RV10-Archive.digest.vol-id
April 08, 2011 - May 02, 2011
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Interested builders
>
>
>
>
>
> Bradley Kerr
>
> Research
>
>
>
> Mark Griffith
>
> Research
>
>
>
> Dave Macdonald
>
> Research
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __._,_.___
>
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
>
> Messages in this topic (3)
>
> RECENT ACTIVITY:
>
> Visit Your Group
>
> Be sure to check the Files section of HoustonRVBuilders to see photos of g
roups RV aircraft.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HoustonRVBuilders/files/
>
> MARKETPLACE
>
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Ge
t the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
>
>
>
> Find useful articles and helpful tips on living with Fibromyalgia. Visit t
he Fibromyalgia Zone today!
>
>
>
>
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest =A2 Unsubscribe =A2 Terms o
f Use
>
> .
>
>
>
> __,_._,___
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contributi=============
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ack E-04 shipping |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Talked to someone at the dealer where I got my new ELT and they were verifying
if I still wanted my ELT because it was shipping. It may have shipped Friday,
I'm not sure, but it sounded like they had already received them and were sending
them right out the door. I'll post when I receive it....and probably a write
up as soon as it's installed which won't be far behind.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)Pacbell.net> |
I have a I-Pad2 3G (ATT) unit and I do not quite understand the GPS functions of
the machine. I have not yet subscribed to ATT 3G service, but intend to do so
in a a month or so.
Do I need to buy the Bad Elf unit to exploit the GPS capabilities on land and in
the air or will it do fine in the US without Bad elf.
--------
See you OSH '11
Q/B - flying 1 yr+
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336500#336500
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com> |
The internal GPS works fine for on road or in flight use. You do not have to have
a data subscription to use the GPS you only have to ignore the pop up that
keeps asking you if you want to add a data subscription. One little detail,
if you turn on airplane mode the GPS also gets turned off. You want to turn off
wifi and cellular data separately, then the GPS still works.
This is not to say that the built in GPS is great, I am sure the external receivers
are better. But we have been flying with only the internal GPS for almost
a year now and find the accuracy and lock to be just fine.
--------
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
N44YH - Flying - #40617
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336503#336503
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
It will work fine. For me it was pretty good. The chipset in my ipad 2 verizon
version is different I believe and that one worked excellent for me on a trip
I just got back on. My AT&T ipad 1 wasn't quite as good and quick to acquire
but it worked ok. The bad elf stuff would make it even quicker, if you want
the extra bump sticking out to bang around. I don't. The jailbreak isn't out
for ipad 2 yet so the jailbreak and bluetooth method i used on my old ipad
isn't an option on that one yet. But my verizon ipad 2 worked fine with the internal
GPS on my trip to the Baja of over 4000miles and it didn't let mr down
once.....so I don't think I'll even do anything different there.
Tim
On Apr 10, 2011, at 1:25 AM, "AirMike" wrote:
>
> I have a I-Pad2 3G (ATT) unit and I do not quite understand the GPS functions
of the machine. I have not yet subscribed to ATT 3G service, but intend to do
so in a a month or so.
>
> Do I need to buy the Bad Elf unit to exploit the GPS capabilities on land and
in the air or will it do fine in the US without Bad elf.
>
> --------
> See you OSH '11
> Q/B - flying 1 yr+
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336500#336500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my AT&T or verizon
ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you can't put it in full airplane
mode. Other than that, it works well. I wish the gps chip was separate
and you could turn it on separately. But what Jason said works good.
Tim
On Apr 10, 2011, at 6:21 AM, "jkreidler" wrote:
>
> The internal GPS works fine for on road or in flight use. You do not have to
have a data subscription to use the GPS you only have to ignore the pop up that
keeps asking you if you want to add a data subscription. One little detail,
if you turn on airplane mode the GPS also gets turned off. You want to turn
off wifi and cellular data separately, then the GPS still works.
>
> This is not to say that the built in GPS is great, I am sure the external receivers
are better. But we have been flying with only the internal GPS for almost
a year now and find the accuracy and lock to be just fine.
>
> --------
> Jason Kreidler
> 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI
> Tony Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler
> N44YH - Flying - #40617
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336503#336503
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Mekler" <amekler(at)metrocast.net> |
| Subject: | I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
Tim,
I flew with my Ipad2 for the first time yesterday on a kneeboard. It was a
bright sunny day. I had trouble reading it. Any suggestions?
Alan
Ps. Would like to hear more about your Baha trip
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
It will work fine. For me it was pretty good. The chipset in my ipad 2
verizon version is different I believe and that one worked excellent for me
on a trip I just got back on. My AT&T ipad 1 wasn't quite as good and quick
to acquire but it worked ok. The bad elf stuff would make it even quicker,
if you want the extra bump sticking out to bang around. I don't. The
jailbreak isn't out for ipad 2 yet so the jailbreak and bluetooth method i
used on my old ipad isn't an option on that one yet. But my verizon ipad 2
worked fine with the internal GPS on my trip to the Baja of over 4000miles
and it didn't let mr down once.....so I don't think I'll even do anything
different there.
Tim
On Apr 10, 2011, at 1:25 AM, "AirMike" wrote:
>
> I have a I-Pad2 3G (ATT) unit and I do not quite understand the GPS
functions of the machine. I have not yet subscribed to ATT 3G service, but
intend to do so in a a month or so.
>
> Do I need to buy the Bad Elf unit to exploit the GPS capabilities on land
and in the air or will it do fine in the US without Bad elf.
>
> --------
> See you OSH '11
> Q/B - flying 1 yr+
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336500#336500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I use the brando anti-glare screen protector. They come from china but are the
only one I really found that I like. Also, turn the brightness all the way up.
With those 2 things it was working well for me over the southwest on bright
sunny days. It's better than my motion le1600 tablet with viewanywhere.
Tim
On Apr 10, 2011, at 8:04 AM, "Alan Mekler" wrote:
>
> Tim,
> I flew with my Ipad2 for the first time yesterday on a kneeboard. It was a
> bright sunny day. I had trouble reading it. Any suggestions?
> Alan
> Ps. Would like to hear more about your Baha trip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 8:34 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
>
>
> It will work fine. For me it was pretty good. The chipset in my ipad 2
> verizon version is different I believe and that one worked excellent for me
> on a trip I just got back on. My AT&T ipad 1 wasn't quite as good and quick
> to acquire but it worked ok. The bad elf stuff would make it even quicker,
> if you want the extra bump sticking out to bang around. I don't. The
> jailbreak isn't out for ipad 2 yet so the jailbreak and bluetooth method i
> used on my old ipad isn't an option on that one yet. But my verizon ipad 2
> worked fine with the internal GPS on my trip to the Baja of over 4000miles
> and it didn't let mr down once.....so I don't think I'll even do anything
> different there.
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2011, at 1:25 AM, "AirMike" wrote:
>
>>
>> I have a I-Pad2 3G (ATT) unit and I do not quite understand the GPS
> functions of the machine. I have not yet subscribed to ATT 3G service, but
> intend to do so in a a month or so.
>>
>> Do I need to buy the Bad Elf unit to exploit the GPS capabilities on land
> and in the air or will it do fine in the US without Bad elf.
>>
>> --------
>> See you OSH '11
>> Q/B - flying 1 yr+
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336500#336500
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice substantial
improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude, not so
much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad Elf vs
internal?
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my AT&T or verizon
ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you can't put it in full airplane
mode. Other than that, it works well. I wish the gps chip was separate
and you could turn it on separately. But what Jason said works good.
> Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
My internal was absolutely perfect last night on the iPad 2.
On Apr 10, 2011 9:30 AM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
>
>
> How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice substantial
> improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude, not so
> much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad Elf vs
> internal?
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my AT&T or
verizon ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you can't put it in
full airplane mode. Other than that, it works well. I wish the gps chip
was separate and you could turn it on separately. But what Jason said works
good.
> > Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I didn't really care about altitude. IMHO, lateral is really the only thing
that matters. Trusting any cheap gps for vertical guidance isn't something
I'd want to to. That said, my ipad 2 gps was pretty close to actual altitu
de when I looked a couple times on this trip. But, you're better off using b
aro altitudes. If you're relying on the ipad to be a backup vertical approa
ch gps, bad elf or not, you're putting too much faith in it.
Tim
On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> My internal was absolutely perfect last night on the iPad 2.
> On Apr 10, 2011 9:30 AM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
> >
> >
> > How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice substantial
> > improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude, not so
> > much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad Elf vs
> > internal?
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my AT&T o
r verizon ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you can't put it i
n full airplane mode. Other than that, it works well. I wish the gps chip w
as separate and you could turn it on separately. But what Jason said works g
ood.
> > > Tim
> >
> >
> ============
> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ============
> .matronics.com
> ============
> Dralle, List Admin.
> p://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ============
> >
> >
> >
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
To avoid the annoying subscription requests from your carrier on a 3G iPad 2
I went to Settings > Cellular Data > Off and have not had a subscription
request prompt since.
I also own the Bad Elf for my iPad 1 and the iPad 2 (Verizon) version seems
to be good enough for me to not want to use the Bad Elf with the new iPad.
Robin
*From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Tim Olson
*Sent:* Sunday, April 10, 2011 8:46 AM
*To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
*Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
I didn't really care about altitude. IMHO, lateral is really the only thing
that matters. Trusting any cheap gps for vertical guidance isn't something
I'd want to to. That said, my ipad 2 gps was pretty close to actual
altitude when I looked a couple times on this trip. But, you're better off
using baro altitudes. If you're relying on the ipad to be a backup vertical
approach gps, bad elf or not, you're putting too much faith in it.
Tim
On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
My internal was absolutely perfect last night on the iPad 2.
On Apr 10, 2011 9:30 AM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
>
>
> How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice substantial
> improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude, not so
> much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad Elf vs
> internal?
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my AT&T or
verizon ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you can't put it in
full airplane mode. Other than that, it works well. I wish the gps chip
was separate and you could turn it on separately. But what Jason said works
good.
> > Tim
>
>
============
st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
============
.matronics.com
============
Dralle, List Admin.
p://www.matronics.com/contribution
============
>
>
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
<3D%22http:/www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>*
<3D%22http:/www.matronics.com/contribution>*
* *
------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | "Bobby J. Hughes" <bhughes(at)qnsi.net> |
My first flight with the iPad2 was a 400 mile round trip over two days.
Running Foreflight my altitude was within 10ft, and ground speed within
1kt of my Garmin 430W. It's the Verizon version using only the internal
gps. I was amazed at the accuracy. But I'm not shooting IFR approaches.
Here's a fun test. Install Google Earth on your iPad2. Zoom in on your
current location. Then walk around your house.
Bobby Hughes
N416AS
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
I didn't really care about altitude. IMHO, lateral is really the only
thing that matters. Trusting any cheap gps for vertical guidance isn't
something I'd want to to. That said, my ipad 2 gps was pretty close to
actual altitude when I looked a couple times on this trip. But, you're
better off using baro altitudes. If you're relying on the ipad to be a
backup vertical approach gps, bad elf or not, you're putting too much
faith in it.
Tim
On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
My internal was absolutely perfect last night on the iPad 2.
On Apr 10, 2011 9:30 AM, "Kelly McMullen" <
apilot2(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>
apilot2(at)gmail.com>
>
> How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice
substantial
> improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude,
not so
> much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad
Elf vs
> internal?
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson <
Tim(at)myrv10.com> wrote:
Tim(at)myrv10.com>
> >
> > Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than
either my AT&T or verizon ipad. The worst thing about either is just
that you can't put it in full airplane mode. Other than that, it works
well. I wish the gps chip was separate and you could turn it on
separately. But what Jason said works good.
> > Tim
>
>
============
st"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
============
.matronics.com
============
Dralle, List Admin.
p://www.matronics.com/contribution
============
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Sounds like the new version has significantly better GPS engine than
the original.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Bobby J. Hughes wrote:
> My first flight with the iPad2 was a 400 mile round trip over two days.
> Running Foreflight my altitude was within 10ft, and ground speed within 1kt
> of my Garmin 430W. Its the Verizon version using only the internal gps. I
> was amazed at the accuracy. But Im not shooting IFR approaches.
>
>
> Heres a fun test. Install Google Earth on your iPad2. Zoom in on your
> current location. Then walk around your house.
>
>
> Bobby Hughes
>
> N416AS
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:46 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
>
>
> I didn't really care about altitude. IMHO, lateral is really the only thing
> that matters. Trusting any cheap gps for vertical guidance isn't something
> I'd want to to. That said, my ipad 2 gps was pretty close to actual
> altitude when I looked a couple times on this trip. But, you're better off
> using baro altitudes. If you're relying on the ipad to be a backup vertical
> approach gps, bad elf or not, you're putting too much faith in it.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> My internal was absolutely perfect last night on the iPad 2.
> On Apr 10, 2011 9:30 AM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
>>
>>
>> How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice substantial
>> improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude, not so
>> much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad Elf vs
>> internal?
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>> >
>> > Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my AT&T or
>> > verizon ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you can't put it in
>> > full airplane mode. Other than that, it works well. I wish the gps chip
>> > was separate and you could turn it on separately. But what Jason said works
>> > good.
>> > Tim
>>
>>
> ============
> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ============
> .matronics.com
> ============
> Dralle, List Admin.
> p://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ============
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | "Tim Olson" <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Actually, in digging to find out what chipset they used on
the new iPad2's, it looks like BOTH the Verizon and AT&T
should be in better shape than previous iPhone/iPad models.
It looks like both iPad 2's, got new chipsets for GPS.
Here are a few links and a little info grabbed from them:
iPad 2 3G teardown proves ties to iPhone 4 design, upgrades
** The EVDO-based 3G version is near identical to the Verizon iPhone 4 and
has the same dual-mode Qualcomm MDM6600 chipset. The MDM6600 is a
GSM/UMTS/HSPA+/EV-DO multi-mode processor.
** The HSPA-based 3G version for AT&T and the world is using an Infineon
337S3833 baseband chip to get online but has upgraded to a newer Broadcom
BCM4751 for the GPS chipset
http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/30/ipad.2.3g.torn.down.by.ifixit/
http://wirelesse2e.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/iphone-cdma-and-ipad-2-no-obvious-path-for-lte/
The GPS in the iPad is part of the 3G chipset. That does not mean it isn't
a true GPS. Assisted GPS means that you have a 'real' GPS that has other
services associated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GPS
iPhone 5 will be a world-phone using Qualcomm MDM6600. Even though Apple
prefers not to change its proven designs frequently, MDM6600 is simply
superior to legacy Infineon baseband processor and it simplifies GPS
implementation.
So you're likely to be better off with GPS in any 3G version of iPad 2,
than you are with iPad 1, or with iPhones prior to iPhone 4. The MDM6600
chipset may be why the Verizon ones are really pretty good with the GPS
acquisition and accuracy. And I'm sure that Apple wouldn't have moved to
the Broadcom BCM4751 for the AT&T version unless it provided something
better too.
Tim
>
> Sounds like the new version has significantly better GPS engine than
> the original.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Just a reminder to all that gps altitude (True altitude) and our barometric altimeter
will not agree, except on the ground or on a "standard day" (which of course
almost never exists).
I find it interesting to see by how much they can sometimes differ. It's a reminder
to give oneself a good cushion if using baro altitude for terrain avoidance.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336569#336569
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Or, if you're using baro vnav, make sure you always check and use the current altimeter
setting. Been done that way for years. And, get get regular required
pitot static tests for ifr flight, and, and verify your plane's static error
so that your airspeed reads correct and your altimeter does too. When it comes
to gps, I'd only trust one that's made for ifr use to be fast enough to provide
the altitude accuracy for an approach.
Tim
On Apr 10, 2011, at 5:16 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote:
>
> Just a reminder to all that gps altitude (True altitude) and our barometric altimeter
will not agree, except on the ground or on a "standard day" (which of
course almost never exists).
>
> I find it interesting to see by how much they can sometimes differ. It's a reminder
to give oneself a good cushion if using baro altitude for terrain avoidance.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336569#336569
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bose X headset for sale |
| From: | "Ron B." <cfxoa(at)klis.com> |
I tried to send you the serial # but the e-mail address flysrv10(at)gmail.com was
returned undeliverable . I used @ instead of (at) .
Ron
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336653#336653
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bose X headset for sale |
| From: | Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com> |
Hmm. Interesting. Your email bounces also. Call at 772-418-1417. Thanks.
On Apr 11, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Ron B. wrote:
>
> I tried to send you the serial # but the e-mail address flysrv10(at)gmail.com
was returned undeliverable . I used @ instead of (at) .
