAurora F light Sciences=0Atdt@aurora.aero=0A617-401-2522=0A =0A =0A =0A =0Ahttp:// www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com=0A =0A =0A =0Ay List utilities such as the Subscriptions page,=0A http://www.ma tronics.bsp; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FO; http://forums.matronics.com =============== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
Subject: FS: MT Prop Gov
From: "William Curtis" <wcurtis(at)nerv10.com>
Some folks are opting for the PCU5000/X (http://pcu5000.com). It supposedly governs better than the MT provided in the FF kit. Someone on Vansairforce is doing a group buy of the PCU5000. Since the PCU5000X ($1350) is more expensive than the MT ($Van's $1100), this may be another case of a solution looking for a problem. Has anyone flying had issues with the MT P-860-3? http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=17279&page=1&pp=10&highlight=pcu William http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ -------- Original Message -------- > X-Rcpt-To: > > Why would you sell? What are you going to run with? > > John > ________________________________ > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Neal George > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:40 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com; RV7A(at)yahoogroups.com; rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: FS: MT Prop Gov > > > > Listers - > > > > I have a new MT prop governor for sale. > > $1075, shipped. > > > > Neal E. George > 2023 Everglades Drive > Navarre, FL 32566 > Home - 850-515-0640 > Cell - 850-218-4838 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Date: May 25, 2007
Yes! I think that the point is well presented and well taken. I've said to more than one person that "I don't get it" in terms of all the higher end panels. Tim, Deems and others have explained their rationale to me and I'm slowly getting it, but Bill finally put into words what I haven't been able to. I love flying for the sake of flying, and to me this means VFR most of the time. This is what has been in the back of my mind and I couldn't explain it. Thanks, Bill !! I will get my IFR rating, because I honestly do believe it will make me a better pilot (and insurance companies might like me better) just as a tail wheel endorsement will also. I have a float plane rating and that certainly has made me better (landing floats on glassy waters requires some precision that I wasn't used to before). However, I love the ability to just fly. Get in and go. Sure you want to have a flight plan and file it, and sure you'd like flight following, but there's something about keeping it simple that appeals to me. So, my big challenge has been what to put in that works well in the assumed IFR future that I know I'll be involved in, but also doesn't bust the bank, and doesn't just sit there while I have fun looking out the window and down at my maps occasionally. And will I keep current enough in real IMC that I could, honestly, safely, take advantage of the IFR system? This is a big, big question. I think for those who are already IFR trained and that's what they normally fly, it isn't such an issue to think in terms of the more advanced systems. If they can afford it, it probably is a no brainer. But there's the rub. A high end system can make IFR simpler during the high workload, high risk scenarios that one will, if they fly IFR/IMC, eventually find. That's when a current, but not super current, IFR pilot needs that electronic horsepower. So, getting a glass panel 6-pack substitute, such as the AFS EFIS, coupled with a (for example) G430W and some type of MFD, may not be the safest thing for someone who spends most of his/her time flying VFR, with only the occasional IFR/IMC usage. This is why I'm so interested in the combination of equipment that can bridge that gap between basic IFR and the high end systems. You want minimal button pushing and mental gyrations in those situations that are the highest stress/workload situations. It's easy to do enroute with almost any system. It gets progressively more difficult for take offs, holdings, approaches, but all of these have been done for decades on steam gauges, so it's not impossible. It's just that with all the goodies out there, one wants to put together something that works well, doesn't bust the bank (for me and I bet many who are not commenting on the list), but can be effective. This is why I've been begging for situational descriptions about how systems work well or not. Tim is correct, this is so hard to discuss because everyone is working for such minimal examples, both in terms of situations and in terms of equipment. However, the situations do exist, whether you've experienced them or read about them, and you know your system, so you can give at least some type of evaluation how it should work given the situation. To some it might also be embarrassing to discuss what has happened and how their system responded, but we need to discuss these things in order for all of us to gain. I want all of us to benefit, and really the only way is to get the stories out and discuss them. Money will be the limiting factor for many of us. Someone is going to have to give me oxygen when I plunk down my bucks for the panel. And that's after I've been let out of the intensive care unit for the engine payment. However, when all is said and done, I'll be happy with whatever I have and practice with it as much as possible. True enough. But until then lots of decisions have to be made. Bill has helped me understand what it was that I couldn't get put into words, that I couldn't get past a generalized feeling about. That's the beauty of this list and of sharing thoughts. Please! Those silent ones out there. Jump in! The water is fine. John Jessen #328 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 8:20 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W This has all made me try to think around this issue a different way. Give a realistic assessment of a future the owner's capabilities, missions and desires, perhaps a less considered sweet spot is the VFR cruiser. Assume for a minute that the owner is not instrument rated (but plans to be sometime in the future), or is not able/willing to always remain current per the regs (me). Assume that the '10 will be a serious cross country machine (weekender bag, cooler, mate, extra shoes for mate), and you live in the eastern US (just can't comment on fly-styles west of the Mississip). I've been thinking of a guy I've been listening to on Rec.aviation.pilot for a few years. He's been flying a VFR Pathfinder quite happily for some years - Jay Honeck: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/welcome_to_the_inn.htm Many times Jay has been asked to defend his VFR-only flying, as in "Jay, you need an IFR rating - it will make your travels so much easier". But he argues that VFR is right for him and his family and frankly he makes a lot of sense. Following his flying exploits, I wonder if many/most of us will end up doing what he does. And if we do, we'll die very happy. What is out there weather-wise is a lot of very flyable VFR weather and destinations. A simple steam guage VFR '10 like Van's is a super machine. But as homebuilders, we are sorely tempted to juice it up. So how would you juice up a VFR '10? Weather is still the issue. A 396 or better is practically mandatory from a cost-benefit standpoint. It turns many marginal VFR sky gropes out over the horizon, into more safer, fully informed journeys into calm waters. What is also needed are tools to fly in the near-IFR conditions we all fly in every summer. I'm not talking clouds or fog, or flying into deteriorating conditions but just plain summer haze. Make it westbound in the evening with smoke from a few distant fires and you really can benefit from use of the gyro panel... or a low end glass EFIS. Add an autopilot - anywhere from a wing leveler to a sorcerer - and you can truly remain VFR because you are actually looking out the window. Remember, anyone can trim a cruiser to maintain altitude, it's the wing leveling that you really need. And if it's driven by your GPS, wow! So a low end glass EFIS, GPS, autopilot, and a backup GPS with Satellite weather and 101 music channels makes this a very comfortable and capable VFR cruiser. To complete the safety package, add traffic awareness. It looks state of the art, it flys state of the art, it is state of the art. And it may realistically reflect the true capabilities, mission, and desires of many of us owner/pilots to be. You've skipped heated pitots, some Nav equipment, extensive