> Ron
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336653#336653
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | FS: PS Engineering 8000B |
I have a PS Engineering 8000B audio panel with new tray for sale for $1000.
The unit works perfect and is in great condition. I can send pictures to anyone
interested.
Scott Schmidt
scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | TCAS ground plane |
| From: | "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
Thought I would share my experience installing a ground plane on the RV-10 cabin
top for the GTS800 and hopefully save some building time for others. Like every
other Garmin device, the installation manual gives you a detailed list of
priorities for mounting and location of antennas. Some items, such as the GMU44
would only meet all the criteria if it was mounted to a 20 foot rigid line hanging
off the plane. My experience with Garmin is they are extremely sensitive
units. This is great for operation but tough for installation. The GTS800 is
no different. The first location priority is to mount the top GA58 antenna on
the highest and most forward location on the aircraft with no antennas in front
of it. It has to be mounted level and in the middle. OK so far so good. Next
it needs an 18 x 18 ground plane. WHOA. We have roughly a 10 x 30 spot on the
top between the doors hinges. I have the sweet Aerosport overhead console installed
and it has the 10 x 30 dimensions inside. I came to the conclusion I could
use a copper wire mesh inside the overhead console with a backing plate.
The ground plane should see through the honeycomb and fiberglass. I could get
the square inches needed but not the 18 x 18 width. I also mounted a bottom monopole
antenna for the TAS so there will not be any shadowing from the fuselage.
This is a simple transponder blade mounted right below the GA58. BTW the top
requires 4 coax and the bottom requires 1. I then powered up the plane, configured
the GTS800 to talk to the 430w and 330es. Check the self test on the TAS
and "FAILED" shows up.
The configuration program is a downloadable exe. for windows that hooks to the
GTS800 via USB connection. You can configure all the settings and diagnose problems.
There is also an assert file you can save as a txt file and email to Garmin
for troubleshooting. Mine returned with a "receive cal" fault, which translates
to coax or/and antenna ground plane. I was pretty confident with my coax
crimping abilities and really believed it was the ground plane size. After a
few attempts of backing plates and wire mesh combinations I finally tried placing
a 20 x 20 scrap sheet of .016 to the top of the cabin. Obviously this is
overhanging the doors and is only for testing purposes. The self test passed with
the giant ground plane on TOP of the cabin. After trying different sizes on
the top and the bottom it was very apparent that I HAD to have a ground plane
on the top of the cabin under the GA58. I don't know how Cirrus does it but
their new planes show the GA58 on the top between the doors. Their span is even
narrower than the RV-10. They must use a mesh inside the glass or carbon fiber.
Just a 10x 18 span of aluminum tape on the top of my cabin worked great. BTW
I also tried grounding the ground plane to the airframe and that had no affect
on passing or failing the self test. I also wrapped aluminum tape from the
inside ground plane/backing plate through the coax hole and made a footprint
of the antenna out of the aluminum tape. I left this on.
I called Garmin and they said to move the antenna to the tailcone area. This wasn't
an option for me. #1 it's not level, #2 my two gps antennas are already there,
#3 too close to my GMU44, #4 too far back on the plane, #5 not inline with
the bottom antenna anymore.
After knowing I had to make a ground plane on the top of the cabin, I slowly cut
it down in size to see how small I could make it while still passing the self
test. I eventually ended up with a 6 x 18 piece of .025 aluminum. I wanted thicker
than .016 so it wouldn't de-laminate from the cabin. Before I attached
it I ran the self test. It passed. I then wanted to epoxy it to the cabin top
and glass over it with a few sheets of fiberglass. I drilled the rivet holes for
cs4-4's and ran the test.....FAILED. WTH??? I thought it was a mistake and
ran it again....FAILED. I couldn't believe it was the rivet holes so I temporarily
taped over them with the aluminum tape......PASSED! Just the open holes caused
the antenna to fail consistently. I thought the rivets in the holes would
cure it and they did. I now have a glassed over ground plane 6 x 18 on the top
of the cabin and it has worked flawlessly for 12 hours now. I still don't know
why the ground plane doesn't work inside the cabin. It must be a distance
from the antenna deal but I tried everything inside.
This is also a good example why I didn't paint my plane before my first flight:)
Attached is a photo of two layers of glass. I put down one more and feathered
it in.
--------
Cust. #40936
RV-10 SB Fuselage
N801VR reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336856#336856
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/photo_822.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leikam <daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com> |
For those flying with the new Bose who have used the old ones, how much better
are the new ones?
David Leikam
RV10
Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Dave, if you've flown with the old and find them completely comfortable and quiet,
the A20's will just be a step up in both but I can't say it's a huge step
up or anything. It's a noticeable difference in quiet, but truthfully the old
X's were plenty quiet. You should really just fly with both or at least the
one you want to buy first, because fit and comfort is of utmost importance. The
biggest difference for me personally is that the A20 ear cups are a bit larger,
so my ears flop in comfortably easier. If you use the X's and find no fit
issue at all, then you probably would like either. If you plan to get 4, you
could do a mix for front and back seats and you're unlikely to have people complain.
You're basically asking "hey, you porsche and Ferrari owners out there...how much
better is a top of the line Ferrari over a top of the line Porsche?". Either
one will make most drivers happy.
I like them both....but I like the A20's just a little more.
One other positive is that it's much easier and cheaper to adapt a Lemo plug a20
to standard jacks with an adapter....so if that interests you, I'd go A20.
The biggest downside is that my X's I could leave powered on all the time and
they'd stay on. The A20's I have to hit the power button to turn on every flight.
The only other major/minor difference is if you plan to use the Bluetooth or music
input.....but most people will do that on their audio panel (the music at
least) anyway.
I'm halfway through my latest trip write up and I mentioned the a20's since this
was the first long trip with them. You'll see that in a couple days when I
can finish typing.
Tim
On Apr 13, 2011, at 11:10 PM, David Leikam wrote:
>
> For those flying with the new Bose who have used the old ones, how much better
are the new ones?
>
> David Leikam
> RV10
> Flying
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TCAS ground plane |
| From: | "jayb" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> |
Nice write up... You are brave to cut into the cabin top. Isn't that a structural
change?
I googled GTS800...
"Feature-rich yet affordably priced, the Garmin GTS 800 system is designed to bring
full TAS traffic surveillance capability well within reach of most GA..."
Almost $9000 for a GTS800. Really? Are there other alternatives out there? I'm
assuming that this is the sort of box the FAA will eventually require all of us
to swallow.
Thanks,
Jay
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336917#336917
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TCAS ground plane |
| From: | "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
I just made a hole for the coax and mounting screws. If anything all the new glass
I put down on it made it stronger.
with NextGen the GTS800 won't be required but ads-b capability might be. I think
it is around 2020??? There are cheaper options I'm sure like the Navworx stuff.
Since I wanted real active interrogated TAS I went with the GTS800. The
ads-b portion was just a bonus and since it received ads-b I thought I would
get the GTX330(es) to send the ads-b out and get the entire loop.
--------
40936
RV-10 SB N801VR Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336919#336919
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
I bought the A20's for my plane. I used them with Scott and compared them to his
x's in his plane. We both could tell quite a difference. Scott has A20's
now. I believe the ANR portion gets "broke in" and over a 5-7 years they start
fading. Maybe Scott's X's were just as good or close when they were new. On
the citation I replaced our old telex ANR 850's for new ones because the material
was coming apart. I couldn't believe how different the new 850's sound
and how loud they were. I had to turn the intercoms and radios way down from
the previous settings.
--------
40936
RV-10 SB N801VR Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336920#336920
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leikam <daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com> |
Thx Tim. I'll wait till OSH. I know comfort is the most important. And I did
try some on at Sun N' Fun and they felt good, but you never know for sure until
you fly with them for an hour or more.
David Leikam
RV10
Flying
On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:46 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Dave, if you've flown with the old and find them completely comfortable and quiet,
the A20's will just be a step up in both but I can't say it's a huge step
up or anything. It's a noticeable difference in quiet, but truthfully the old
X's were plenty quiet. You should really just fly with both or at least the
one you want to buy first, because fit and comfort is of utmost importance.
The biggest difference for me personally is that the A20 ear cups are a bit larger,
so my ears flop in comfortably easier. If you use the X's and find no
fit issue at all, then you probably would like either. If you plan to get 4,
you could do a mix for front and back seats and you're unlikely to have people
complain.
> You're basically asking "hey, you porsche and Ferrari owners out there...how
much better is a top of the line Ferrari over a top of the line Porsche?". Either
one will make most drivers happy.
> I like them both....but I like the A20's just a little more.
> One other positive is that it's much easier and cheaper to adapt a Lemo plug
a20 to standard jacks with an adapter....so if that interests you, I'd go A20.
The biggest downside is that my X's I could leave powered on all the time and
they'd stay on. The A20's I have to hit the power button to turn on every flight.
>
> The only other major/minor difference is if you plan to use the Bluetooth or
music input.....but most people will do that on their audio panel (the music at
least) anyway.
>
> I'm halfway through my latest trip write up and I mentioned the a20's since this
was the first long trip with them. You'll see that in a couple days when
I can finish typing.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2011, at 11:10 PM, David Leikam wrote:
>
>>
>> For those flying with the new Bose who have used the old ones, how much better
are the new ones?
>>
>> David Leikam
>> RV10
>> Flying
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Rosen <N205EN(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Baja Trip Write-Up |
Instead you will be burning holes in the sky and spending your money at
the pump. All with grins ear to ear. :-)
Larry
Having fun with fiberglass and resin
On 4/14/2011 9:31 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I finally got to sit down and finish the Baja Trip write-up.
> I included some other stuff that some people may find interesting
> and others might not. Before the trip I got a new Camera lens
> that worked out great for traveling. It was also the first
> big trip with WingX's latest update, and Foreflight Pro HD,
> and all sorts of new things that I've gathered over the winter
> months. For a while there I was feeling pretty broke. Good thing
> it's spring and I won't be as close to my keyboard where I can
> do online shopping. ;)
>
> http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/Trips/2011_Baja/index.html
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TCAS ground plane |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Do you get FIS-B (ads-b wx) on anything too, or are you getting XM only?
Tim
On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:46 PM, "Strasnuts" wrote:
>
> I just made a hole for the coax and mounting screws. If anything all the new
glass I put down on it made it stronger.
> with NextGen the GTS800 won't be required but ads-b capability might be. I think
it is around 2020??? There are cheaper options I'm sure like the Navworx
stuff. Since I wanted real active interrogated TAS I went with the GTS800.
The ads-b portion was just a bonus and since it received ads-b I thought I would
get the GTX330(es) to send the ads-b out and get the entire loop.
>
> --------
> 40936
> RV-10 SB N801VR Flying
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336919#336919
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TCAS ground plane |
| From: | "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
XM only. It sounds like the GTS800 won't bring in wx. Just traffic. I haven't
read anything on FIS-b in the GTS manuals.
--------
40936
RV-10 SB N801VR Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337004#337004
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
I watched a first flight this evening; I will allow the proud papa the
pleasure of announcing the reasons for his RV grin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Baja Trip Write-Up |
| From: | "jchang10" <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com> |
Wow. I just finished the write-up while waiting for some paint to dry on the project.
Great report! Got a little of everything in that trip.
Jae
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337154#337154
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Baja Trip Write-Up |
For those planning on trips south, http://www.bajabushpilots.com/ Baja Bush
Pilots can be a great resource. You can get comments from pilots who have
just completed trips to the airport you might be considering landing at.
Expected fees, problems, whether they accept dollars, fuel prices, and
reports on the airport or accommodations. Might be worth your while even for
1 trip a year.
Albert Gardner
N991RV
Yuma, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FS: Sikaflex 295UV system for bonding RV-10 windows |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Thunder over Louisville - Cold and windy but still good! |
| From: | Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com> |
Well at least two RV-10 owners made it to "Thunder over Louisville Air Show
and Fireworks". Darned weather was the pits but still got to see some great
flying and fireworks. F-22, C-17 and the Sea Stallion helo are amazing!
The flight tribute with the P-51, F4 Phantom and the F-22 were sweet too.
Heck it's all good!
Always good to meet other RV-10 people!
Jim Combs
N312F - 220 Hours - Still unpainted - Soon!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FS: Sikaflex 295UV system for bonding RV-10 windows |
| From: | "greghale" <ghale5224(at)aol.com> |
Don't know what your question was, but if you are thinking about using the Sikaflex
system for bonding the windows, you can go to my web page link of how I replaced
a windshield using this system. I can highly recommend it for windshield
replacement
http://www.nwacaptain.com/windshield.html
It is very easy to clean up by using mineral spirits. Plenty of time to place
and adjust the windshield position.
Greg...
--------
Greg Hale rv10 -- N210KH
www.nwacaptain.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337240#337240
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FS: Sikaflex 295UV system for bonding RV-10 windows |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
I used this system to install my windows on my RV-10. New from Jamestown Dis
trubters costs over $113 plus shipping. I have one new unopened tube of the 2
95 UV adhesive, and well over 1/2 can of the 209D primer and Aktivator. Prim
er expires in August 2011, Aktivator in September 2011. This is enough to bo
nd in a full set of RV-10 windows.
$75 plus free shipping via FedEx Ground.
-Mike Kraus
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FS: Sikaflex 295UV system for bonding RV-10 windows |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Wasn't there some concern whether Sikaflex provided as strong a bond as
Weld-on?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:50 PM, greghale wrote:
>
> Don't know what your question was, but if you are thinking about using the Sikaflex
system for bonding the windows, you can go to my web page link of how I
replaced a windshield using this system. I can highly recommend it for windshield
replacement
>
> http://www.nwacaptain.com/windshield.html
>
> It is very easy to clean up by using mineral spirits. Plenty of time to place
and adjust the windshield position.
>
> Greg...
>
> --------
> Greg Hale rv10 -- N210KH
> www.nwacaptain.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337240#337240
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!) |
Dear Listers,
At 170 hours on my RV-8 now, the Prop control had become increasing more difficult
to move starting around 100 hours. The Mixture and Throttle have worked fine
and continue to. All three controls use the standard "Green" control cables
from Vans, typically a "CT-Qxx" part.
A couple of weeks ago, I disassembled the Governor end of the assembly and made
sure that there was no binding or issues on that end. I even lightly lubed up
the various moving bits. Yesterday, the Prop control became so difficult to
move that I had trouble cycling the prop during run up. I pulled the whole throttle
quadrant installation apart today to have a look. I got the cable completely
out of the airplane and there are NO outward signs of wear or abuse of
*any kind*. But even with the cable completely out of the plane and nothing
connected to either end, it is almost impossible to move the cable!! I have a
new CT-Q67 cable assembly for my front-mounted governor installation and I'm
going to install that next.
But, I wanted to give everyone a heads up on these CT-Q controls. These things
are built like they go on a Caterpillar Tractor, so I can't figure out why they
would wear out like this.
If one of these controls starts getting stiff and tight, its probably not going
to get any better. Replace it before it becomes a safety issue! Not a big deal
on the Prop control, but on a throttle or mixture it could be a serious concern.
Best regards,
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours Total Time Since May 2 2010 Test Flight!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gary" <speckter(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!) |
Many of these control cables have a plastic liner. If they are routed near
a heat source they tend to melt internally and become difficult to move.
That might be your issue, it was for me.
Gary Specketer
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 5:24 PM
Subject: RV10-List: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!)
Dear Listers,
At 170 hours on my RV-8 now, the Prop control had become increasing more
difficult to move starting around 100 hours. The Mixture and Throttle have
worked fine and continue to. All three controls use the standard "Green"
control cables from Vans, typically a "CT-Qxx" part.
A couple of weeks ago, I disassembled the Governor end of the assembly and
made sure that there was no binding or issues on that end. I even lightly
lubed up the various moving bits. Yesterday, the Prop control became so
difficult to move that I had trouble cycling the prop during run up. I
pulled the whole throttle quadrant installation apart today to have a look.
I got the cable completely out of the airplane and there are NO outward
signs of wear or abuse of *any kind*. But even with the cable completely
out of the plane and nothing connected to either end, it is almost
impossible to move the cable!! I have a new CT-Q67 cable assembly for my
front-mounted governor installation and I'm going to install that next.
But, I wanted to give everyone a heads up on these CT-Q controls. These
things are built like they go on a Caterpillar Tractor, so I can't figure
out why they would wear out like this.
If one of these controls starts getting stiff and tight, its probably not
going to get any better. Replace it before it becomes a safety issue! Not
a big deal on the Prop control, but on a throttle or mixture it could be a
serious concern.
Best regards,
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours Total Time Since May 2 2010 Test Flight!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thunder over Louisville - Cold and windy but still good! |
| From: | "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)yahoo.com> |
Glad you enjoyed the show. I am looking forward to joining you guys this fall.
Finished cabin cover finally! Pin hole/filler epoxy coat curing now. Working on
some panel/wiring before installing on gear.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
Fuselage Sec 45 Doors/Transparencies- 1228 hrs to date.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337282#337282
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!) |
Contact John in purchasing at Vans; I had the same problem (at 400 TT) with
quadrant prop and mixture; He acknowledged that these are made from
Cablecraft Tuthill parts by an Oregon company and should last to TBO. It was
a PITA changing these with the engine on the airframe.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 3:23 PM
Subject: RV10-List: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!)
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> At 170 hours on my RV-8 now, the Prop control had become increasing more
> difficult to move starting around 100 hours. The Mixture and Throttle
> have worked fine and continue to. All three controls use the standard
> "Green" control cables from Vans, typically a "CT-Qxx" part.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I disassembled the Governor end of the assembly and
> made sure that there was no binding or issues on that end. I even lightly
> lubed up the various moving bits. Yesterday, the Prop control became so
> difficult to move that I had trouble cycling the prop during run up. I
> pulled the whole throttle quadrant installation apart today to have a
> look. I got the cable completely out of the airplane and there are NO
> outward signs of wear or abuse of *any kind*. But even with the cable
> completely out of the plane and nothing connected to either end, it is
> almost impossible to move the cable!! I have a new CT-Q67 cable assembly
> for my front-mounted governor installation and I'm going to install that
> next.
>
> But, I wanted to give everyone a heads up on these CT-Q controls. These
> things are built like they go on a Caterpillar Tractor, so I can't figure
> out why they would wear out like this.
>
> If one of these controls starts getting stiff and tight, its probably not
> going to get any better. Replace it before it becomes a safety issue!
> Not a big deal on the Prop control, but on a throttle or mixture it could
> be a serious concern.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matt
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours Total Time Since May 2 2010 Test Flight!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!) |
Routing of my cables was per Vans specifications and they were protected by
additional external heat sleeves
----- Original Message -----
From: "gary" <speckter(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!)
>
> Many of these control cables have a plastic liner. If they are routed
> near
> a heat source they tend to melt internally and become difficult to move.
> That might be your issue, it was for me.
>
> Gary Specketer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 5:24 PM
> To: rv9-list(at)matronics.com; rv10-list(at)matronics.com;
> rv12-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!)
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> At 170 hours on my RV-8 now, the Prop control had become increasing more
> difficult to move starting around 100 hours. The Mixture and Throttle
> have
> worked fine and continue to. All three controls use the standard "Green"
> control cables from Vans, typically a "CT-Qxx" part.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I disassembled the Governor end of the assembly and
> made sure that there was no binding or issues on that end. I even lightly
> lubed up the various moving bits. Yesterday, the Prop control became so
> difficult to move that I had trouble cycling the prop during run up. I
> pulled the whole throttle quadrant installation apart today to have a
> look.
> I got the cable completely out of the airplane and there are NO outward
> signs of wear or abuse of *any kind*. But even with the cable completely
> out of the plane and nothing connected to either end, it is almost
> impossible to move the cable!! I have a new CT-Q67 cable assembly for my
> front-mounted governor installation and I'm going to install that next.
>
> But, I wanted to give everyone a heads up on these CT-Q controls. These
> things are built like they go on a Caterpillar Tractor, so I can't figure
> out why they would wear out like this.
>
> If one of these controls starts getting stiff and tight, its probably not
> going to get any better. Replace it before it becomes a safety issue!
> Not
> a big deal on the Prop control, but on a throttle or mixture it could be a
> serious concern.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matt
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours Total Time Since May 2 2010 Test Flight!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FS: Sikaflex 295UV system for bonding RV-10 windows |
| From: | "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)yahoo.com> |
I also have a partial tube of Weld-On 45 and some mixing tubes an RV-10 builder
can have for shipping along with borrowing the gun. I want the $102 gun back
when finished. Bond strength is 2000 vs 2200 psi for Weld On 10 and the viscosity
makes it much easier to fill gaps and almost no runs/clean up afterwards.
I don't believe the 200 psi difference will cause me any problems. I tested plexiglass/aluminum/fiberglass
samples and it holds better than West epoxy on all
three. You need two 13.5 oz cartridges(approx $35/ea) and you will have a least
1/2 tube leftover. Costs are just slightly more than Weld On 10 since you
don't have to buy the gun. Get your cartridges/mixing tubes from The Engineer
Guy in Atlanta.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
Fuselage Sec 45 Doors/Transparencies- 1228 hrs to date.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337287#337287
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Good Monday morning....
The J.O.B. is slowing down a bit and that's giving me a chance to get
started on the airplane again. :)
Last night I was installing the door pins in one of the doors and while I
can operate them with one hand I still feel like they're tight. I put a
slight bend in the rear pin but that didn't seem to help too much. The only
thing I can figure is that it's simply drag between the pins and the delrin
blocks.
Is there a lube that others have used to free up the friction?
I'm using Sean's kit if that matters.
Thanks,
Phil "Finally back to building!" Perry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Pin Lube? |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
I put a few drops of Triflow on mine, but Boelube is probably just as
good. Mainly want something that is a dry paraffin or silicone type
lube, that won't attract dirt.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> Good Monday morning....
>
> The J.O.B. is slowing down a bit and that's giving me a chance to get
> started on the airplane again. :)
>
> Last night I was installing the door pins in one of the doors and while I
> can operate them with one hand I still feel like they're tight. I put a
> slight bend in the rear pin but that didn't seem to help too much. The only
> thing I can figure is that it's simply drag between the pins and the delrin
> blocks.
>
> Is there a lube that others have used to free up the friction?
>
> I'm using Sean's kit if that matters.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil "Finally back to building!" Perry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Door Pin Lube? |
Do yourself a huge favor. Toss the delrin and get the aluminum.
You=99ll find the door will close easier and it will be much more
secure than the Delrin blocks.
From: Phillip Perry
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 8:24 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Door Pin Lube?
Good Monday morning....
The J.O.B. is slowing down a bit and that's giving me a chance to get
started on the airplane again. :)
Last night I was installing the door pins in one of the doors and while
I can operate them with one hand I still feel like they're tight. I put
a slight bend in the rear pin but that didn't seem to help too much.
The only thing I can figure is that it's simply drag between the pins
and the delrin blocks.
Is there a lube that others have used to free up the friction?
I'm using Sean's kit if that matters.
Thanks,
Phil "Finally back to building!" Perry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Pin Lube? |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Delrin is NOT the problem. UHMW that Vans supplies is the problem.
Specifically the pin guides on the door itself. Delrin is an
excellent self lubing material, much more resistant to wear, harder
material than the UHMW. Does someone offer pin guides for the door in
other than Van's UHMW? The stuff that Sean and Steve(iflyrv10) are the
door frame side guides.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Pascal wrote:
> Do yourself a huge favor. Toss the delrin and get the aluminum. Youll find
> the door will close easier and it will be much more secure than the Delrin
> blocks.
>
> From: Phillip Perry
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 8:24 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Door Pin Lube?
>
> Good Monday morning....
>
> The J.O.B. is slowing down a bit and that's giving me a chance to get
> started on the airplane again. :)
>
> Last night I was installing the door pins in one of the doors and while I
> can operate them with one hand I still feel like they're tight. I put a
> slight bend in the rear pin but that didn't seem to help too much. The only
> thing I can figure is that it's simply drag between the pins and the delrin
> blocks.
>
> Is there a lube that others have used to free up the friction?
>
> I'm using Sean's kit if that matters.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil "Finally back to building!" Perry
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Pin Lube? |
| From: | Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
My door pin guides (180) kit and my fuselage guides come in Delrin.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:00, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Delrin is NOT the problem. UHMW that Vans supplies is the problem.
> Specifically the pin guides on the door itself. Delrin is an
> excellent self lubing material, much more resistant to wear, harder
> material than the UHMW. Does someone offer pin guides for the door in
> other than Van's UHMW? The stuff that Sean and Steve(iflyrv10) are the
> door frame side guides.
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Pascal wrote:
>> Do yourself a huge favor. Toss the delrin and get the aluminum. Youll find
>> the door will close easier and it will be much more secure than the Delrin
>> blocks.
>>
>> From: Phillip Perry
>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 8:24 AM
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV10-List: Door Pin Lube?
>>
>> Good Monday morning....
>>
>> The J.O.B. is slowing down a bit and that's giving me a chance to get
>> started on the airplane again. :)
>>
>> Last night I was installing the door pins in one of the doors and while I
>> can operate them with one hand I still feel like they're tight. I put a
>> slight bend in the rear pin but that didn't seem to help too much. The only
>> thing I can figure is that it's simply drag between the pins and the delrin
>> blocks.
>>
>> Is there a lube that others have used to free up the friction?
>>
>> I'm using Sean's kit if that matters.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Phil "Finally back to building!" Perry
>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Pin Lube? |
| From: | Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
Phil.
It is probably not the Delrin. Does your handle turn easy if the door is ope
n? Do you think it is the alignment on the fuselage guides or the door guid
es? If it is on the fuselage try paralleling the pushrod movement into the f
uselage guide with a 7/16 reamer. Feel free to call me. I have done a bunch o
f these.
8015803737
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:24, Phillip Perry wrote:
> Good Monday morning....
>
> The J.O.B. is slowing down a bit and that's giving me a chance to get star
ted on the airplane again. :)
>
> Last night I was installing the door pins in one of the doors and while I c
an operate them with one hand I still feel like they're tight. I put a slig
ht bend in the rear pin but that didn't seem to help too much. The only thi
ng I can figure is that it's simply drag between the pins and the delrin blo
cks.
>
> Is there a lube that others have used to free up the friction?
>
> I'm using Sean's kit if that matters.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil "Finally back to building!" Perry
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Pin Lube? |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Does someone offer pin guides for the door in other than Van's UHMW?
Yeah - Sean's kit is delrin. It's much nicer, smoother, and harder than the
UHMW that shipped with Vans.
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!) |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Instrument Sales and Service on Airport Way, Portland, OR. They
manufacture for the OEM and will make any length, got a set once in 20
minutes during a lunch 1/2 hour. The initial lengths can sometimes be
problematically too short or slightly too long. Just right is a good
thing.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DLM
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!)
Contact John in purchasing at Vans; I had the same problem (at 400 TT)
with
quadrant prop and mixture; He acknowledged that these are made from
Cablecraft Tuthill parts by an Oregon company and should last to TBO. It
was
a PITA changing these with the engine on the airframe.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 3:23 PM
Subject: RV10-List: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!)
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> At 170 hours on my RV-8 now, the Prop control had become increasing
more
> difficult to move starting around 100 hours. The Mixture and Throttle
> have worked fine and continue to. All three controls use the standard
> "Green" control cables from Vans, typically a "CT-Qxx" part.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I disassembled the Governor end of the assembly
and
> made sure that there was no binding or issues on that end. I even
lightly
> lubed up the various moving bits. Yesterday, the Prop control became
so
> difficult to move that I had trouble cycling the prop during run up.
I
> pulled the whole throttle quadrant installation apart today to have a
> look. I got the cable completely out of the airplane and there are NO
> outward signs of wear or abuse of *any kind*. But even with the cable
> completely out of the plane and nothing connected to either end, it is
> almost impossible to move the cable!! I have a new CT-Q67 cable
assembly
> for my front-mounted governor installation and I'm going to install
that
> next.
>
> But, I wanted to give everyone a heads up on these CT-Q controls.
These
> things are built like they go on a Caterpillar Tractor, so I can't
figure
> out why they would wear out like this.
>
> If one of these controls starts getting stiff and tight, its probably
not
> going to get any better. Replace it before it becomes a safety issue!
> Not a big deal on the Prop control, but on a throttle or mixture it
could
> be a serious concern.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matt
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours Total Time Since May 2 2010 Test Flight!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Pin Lube? |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Sean,
It's still simply sitting on the bench. I haven't bolted it to the airframe
and drilled those holes yet.
Phil
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Seano wrote:
> Phil.
>
> It is probably not the Delrin. Does your handle turn easy if the door is
> open? Do you think it is the alignment on the fuselage guides or the door
> guides? If it is on the fuselage try paralleling the pushrod movement into
> the fuselage guide with a 7/16 reamer. Feel free to call me. I have done a
> bunch of these.
> 8015803737
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Pin Lube? |
| From: | Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
I dont have my computer with me so I can't tell you you bought the 90 or the
180 kit. If you want the delrin sleeves for the door guides Let me know. Th
ey come with the 180 kits. The whole mechanism should have little drag even
after everything is installed with the seal in place.
Sean
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:26, Phillip Perry wrote:
> Sean,
>
> It's still simply sitting on the bench. I haven't bolted it to the airfra
me and drilled those holes yet.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Seano wrote:
> Phil.
>
> It is probably not the Delrin. Does your handle turn easy if the door is o
pen? Do you think it is the alignment on the fuselage guides or the door gu
ides? If it is on the fuselage try paralleling the pushrod movement into th
e fuselage guide with a 7/16 reamer. Feel free to call me. I have done a bun
ch of these.
> 8015803737
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Pin Lube? |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
I'm a 180 kind of guy. I think it's simply friction because they are pretty
firm to push on.
Phil
On Apr 18, 2011 11:53 AM, "Seano" wrote:
> I dont have my computer with me so I can't tell you you bought the 90 or
the 180 kit. If you want the delrin sleeves for the door guides Let me know.
They come with the 180 kits. The whole mechanism should have little drag
even after everything is installed with the seal in place.
>
>
> Sean
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:26, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
>> Sean,
>>
>> It's still simply sitting on the bench. I haven't bolted it to the
airframe and drilled those holes yet.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Seano wrote:
>> Phil.
>>
>> It is probably not the Delrin. Does your handle turn easy if the door is
open? Do you think it is the alignment on the fuselage guides or the door
guides? If it is on the fuselage try paralleling the pushrod movement into
the fuselage guide with a 7/16 reamer. Feel free to call me. I have done a
bunch of these.
>> 8015803737
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
> ===================================
> ===================================
> ===================================
> ===================================
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gary" <speckter(at)comcast.net> |
Do not!!!!!!! Get silicone any where near your unpainted aircraft. It
causes fish eyes when you go to paint, and it migrates everywhere.
Gary Specketer
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Door Pin Lube?
I put a few drops of Triflow on mine, but Boelube is probably just as
good. Mainly want something that is a dry paraffin or silicone type
lube, that won't attract dirt.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> Good Monday morning....
>
> The J.O.B. is slowing down a bit and that's giving me a chance to get
> started on the airplane again. :)
>
> Last night I was installing the door pins in one of the doors and while I
> can operate them with one hand I still feel like they're tight. I put a
> slight bend in the rear pin but that didn't seem to help too much. The
only
> thing I can figure is that it's simply drag between the pins and the
delrin
> blocks.
>
> Is there a lube that others have used to free up the friction?
>
> I'm using Sean's kit if that matters.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil "Finally back to building!" Perry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Pin Lube? |
| From: | "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)yahoo.com> |
I opened the holes on Sean's kit and on Van's uhmw/bulkheads until friction was
where I liked it. If you don't take care of the increased drag of the doors now
it will really increase once on the plane. I also took a chunk of boelube and
rubbed it across all gear teeth then used a propane torch to melt it in slightly
before final latch assembly(no fiberglass nearby during this procedure).
Smooth as can be now. If you look back in the holes in the airframe once your
doors are on and latches actuated, you will notice areas that are darker than
others. Those are the areas to take down some. I sanded with 180 then vacuumed
holes out. I put a small amount of vaseline on mine. Hey, whatever works to
decrease the friction right? My doors sitting static are 1/4" away from cabin
surface and I can close with thumb on the button release and one finger on the
handle. Thanks again Sean for my extra safety latch that does not stick out of
the door exterior and require another hand to operate.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337438#337438
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
While rigging the pins, I had no real friction when the bolts that hold
the aluminum guides to the fuselage were loose. When they were tight
however, the friction was there. The fix was to put some epoxy/cabosil
between the blocks and fuselage, install the bolts , but do not tighten,
close the door with the pins engaged (with mold release on them) and let
harden.
The results were that the blocks are now aligned with the pins and the
pins engage with no friction.
Chris Hukill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bose X headset for sale |
| From: | Sohrab Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com> |
Ron, I have been caught up in travel. Sorry for the delay after our phone conversation.
I will take one 2009 model. Will pay however you are comfortable. Call or email.
772-418-1417.
Rob Kermanj
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 11, 2011, at 3:57 PM, "Ron B." wrote:
>
> I tried to send you the serial # but the e-mail address flysrv10(at)gmail.com
was returned undeliverable . I used @ instead of (at) .