backups, certification(?), and the costs of getting and staying instrument proficient. So how many $$ are needed to realize this dream? I don't know but it's maybe it's worth a run. Below is one of Jay's latest postings to rec.aviation.piloting: We were flying back from Springfield last Sunday, arcing into a setting sun the size of a pie tin. It was one of those flights where you keep catching yourself turning off course, just to get the sun behind the windshield post and out of your eyes... We'd been silent most of the way, just enjoying the ride and the afterglow of a day well-spent visiting old friends, when my daughter, age 13, asked me to play the theme song from "One Six Right" on the CD player. Mary and I both looked at each other, shocked that Becca even knew the name of the album, much less the song itself -- but I quickly slid the disk into the player, and listened as the fabulous opening bars began to play... (For those who don't know the music, listen to it here, for free: http://www.onesixright.com/ ) There was a scattered layer of clouds below, and a few above, and the sun played behind them, scattering the light into a million separate beams, lighting the verdant farmland far below with a burning, heavenly glow. The view was simply breath-taking. My daughter, usually oblivious to the flying she has done so often since birth, suddenly asked me to "Do the soaring thing to the music, Dad, like you did before..." Hesitant to deviate from straight and level while talking to Chicago Center, I started a little dipping and rolling to the music. I glanced over to see that her eyes were closed, the sunshine was lighting her face like an angel, and she was simply *feeling* the flight with all of her senses. She was grinning from ear to ear. Inspired, I let my inhibitions go, and began giant swoops and gentle push-overs, all in time to the orchestral crescendos of "One Six Right". Soon, I found myself closing *my* eyes, and feeling the weightlessness at the top of the arc, and the one-G steep turns, back and forth, all to the beat of the music. It was magical. Throat tightening, chest bursting, I wanted to cry with joy. If there is a heaven, it must feel very much like this. And my daughter was "getting it"! When we landed, Becca -- vocally against the very notion of learning to fly for so many years -- said "Dad, maybe I *will* learn to fly some day..." :-) -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Traffic
Date: May 25, 2007
I have an XRX interfaced to a 496 (paints graphical traffic on the 496 screen). The 496 accepts data from the XRX as if the XRX was a TIS GTX330 (same data/message format?). The XRX isn't perfect (passive device), but It does identify traffic (direction, altitude, and inferred distance) and interface with the 496. I'd be interested if anyone has experimented hooking the rs232 output from an XRX to a panel mounted MFD (in place of a GTX330) and if/how it works. It seems like it would be a poor man's (passive) Ryan. Rick _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 12:15 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Traffic Not much I can add. I am always too late on these responses. I need to plug my brain into this forum like others have. Seriously, TIS is totally awesome, even around Salt Lake where I don't get alot of coverage. But you get coverage typically when you need it. It is so nice to come home from a trip and look down at the screen and before Salt Lake Approach even tells me anything, I can see how many planes are in the pattern at my home airport which is right next to Class B airspace. Because of the Garmin 330, lately I don't call approach because I can see all the planes as good as he can which was the only reason why I called in when I was getting close and half the time when I do call in they only give you traffic warnings when they are within 500 feet of yourself it seems. Of course the best way to go is to be IFR or talking to approach control or flight following while using the traffic system. I have both the 330 and the TrafficScope VRX system which I also like. I'd like to upgrade to the Zaon XRX. When my TIS isn't working I watch that close and when it tells me about traffic that is close I can normally find them. It all helps and is not distracting. One thing really nice about today's EFIS systems is the ability look out the window more. You would think you be looking inside more with all that equipment but on the ground you input your flight plan so that as you are flying you actually look outside more because you are not having to worry about airspace violations and you really don't have to monitor the engine because it will talk to you if anything gets in the yellow or red depending on how you have it set up. Scott Schmidt scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com ----- Original Message ---- From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 8:14:36 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Traffic Jesse, I would suggest you acquire a better understanding on what exactly ATC is required to provide under different conditions and flight rules. Might I suggest a pilot?s license as a starting point. Bottom line is don?t EVER trust that ATC is 100% keeping you out of harm?s way. The PIC has ultimate responsibility for safety of flight, including rejecting vectors if ATC decides to drive you into another aircraft and your MARK1 eyeballs or onboard equipment tell you it?s a bad idea. Michael Sausen -10 #352 Limbo From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:03 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Traffic I understand that it would be nice having traffic in the panel, but isn?t that what ATC is there for? They can give you weather info, but not nearly as well as seeing it in color on your moving map, but is it distracting seeing all of the planes that are around you? I have talked to a number of pilots who don?t want to know about traffic. ATC will tell you about the ones that matter, but the others, well, don?t matter. This may prompt a nice discussion about what traffic options are available and how helpful they are. 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(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tdawson-townsend(at)aurora.aero Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: RV10-List: Traffic To go with your fancy panel, don?t forget to get an active traffic system, so you don?t get whacked by somebody while you?re both heads-down looking at the pretty HITS displays. Avidyne TAS system will display on Garmin, Avidyne, and Chelton displays, amongst others. Jeez, and I don?t even work there anymore! P.S. Your life will be easier if you consider this before you install a headliner, since the top antenna needs a foil ground plane installed . . . Cheers, TDT Tim Dawson-Townsend Aurora Flight Sciences tdt(at)aurora.aero 617-401-2522 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com y List utilities such as the Subscriptions page, http://www.matronics.bsp; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FO; http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Li=== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: The Perfect Panel - The Perfect airplane
Date: May 25, 2007
You are right for the most part. The Sorcerer, I believe, doesn't have an internal heading source, while the Digiflight II does (which isn't worth anything on the ones that I have flown). If you lose heading info from the external GPS, the Sorcerer will let you decide a bank angle, whereas the DII will let you select a Heading ("HDG" will display instead of "TRK" when it gets the info from a GPS). The Sorcerer will let you select a target altitude for climb or descent, and how you want to get there, indicated airspeed for climb and distance for descent, or vertical speed for either. This comes in very handy when being vectored by ATC and they say to maintain at or above a certain altitude, you just punch it in and tell it a distance and you are done (3 seconds). Vector change is just a rotation of the knob on either. The Sorcerer will fly the NAV radio, whether VOR's or ILS. Do all ILS approach airports have a precision GPS approach also? Does anything except the GRT offer "artificial GPS approaches" on an ILS? This may not matter to some, but there are a lot of pilots who still want to be able to fly an actual ILS, although this is probably changing with the WAAS approaches. When going missed approach, a toggle of the UP/DOWN switch will automatically take you into a 500fpm climb while you figure out what to do next. With separate buttons for