> Ron
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=336653#336653
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "greghale" <ghale5224(at)aol.com> |
Hey everyone,
If you didn't see it in the paper, the tv show ICE PILOTS starts Friday on the
National Geographic channel. I saw this in Calgary last year and was really fascinated
with the show. They are in production of season 2, but we the USA will
get season 1 this year.
Greg...
--------
Greg Hale rv10 -- N210KH
www.nwacaptain.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337641#337641
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com> |
That's great! I was able to see about six bootlegged episodes before they w
ere removed from the net. Great show if you like round engines.
> Subject: RV10-List: ICE PILOTS
> From: ghale5224(at)aol.com
> Date: Wed=2C 20 Apr 2011 16:48:30 -0700
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Hey everyone=2C
>
> If you didn't see it in the paper=2C the tv show ICE PILOTS starts Friday
on the National Geographic channel. I saw this in Calgary last year and w
as really fascinated with the show. They are in production of season 2=2C
but we the USA will get season 1 this year.
>
> Greg...
>
> --------
> Greg Hale rv10 -- N210KH
> www.nwacaptain.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337641#337641
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bose X headset for sale |
| From: | "Ron B." <ronbelliveau(at)eastlink.ca> |
Rob
I noticed I had my old e-mail listed on here. I've updated it on here, so give
it a try.
Ron
P.S. I contacted my friend (airplane partner) Allister, and he's looking for payment
options. He's doing the deal!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337723#337723
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Control surface balancing |
| From: | "Lew Gallagher" <lewgall(at)charter.net> |
Hey guys,
This comes under the category of things I still need to learn. I was listening
to a discussion at the hangar the other day about what a huge "no-no" it was
when a certified plane got sent off for a paint job and came back with paint on
the connections of the control surfaces. The conclusion was that the control
surfaces had not been removed after painting to be rebalanced ... big stink
with FAA involvement.
I think I vaguely remember someone mentioning here about balancing control surfaces,
but I've never run across any instructions in the RV-10 build process about
what the specs might be and how to balance. Not knowing anything different,
I just painted everything in pieces on Wes's plane before final assembly,
put it together, and no problems, he says it flies beautifully.
Now I'm concerned. Any info out there?
Thanks, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
Fly off completed !
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337758#337758
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
For those of you using APRS: What antenna are you using and where did you
mount it.
Rene'
N423CF
801-721-6080
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Control surface balancing |
I had the same issue. Building my 8A I carefully trimmed the elevator
weights to get exact balance, then found I needed to add some additional
lead after paint to rebalance the elevators (the vast majority of the paint
is aft of the hinge line). Building the 10 I noted the elevators are way
trailing edge heavy using the weights in the kit. I sent a note to Van's
about this and the reply was along the line of 'that is correct, that is how
it is supposed to be'.
Bottom line, the elevators are nowhere near balance, paint or no paint.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lew Gallagher
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 9:50 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Control surface balancing
Hey guys,
This comes under the category of things I still need to learn. I was
listening to a discussion at the hangar the other day about what a huge
"no-no" it was when a certified plane got sent off for a paint job and came
back with paint on the connections of the control surfaces. The conclusion
was that the control surfaces had not been removed after painting to be
rebalanced ... big stink with FAA involvement.
I think I vaguely remember someone mentioning here about balancing control
surfaces, but I've never run across any instructions in the RV-10 build
process about what the specs might be and how to balance. Not knowing
anything different, I just painted everything in pieces on Wes's plane
before final assembly, put it together, and no problems, he says it flies
beautifully.
Now I'm concerned. Any info out there?
Thanks, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
Fly off completed !
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337758#337758
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Control surface balancing |
>From VANS, Scott R:
Chris, Balance limits are a 'maximum' so if your measurements fall anywhere
between zero and the limit, you're good. We've done extensive GVT (ground
vibration testing) and flight testing on the RV-10. The intent is to be
able to trim the weights according to the plans (if called out), bolt them
in and be well within the limits. We put the balance limits in the flight
test section because some builders alter the control surfaces during
construction...additional or different trim mechanisms, skin thicknesses
etc.
If your control surfaces are built according to the plans and your paint job
is not 'extreme', you should easily fall within the limits.
If you chose to check the balance, (excluding the rudder) you can just
disconnect the specific control surface from any control linkage (weight
elevators separately), get it in the level flight attitude and put a scale
under the trailing edge. The rudder would have to be removed, of course to
do this.
scott at van's
-Chris
#40072 (out of paint)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lew Gallagher
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 9:50 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Control surface balancing
Hey guys,
This comes under the category of things I still need to learn. I was
listening to a discussion at the hangar the other day about what a huge
"no-no" it was when a certified plane got sent off for a paint job and came
back with paint on the connections of the control surfaces. The conclusion
was that the control surfaces had not been removed after painting to be
rebalanced ... big stink with FAA involvement.
I think I vaguely remember someone mentioning here about balancing control
surfaces, but I've never run across any instructions in the RV-10 build
process about what the specs might be and how to balance. Not knowing
anything different, I just painted everything in pieces on Wes's plane
before final assembly, put it together, and no problems, he says it flies
beautifully.
Now I'm concerned. Any info out there?
Thanks, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
Fly off completed !
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337758#337758
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: APRS Antenna |
a stubby inside the tail fairing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 6:52 PM
Subject: RV10-List: APRS Antenna
>
> For those of you using APRS: What antenna are you using and where did you
> mount it.
>
> Rene'
> N423CF
> 801-721-6080
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Gonzalez <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Control surface balancing |
Excellent=2C thank you for sharing the information!
> From: toaster73(at)embarqmail.com
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Control surface balancing
> Date: Thu=2C 21 Apr 2011 22:37:28 -0400
>
>
> >From VANS=2C Scott R:
>
> Chris=2C Balance limits are a 'maximum' so if your measurements fall any
where
> between zero and the limit=2C you're good. We've done extensive GVT (gro
und
> vibration testing) and flight testing on the RV-10. The intent is to be
> able to trim the weights according to the plans (if called out)=2C bolt t
hem
> in and be well within the limits. We put the balance limits in the fligh
t
> test section because some builders alter the control surfaces during
> construction...additional or different trim mechanisms=2C skin thicknesse
s
> etc.
>
> If your control surfaces are built according to the plans and your paint
job
> is not 'extreme'=2C you should easily fall within the limits.
>
> If you chose to check the balance=2C (excluding the rudder) you can just
> disconnect the specific control surface from any control linkage (weight
> elevators separately)=2C get it in the level flight attitude and put a sc
ale
> under the trailing edge. The rudder would have to be removed=2C of cours
e to
> do this.
>
> scott at van's
>
> -Chris
> #40072 (out of paint)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lew Gallagher
> Sent: Thursday=2C April 21=2C 2011 9:50 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Control surface balancing
>
>
> Hey guys=2C
>
> This comes under the category of things I still need to learn. I was
> listening to a discussion at the hangar the other day about what a huge
> "no-no" it was when a certified plane got sent off for a paint job and ca
me
> back with paint on the connections of the control surfaces. The conclusi
on
> was that the control surfaces had not been removed after painting to be
> rebalanced ... big stink with FAA involvement.
>
> I think I vaguely remember someone mentioning here about balancing contro
l
> surfaces=2C but I've never run across any instructions in the RV-10 buil
d
> process about what the specs might be and how to balance. Not knowing
> anything different=2C I just painted everything in pieces on Wes's plane
> before final assembly=2C put it together=2C and no problems=2C he says it
flies
> beautifully.
>
> Now I'm concerned. Any info out there?
>
> Thanks=2C - Lew
>
> --------
> non-pilot
> crazy about building
> NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
> Fly off completed !
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337758#337758
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control surface balancing |
| From: | "Lew Gallagher" <lewgall(at)charter.net> |
Ahhh, it's in the TEST section! Thanks, I'll check it out.
More reason to know -- I'm closing in on experimenting with Linn's idea of using
a microcontoller and high torque model airplane servos IN the aileron and rudder
for trim. That would definitely change the balance, so I will find the axis
of rotation, mount a counterbalance, etc. but I need that reference first.
Later, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
Fly off completed !
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337793#337793
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com> |
I'm probably the last to know but it appears runwayfinder agreed to a
flightprep license and is back in operation. Flightprep's actions really
pisses me off.
I worked for a software/web company a while back that ended up settling a
patent lawsuit filed against it for $2M. The money was paid out of the
proceeds from the sale of the company. The suing company did not make any
money they just covered their costs. The lawyers combined from both sides
netted somewhere between $3-4M in roughly a 2 year process. The patent
clearly did not apply using the laws of common sense (and probably would not
have held up in continuing the trial) but in the end was cheaper to settle
than continue to fight it.
I hope that flight-un-prep withers and dies
Ben Westfall
PDX
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control surface balancing |
| From: | Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com> |
FWIW, someone at Van's told me to just bolt the counterweights on as-is and
don't worry about it.
The tail-heavy limits for elevator balance listed in the flight test doc
seem really generous. I don't have paint yet, but even with paint, I'd be
surprised if I got near the limit.
-Rob
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:28 PM, John Gonzalez wrote:
> Excellent, thank you for sharing the information!
>
> > From: toaster73(at)embarqmail.com
>
> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Control surface balancing
> > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 22:37:28 -0400
>
> >
> >
> > >From VANS, Scott R:
> >
> > Chris, Balance limits are a 'maximum' so if your measurements fall
> anywhere
> > between zero and the limit, you're good. We've done extensive GVT (ground
> > vibration testing) and flight testing on the RV-10. The intent is to be
> > able to trim the weights according to the plans (if called out), bolt
> them
> > in and be well within the limits. We put the balance limits in the flight
> > test section because some builders alter the control surfaces during
> > construction...additional or different trim mechanisms, skin thicknesses
> > etc.
> >
> > If your control surfaces are built according to the plans and your paint
> job
> > is not 'extreme', you should easily fall within the limits.
> >
> > If you chose to check the balance, (excluding the rudder) you can just
> > disconnect the specific control surface from any control linkage (weight
> > elevators separately), get it in the level flight attitude and put a
> scale
> > under the trailing edge. The rudder would have to be removed, of course
> to
> > do this.
> >
> > scott at van's
> >
> > -Chris
> > #40072 (out of paint)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lew Gallagher
> > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 9:50 PM
> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RV10-List: Control surface balancing
> >
> >
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > This comes under the category of things I still need to learn. I was
> > listening to a discussion at the hangar the other day about what a huge
> > "no-no" it was when a certified plane got sent off for a paint job and
> came
> > back with paint on the connections of the control surfaces. The
> conclusion
> > was that the control surfaces had not been removed after painting to be
> > rebalanced ... big stink with FAA involvement.
> >
> > I think I vaguely remember someone mentioning here about balancing
> control
> > surfaces, but I've never run across any instructions in the RV-10 build
> > process about what the specs might be and how to balance. Not knowing
> > anything different, I just painted everything in pieces on Wes's plane
> > before final assembly, put it together, and no problems, he says it flies
> > beautifully.
> >
> > Now I'm concerned. Any info out there?
> >
> > Thanks, - Lew
> >
> > --------
> > non-pilot
> > crazy about building
> > NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
> > Fly off completed !
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=337758#337758
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> &============
> >
> >
> >
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying, Phase 1
http://kochman.net/N819K
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Airguide's new Flight Guide |
I have recently received the new format flight Guide. While I like the
inclusion of more material I don't like the larger size and increasing
coverage of the US from 3 smaller volumes to 6 larger ones. I ordered mine
in the punched binder format so that I can remove states and pages I don't
need on long cross country flights. My smaller format fit well in my glove
box but the larger format won't. (My friend put a small piece of Velcro on
the back of his small volume so it would stick to his carpet on the tunnel.)
I guess I'll get used to it but I'm old fashioned - change is bad.
(Electronic ignition, GPS, XM weather, moving map wasn't change, just
"improvements".)
Albert Gardner
N991RV
Yuma, AZ
(Is there an iPad in my future?)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Mekler" <amekler(at)metrocast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
Tim,
I starting using the Dual xgps150 Bluetooth gps with my ipad2. It works
great and has an app that shows battery life as well as satellites and
displays your position on Google earth. It locks on fast. I=99m
using foreflight and considering changing to wingX when my foreflight
subscription expires in May. One thing I don=99t like about
foreflight is the plane moves and you have to move the map image to keep
up with it. This requires attention constantly if you are zoomed in. Is
wing X the same way? If would be nice to have a moving map program on
the IPAD not a moving airplane.
Alan
N668G
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
I didn't really care about altitude. IMHO, lateral is really the only
thing that matters. Trusting any cheap gps for vertical guidance isn't
something I'd want to to. That said, my ipad 2 gps was pretty close to
actual altitude when I looked a couple times on this trip. But, you're
better off using baro altitudes. If you're relying on the ipad to be a
backup vertical approach gps, bad elf or not, you're putting too much
faith in it.
Tim
On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
My internal was absolutely perfect last night on the iPad 2.
On Apr 10, 2011 9:30 AM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
>
>
> How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice substantial
> improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude, not so
> much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad Elf vs
> internal?
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my
AT&T or verizon ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you
can't put it in full airplane mode. Other than that, it works well. I
wish the gps chip was separate and you could turn it on separately. But
what Jason said works good.
> > Tim
>
>
============
st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
============
.matronics.com
============
Dralle, List Admin.
p://www.matronics.com/contribution
============
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Awesome. Sorry so short...am driving. Just checked it in the car and Wingx m
oves the map so it would work.
Tim
On Apr 23, 2011, at 10:39 PM, "Alan Mekler" wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I starting using the Dual xgps150 Bluetooth gps with my ipad2. It works gr
eat and has an app that shows battery life as well as satellites and display
s your position on Google earth. It locks on fast. I=99m using forefli
ght and considering changing to wingX when my foreflight subscription expire
s in May. One thing I don=99t like about foreflight is the plane moves
and you have to move the map image to keep up with it. This requires attent
ion constantly if you are zoomed in. Is wing X the same way? If would be ni
ce to have a moving map program on the IPAD not a moving airplane.
>
> Alan
>
> N668G
>
>
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 11:46 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
>
>
>
> I didn't really care about altitude. IMHO, lateral is really the only thi
ng that matters. Trusting any cheap gps for vertical guidance isn't somethi
ng I'd want to to. That said, my ipad 2 gps was pretty close to actual alti
tude when I looked a couple times on this trip. But, you're better off usin
g baro altitudes. If you're relying on the ipad to be a backup vertical app
roach gps, bad elf or not, you're putting too much faith in it.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> My internal was absolutely perfect last night on the iPad 2.
> On Apr 10, 2011 9:30 AM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
> >
> >
> > How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice substantial
> > improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude, not so
> > much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad Elf vs
> > internal?
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my AT&T o
r verizon ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you can't put it i
n full airplane mode. Other than that, it works well. I wish the gps chip w
as separate and you could turn it on separately. But what Jason said works g
ood.
> > > Tim
> >
> >
> ============
> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ============
> .matronics.com
> ============
> Dralle, List Admin.
> p://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ============
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
Foreflight moves the map, you just need to hit the little arrow or triangle i
con. It will recenter the map on the plane and keep the plane in the center
of the map. Unless you touch and zoom or zoom out, then you need to hit th
e little arrow icon again.
I haven't used WingX yet, but I absolutely love Foreflight!
-Mike Kraus
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 23, 2011, at 11:39 PM, "Alan Mekler" wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I starting using the Dual xgps150 Bluetooth gps with my ipad2. It works gr
eat and has an app that shows battery life as well as satellites and display
s your position on Google earth. It locks on fast. I=99m using forefli
ght and considering changing to wingX when my foreflight subscription expire
s in May. One thing I don=99t like about foreflight is the plane moves
and you have to move the map image to keep up with it. This requires attent
ion constantly if you are zoomed in. Is wing X the same way? If would be ni
ce to have a moving map program on the IPAD not a moving airplane.
>
> Alan
>
> N668G
>
>
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 11:46 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
>
>
>
> I didn't really care about altitude. IMHO, lateral is really the only thi
ng that matters. Trusting any cheap gps for vertical guidance isn't somethi
ng I'd want to to. That said, my ipad 2 gps was pretty close to actual alti
tude when I looked a couple times on this trip. But, you're better off usin
g baro altitudes. If you're relying on the ipad to be a backup vertical app
roach gps, bad elf or not, you're putting too much faith in it.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> My internal was absolutely perfect last night on the iPad 2.
> On Apr 10, 2011 9:30 AM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
> >
> >
> > How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice substantial
> > improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude, not so
> > much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad Elf vs
> > internal?
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my AT&T o
r verizon ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you can't put it i
n full airplane mode. Other than that, it works well. I wish the gps chip w
as separate and you could turn it on separately. But what Jason said works g
ood.
> > > Tim
> >
> >
> ============
> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ============
> .matronics.com
> ============
> Dralle, List Admin.
> p://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ============
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Mekler" <amekler(at)metrocast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
Tim,
I just got this reply from foreflight. I don=99t have the HD
version. Deciding which on to go with .
Alan
Hi Alan,
No problem. The charts in ForeFlight HD can be used in either mode
(moving map/moving airplane). To toggle this, use the crosshairs icon in
the far upper right of the 'Maps' view.
Note that if you toggle this on, the map will stay centered on your
aircraft and you won't have to pan the map- but if you *do* pan the map
manually, the auto-center feature disengages, so you'd need to use the
icon again to re-engage.
Give that a try and let us know if you continue to have difficulty or
any other questions arise -- we're happy to help!
Best Regards,
Jeff Schuster
ForeFlight Customer Support
ForeFlight LLC
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
Awesome. Sorry so short...am driving. Just checked it in the car and
Wingx moves the map so it would work.
Tim
On Apr 23, 2011, at 10:39 PM, "Alan Mekler"
wrote:
Tim,
I starting using the Dual xgps150 Bluetooth gps with my ipad2. It works
great and has an app that shows battery life as well as satellites and
displays your position on Google earth. It locks on fast. I=99m
using foreflight and considering changing to wingX when my foreflight
subscription expires in May. One thing I don=99t like about
foreflight is the plane moves and you have to move the map image to keep
up with it. This requires attention constantly if you are zoomed in. Is
wing X the same way? If would be nice to have a moving map program on
the IPAD not a moving airplane.
Alan
N668G
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
I didn't really care about altitude. IMHO, lateral is really the only
thing that matters. Trusting any cheap gps for vertical guidance isn't
something I'd want to to. That said, my ipad 2 gps was pretty close to
actual altitude when I looked a couple times on this trip. But, you're
better off using baro altitudes. If you're relying on the ipad to be a
backup vertical approach gps, bad elf or not, you're putting too much
faith in it.
Tim
On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
My internal was absolutely perfect last night on the iPad 2.
On Apr 10, 2011 9:30 AM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
>
>
> How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice substantial
> improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude, not so
> much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad Elf vs
> internal?
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my
AT&T or verizon ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you
can't put it in full airplane mode. Other than that, it works well. I
wish the gps chip was separate and you could turn it on separately. But
what Jason said works good.
> > Tim
>
>
============
st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
============
.matronics.com
============
Dralle, List Admin.
p://www.matronics.com/contribution
============
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=========
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
=========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
=========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Foreflight centering button |
| From: | Sheldon Olesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net> |
Hi Alan,
Foreflight does have a centering button. It is in the upper right corner of the
map page-- it is a circle with 4 short lines on the cardial points. It took
me awhile to find it too.
Sheldon Olesen
N475PV.
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Mekler" <amekler(at)metrocast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
Mike,
I don=99t have the HD version so I don=99t have this
feature.
Alan
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Kraus
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
Foreflight moves the map, you just need to hit the little arrow or
triangle icon. It will recenter the map on the plane and keep the plane
in the center of the map. Unless you touch and zoom or zoom out, then
you need to hit the little arrow icon again.
I haven't used WingX yet, but I absolutely love Foreflight!
-Mike Kraus
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 23, 2011, at 11:39 PM, "Alan Mekler"
wrote:
Tim,
I starting using the Dual xgps150 Bluetooth gps with my ipad2. It works
great and has an app that shows battery life as well as satellites and
displays your position on Google earth. It locks on fast. I=99m
using foreflight and considering changing to wingX when my foreflight
subscription expires in May. One thing I don=99t like about
foreflight is the plane moves and you have to move the map image to keep
up with it. This requires attention constantly if you are zoomed in. Is
wing X the same way? If would be nice to have a moving map program on
the IPAD not a moving airplane.
Alan
N668G
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
I didn't really care about altitude. IMHO, lateral is really the only
thing that matters. Trusting any cheap gps for vertical guidance isn't
something I'd want to to. That said, my ipad 2 gps was pretty close to
actual altitude when I looked a couple times on this trip. But, you're
better off using baro altitudes. If you're relying on the ipad to be a
backup vertical approach gps, bad elf or not, you're putting too much
faith in it.
Tim
On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
My internal was absolutely perfect last night on the iPad 2.
On Apr 10, 2011 9:30 AM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
>
>
> How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice substantial
> improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude, not so
> much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad Elf vs
> internal?
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my
AT&T or verizon ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you
can't put it in full airplane mode. Other than that, it works well. I
wish the gps chip was separate and you could turn it on separately. But
what Jason said works good.
> > Tim
>
>
============
st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
============
.matronics.com
============
Dralle, List Admin.
p://www.matronics.com/contribution
============
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=========
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
=========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
=========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
That's one thing about foreflight....they have awesome support.
WingX is beating them in in-flight features but they still have zoom-to-TAC c
hart and the best filing/briefing/weather, so I can't see dropping them, eve
n though I use WingX more while flying. In contrast I basically never use W
ingx on the ground.
Tim
On Apr 24, 2011, at 12:36 AM, "Alan Mekler" wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I just got this reply from foreflight. I don=99t have the HD version
. Deciding which on to go with .
>
> Alan
>
> Hi Alan,
>
>
>
> No problem. The charts in ForeFlight HD can be used in either mode (moving
map/moving airplane). To toggle this, use the crosshairs icon in the far up
per right of the 'Maps' view.
>
>
>
> Note that if you toggle this on, the map will stay centered on your aircra
ft and you won't have to pan the map- but if you *do* pan the map manually, t
he auto-center feature disengages, so you'd need to use the icon again to re
-engage.
>
>
>
> Give that a try and let us know if you continue to have difficulty or any o
ther questions arise -- we're happy to help!
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jeff Schuster
>
> ForeFlight Customer Support
>
> ForeFlight LLC
>
>
>
>
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 12:17 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
>
>
>
> Awesome. Sorry so short...am driving. Just checked it in the car and Wing
x moves the map so it would work.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2011, at 10:39 PM, "Alan Mekler" wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I starting using the Dual xgps150 Bluetooth gps with my ipad2. It works gr
eat and has an app that shows battery life as well as satellites and display
s your position on Google earth. It locks on fast. I=99m using forefli
ght and considering changing to wingX when my foreflight subscription expire
s in May. One thing I don=99t like about foreflight is the plane moves
and you have to move the map image to keep up with it. This requires attent
ion constantly if you are zoomed in. Is wing X the same way? If would be ni
ce to have a moving map program on the IPAD not a moving airplane.
>
> Alan
>
> N668G
>
>
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 11:46 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question
>
>
>
> I didn't really care about altitude. IMHO, lateral is really the only thi
ng that matters. Trusting any cheap gps for vertical guidance isn't somethi
ng I'd want to to. That said, my ipad 2 gps was pretty close to actual alti
tude when I looked a couple times on this trip. But, you're better off usin
g baro altitudes. If you're relying on the ipad to be a backup vertical app
roach gps, bad elf or not, you're putting too much faith in it.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> My internal was absolutely perfect last night on the iPad 2.
> On Apr 10, 2011 9:30 AM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
> >
> >
> > How is the altitude accuracy in GPS only mode? I notice substantial
> > improvement with WAAS equipped GPS vs non-WAAS on altitude, not so
> > much in horizontal position. Has anyone compared having Bad Elf vs
> > internal?
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly. The gps in my iPhone 3GS was less quick than either my AT&T o
r verizon ipad. The worst thing about either is just that you can't put it i
n full airplane mode. Other than that, it works well. I wish the gps chip w
as separate and you could turn it on separately. But what Jason said works g
ood.
> > > Tim
> >
> >
> ============
> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ============
> .matronics.com
> ============
> Dralle, List Admin.
> p://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ============
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
> =========================
=========
> ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV10-List
> =========================
=========
> ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> =========================
=========
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
> =========================
=========
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Iphone / Android |
It seems there are a lot of Iphone users among the 10 list. Perhaps need
to review the article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983704576277101723453610
.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I-Pad2 and Bad elf question |
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> I believe the Bad Elf GPS has a pass through connector so the dock
> port is still available, at least from the description I recall. But I
> agree I wouldn't want an appendage there.
>
The Bad Elf GPS does have a pass-thru micro-USB port for charging the iPad during
use.
We know there are pros and cons for the dongle form-factor, the big downsides being
antenna placement and having something hang off the iPad. I've been flying
with it for over a year and neither IMHO are major issues. The upsides are
true plug and play operation, zero configuration, and no batteries to keep charged.
Not to mention that some pilots just don't like (or aren't allowed to
use) Bluetooth in the cockpit.
Luckily there are lots of apps and hardware accessories to match the wide range
of personal preferences, all contributing to making the iPad the ultimate EFB.
And Bad Elf has some exciting stuff in the works -- looking forward to Oshkosh
;-).
Brett Hackleman
Bad Elf, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338071#338071
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)yahoo.ca> |
Hi all
-
I'm slowly getting my leading edge sections ready for priming and assembly
and am wondering why everything seems to go in the left wing?
-
Since I'm only installing a single Duckworks HID landing light, is there an
y reason it has to go in the left, as opposed to the right?- Convention s
eems to dictate the stall switch and pitot tube all go in the left as well.
- Is there a good reason for using the left?- Opinions welcome.
-
Thx.
-
Rick
Southampton, Ont
#40956
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: leading edge |
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
I really like having two lights and the wig wag function. I feel it adds
significantly to safety.
Also I set one for taxi and one for in landing rotation so there is always
light where I want it.
Robin
Sent from Android phone
Probably while driving
On Apr 25, 2011 12:20 PM, "Rick Lark" wrote:
Hi all
I'm slowly getting my leading edge sections ready for priming and assembly
and am wondering why everything seems to go in the left wing?
Since I'm only installing a single Duckworks HID landing light, is there any
reason it has to go in the left, as opposed to the right? Convention seems
to dictate the stall switch and pitot tube all go in the left as well. Is
there a good reason for using the left? Opinions welcome.
Thx.
Rick
Southampton, Ont
#40956
*
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
The only reason I could think of would be for shorter runs to the left side
of the instrument panel, but there's not much difference if you use the
right side. Of course, if you put the landing light in the right side, its
weight could help balance the weight of all that stuff in the left side.
Jack Phillips
#40610 Wings
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lark
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:11 PM
Subject: RV10-List: leading edge
Hi all
I'm slowly getting my leading edge sections ready for priming and assembly
and am wondering why everything seems to go in the left wing?
Since I'm only installing a single Duckworks HID landing light, is there any
reason it has to go in the left, as opposed to the right? Convention seems
to dictate the stall switch and pitot tube all go in the left as well. Is
there a good reason for using the left? Opinions welcome.
Thx.
Rick
Southampton, Ont
#40956
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: leading edge |
| From: | "tsts4" <tsts4(at)verizon.net> |
You could move all the stuff you mentioned to the right side, but I'd still put
the landing light on the left because that 's the side you'll be on (most likely)
and the light's coverage will be more to that side of the plane. The mounting
kit isn't really designed for left-right adjustment so you'd have to tinker
to get the light aimed just right if you put it on the right side and wanted
to optimize the lighting target area for the left seat. Not a show stopper
by any stretch, but also not really something worth wasting time on IMO. Every
mod, no matter how simple seems to add a lot of extra time to the build.
Unless you have a good reason to relocate things from one side to the other, I
recommend following the plans and build on. YMMV....
--------
Todd Stovall
728TT (reserved)
RV-10 Empacone, Wings, Fuse
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338082#338082
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net> |
If you only put one light in, you want it on the left side, the pilot side.
If you put it on Rt side when taxing you do not get full vision. Rt side l
anding, left side taxi.
Just my two cents.
Patrick Thyssen
N15PT
--- On Mon, 4/25/11, Jack Phillips wrote:
From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: leading edge
Date: Monday, April 25, 2011, 11:48 AM
=0A=0A=0A =0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AThe only reason I could think of woul
d be=0Afor shorter runs to the left side of the instrument panel, but there
=99s=0Anot much difference if you use the right side.=C2- Of course
, if you put the=0Alanding light in the right side, its weight could help b
alance the weight of=0Aall that stuff in the left side. =0A=0A =C2- =0A
=0AJack Phillips =0A=0A#40610 Wings =0A=0ARaleigh, NC =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AFrom:=0Aowner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com=0A[mai
lto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On=0ABehalf Of Rick Lark
=0ASent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:11=0APM
=0ATo: RV10-list
=0ASubject: RV10-List: leading edge =0A=0A=0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A=0A =0A =0A
=0A =0A =0A =0A =0A Hi all =0A =0A =0A =C2- =0A
=0A =0A I'm slowly getting my leading edge sections ready for=0A p
riming and assembly and am wondering why everything seems to go in the=0A
left wing? =0A =0A =0A =C2- =0A =0A =0A Since I'm onl
y installing a single Duckworks HID landing=0A light, is there any reaso
n it has to go in the left, as opposed to the=0A right?=C2- Convention
seems to dictate the stall switch and pitot tube=0A all go in the left
as well.=C2- Is there a good reason for using the=0A left?=C2- Opini
ons welcome. =0A =0A =0A =C2- =0A =0A =0A Thx. =0A
=0A =0A =C2- =0A =0A =0A Rick =0A =0A =0A Southa
mpton, Ont =0A =0A =0A #40956 =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A
=0A =0A =0A=0A=0A =C2- =C2-http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Lis
thttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution =C2-
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
I like the thought process. Why on the Left? The balance of CG from
Left of Center to Over Center coupled with the reflection of light off
of objects at a distance is easy with the old "Angle of Reflection
Rule". Having twice as many Landing lights is fine, but I like the
pursuit of CG as a reason for going to the Right. Our entire fleet has
Pulse-Lights and both Landing/Flare circuits.
Then there are those on the list that know I am no fan of the left and
always right leaning.
John
#40600
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack Phillips
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: leading edge
The only reason I could think of would be for shorter runs to the left
side of the instrument panel, but there's not much difference if you use
the right side. Of course, if you put the landing light in the right
side, its weight could help balance the weight of all that stuff in the
left side.
Jack Phillips
#40610 Wings
Raleigh, NC
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lark
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:11 PM
Subject: RV10-List: leading edge
Hi all
I'm slowly getting my leading edge sections ready for priming and
assembly and am wondering why everything seems to go in the left wing?
Since I'm only installing a single Duckworks HID landing light, is there
any reason it has to go in the left, as opposed to the right?
Convention seems to dictate the stall switch and pitot tube all go in
the left as well. Is there a good reason for using the left? Opinions
welcome.
Thx.
Rick
Southampton, Ont
#40956
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)yahoo.ca> |
Just to let everyone know, I am going to pulse the wing tip lights, and int
ended to use them for taxi/landing if need be.=C2- I kind of figured havi
ng the landing light as close as possible to being in-line with the PIC wou
ld be the proper way to go.=C2-
=C2-
None the less, I will ensure I'm able to add another HID to the right wing
in the future if need be.
=C2-
Hmmm, maybe I'll move the pitot tube to the right side....
=C2-
Thx guys,=C2- Rick
--- On Mon, 4/25/11, John Cox wrote:
From: John Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: leading edge
Received: Monday, April 25, 2011, 6:57 PM
I like the thought process.=C2- Why on the Left?=C2- The balance of CG
from Left of Center to Over Center coupled with the reflection of light off
of objects at a distance is easy with the old "Angle of Reflection Rule".
=C2- Having twice as many Landing lights is fine, but I like the pursuit
of CG as a reason for going to the Right.=C2- Our entire fleet has Pulse-
Lights and both Landing/Flare circuits.
=C2-
Then there are those on the list that know I am no fan of the left and alwa
ys right leaning.
=C2-
John
#40600
=C2-
=C2-
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack Phillips
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: leading edge
=C2-
The only reason I could think of would be for shorter runs to the left side
of the instrument panel, but there=99s not much difference if you us
e the right side.=C2- Of course, if you put the landing light in the righ
t side, its weight could help balance the weight of all that stuff in the l
eft side.
=C2-
Jack Phillips
#40610 Wings
Raleigh, NC
=C2-
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lark
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:11 PM
Subject: RV10-List: leading edge
=C2-
Hi all
=C2-
I'm slowly getting my leading edge sections ready for priming and assembly
and am wondering why everything seems to go in the left wing?
=C2-
Since I'm only installing a single Duckworks HID landing light, is there an
y reason it has to go in the left, as opposed to the right?=C2- Conventio
n seems to dictate the stall switch and pitot tube all go in the left as we
ll.=C2- Is there a good reason for using the left?=C2- Opinions welcome
.