everything, it is much easier to navigate and get just what you want, when you want it. The RV-10 AP is just the Sorcerer without the analog NAV functions, and both the Sorcerer and the RV-10 AP have the Yaw Dampener as an option, although I don't believe it is standard with the RV-10 AP, although they mentioned it as such in the beginning. The AP-100 is the Sorcerer without the Altitude Select or VNAV functions, but it includes the analog NAV functions. The extra $4K for the Sorcerer is a chunk of change, but for many I think the peace of mind of having almost all controls right on the unit instead of having to tell it what to do through the GPS or EFIS is worth it. If you don't want the altitude select but do want the analog NAV, go with the AP-100 for $6,900. If you don't want the analog NAV and do want the altitude select, go with the RV-10 AP. If you want both, go with the Sorcerer. If you don't want either, then the DII VSG or VSGV are for you, at $4,725 and $5,225 respectively. Of course, they are all fantastic auto pilots. Monitor your trim, though, unless you want to get into aerobatics. :-) 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 William Curtis Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 11:37 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel - The Perfect airplane Richard, > Just one example that took a awhile to understand was the significant > differences between the DigiFlight and Sorcerer autopilots. One has it's > own brain (Sorcerer) and can fly most any scenario on it's own while the > DigiFlight requires some other component to do the heavy thinking. Just a minor correction. Both the DigiFlight and the Sorcerer "have a brain." Each can fly the airplane on its own using the built in heading gyro and altitude sensor. What the Sorcerer adds is VHF/NAV capability. That is, it can fly a coupled VOR/LOC/ILS approach from any plain old VHF/NAV radio. The DigiFlight can do this only if you are flying an overlay approach on your IFR GPS and it is controlling the autopilot. Since most IFR GPS will provide a lateral overlay, and now the "W" GPS will also provide vertical guidance, the benefits of the Sorcerer over a DigiFlight II VSGV are not worth the extra $5K IMHO. Also if you truly want the DigiFlight to fly a VOR/LOC/ILS, not just the overlay, you could drive if from any HSI/EFIS with an ARINC 429 interface and GPSS-V. The TruTrak RV-10 Autopilot is the Sorcerer with the VHF/NAV capability removed and a yaw dampener added. > The costs envolved in a modern safe IFR EFIS panel are probably the biggest > single expense catagory in the project, but if well planned and executed > should provide and equally valuable sense of acomplishment. I've seen many use this term -- What exactly is an "IFR EFIS"? I know what an IFR GPS is as there are many TSOs and documents relating to it but for those that use this term, can you explain what makes one EFIS IFR and one not? William http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ -- 4:01 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: "Fred Williams, M.D." <drfred(at)suddenlinkmail.com>
Subject: Page 29-14
Thanks for the replies. I talked with Joe at Van's this am and we decided on the same approach. Will trim the flanges on the F 1001 M and D angles. Enough to get rivet set and drill the holes. Fred Williams. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
I understand your concern but I am serious. Unfortunately, 3 miles in haze at 6,000 is legal VFR and near-IFR at the same time (so is 1 mile isn't it?) I recall it being very common to have *all* the enroute airports reporting 3 miles or better while struggling to find a good horizon, let alone see traffic. I guess the technical definition of VFR at cruising altitude is something like "observed flight visibility" or something. Not sure how to determine that however. It's a bit less straightforward than observing 1/2 mile when measured RVR is 1/4. I don't think flying in these conditions is akin to "continuing VFR into IMC" and it's attendant accident rate. People generally don't spiral in doing day VFR in these quite legal VFR conditions. They don't spiral in at night either because of pervasive ground lighting. Kennedy over the ocean being the obvious trap. But people do struggle, it is uncomfortable, and the horizon is occassionally and momentarily lost. So, is a glass EFIS a useful tool for augmenting real world VFR cruising? BTW, when current, I always fly IFR to at least make flying at IFR altitudes a rational tactic for avoiding some traffic. And if that darn '10 in my hangar would leave me alone, I'd go out and do some traveling and get current again! GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/25/2007 11:21:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com writes: > > What is also needed are tools to fly in the near-IFR conditions we > all > fly in every summer. I'm not talking clouds or fog, or flying into > deteriorating conditions but just plain summer haze. > > I'm sure you're serious about this statement but if you want to over > fly your visibility you might want to consider getting IFR and > filing...flying a Cherokee at 120kts is one thing, flying an RV 10 > into the same haze at 160kts is another...a hand held is wonder as > opposted to nothing but having better situational awareness equipment > is better and I'd think a requirement if you want to bust through haze > and smoke often. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: FS: MT Prop Gov
Date: May 25, 2007
We had problems with an RPM surge at a certain RPM setting with the MT, but it was fixed with a stronger spring. I think the new units should all have the stronger spring now, but am not sure. 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 William Curtis Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 12:29 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: FS: MT Prop Gov Some folks are opting for the PCU5000/X (http://pcu5000.com). It supposedly governs better than the MT provided in the FF kit. Someone on Vansairforce is doing a group buy of the PCU5000. Since the PCU5000X ($1350) is more expensive than the MT ($Van's $1100), this may be another case of a solution looking for a problem. Has anyone flying had issues with the MT P-860-3? http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=17279&page=1&pp=10&hi ghlight=pcu William http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ -------- Original Message -------- > X-Rcpt-To: > > Why would you sell? What are you going to run with? > > John > ________________________________ > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Neal George > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:40 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com; RV7A(at)yahoogroups.com; rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: FS: MT Prop Gov > > > > Listers - > > > > I have a new MT prop governor for sale. > > $1075, shipped. > > > > Neal E. George > 2023 Everglades Drive > Navarre, FL 32566 > Home - 850-515-0640 > Cell - 850-218-4838 -- 4:01 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Trueflight 190The Perfect Panel
Date: May 25, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Russ your explanation and examples helps many in the choice of GRT as a lower cost and robust alternative to the plunge into the deep end (financially) with Chelton. However one of your sentences led me to believe that you also have Onboard Radar - which brand? I was under the impression that the data painted (in the examples was from something like WSI) was delayed and sent by RF signal over a receiver, then overlaid into the GRT screen to create the impression of having onboard radar when one was not present onboard. How do you designate the equipped RV-10 for IFR flight plans? John ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Russell Daves Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 4:12 AM Subject: RV10-List: Trueflight 190The Perfect Panel I installed the GRT WX Weather module and wired it to feed all three of my GRT screens (displayed over the moving map). I love it. On a recent trip it really helped fly around some really bad weather. I could have flown around such weather as I was VFR but I would have gone a long way around instead of picking and choosing my route. ATC (flight following) asked if I had onboard radar and my response was "Yes that is why I am now heading due West instead of Northwest" ATC said that a pilot reported ice at 14000 feet. I feel real sorry for anybody who flew through the middle of that system on an IFR flight plan. You can see screen shots of the route I flew through the weather cells at: http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sjtabiweather2go5.jpg http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sjtabiweather1yr4.jpg http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sjtlbbweather1og4.jpg <http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sjtlbbweather1og4.jpg> The screen shots cover the last part of the flight around the weather. I wished I had shot a picture when the weather system was directly ahead of me before I turned west to fly around it. My route was KERV direct to KLBB but southeast of KSJT I turned west as the weather system was painted from just west of KSJT TO at least 50 miles east of KDYS. After turning west and going around KSJT I then fly back Northeast between KSJT and KBPG and then headed North between KBPG and KSWW. Had I not had onboard radar I would have flown west probably west of KMAF before turning back north and then coming into KLBB from the west side (headed East). I cannot say enough about how great the customer service is at GRT as well. Russ Daves N710RV - First flight 7/28/06 - 110 hours and counting ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: FS: MT Prop Gov