=C2-
Thx.
=C2-
Rick
Southampton, Ont
#40956 =C2- =C2-http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List =C2-http
://forums.matronics.com =C2-http://www.matronics.com/contribution =C2-
=C2- =C2-http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matr
onics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution =C2-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Rosen <N205EN(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: leading edge |
My roll servo and aileron trim is in the right wing. They are by far
heaver than the pitot tube and stall warning that are in the left wing.
Also there are 7 wires to the servo and 5 (i thing) to the trim, filling
up the conduit.
Larry
On 4/25/2011 3:40 PM, Rick Lark wrote:
> Just to let everyone know, I am going to pulse the wing tip lights,
> and intended to use them for taxi/landing if need be. I kind of
> figured having the landing light as close as possible to being in-line
> with the PIC would be the proper way to go.
> None the less, I will ensure I'm able to add another HID to the right
> wing in the future if need be.
> Hmmm, maybe I'll move the pitot tube to the right side....
> Thx guys, Rick
>
> --- On *Mon, 4/25/11, John Cox //* wrote:
>
>
> From: John Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: leading edge
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Received: Monday, April 25, 2011, 6:57 PM
>
> I like the thought process. Why on the Left? The balance of CG
> from Left of Center to Over Center coupled with the reflection of
> light off of objects at a distance is easy with the old "Angle of
> Reflection Rule". Having twice as many Landing lights is fine,
> but I like the pursuit of CG as a reason for going to the Right.
> Our entire fleet has Pulse-Lights and both Landing/Flare circuits.
>
> Then there are those on the list that know I am no fan of the left
> and always right leaning.
>
> John
>
> #40600
>
> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jack
> Phillips
> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2011 9:49 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: leading edge
>
> The only reason I could think of would be for shorter runs to the
> left side of the instrument panel, but theres not much difference
> if you use the right side. Of course, if you put the landing
> light in the right side, its weight could help balance the weight
> of all that stuff in the left side.
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> #40610 Wings
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rick Lark
> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2011 12:11 PM
> *To:* RV10-list
> *Subject:* RV10-List: leading edge
>
> Hi all
>
> I'm slowly getting my leading edge sections ready for priming and
> assembly and am wondering why everything seems to go in the left wing?
>
> Since I'm only installing a single Duckworks HID landing light, is
> there any reason it has to go in the left, as opposed to the
> right? Convention seems to dictate the stall switch and pitot
> tube all go in the left as well. Is there a good reason for using
> the left? Opinions welcome.
>
> Thx.
>
> Rick
>
> Southampton, Ont
>
> #40956
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> * *
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> * *
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *
> *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> =nofollow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> et=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
> llow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: leading edge |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
I have the pitot on the right, because when I started I had this vision of the
simple Van's pitot on the left, a heated pitot on the right. Well, that vision
went away, and now there's an OAT probe in the hole where Van's pitot would have
gone.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338119#338119
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: leading edge |
Larry, after I wrote the reply below, I started thinking exactly as you hav
e, and realized my -10 will have the servo and trim just like yours, so I g
uess I will leave "well enough alone".
=C2-
Thx guys.........
=C2-
Rick
--- On Tue, 4/26/11, Larry Rosen wrote:
From: Larry Rosen <N205EN(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: leading edge
Received: Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 12:47 AM
My roll servo and aileron trim is in the right wing.=C2- They are by far
heaver than the pitot tube and stall warning that are in the left wing.=C2
- Also there are 7 wires to the servo and 5 (i thing) to the trim, fillin
g up the conduit.=C2-
Larry
On 4/25/2011 3:40 PM, Rick Lark wrote:
Just to let everyone know, I am going to pulse the wing tip lights, and int
ended to use them for taxi/landing if need be.=C2- I kind of figured havi
ng the landing light as close as possible to being in-line with the PIC wou
ld be the proper way to go.=C2-
=C2-
None the less, I will ensure I'm able to add another HID to the right wing
in the future if need be.
=C2-
Hmmm, maybe I'll move the pitot tube to the right side....
=C2-
Thx guys,=C2- Rick
--- On Mon, 4/25/11, John Cox wrote:
From: John Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: leading edge
Received: Monday, April 25, 2011, 6:57 PM
I like the thought process.=C2- Why on the Left?=C2- The balance of CG
from Left of Center to Over Center coupled with the reflection of light off
of objects at a distance is easy with the old "Angle of Reflection Rule".
=C2- Having twice as many Landing lights is fine, but I like the pursuit
of CG as a reason for going to the Right.=C2- Our entire fleet has Pulse-
Lights and both Landing/Flare circuits.
=C2-
Then there are those on the list that know I am no fan of the left and alwa
ys right leaning.
=C2-
John
#40600
=C2-
=C2-
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack Phillips
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: leading edge
=C2-
The only reason I could think of would be for shorter runs to the left side
of the instrument panel, but there=99s not much difference if you us
e the right side.=C2- Of course, if you put the landing light in the righ
t side, its weight could help balance the weight of all that stuff in the l
eft side.
=C2-
Jack Phillips
#40610 Wings
Raleigh, NC
=C2-
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lark
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:11 PM
Subject: RV10-List: leading edge
=C2-
Hi all
=C2-
I'm slowly getting my leading edge sections ready for priming and assembly
and am wondering why everything seems to go in the left wing?
=C2-
Since I'm only installing a single Duckworks HID landing light, is there an
y reason it has to go in the left, as opposed to the right?=C2- Conventio
n seems to dictate the stall switch and pitot tube all go in the left as we
ll.=C2- Is there a good reason for using the left?=C2- Opinions welcome
.
=C2-
Thx.
=C2-
Rick
Southampton, Ont
#40956 =C2- =C2-http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List =C2-http
://forums.matronics.com =C2-http://www.matronics.com/contribution =C2-
=C2-
=C2-http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.
comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution =C2-
=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
et=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
llow target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
Ted just posted to facebook that he had an inflight fire and landed 4nm off a
irport during his phase 1. Ted is ok, but the rv-10's gear collapsed. The
re was no mention as to the cause of the fire.
He posted some photos to facebook
Sent from my iPhone__,_._,___
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net> |
Too many Ted changs on face book
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 27, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>
> Ted just posted to facebook that he had an inflight fire and landed 4nm of
f airport during his phase 1. Ted is ok, but the rv-10's gear collapsed. T
here was no mention as to the cause of the fire.
>
> He posted some photos to facebook
>
> Sent from my iPhone__,_._,___
>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leikam <daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com> |
http://newsodrome.com/aviation_news/ted-s-plane-and-the-voice-25394830
David Leikam
RV10
Flying
On Apr 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>
> Ted just posted to facebook that he had an inflight fire and landed
4nm off airport during his phase 1. Ted is ok, but the rv-10's gear
collapsed. There was no mention as to the cause of the fire.
>
> He posted some photos to facebook
>
> Sent from my iPhone__,_._,___
>
>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net> |
Really sad, but good Ted walked away. Be interesting to know what
happened? does not look like any fire damage to the aircraft.
Pascal
From: David Leikam
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
http://newsodrome.com/aviation_news/ted-s-plane-and-the-voice-25394830
David Leikam
RV10
Flying
On Apr 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
Ted just posted to facebook that he had an inflight fire and landed
4nm off airport during his phase 1. Ted is ok, but the rv-10's gear
collapsed. There was no mention as to the cause of the fire.
He posted some photos to facebook
Sent from my iPhone__,_._,___
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List%22
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://forums.matronics.com%22">http://forums.m
atronics.com
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22">http:
//www.matronics.com/contribution
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pilotdds <pilotdds(at)aol.com> |
Glad Ted walked away-wonder what happened to the door,Inflight fire is a sc
ary thing-Hope you regroup and get back in the air quickly
-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Wed, Apr 27, 2011 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
Really sad, but good Ted walked away. Be interesting to know what happened?
does not look like any fire damage to the aircraft.
Pascal
From: David Leikam
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
http://newsodrome.com/aviation_news/ted-s-plane-and-the-voice-25394830
David Leikam
RV10
Flying
On Apr 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
Ted just posted to facebook that he had an inflight fire and landed 4nm off
airport during his phase 1. Ted is ok, but the rv-10's gear collapsed.
There was no mention as to the cause of the fire.
He posted some photos to facebook
Sent from my iPhone__,_._,___
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
ref="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List%22">h
ttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
ref="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://forums.matronics.com%22">http://forums.matr
onics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
ref="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22">http://w
ww.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV10-List
ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
ref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
-= - The RV10-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
-
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
Ted posted the following to the local RV list:
Thank you for your concern. I have been busy today and finally get a chance
to organize my pictures and thoughts. Here is a link to my photos. It works
as long as you click on this link.
https://picasaweb.google.com/tc1234c/4272011RV10Accident?authkey=Gv1sRgCPjmt
viSyuKsQg#
I had a fuel fire while four miles up wind to runway 18. I discharged fire
extinguisher to put off the fire that is outside of the tunnel. In a few
seconds the blinding smoke filled the cabin (from paint or SCAT tube? not
wires since there is only fuel pump and fuel flow sensor wires in there.). I
turned the fuel selector to shut off the fuel supply . Since I could not
see, I popped open the pilot side door and it quickly flew off. Now I saw
that I have a pasture on my left. This is a hilly country with streams,
trees and houses, not too many landing choices. Engine quit and I banked
left sharply to make to the field. I saw a telephone line along the road and
ducked down under it. As soon as I cleared the phone line I pull the nose up
and the airplane impacted the ground (with the stall warning beeping) which
is sloping up. The impact bent all three landing gears and absorbed the
impact. I did not feel a very hard bump at all. The airplane slided uphill
for a few hundred feet and stopped over the top of the hill. I got out and
saw a little smoke still coming out under the tunnel. I grabbed my phone and
camera and began calling 911. That began a very long day taking the
statement and waiting for the FAA inspector. The only injury I sustained is
a 1/8" size burn on my hand, no blister even. Our local TV station reported
that I burnt my hand. It is a little exaggerated.
This is the first accident I have had. I hope it is the last too. From this
experience I learned a few things:
a. Whatever happens keep cool.
b. Don't try to save your airplane, save yourself first.
c. Fly your airplane until you have no control of it.
I will open the cowling and tunnel cover after the airplane is brought back
to my hangar and find what is the cause of the fire. At that time I will
share with you my findings.
Be safe!
Ted
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of pilotdds
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
Glad Ted walked away-wonder what happened to the door,Inflight fire is a
scary thing-Hope you regroup and get back in the air quickly
-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Wed, Apr 27, 2011 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
Really sad, but good Ted walked away. Be interesting to know what happened?
does not look like any fire damage to the aircraft.
Pascal
From: David Leikam <mailto:daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
http://newsodrome.com/aviation_news/ted-s-plane-and-the-voice-25394830
David Leikam
RV10
Flying
On Apr 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
Ted just posted to facebook that he had an inflight fire and landed 4nm off
airport during his phase 1. Ted is ok, but the rv-10's gear collapsed.
There was no mention as to the cause of the fire.
He posted some photos to facebook
Sent from my iPhone__,_._,___
3D=========================3
D===================
href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List%22
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List%22%22%3ehttp://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?RV10-List> ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
3D=========================3
D===================
href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://forums.matronics.com%22">http://forums.matron
ics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
3D=========================3
D===================
href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22%22%3Ehttp:/www.matronics.com/contr
ibution> ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
3D=========================3
D===================
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List%22%3ehttp://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?RV10-List> ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com
<http://forums.matronics.com%22%3ehttp/forums.matronics.com>
">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22%3Ehttp:/www.matronics.com/c>
">http://www.matronics.com/c
get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Trutrak autopilot |
I have the DigiFlite II VSGV; when I was building I specifically asked
TT whether the AP should be off on the buss while cranking. I was told
the AP could be on while cranking. Experience has shown and TT has
confirmed that the AP should be off during cranking and the aircraft
should remain stopped for about 30 seconds to allow the internal sensors
to determine the parameters for straight and level flight. At the next
annual I intend to switch the pullable breaker for the AP to a toggle
breaker.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Trutrak autopilot |
That is what Stein recommended with my panel. It also gives you a switch to
turn off if the AP goes crazy and tries to crash the airplane. J
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DLM
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:45 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Trutrak autopilot
I have the DigiFlite II VSGV; when I was building I specifically asked TT
whether the AP should be off on the buss while cranking. I was told the AP
could be on while cranking. Experience has shown and TT has confirmed that
the AP should be off during cranking and the aircraft should remain stopped
for about 30 seconds to allow the internal sensors to determine the
parameters for straight and level flight. At the next annual I intend to
switch the pullable breaker for the AP to a toggle breaker.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Interesting. Glad he is safe and I hope he will share some honest detail re
garding his fuel system and any modifications he made.
I guess that answers the question about being able to open a door in flight.
We now know it is possible. I always wondered if it could be done or if t
he sucking action on the doors would cause so much friction at the pins that
they wouldn't move. That question is now answered (at least at maneuvering
speeds).
Most importantly - I'm really glad he is safe.
Phil
On Apr 27, 2011, at 8:22 PM, "Bob Leffler" wrote:
> Ted posted the following to the local RV list:
>
>
>
> Thank you for your concern. I have been busy today and finally get a chanc
e to organize my pictures and thoughts. Here is a link to my photos. It wor
ks as long as you click on this link.
>
>
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/tc1234c/4272011RV10Accident?authkey=Gv1sRgC
PjmtviSyuKsQg#
>
>
>
> I had a fuel fire while four miles up wind to runway 18. I discharged fire
extinguisher to put off the fire that is outside of the tunnel. In a few se
conds the blinding smoke filled the cabin (from paint or SCAT tube? not wire
s since there is only fuel pump and fuel flow sensor wires in there.). I tur
ned the fuel selector to shut off the fuel supply . Since I could not see, I
popped open the pilot side door and it quickly flew off. Now I saw that I h
ave a pasture on my left. This is a hilly country with streams, trees and ho
uses, not too many landing choices. Engine quit and I banked left sharply to
make to the field. I saw a telephone line along the road and ducked down un
der it. As soon as I cleared the phone line I pull the nose up and the airpl
ane impacted the ground (with the stall warning beeping) which is sloping up
. The impact bent all three landing gears and absorbed the impact. I did not
feel a very hard bump at all. The airplane slided uphill for a few hundred f
eet and stopped over the top of the hill. I got out and saw a little smoke s
till coming out under the tunnel. I grabbed my phone and camera and began ca
lling 911. That began a very long day taking the statement and waiting for t
he FAA inspector. The only injury I sustained is a 1/8" size burn on my hand
, no blister even. Our local TV station reported that I burnt my hand. It is
a little exaggerated.
>
>
>
> This is the first accident I have had. I hope it is the last too. =46rom t
his experience I learned a few things:
>
>
>
> a. Whatever happens keep cool.
>
> b. Don't try to save your airplane, save yourself first.
>
> c. Fly your airplane until you have no control of it.
>
>
>
> I will open the cowling and tunnel cover after the airplane is brought bac
k to my hangar and find what is the cause of the fire. At that time I will s
hare with you my findings.
>
>
>
> Be safe!
>
>
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of pilotdds
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:18 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
>
>
>
> Glad Ted walked away-wonder what happened to the door,Inflight fire is a s
cary thing-Hope you regroup and get back in the air quickly
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pascal <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
> To: rv10-list
> Sent: Wed, Apr 27, 2011 4:17 pm
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
>
> Really sad, but good Ted walked away. Be interesting to know what happened
? does not look like any fire damage to the aircraft.
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> From: David Leikam
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:39 PM
>
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
>
>
>
> http://newsodrome.com/aviation_news/ted-s-plane-and-the-voice-25394830
>
>
>
> David Leikam
>
> RV10
>
> Flying
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Ted just posted to facebook that he had an inflight fire and landed 4nm of
f airport during his phase 1. Ted is ok, but the rv-10's gear collapsed. T
here was no mention as to the cause of the fire.
>
>
>
> He posted some photos to facebook
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone__,_._,___
>
>
>
>
>
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List%22"
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://forums.matronics.com%22">http://forums.ma
tronics.com
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22">http:/
/www.matronics.com/contribution
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
> get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> p://forums.matronics.com
> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net> |
I never thought the doors opening/flying off in air was an issue, they
do it without trying too! it was trying to close them/save them if they
became open that I always wondered about.
From: Phil Perry
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
Interesting. Glad he is safe and I hope he will share some honest
detail regarding his fuel system and any modifications he made.
I guess that answers the question about being able to open a door in
flight. We now know it is possible. I always wondered if it could be
done or if the sucking action on the doors would cause so much friction
at the pins that they wouldn't move. That question is now answered (at
least at maneuvering speeds).
Most importantly - I'm really glad he is safe.
Phil
On Apr 27, 2011, at 8:22 PM, "Bob Leffler" wrote:
Ted posted the following to the local RV list:
Thank you for your concern. I have been busy today and finally get a
chance to organize my pictures and thoughts. Here is a link to my
photos. It works as long as you click on this link.
https://picasaweb.google.com/tc1234c/4272011RV10Accident?authkey=Gv1sRg
CPjmtviSyuKsQg#
I had a fuel fire while four miles up wind to runway 18. I discharged
fire extinguisher to put off the fire that is outside of the tunnel. In
a few seconds the blinding smoke filled the cabin (from paint or SCAT
tube? not wires since there is only fuel pump and fuel flow sensor wires
in there.). I turned the fuel selector to shut off the fuel supply .
Since I could not see, I popped open the pilot side door and it quickly
flew off. Now I saw that I have a pasture on my left. This is a hilly
country with streams, trees and houses, not too many landing choices.
Engine quit and I banked left sharply to make to the field. I saw a
telephone line along the road and ducked down under it. As soon as I
cleared the phone line I pull the nose up and the airplane impacted the
ground (with the stall warning beeping) which is sloping up. The impact
bent all three landing gears and absorbed the impact. I did not feel a
very hard bump at all. The airplane slided uphill for a few hundred feet
and stopped over the top of the hill. I got out and saw a little smoke
still coming out under the tunnel. I grabbed my phone and camera and
began calling 911. That began a very long day taking the statement and
waiting for the FAA inspector. The only injury I sustained is a 1/8"
size burn on my hand, no blister even. Our local TV station reported
that I burnt my hand. It is a little exaggerated.
This is the first accident I have had. I hope it is the last too. From
this experience I learned a few things:
a. Whatever happens keep cool.
b. Don't try to save your airplane, save yourself first.
c. Fly your airplane until you have no control of it.
I will open the cowling and tunnel cover after the airplane is brought
back to my hangar and find what is the cause of the fire. At that time I
will share with you my findings.
Be safe!
Ted
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of pilotdds
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:18 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
Glad Ted walked away-wonder what happened to the door,Inflight fire is
a scary thing-Hope you regroup and get back in the air quickly
-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
To: rv10-list
Sent: Wed, Apr 27, 2011 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
Really sad, but good Ted walked away. Be interesting to know what
happened? does not look like any fire damage to the aircraft.
Pascal
From: David Leikam
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:39 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
http://newsodrome.com/aviation_news/ted-s-plane-and-the-voice-25394830
David Leikam
RV10
Flying
On Apr 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
Ted just posted to facebook that he had an inflight fire and landed
4nm off airport during his phase 1. Ted is ok, but the rv-10's gear
collapsed. There was no mention as to the cause of the fire.
He posted some photos to facebook
Sent from my iPhone__,_._,___
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3Dhref="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List%
22">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3Dhref="x-msg://1484/
3D%22http://forums.matronics.com%22">http://forums.matronics.com3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3Dhref=
"x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22">http://www.m
atronics.com/contribution3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://foru
ms.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www
.matronics.com/c
get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listp://forums.matro
nics.comblank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comht
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution
=========
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
=========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
=========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Has anyone considered putting a vent window on either door window, such
as Bonanza, Piper, Mooney do? Might be awful handy to ventilate the
cockpit without losing a door.
On 4/27/2011 7:16 PM, Pascal wrote:
> I never thought the doors opening/flying off in air was an issue, they
> do it without trying too! it was trying to close them/save them if they
> became open that I always wondered about.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leikam <daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com> |
Looks and sounds like some really good flying by Ted. Getting the thing
under a power line and then a full stall touch down!? Thank God he
walked away.
The fuel valve selector looks like it has a different handle on it.
Like the door handle supplied in the kit. I wonder what valve he used.
I wish the tunnel was easier to access to inspect the fuel plumbing more
often.
David Leikam
RV10
Flying
On Apr 27, 2011, at 5:39 PM, David Leikam wrote:
> http://newsodrome.com/aviation_news/ted-s-plane-and-the-voice-25394830
>
> David Leikam
> RV10
> Flying
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>
>>
>> Ted just posted to facebook that he had an inflight fire and landed
4nm off airport during his phase 1. Ted is ok, but the rv-10's gear
collapsed. There was no mention as to the cause of the fire.
>>
>> He posted some photos to facebook
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone__,_._,___
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>
href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List%22"
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>
href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://forums.matronics.com%22">http://forums.ma
tronics.com
>>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>
href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22">http:/
/www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
There was one at OSH 2 years ago with one installed but I can't remember who
had it.
On Apr 27, 2011 9:40 PM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote:
>
> Has anyone considered putting a vent window on either door window, such
> as Bonanza, Piper, Mooney do? Might be awful handy to ventilate the
> cockpit without losing a door.
>
> On 4/27/2011 7:16 PM, Pascal wrote:
>> I never thought the doors opening/flying off in air was an issue, they
>> do it without trying too! it was trying to close them/save them if they
>> became open that I always wondered about.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
"I wish the tunnel was easier to access to inspect the fuel plumbing
more often."
Tunnel Access Kit...
http://airward.com/amelia/search.asp?advnav=&action=Search&store=&cat=10000016&subcat_10000003=10000016&ShowImages=&ShowDetails=&menuID=15~15&id=17
Actually looks like he had at least one of these on the pilot side.
On 4/27/11 9:44 PM, David Leikam wrote:
> Looks and sounds like some really good flying by Ted. Getting the
> thing under a power line and then a full stall touch down!? Thank God
> he walked away.
> The fuel valve selector looks like it has a different handle on it.
> Like the door handle supplied in the kit. I wonder what valve he
> used. I wish the tunnel was easier to access to inspect the fuel
> plumbing more often.
>
> David Leikam
> RV10
> Flying
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2011, at 5:39 PM, David Leikam wrote:
>
>> http://newsodrome.com/aviation_news/ted-s-plane-and-the-voice-25394830
>>
>> David Leikam
>> RV10
>> Flying
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ted just posted to facebook that he had an inflight fire and landed
>>> 4nm off airport during his phase 1. Ted is ok, but the rv-10's
>>> gear collapsed. There was no mention as to the cause of the fire.
>>>
>>> He posted some photos to facebook
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone__,_._,___
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> 3D============================================
>>> href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List%22">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> 3D============================================
>>> href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://forums.matronics.com%22">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> 3D============================================
>>> href="x-msg://1484/3D%22http://www.matronics.com/contribution%22">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> 3D============================================
>>>
>>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Les Kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hmmm
Speaking of vents, has anyone put a vent in the tunnel. I am wondering if a
piece of tubing, facing rearward and mounted on the exterior skin under the
tunnel, could be used to keep negative pressure in the tunnel.
Inquiring miinds need to know
Les
PS: I am very glad Ted was able to land safely. It sounds like he did an
amazing job in a very sticky situation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: April-27-11 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ted Chang
Has anyone considered putting a vent window on either door window, such as
Bonanza, Piper, Mooney do? Might be awful handy to ventilate the cockpit
without losing a door.
On 4/27/2011 7:16 PM, Pascal wrote:
> I never thought the doors opening/flying off in air was an issue, they
> do it without trying too! it was trying to close them/save them if
> they became open that I always wondered about.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
"The fuel valve selector looks like it has a different handle on it."
That is the handle from Vans, supplied on kits after about March 2008. The "new"
fuel setup has the (essentially) same valve but lower in the tunnel, with a
long shaft up to the handle. There is an AN fitting on the line where it penetrates
the tunnel, unlike the original design where it was a continuous piece of
aluminum going thru a rubber grommet.
Handle appears to be in between left and right, which I guess is off. I'd have
put it to the rear for a more positive 'off'.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338267#338267
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Chang <tc1234c(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Fire and off field landing |
I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this
point the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been spending
the time doing statements and answering inquiries from friends. Without
opening the tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what happened.
Here are my observations:
a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was normal
when I taxied out and on the take off.
d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although I
still did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the airplane
stopped the cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked
quickly and put it on the ground soon.
f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still small
fire but limited to inside the tunnel.
g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two tool
boxes in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B
requirement).
h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes off at
around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes up
and I had a three point.
i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps and
just do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
Some facts:
a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It is
the quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from the
opening.
c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and firewall. I
do have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire
department probably caused more damage than the fire.
I have to admit that for a few seconds when the smoke came out and my
leg felt the heat I had a thought that I was in deep trouble (burn to
death). I quickly focused on the tasks in front of me and tried to fly
the airplane and solve the problems I was facing. From that point on
there was no fear or regret. After I called 911 and my insurance agent
I got to walk down the hill, wait and think. My only negative thought
was that my accident might negatively impact a lot of builders. I don't
want to see anyone get disencouraged. I am pretty sure that what
happened to me is not a design flaw, but a builder mistake. After I
found the problem I will share with you so you can avoid this problem.
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Les Kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Fire and off field landing |
Ted
Thank you for your candour and willingness to share whatever can be learned
from your accident. Everyone one the list is relieved that you came out okay
on this.
Regards
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted Chang
Sent: April-28-11 4:53 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fire and off field landing
I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this point
the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been spending the time
doing statements and answering inquiries from friends. Without opening the
tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what happened.
Here are my observations:
a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was normal when I
taxied out and on the take off.
d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although I still
did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the airplane stopped the
cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked quickly
and put it on the ground soon.
f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still small fire
but limited to inside the tunnel.
g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two tool boxes
in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B requirement).
h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes off at
around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes up and
I had a three point.
i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps and just
do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
Some facts:
a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It is the
quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from the opening.
c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and firewall. I do
have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire department
probably caused more damage than the fire.
I have to admit that for a few seconds when the smoke came out and my leg
felt the heat I had a thought that I was in deep trouble (burn to death). I
quickly focused on the tasks in front of me and tried to fly the airplane
and solve the problems I was facing. From that point on there was no fear or
regret. After I called 911 and my insurance agent I got to walk down the
hill, wait and think. My only negative thought was that my accident might
negatively impact a lot of builders. I don't want to see anyone get
disencouraged. I am pretty sure that what happened to me is not a design
flaw, but a builder mistake. After I found the problem I will share with you
so you can avoid this problem.
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
| From: | amekler(at)metrocast.net |
Ted,
Thank you for the summary. I think you did a great job getting the
plane on the ground without personal injury.Your story makes me want
to get a smoke hood for my flying.
Regards,
Alan
On Thu 04/28/11 6:53 AM , Ted Chang wrote:
I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At
this
point the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been
spending
the time doing statements and answering inquiries from friends.
Without
opening the tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what happened.
Here are my observations:
a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was
normal
when I taxied out and on the take off.
d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although
I
still did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the
airplane
stopped the cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked
quickly and put it on the ground soon.
f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still
small
fire but limited to inside the tunnel.
g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two
tool
boxes in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B
requirement).
h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes
off at
around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes
up
and I had a three point.
i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps
and
just do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
Some facts:
a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It
is
the quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from
the
opening.
c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and
firewall. I
do have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire
department probably caused more damage than the fire.
I have to admit that for a few seconds when the smoke came out and
my
leg felt the heat I had a thought that I was in deep trouble (burn
to
death). I quickly focused on the tasks in front of me and tried to
fly
the airplane and solve the problems I was facing. From that point on
there was no fear or regret. After I called 911 and my insurance
agent
I got to walk down the hill, wait and think. My only negative
thought
was that my accident might negatively impact a lot of builders. I
don't
want to see anyone get disencouraged. I am pretty sure that what
happened to me is not a design flaw, but a builder mistake. After I
found the problem I will share with you so you can avoid this
problem.
Ted
Links:
------
[2]
http://metromail.metrocast.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matron
ics.com%2FNavigator%3FRV10-List
[3]
http://metromail.metrocast.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.mat
ronics.com
[4]
http://metromail.metrocast.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matron
ics.com%2Fcontribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
| From: | amekler(at)metrocast.net |
Ted and RV-10,
Just found this link to smoke evac hoods.
http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/cockpit_smoke_hoods_197712-1.html
[1]
Regards,
Alan Mekler
n668g
On Thu 04/28/11 6:53 AM , Ted Chang wrote:
I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At
this
point the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been
spending
the time doing statements and answering inquiries from friends.
Without
opening the tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what happened.
Here are my observations:
a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was
normal
when I taxied out and on the take off.
d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although
I
still did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the
airplane
stopped the cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked
quickly and put it on the ground soon.
f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still
small
fire but limited to inside the tunnel.
g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two
tool
boxes in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B
requirement).
h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes
off at
around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes
up
and I had a three point.
i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps
and
just do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
Some facts:
a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It
is
the quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from
the
opening.
c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and
firewall. I
do have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire
department probably caused more damage than the fire.
I have to admit that for a few seconds when the smoke came out and
my
leg felt the heat I had a thought that I was in deep trouble (burn
to
death). I quickly focused on the tasks in front of me and tried to
fly
the airplane and solve the problems I was facing. From that point on
there was no fear or regret. After I called 911 and my insurance
agent
I got to walk down the hill, wait and think. My only negative
thought
was that my accident might negatively impact a lot of builders. I
don't
want to see anyone get disencouraged. I am pretty sure that what
happened to me is not a design flaw, but a builder mistake. After I
found the problem I will share with you so you can avoid this
problem.
Ted
Links:
------
[1]
http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/cockpit_smoke_hoods_197712-1.html
[3]
http://metromail.metrocast.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matron
ics.com%2FNavigator%3FRV10-List
[4]
http://metromail.metrocast.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.mat
ronics.com
[5]
http://metromail.metrocast.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matron
ics.com%2Fcontribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
| From: | "rleffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
Ted,
Thanks for sharing your experiences and thoughts!
The community will be better from learning from your experience.
If you need any help, let me know. I'm only a couple hours away.
bob
--------
Bob Leffler
N410BL - FWF
RV-10 #40684
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338292#338292
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Tunnel Access From Below |
After reading about an earlier RV-10 tunnel fire I made an opening in the
belly skin so I could quickly check the tunnel and clean the filter without
spilling fuel in the tunnel. It's a lot easier to remove the bottom cover
than to remove the carpet and tunnel cover. In my case I have to remove the
seats to get access to some of the screws. I left a piece of the original
skin that has the saddle and clamp that holds the filter so that the filter
would be at the right height. After a filter cleaning and inspection that
piece with the filter clamp is repositioned using a small plate to locate
it. There are 20 screws that attach the cover which may be overkill but I
put a nutplate at every other rivet. Would have been easier to do when
building.
Albert Gardner
N991RV
Yuma, AZ
BTW, I would be concerned that any kind of vent would introduce exhaust
gasses.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jfrjr(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
You are a good man Ted Chang--glad you are still with us. Jay Rowe #301
---- Ted Chang wrote:
>
> I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this
> point the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been spending
> the time doing statements and answering inquiries from friends. Without
> opening the tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what happened.
> Here are my observations:
>
> a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
> b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
> c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
> particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was normal
> when I taxied out and on the take off.
> d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although I
> still did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the airplane
> stopped the cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
> e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked
> quickly and put it on the ground soon.
> f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still small
> fire but limited to inside the tunnel.
> g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two tool
> boxes in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B
> requirement).
> h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes off at
> around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes up
> and I had a three point.
> i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps and
> just do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
>
>
> Some facts:
>
> a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
> b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It is
> the quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from the
> opening.
> c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and firewall. I
> do have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
> d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire
> department probably caused more damage than the fire.
>
>
> I have to admit that for a few seconds when the smoke came out and my
> leg felt the heat I had a thought that I was in deep trouble (burn to
> death). I quickly focused on the tasks in front of me and tried to fly
> the airplane and solve the problems I was facing. From that point on
> there was no fear or regret. After I called 911 and my insurance agent
> I got to walk down the hill, wait and think. My only negative thought
> was that my accident might negatively impact a lot of builders. I don't
> want to see anyone get disencouraged. I am pretty sure that what
> happened to me is not a design flaw, but a builder mistake. After I
> found the problem I will share with you so you can avoid this problem.
>
>
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
donning it is the problem; I have smoke hood but not quick donning type,
so unless the AP is flying the hood won't happen.
----- Original Message -----
From: amekler(at)metrocast.net
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fire and off field landing
Ted,
Thank you for the summary. I think you did a great job getting the
plane on the ground without personal injury.Your story makes me want to
get a smoke hood for my flying.
Regards,
Alan
On Thu 04/28/11 6:53 AM , Ted Chang wrote:
I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At
this
point the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been
spending
the time doing statements and answering inquiries from friends.