Date: May 25, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Neal has not answered why he is selling or the solution. Thanks for a possible perspective. John -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:29 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: FS: MT Prop Gov Some folks are opting for the PCU5000/X (http://pcu5000.com). It supposedly governs better than the MT provided in the FF kit. Someone on Vansairforce is doing a group buy of the PCU5000. Since the PCU5000X ($1350) is more expensive than the MT ($Van's $1100), this may be another case of a solution looking for a problem. Has anyone flying had issues with the MT P-860-3? http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=17279&page=1&pp=1 0&highlight=pcu William http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ -------- Original Message -------- > X-Rcpt-To: > > Why would you sell? What are you going to run with? > > John > ________________________________ > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Neal George > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:40 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com; RV7A(at)yahoogroups.com; rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: FS: MT Prop Gov > > > > Listers - > > > > I have a new MT prop governor for sale. > > $1075, shipped. > > > > Neal E. George > 2023 Everglades Drive > Navarre, FL 32566 > Home - 850-515-0640 > Cell - 850-218-4838 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
It's starting to make sense to me too! Taking it a step further, does it make sense to even try to do a basic IFR setup in one's '10 before one has the rating and has had a chance to use it for awhile? You raised the point of button pushing versus proficiency and currency. That's a big question for me. One one hand, I've seen our local package express/check cashing pilots train. These folks can fly a failed engine twin with the standard 6 pack thru an approach, miss, and hold and still talk about "I like keeping it a half needle to the right so my landing light will be on the centerline when I break out". I just try to fly straight enough to avoid embarassing myself on the controllers radar. On the other hand, I found use of my 2nd generation IFR cert'd Garmin 300XL a total challenge. Flying a standard GPS T approach with it is a piece of cake. Flying an ADF or VOR overlay is more challenging. Trying to use it to aid in a typical vector-to-ILS situation can also be challenging. With proficiency, I can use it to great advantage in these situations. When a bit rusty, rust being a very real challenge to us non-pros, it was best to just fly vectors and use it exactly as an ADF or DME might be used. But forget the moving map, programming interim points, or even trying to use it as a second VOR in those situations. I learned that often less was more. It's pretty crude technology compared to the modern systems. Tim and others are convincing me that the *some* of the current stuff is actually easy to use even when mixed with a bit of rust. I need some hands-on to confirm that for me. I'm sure some of the current stuff is more challenging. We are certainly on the verge of having these systems actually make *all* aspects of IFR flight easier and safer for the non-pro. But the point I'm getting to is this - properly equipping a used GA plane for IFR required IFR experience in the old 6 pack days. Figuring out how you would combine existing equipment with a major upgrade, and coming out the back end with what you wanted took some experience. Perhaps properly equipping a homebuilt for IFR requires IFR experience too. There are many choices, many alternatives, and many approaches in a constantly changing environment. Would that make the prudent course to equip for VFR, get experience with plane, mission, and self., then upgrade as desired? Inefficient? maybe. Some dollars may be wasted. But the bottom line may in fact benefit. Just a thought. I feel like I have some experience but frankly, I stand here lost in the face of all the choices. My dream is an IFR cruiser that will put my 'ol Maule to shame. So I will try to take advantage of those that have gone before and end up with a Cheltonesque panel and as few unused redundancies as possible. We'll see. Bill "heading to the hangar for a long weekend of progress" Watson John Jessen wrote: > > Yes! > > I think that the point is well presented and well taken. I've said to more > than one person that "I don't get it" in terms of all the higher end panels. > Tim, Deems and others have explained their rationale to me and I'm slowly > getting it, but Bill finally put into words what I haven't been able to. I > love flying for the sake of flying, and to me this means VFR most of the > time. This is what has been in the back of my mind and I couldn't explain > it. Thanks, Bill !! > > I will get my IFR rating, because I honestly do believe it will make me a > better pilot (and insurance companies might like me better) just as a tail > wheel endorsement will also. I have a float plane rating and that certainly > has made me better (landing floats on glassy waters requires some precision > that I wasn't used to before). However, I love the ability to just fly. > Get in and go. Sure you want to have a flight plan and file it, and sure > you'd like flight following, but there's something about keeping it simple > that appeals to me. > > So, my big challenge has been what to put in that works well in the assumed > IFR future that I know I'll be involved in, but also doesn't bust the bank, > and doesn't just sit there while I have fun looking out the window and down > at my maps occasionally. And will I keep current enough in real IMC that I > could, honestly, safely, take advantage of the IFR system? This is a big, > big question. I think for those who are already IFR trained and that's what > they normally fly, it isn't such an issue to think in terms of the more > advanced systems. If they can afford it, it probably is a no brainer. > > But there's the rub. A high end system can make IFR simpler during the high > workload, high risk scenarios that one will, if they fly IFR/IMC, eventually > find. That's when a current, but not super current, IFR pilot needs that > electronic horsepower. So, getting a glass panel 6-pack substitute, such as > the AFS EFIS, coupled with a (for example) G430W and some type of MFD, may > not be the safest thing for someone who spends most of his/her time flying > VFR, with only the occasional IFR/IMC usage. This is why I'm so interested > in the combination of equipment that can bridge that gap between basic IFR > and the high end systems. You want minimal button pushing and mental > gyrations in those situations that are the highest stress/workload > situations. It's easy to do enroute with almost any system. It gets > progressively more difficult for take offs, holdings, approaches, but all of > these have been done for decades on steam gauges, so it's not impossible. > It's just that with all the goodies out there, one wants to put together > something that works well, doesn't bust the bank (for me and I bet many who > are not commenting on the list), but can be effective. This is why I've > been begging for situational descriptions about how systems work well or > not. Tim is correct, this is so hard to discuss because everyone is working > for such minimal examples, both in terms of situations and in terms of > equipment. However, the situations do exist, whether you've experienced > them or read about them, and you know your system, so you can give at least > some type of evaluation how it should work given the situation. To some it > might also be embarrassing to discuss what has happened and how their system > responded, but we need to discuss these things in order for all of us to > gain. I want all of us to benefit, and really the only way is to get the > stories out and discuss them. > > Money will be the limiting factor for many of us. Someone is going to have > to give me oxygen when I plunk down my bucks for the panel. And that's > after I've been let out of the intensive care unit for the engine payment. > However, when all is said and done, I'll be happy with whatever I have and > practice with it as much as possible. True enough. But until then lots of > decisions have to be made. Bill has helped me understand what it was that I > couldn't get put into words, that I couldn't get past a generalized feeling > about. That's the beauty of this list and of sharing thoughts. Please! > Those silent ones out there. Jump in! The water is fine. > > John Jessen > #328 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 8:20 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W > > > This has all made me try to think around this issue a different way. > Give a realistic assessment of a future the owner's capabilities, missions > and desires, perhaps a less considered sweet spot is the VFR cruiser. > > Assume for a minute that the owner is not instrument rated (but plans to be > sometime in the future), or is not able/willing to always remain current per > the regs (me). Assume that the '10 will be a serious cross country machine > (weekender bag, cooler, mate, extra shoes for mate), and you live in the > eastern US (just can't comment on fly-styles west of the Mississip). I've > been thinking of a guy I've been listening to on Rec.aviation.pilot for a > few years. He's been flying a VFR Pathfinder quite happily for some years - > Jay Honeck: > http://www.alexisparkinn.com/welcome_to_the_inn.htm > Many times Jay has been asked to defend his VFR-only flying, as in "Jay, you > need an IFR rating - it will make your travels so much easier". But he > argues that VFR is right for him and his family and frankly he makes a lot > of sense. Following his flying exploits, I wonder if many/most of us will > end up doing what he does. And if we do, we'll die very happy. > > What is out there weather-wise is a lot of very flyable VFR weather and > destinations. A simple steam guage VFR '10 like Van's is a super machine. > But as homebuilders, we are sorely tempted to juice it up. So how would you > juice up a VFR '10? > > Weather is still the issue. A 396 or better is practically mandatory from a > cost-benefit standpoint. It turns many marginal VFR sky gropes > out over the horizon, into more safer, fully informed journeys into > calm waters. > > What is also needed are tools to fly in the near-IFR conditions we all fly > in every summer. I'm not talking clouds or fog, or flying into > deteriorating conditions but just plain summer haze. Make it westbound in > the evening with smoke from a few distant fires and you really can benefit > from use of the gyro panel... or a low end glass EFIS. Add an autopilot - > anywhere from a wing leveler to a sorcerer - and you can truly remain VFR > because you are actually looking out the window. > Remember, anyone can trim a cruiser to maintain altitude, it's the wing > leveling that you really need. And if it's driven by your GPS, wow! > So a low end glass EFIS, GPS, autopilot, and a backup GPS with Satellite > weather and 101 music channels makes this a very comfortable and capable VFR > cruiser. > > To complete the safety package, add traffic awareness. > > It looks state of the art, it flys state of the art, it is state of the art. > And it may realistically reflect the true capabilities, mission, and desires > of many of us owner/pilots to be. > > You've skipped heated pitots, some Nav equipment, extensive backups, > certification(?), and the costs of getting and staying instrument > proficient. > > So how many $$ are needed to realize this dream? I don't know but it's > maybe it's worth a run. > > Below is one of Jay's latest postings to rec.aviation.piloting: > > We were flying back from Springfield last Sunday, arcing into a setting sun > the size of a pie tin. It was one of those flights where you keep catching > yourself turning off course, just to get the sun behind the windshield post > and out of your eyes... > > We'd been silent most of the way, just enjoying the ride and the afterglow > of a day well-spent visiting old friends, when my daughter, age 13, asked me > to play the theme song from "One Six Right" on the CD player. > > Mary and I both looked at each other, shocked that Becca even knew the name > of the album, much less the song itself -- but I quickly slid the disk into > the player, and listened as the fabulous opening bars began to play... > > (For those who don't know the music, listen to it here, for free: > http://www.onesixright.com/ ) > > There was a scattered layer of clouds below, and a few above, and the sun > played behind them, scattering the light into a million separate beams, > lighting the verdant farmland far below with a burning, heavenly glow. The > view was simply breath-taking. > > My daughter, usually oblivious to the flying she has done so often since > birth, suddenly asked me to "Do the soaring thing to the music, Dad, like > you did before..." > > Hesitant to deviate from straight and level while talking to Chicago Center, > I started a little dipping and rolling to the music. I glanced over to see > that her eyes were closed, the sunshine was lighting her face like an angel, > and she was simply *feeling* the flight with all of her senses. She was > grinning from ear to ear. > > Inspired, I let my inhibitions go, and began giant swoops and gentle > push-overs, all in time to the orchestral crescendos of "One Six > Right". Soon, I found myself closing *my* eyes, and feeling the > weightlessness at the top of the arc, and the one-G steep turns, back > and forth, all to the beat of the music. It was magical. > > Throat tightening, chest bursting, I wanted to cry with joy. If there is a > heaven, it must feel very much like this. > > And my daughter was "getting it"! > > When we landed, Becca -- vocally against the very notion of learning to fly > for so many years -- said "Dad, maybe I *will* learn to fly some day..." > > :-) > -- > Jay Honeck > Iowa City, IA > Pathfinder N56993 > www.AlexisParkInn.com > "Your Aviation Destination" > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: Darton Steve <sfdarton(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Traffic
I am a retired SLC approach controller and currently flying for a corporation. Do NOT count on traffic from any controller anywhere whether you are IFR or VFR!(IMHO) It is not required. Safety alerts are required to be issued by controllers but the parameters for what constitutes a safety alert are not specified. Also the controller has to see the conflict before traffic can be issued, controllers are human and don't see or even understand every conflict. As for TCAS or equivalent type displays, they are a very valuable tool in the cockpit! you just need to understand the limitations of you system. Steve 40212 --- Jesse Saint wrote: > I understand that it would be nice having traffic in > the panel, but isn't > that what ATC is there for? Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel - The Perfect airplane
Re. Op Tech and Jepps Yes they do use Jepps database, you have 2 options: a. an annual subscription, or b. 'pay as you go' I'm not sure what the current pricing is, but from memory the annual subscription was aprox $700 and the 'pay as you go' was $90 per update. You download the updates from their website and place them on an SD card and update the EFIS. They just published a new website, and I can't find the current pricing, perhaps they moved it to the download section which requires a password and user id. (I haven't activated mine yet to preserve the '1 year' trigger.) Deems Davis # 406 Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! ) http://deemsrv10.com/ Tim Olson wrote: > --> A regular subscription update is a key too. > That's one question that's been gnawing at me about OP Tech too...and > perhaps Deems or someone can answer. ............ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Bill, while it's definitely an option to outfit minimally, as Gary S. mentioned before, and flying for a while until you know your mission or goals, I'm not sure if it would help. Doing that would prevent you from getting hands-on experience that would help you form your goals. You're right that it can be very hard to know what all works well together when upgrading or building, and to know what the end result would be. I don't think it's impossible though. I basically couldn't be happier but it was bought with lots of time and effort. But I keep recommending over and over that people actually just go FLY with some systems. The technical details as to what talks to what aren't that hard to find out, once you narrow the field on equipment. So the goal would be to fly a few various layouts of brands you may be interested in, see what you can learn, and then keep asking questions until you pick a winner. Then ask all the questions to ensure it will work with everything else, and then, after all is said and done, buy it. I can guarantee that you'd have a clear picture of all of my misc. ramblings if I took you for a 1-2 hour flight. There are hundreds of GRT's out there and loads of Cheltons both certified and non-certified. The G1000 makes a great test-flight for a G900 buyer. So getting time won't be impossible, and it could be the most worthy $500 round-trip airline ticket you could buy to go determine your choice. I spent the money to fly the RV-10 at the factory for the same reasons....to know I was buying the right kit...even though I waited until on the wings. For those who aren't instrument rated though, my recommendation backs up a step....I really think you'd benefit from the rating before you build the panel. No insult intended, but you really don't have a clue about IFR flight until you've been through it with training and even some experience...where it's YOU at the controls with the sweat on your brow. Then, at that point, you'll have enough of a concept to begin flying some systems and seeing how well you can do, and if they do everything you would hope for. Tim > But the point I'm getting to is this - properly equipping a used GA > plane for IFR required IFR experience in the old 6 pack days. Figuring > out how you would combine existing equipment with a major upgrade, and > coming out the back end with what you wanted took some experience. > Perhaps properly equipping a homebuilt for IFR requires IFR experience > too. There are many choices, many alternatives, and many approaches in > a constantly changing environment. Would that make the prudent course > to equip for VFR, get experience with plane, mission, and self., then > upgrade as desired? Inefficient? maybe. Some dollars may be wasted. > But the bottom line may in fact benefit. Just a thought. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
Subject: The Perfect Panel - The Perfect airplane
From: "William Curtis" <wcurtis(at)nerv10.com>
Jesse, Yup, clear -clear as mud:-) > You are right for the most part. The Sorcerer, I believe, doesn't have an > internal heading source, while the Digiflight II does (which isn't worth > anything on the ones that I have flown). If you lose heading info from the > external GPS, the Sorcerer will let you decide a bank angle, whereas the DII > will let you select a Heading ("HDG" will display instead of "TRK" when it > gets the info from a GPS). Well according to their web page, the Sorcerer has a " GPS-Slaved solid-state Directional Gyro" and the DigiFlights have "Built-in Digital Slaved Directional Gyro." I think these are worth a LOT as if all else in your panel fails, you still have the independent autopilot to keep the plane right side up. Why would you spend all that money for an autopilot that could not fly the plane without any external data source? In addition to course tracking, the GPS data for both provides precession correction to automatically keep the DG aligned with the compass heading--or more accurately the ground track. You do know the difference between Track and Heading don't you? Compass/DG reports heading, GPS reports track. As far as the vertical speed selector, if you have a Garmin 400/500, the VNAV function works very well in providing vertical guidance (to the pilot or autopilot) so that you can "navigate" to a particular fix at a specified crossing altitude. If you have a navigator with VNAV function, then it is much better to do the function on it rather than on the autopilot. The vertical speed and VHF/NAV function of the Sorcerer are nice but if you have a Garmin 400/500 navigator, you already have those capabilities. > The extra $4K for the Sorcerer is a chunk of change, but for many I think > the peace of mind of having almost all controls right on the unit instead of > having to tell it what to do through the GPS or EFIS is worth it. Some pilots are EFIS centric while others are GPS navigator centric. For the EFIS centric, they would much prefer to do all the button pushing on the EFIS (flight plan, autopilot control, etc). For the GPS navigator centric, they prefer to do all their button pushing on the GPS navigator and only rely on the EFIS to display the various information. I haven't met any yet that are autopilot centric but if there are any out there, I guess they may benefit from what the Sorcerer offers. Since you have all these functions in most EFIS and GPS navigators, I still don't see the value. William http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ > 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 William Curtis > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 11:37 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com; rsipp(at)earthlink.net > Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel - The Perfect airplane > > > Richard, > > > Just one example that took a awhile to understand was the significant > > differences between the DigiFlight and Sorcerer autopilots. One has it's > > own brain (Sorcerer) and can fly most any scenario on it's own while the > > DigiFlight requires some other component to do the heavy thinking. > > Just a minor correction. Both the DigiFlight and the Sorcerer "have a > brain." Each can fly the airplane on its own using the built in heading > gyro and altitude sensor. What the Sorcerer adds is VHF/NAV capability. > That is, it can fly a coupled VOR/LOC/ILS approach from any plain old > VHF/NAV radio. The DigiFlight can do this only if you are flying an overlay > approach on your IFR GPS and it is controlling the autopilot. Since most > IFR GPS will provide a lateral overlay, and now the "W" GPS will also > provide vertical guidance, the benefits of the Sorcerer over a DigiFlight II > VSGV are not worth the extra $5K IMHO. Also if you truly want the > DigiFlight to fly a VOR/LOC/ILS, not just the overlay, you could drive if > from any HSI/EFIS with an ARINC 429 interface and GPSS-V. > > The TruTrak RV-10 Autopilot is the Sorcerer with the VHF/NAV capability > removed and a yaw dampener added. > > > The costs envolved in a modern safe IFR EFIS panel are probably the > biggest > > single expense catagory in the project, but if well planned and executed > > should provide and equally valuable sense of acomplishment. > > I've seen many use this term -- What exactly is an "IFR EFIS"? I know what > an IFR GPS is as there are many TSOs and documents relating to it but for > those that use this term, can you explain what makes one EFIS IFR and one > not? > > William > http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 4:01 PM > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Date: May 25, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
The lengthy responses raise this question. Could there be a minimalist panel to get RV-10 builders to completion and a logical retrofit to the final and ultimate goal of IFR capability? Scott suggests even his morphed Dual Chelton/Dual GRT could have benefits from additional upgrades. Disregarding the vast sea of wire changes between sensors and Chelton/GRT are there any clear migration paths that you veterans see? Should potential buyers have options at OSH '07 Shopping for a two step build process or is it just "Jump in the Water is Deep"? I conclude that the use of VANS steam gauges are now a journey down a terminating road to minimalism - VFR Only. You went Horizontal Scan, Scott went Vertical.... Tomato/Tomoto. John C. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 11:49 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W Bill, while it's definitely an option to outfit minimally, as Gary S. mentioned before, and flying for a while until you know your mission or goals, I'm not sure if it would help. Doing that would prevent you from getting hands-on experience that would help you form your goals. You're right that it can be very hard to know what all works well together when upgrading or building, and to know what the end result would be. I don't think it's impossible though. I basically couldn't be happier but it was bought with lots of time and effort. But I keep recommending over and over that people actually just go FLY with some systems. The technical details as to what talks to what aren't that hard to find out, once you narrow the field on equipment. So the goal would be to fly a few various layouts of brands you may be interested in, see what you can learn, and then keep asking questions until you pick a winner. Then ask all the questions to ensure it will work with everything else, and then, after all is said and done, buy it. I can guarantee that you'd have a clear picture of all of my misc. ramblings if I took you for a 1-2 hour flight. There are hundreds of GRT's out there and loads of Cheltons both certified and non-certified. The G1000 makes a great test-flight for a G900 buyer. So getting time won't be impossible, and it could be the most worthy $500 round-trip airline ticket you could buy to go determine your choice. I spent the money to fly the RV-10 at the factory for the same reasons....to know I was buying the right kit...even though I waited until on the wings. For those who aren't instrument rated though, my recommendation backs up a step....I really think you'd benefit from the rating before you build the panel. No insult intended, but you really don't have a clue about IFR flight until you've been through it with training and even some experience...where it's YOU at the controls with the sweat on your brow. Then, at that point, you'll have enough of a concept to begin flying some systems and seeing how well you can do, and if they do everything you would hope for. Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
From: "William Curtis" <wcurtis(at)nerv10.com>
> For those who aren't instrument rated though, my recommendation > backs up a step....I really think you'd benefit from the rating > before you build the panel. No insult intended, but you really > don't have a clue about IFR flight until you've been through > it with training and even some experience...where it's YOU > at the controls with the sweat on your brow. Then, at that > point, you'll have enough of a concept to begin flying some > systems and seeing how well you can do, and if they do everything > you would hope for. Totally agree with this! Just as "Friends don't let friends drive drunk", I'd also suggest that "Friends should not let VFR friends build IFR panels." Even after you have the rating, you really need time "in the system" to determine what is really important. You see some panels supposedly built for IFR and you know the person who designed it dose not actually fly IFR. I also agree with Scott's earlier comment that a glass panel ironically allows you more time looking out the window. For the CIA, you spend much less time on the C and the I, leaving more time for the A and looking out the window. William http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2007
From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W]
Sorry if sending this a second time but I never rec'd it back -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:32:43 -0400 From: MauleDriver <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> References: <004801c79ee9$1ed65500$0200a8c0@harris.harrisinteractive.com> It's starting to make sense to me too! Taking it a step further, does it make sense to even try to do a basic IFR setup in one's '10 before one has the rating and has had a chance to use it for awhile? You raised the point of button pushing versus proficiency and currency. That's a big question for me. One one hand, I've seen our local package express/check cashing pilots train. These folks can fly a failed engine twin with the standard 6 pack thru an approach, miss, and hold and still talk about "I like keeping it a half needle to the right so my landing light will be on the centerline when I break out". I just try to fly straight enough to avoid embarassing myself on the controllers radar. On the other hand, I found use of my 2nd generation IFR cert'd Garmin 300XL a total challenge. Flying a standard GPS T approach with it is a piece of cake. Flying an ADF or VOR overlay is more challenging. Trying to use it to aid in a typical vector-to-ILS situation can also be challenging. With proficiency, I can use it to great advantage in these situations. When a bit rusty, rust being a very real challenge to us non-pros, it was best to just fly vectors and use it exactly as an ADF or DME might be used. But forget the moving map, programming interim points, or even trying to use it as a second VOR in those situations. I learned that often less was more. It's pretty crude technology compared to the modern systems. Tim and others are convincing me that the *some* of the current stuff is actually easy to use even when mixed with a bit of rust. I need some hands-on to confirm that for me. I'm sure some of the current stuff is more challenging. We are certainly on the verge of having these systems actually make *all* aspects of IFR flight easier and safer for the non-pro. But the point I'm getting to is this - properly equipping a used GA plane for IFR required IFR experience in the old 6 pack days. Figuring out how you would combine existing equipment with a major upgrade, and coming out the back end with what you wanted took some experience. Perhaps properly equipping a homebuilt for IFR requires IFR experience too. There are many choices, many alternatives, and many approaches in a constantly changing environment. Would that make the prudent course to equip for VFR, get experience with plane, mission, and self., then upgrade as desired? Inefficient? maybe. Some dollars may be wasted. But the bottom line may in fact benefit. Just a thought. I feel like I have some experience but frankly, I stand here lost in the face of all the choices. My dream is an IFR cruiser that will put my 'ol Maule to shame. So I will try to take advantage of those that have gone before and end up with a Cheltonesque panel and as few unused redundancies as possible. We'll see. Bill "heading to the hangar for a long weekend of progress" Watson John Jessen wrote: > > Yes! > > I think that the point is well presented and well taken. I've said to more > than one person that "I don't get it" in terms of all the higher end panels. > Tim, Deems and others have explained their rationale to me and I'm slowly > getting it, but Bill finally put into words what I haven't been able to. I > love flying for the sake of flying, and to me this means VFR most of the > time. This is what has been in the back of my mind and I couldn't explain > it. Thanks, Bill !! > > I will get my IFR rating, because I honestly do believe it will make me a > better pilot (and insurance companies might like me better) just as a tail > wheel endorsement will also. I have a float plane rating and that certainly > has made me better (landing floats on glassy waters requires some precision > that I wasn't used to before). However, I love the ability to just fly. > Get in and go. Sure you want to have a flight plan and file it, and sure > you'd like flight following, but there's something about keeping it simple > that appeals to me. > > So, my big challenge has been what to put in that works well in the assumed > IFR future that I know I'll be involved in, but also doesn't bust the bank, > and doesn't just sit there while I have fun looking out the window and down > at my maps occasionally. And will I keep current enough in real IMC that I > could, honestly, safely, take advantage of the IFR system? This is a big, > big question. I think for those who are already IFR trained and that's what > they normally fly, it isn't such an issue to think in terms of the more > advanced systems. If they can afford it, it probably is a no brainer. > > But there's the rub. A high end system can make IFR simpler during the high > workload, high risk scenarios that one will, if they fly IFR/IMC, eventually > find. That's when a current, but not super current, IFR pilot needs that > electronic horsepower. So, getting a glass panel 6-pack substitute, such as > the AFS EFIS, coupled with a (for example) G430W and some type of MFD, may > not be the safest thing for someone who spends most of his/her time flying > VFR, with only the occasional IFR/IMC usage. This is why I'm so interested > in the combination of equipment that can bridge that gap between basic IFR > and the high end systems. You want minimal button pushing and mental > gyrations in those situations that are the highest stress/workload > situations. It's easy to do enroute with almost any system. It gets > progressively more difficult for take offs, holdings, approaches, but all of > these have been done for decades on steam gauges, so it's not impossible. > It's just that with all the goodies out there, one wants to put together > something that works well, doesn't bust the bank (for me and I bet many who > are not commenting on the list), but can be effective. This is why I've > been begging for situational descriptions about how systems work well or > not. Tim is correct, this is so hard to discuss because everyone is working > for such minimal examples, both in terms of situations and in terms of > equipment. However, the situations do exist, whether you've experienced > them or read about them, and you know your system, so you can give at least > some type of evaluation how it should work given the situation. To some it > might also be embarrassing to discuss what has happened and how their system > responded, but we need to discuss these things in order for all of us to > gain. I want all of us to benefit, and really the only way is to get the > stories out and discuss them. > > Money will be the limiting factor for many of us. Someone is going to have > to give me oxygen when I plunk down my bucks for the panel. And that's > after I've been let out of the intensive care unit for the engine payment. > However, when all is said and done, I'll be happy with whatever I have and > practice with it as much as possible. True enough. But until then lots of > decisions have to be made. Bill has helped me understand what it was that I > couldn't get put into words, that I couldn't get past a generalized feeling > about. That's the beauty of this list and of sharing thoughts. Please! > Those silent ones out there. Jump in! The water is fine. > > John Jessen > #328 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 8:20 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W > > > This has all made me try to think around this issue a different way. > Give a realistic assessment of a future the owner's capabilities, missions > and desires, perhaps a less considered sweet spot is the VFR cruiser. > > Assume for a minute that the owner is not instrument rated (but plans to be > sometime in the future), or is not able/willing to always remain current per > the regs (me). Assume that the '10 will be a serious cross country machine > (weekender bag, cooler, mate, extra shoes for mate), and you live in the > eastern US (just can't comment on fly-styles west of the Mississip). I've > been thinking of a guy I've been listening to on Rec.aviation.pilot for a > few years. He's been flying a VFR Pathfinder quite happily for some years - > Jay Honeck: > http://www.alexisparkinn.com/welcome_to_the_inn.htm > Many times Jay has been asked to defend his VFR-only flying, as in "Jay, you > need an IFR rating - it will make your travels so much easier". But he > argues that VFR is right for him and his family and frankly he makes a lot > of sense. Following his flying exploits, I wonder if many/most of us will > end up doing what he does. And if we do, we'll die very happy. > > What is out there weather-wise is a lot of very flyable VFR weather and > destinations. A simple steam guage VFR '10 like Van's is a super machine. > But as homebuilders, we are sorely tempted to juice it up. So how would you > juice up a VFR '10? > > Weather is still the issue. A 396 or better is practically mandatory from a > cost-benefit standpoint. It turns many marginal VFR sky gropes > out over the horizon, into more safer, fully informed journeys into > calm waters. > > What is also needed are tools to fly in the near-IFR conditions we all fly > in every summer. I'm not talking clouds or fog, or flying into > deteriorating conditions but just plain summer haze. Make it westbound in > the evening with smoke from a few distant fires and you really can benefit > from use of the gyro panel... or a low end glass EFIS. Add an autopilot - > anywhere from a wing leveler to a sorcerer - and you can truly remain VFR > because you are actually looking out the window. > Remember, anyone can trim a cruiser to maintain altitude, it's the wing > leveling that you really need. And if it's driven by your GPS, wow! > So a low end glass EFIS, GPS, autopilot, and a backup GPS with Satellite > weather and 101 music channels makes this a very comfortable and capable VFR > cruiser. > > To complete the safety package, add traffic awareness. > > It looks state of the art, it flys state of the art, it is state of the art. > And it may realistically reflect the true capabilities, mission, and desires > of many of us owner/pilots to be. > > You've skipped heated pitots, some Nav equipment, extensive backups, > certification(?), and the costs of getting and staying instrument > proficient. > > So how many $$ are needed to realize this dream? I don't know but it's > maybe it's worth a run. > > Below is one of Jay's latest postings to rec.aviation.piloting: > > We were flying back from Springfield last Sunday, arcing into a setting sun > the size of a pie tin. It was one of those flights where you keep catching > yourself turning off course, just to get the sun behind the windshield post > and out of your eyes... > > We'd been silent most of the way, just enjoying the ride and the afterglow > of a day well-spent visiting old friends, when my daughter, age 13, asked me > to play the theme song from "One Six Right" on the CD player. > > Mary and I both looked at each other, shocked that Becca even knew the name > of the album, much less the song itself -- but I quickly slid the disk into > the player, and listened as the fabulous opening bars began to play... > > (For those who don't know the music, listen to it here, for free: > http://www.onesixright.com/ ) > > There was a scattered layer of clouds below, and a few above, and the sun > played behind them, scattering the light into a million separate beams, > lighting the verdant farmland far below with a burning, heavenly glow. The > view was simply breath-taking. > > My daughter, usually oblivious to the flying she has done so often since > birth, suddenly asked me to "Do the soaring thing to the music, Dad, like > you did before..." > > Hesitant to deviate from straight and level while talking to Chicago Center, > I started a little dipping and rolling to the music. I glanced over to see > that her eyes were closed, the sunshine was lighting her face like an angel, > and she was simply *feeling* the flight with all of her senses. She was > grinning from ear to ear. > > Inspired, I let my inhibitions go, and began giant swoops and gentle > push-overs, all in time to the orchestral crescendos of "One Six > Right". Soon, I found myself closing *my* eyes, and feeling the > weightlessness at the top of the arc, and the one-G steep turns, back > and forth, all to the beat of the music. It was magical. > > Throat tightening, chest bursting, I wanted to cry with joy. If there is a > heaven, it must feel very much like this. > > And my daughter was "getting it"! > > When we landed, Becca -- vocally against the very notion of learning to fly > for so many years -- said "Dad, maybe I *will* learn to fly some day..." > > :-) > -- > Jay Honeck > Iowa City, IA > Pathfinder N56993 > www.AlexisParkInn.com > "Your Aviation Destination" > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Date: May 25, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Inexperienced or non-IFR pilots should not be giving advise to the masses in how to build panels or selection of avionics components. I whole-heartedly concur with your advise. The masses need to know the quality of the source before giving it consideration on something so vitally important. Learn to clear out the clutter quickly. I will let the experienced IFR pilots chime in on Vertical Stacking versus Horizontal Stacking and its importance being placed as high on the panel as practical. Not withholding the importance of a Back Seat WSO with the armament screen between his/her legs. Some panel layouts aid in resale, others lend themselves to being scrapped and rebuilt for resale. The eye is in the beholder (purchaser). Till then rejoice in your choice and fly often/ fly safe. John -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W

May 19, 2007 - May 25, 2007

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-ch