Without
opening the tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what happened.
Here are my observations:
a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was
normal
when I taxied out and on the take off.
d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although
I
still did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the
airplane
stopped the cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked
quickly and put it on the ground soon.
f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still
small
fire but limited to inside the tunnel.
g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two
tool
boxes in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B
requirement).
h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes
off at
around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes
up
and I had a three point.
i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps
and
just do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
Some facts:
a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It
is
the quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from
the
opening.
c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and
firewall. I
do have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire
department probably caused more damage than the fire.
I have to admit that for a few seconds when the smoke came out and
my
leg felt the heat I had a thought that I was in deep trouble (burn
to
death). I quickly focused on the tasks in front of me and tried to
fly
the airplane and solve the problems I was facing. From that point on
there was no fear or regret. After I called 911 and my insurance
agent
I got to walk down the hill, wait and think. My only negative
thought
was that my accident might negatively impact a lot of builders. I
don't
want to see anyone get disencouraged. I am pretty sure that what
happened to me is not a design flaw, but a builder mistake. After I
found the problem I will share with you so you can avoid this
problem.
Ted
==========
tp%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2FNavigator%3FRV10-List"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
==========
tp%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com"
target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
==========
tp%3A%2F%2Fwww.matronics.com%2Fcontribution"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Access From Below |
| From: | "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com> |
Your solution is the best, Albert. If I was building again, I would definitely
do this mod. Now I have to decide if I am up to tackling it as a retrofit on my
airplane. [Rolling Eyes]
Getting to my filter from above is a real pain!
--------
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338308#338308
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Access From Below |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Here's how I attempted to tackle the filter access issue from above. I
think it makes it quite a bit easier when getting everything aligned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3mpcapeBA8
Phil
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM, dmaib(at)me.com wrote:
>
> Your solution is the best, Albert. If I was building again, I would
> definitely do this mod. Now I have to decide if I am up to tackling it as a
> retrofit on my airplane. [Rolling Eyes]
> Getting to my filter from above is a real pain!
>
> --------
> David Maib
> RV-10 #40559
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338308#338308
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
Hi Ted,
Thanks so much for your report. Great job!
One thing I'm wondering about is whether you remember using the flaps
at the time the fire started. There's been some discussion about the
flap motor as an ignition source.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Ted Chang wrote:
>
> I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this point
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Access From Below |
| From: | "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
I used the Airward access cover on the side. It is very large and easy to get
to. I only have 12 hours on the plane so I can't say how it is to pull in and
out but it looks easy.
Here is a link:
http://www.airward.com/amelia/search.asp?advnav=&action=Search&store=&cat=10000016&subcat_10000003=10000016&ShowImages=&ShowDetails=&menuID=15~15&id=17
--------
40936
RV-10 SB N801VR Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338314#338314
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Access From Below |
| From: | "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com> |
Wow, Phil. That is really nice!
--------
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338315#338315
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Access From Below |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks...
The only thing that has changed since I shot the video.
1) I decided to keep the aluminum hardline from the boost pump to the
firewall.
2) I added a two cross support (between the tunnel walls) to support that
aluminum line with Adel clamps. The photo is attached to this e-mail.
Phil
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:15 AM, dmaib(at)me.com wrote:
>
> Wow, Phil. That is really nice!
>
> --------
> David Maib
> RV-10 #40559
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338315#338315
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John J" <n212pj(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Fire and off field landing |
So very happy you made it through this event, Ted. Great job!
John J
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
Thanks for the info Ted. I've had two off-field landings ..... engine
related .... and there's no real way of knowing how you will react to an
emergency until you really do have one. Your reactions appear to be
excellent. Without knowing anything about you, you've got my respect
(for what that's worth!).
I'm counting two RV-10 tunnel fires so far. the first one was destroyed
so no definitive info (that I have) emerged. Your investigation will be
valuable to the rest of us builders.
I have two questions:
1) Where did the fuel escape from the system?
2) What was the ignition source?
If you can answer those, you'll give a lot of builders more sleep at night.
To echo the many other comments .... I'm glad the outcome was
successful. The plane can be repaired.
Linn
On 4/28/2011 6:53 AM, Ted Chang wrote:
>
> I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this
> point the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been spending
> the time doing statements and answering inquiries from friends.
> Without opening the tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what
> happened. Here are my observations:
>
> a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
> b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
> c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
> particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was normal
> when I taxied out and on the take off.
> d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although I
> still did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the airplane
> stopped the cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
> e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked
> quickly and put it on the ground soon.
> f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still small
> fire but limited to inside the tunnel.
> g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two tool
> boxes in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B
> requirement).
> h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes off
> at around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field
> slopes up and I had a three point.
> i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps and
> just do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
>
>
> Some facts:
>
> a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
> b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It
> is the quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from
> the opening.
> c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and firewall.
> I do have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
> d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire
> department probably caused more damage than the fire.
>
>
> I have to admit that for a few seconds when the smoke came out and my
> leg felt the heat I had a thought that I was in deep trouble (burn to
> death). I quickly focused on the tasks in front of me and tried to fly
> the airplane and solve the problems I was facing. From that point on
> there was no fear or regret. After I called 911 and my insurance
> agent I got to walk down the hill, wait and think. My only negative
> thought was that my accident might negatively impact a lot of
> builders. I don't want to see anyone get disencouraged. I am pretty
> sure that what happened to me is not a design flaw, but a builder
> mistake. After I found the problem I will share with you so you can
> avoid this problem.
>
>
> Ted
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "g.combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
Ted glad you are ok. Great job. Let me know if I can help.
Geoff Combs
N829GW
Sent from my iPhone Geoff
On Apr 28, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Linn Walters wrote:
>
> Thanks for the info Ted. I've had two off-field landings ..... engine related
.... and there's no real way of knowing how you will react to an emergency until
you really do have one. Your reactions appear to be excellent. Without
knowing anything about you, you've got my respect (for what that's worth!).
>
> I'm counting two RV-10 tunnel fires so far. the first one was destroyed so no
definitive info (that I have) emerged. Your investigation will be valuable
to the rest of us builders.
>
> I have two questions:
> 1) Where did the fuel escape from the system?
> 2) What was the ignition source?
>
> If you can answer those, you'll give a lot of builders more sleep at night.
>
> To echo the many other comments .... I'm glad the outcome was successful. The
plane can be repaired.
>
> Linn
>
>
> On 4/28/2011 6:53 AM, Ted Chang wrote:
>>
>> I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this point
the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been spending the time doing
statements and answering inquiries from friends. Without opening the tunnel
and cowling I can not say for sure what happened. Here are my observations:
>>
>> a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
>> b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
>> c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this particular
flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was normal when I taxied out
and on the take off.
>> d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although I still
did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the airplane stopped the cabin
was almost cleared of smoke.
>> e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked quickly and
put it on the ground soon.
>> f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still small fire
but limited to inside the tunnel.
>> g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two tool boxes
in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B requirement).
>> h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes off at around
60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes up and I had
a three point.
>> i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps and just
do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
>>
>>
>> Some facts:
>>
>> a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
>> b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It is the
quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from the opening.
>> c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and firewall. I do have
insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
>> d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire department probably
caused more damage than the fire.
>>
>>
>> I have to admit that for a few seconds when the smoke came out and my leg felt
the heat I had a thought that I was in deep trouble (burn to death). I quickly
focused on the tasks in front of me and tried to fly the airplane and solve
the problems I was facing. From that point on there was no fear or regret.
After I called 911 and my insurance agent I got to walk down the hill, wait and
think. My only negative thought was that my accident might negatively impact
a lot of builders. I don't want to see anyone get disencouraged. I am pretty
sure that what happened to me is not a design flaw, but a builder mistake. After
I found the problem I will share with you so you can avoid this problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Access From Below |
That is very clean. I'd think that anything which reduces the number of
fittings required in the fuel system can only be a good thing.
Anyone wanna buy an installed only once and never turned on Airflow pump
and filter? :)
- Sean #40303
On 4/28/11 10:32 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> Thanks...
>
> The only thing that has changed since I shot the video.
>
> 1) I decided to keep the aluminum hardline from the boost pump to the
> firewall.
>
> 2) I added a two cross support (between the tunnel walls) to support
> that aluminum line with Adel clamps. The photo is attached to this
> e-mail.
>
> Phil
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:15 AM, dmaib(at)me.com
> > wrote:
>
> " >
>
> Wow, Phil. That is really nice!
>
> --------
> David Maib
> RV-10 #40559
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338315#338315
>
>
> ==========
> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fire and off field landing |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Ted - several of your actions are Commendable. #1 you flew the aircraft
to the landing site and walked away. The remaining builders and your
underwriter should be appreciative. #2 You were willing to share and
encourage other builders with the facts, when known. - Invaluable! #3
You removed your EFIS screens and took steps to protect the residual
value of what looks like a repairable incident. Thank you.
Several questions came immediately to mind after considering those
actions. Condition of Aluminum fuel tubing, flares and fittings? Fire
Annunciation & Suppression systems? What would or could have happened
if the tunnel had been composite rather than aluminum? Smoke evacuation
and hoods. All will come out in time. This incident is the second most
valuable RV-10 incident since the loss of Dan Lloyd and much will be
gained from the post incident review.
What comes to my mind is I seem to remember Scott Schmidt (#40111) as
the first builder to provide side access panels to reach/inspect to the
maze of tubing and to service fuel filters. I reflect on DLM (#40168)
and his Halon (non dry powder) onboard suppression system. I now
reflect on the comment of lowering the inherent pressure in the tunnel
and venting fumes/smoke to the outside atmosphere and will await the
flap switch query. Your Picasso pictures are stunning! Glad your around
to share.
Your summation should be reviewed by all builders.
No modification to the VANS system.
Limiting fire damage is critical.
Fuel shutoff worked, as advertized.
Your prop strike damage was that to just the "now needed" engine
teardown or did it migrate into your avionics?
As a Tech Advisor, no one wants to hear from us how often we find flares
on tubing incorrectly manufactured or improperly torqued (under and
over). Many builders have not added the test of their "Shutoff Valve to
cut engine operation" and confirm continued function at each conditional
inspection. This drives that action home. I am thrilled that you are
reporting and I look forward to more news of the landing gear mounts,
legs and what you find. I am willing to kick-in $100 for a N718PF Chang
Relief Fund, cause your data will be worth far more than that to current
aviators, current builders, future builders and loved ones. If I could
bring Dan back I would spend even more.
Geoff can you weigh in on steps that can be applied to mitigate flame
damage to a composite tunnel under similar circumstance? Lizard skin
a.k.a. Johnston (#40410) or Zetex heat shield batting or flame-resistant
topcoat chemical application?
John
#40600
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted Chang
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:53 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fire and off field landing
I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this
point the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been spending
the time doing statements and answering inquiries from friends. Without
opening the tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what happened.
Here are my observations:
a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was normal
when I taxied out and on the take off.
d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although I
still did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the airplane
stopped the cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked
quickly and put it on the ground soon.
f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still small
fire but limited to inside the tunnel.
g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two tool
boxes in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B
requirement).
h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes off at
around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes up
and I had a three point.
i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps and
just do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
Some facts:
a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It is
the quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from the
opening.
c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and firewall. I
do have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire
department probably caused more damage than the fire.
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
| From: | Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
For what it's worth, I have a Halon bottle mounted on top of the console with the
pin and handle in easy reach (right above the fuel pump).
I took aviation consumer's advice some time ago and removed the dry powder one
from my airplane (if you've ever discharged one of these in a small area, you'll
understand!).
I have a spring-loaded-closed, quarter-sized access hole in the tunnel cover.
Connected to the Halon nozzle is a flexible, plastic hose that I can quickly stick
the end through the hole and then squeeze the Halon handle discharging into
the tunnel.
grumpy
N184JM
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:03 PM, John Cox wrote:
>
> Ted - several of your actions are Commendable. #1 you flew the aircraft
> to the landing site and walked away. The remaining builders and your
> underwriter should be appreciative. #2 You were willing to share and
> encourage other builders with the facts, when known. - Invaluable! #3
> You removed your EFIS screens and took steps to protect the residual
> value of what looks like a repairable incident. Thank you.
>
> Several questions came immediately to mind after considering those
> actions. Condition of Aluminum fuel tubing, flares and fittings? Fire
> Annunciation & Suppression systems? What would or could have happened
> if the tunnel had been composite rather than aluminum? Smoke evacuation
> and hoods. All will come out in time. This incident is the second most
> valuable RV-10 incident since the loss of Dan Lloyd and much will be
> gained from the post incident review.
>
> What comes to my mind is I seem to remember Scott Schmidt (#40111) as
> the first builder to provide side access panels to reach/inspect to the
> maze of tubing and to service fuel filters. I reflect on DLM (#40168)
> and his Halon (non dry powder) onboard suppression system. I now
> reflect on the comment of lowering the inherent pressure in the tunnel
> and venting fumes/smoke to the outside atmosphere and will await the
> flap switch query. Your Picasso pictures are stunning! Glad your around
> to share.
>
> Your summation should be reviewed by all builders.
>
> No modification to the VANS system.
> Limiting fire damage is critical.
> Fuel shutoff worked, as advertized.
> Your prop strike damage was that to just the "now needed" engine
> teardown or did it migrate into your avionics?
>
> As a Tech Advisor, no one wants to hear from us how often we find flares
> on tubing incorrectly manufactured or improperly torqued (under and
> over). Many builders have not added the test of their "Shutoff Valve to
> cut engine operation" and confirm continued function at each conditional
> inspection. This drives that action home. I am thrilled that you are
> reporting and I look forward to more news of the landing gear mounts,
> legs and what you find. I am willing to kick-in $100 for a N718PF Chang
> Relief Fund, cause your data will be worth far more than that to current
> aviators, current builders, future builders and loved ones. If I could
> bring Dan back I would spend even more.
>
> Geoff can you weigh in on steps that can be applied to mitigate flame
> damage to a composite tunnel under similar circumstance? Lizard skin
> a.k.a. Johnston (#40410) or Zetex heat shield batting or flame-resistant
> topcoat chemical application?
>
> John
> #40600
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted Chang
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:53 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Fire and off field landing
>
>
> I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this
> point the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been spending
> the time doing statements and answering inquiries from friends. Without
>
> opening the tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what happened.
> Here are my observations:
>
> a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
> b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
> c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
> particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was normal
> when I taxied out and on the take off.
> d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although I
> still did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the airplane
> stopped the cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
> e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked
> quickly and put it on the ground soon.
> f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still small
> fire but limited to inside the tunnel.
> g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two tool
> boxes in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B
> requirement).
> h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes off at
>
> around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes up
> and I had a three point.
> i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps and
> just do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
>
>
> Some facts:
>
> a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
> b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It is
> the quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from the
> opening.
> c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and firewall. I
> do have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
> d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire
> department probably caused more damage than the fire.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Access From Below |
Phil, Wow! the Andair pump is a much cleaner install. If mine goes bad I'm
switching. Simpler plumbing and belly access look like winners to me.
Fortunately, in 4 filter inspections to date I have never found anything in
the filter. Before the belly access I always spilled a bit and left the
tunnel open to air out for a few hours. Now, through the bottom, there's no
problem and I inspect that area much more often.
I did leave a tee fitting near the valve in case I wanted to add a purge
valve later. Hot starts in hot country aren't always easy.
From: Phillip Perry
Here's how I attempted to tackle the filter access issue from above. I
think it makes it quite a bit easier when getting everything aligned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3mpcapeBA8
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Gonzalez <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Second fire in RV10 to date |
It took about one day to decide to order this product and another two hours
to install it. It is a no brainer.
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productI
d=30673&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&storeId=11151&storeNum=10107&su
bdeptNum=10534&classNum=10535
The alarm is load as hell even with a headset on and an engine running.
The key point=2C the alarm sounds before the fire happens!
JOhn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Second fire in RV10 to date |
| From: | "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)yahoo.com> |
Ordered portable made by UEI today. $179+shpg. Mod cd200. I already have two smoke
hoods.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338349#338349
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
I am considering using the unused port on my Halon bottle to plumb a line
into the tunnel. WE are still discussing the Halon discharge in the cabin as
the tunnel has some big holes to cabin.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miller John" <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fire and off field landing
>
> For what it's worth, I have a Halon bottle mounted on top of the console
> with the pin and handle in easy reach (right above the fuel pump).
>
> I took aviation consumer's advice some time ago and removed the dry powder
> one from my airplane (if you've ever discharged one of these in a small
> area, you'll understand!).
>
> I have a spring-loaded-closed, quarter-sized access hole in the tunnel
> cover.
>
> Connected to the Halon nozzle is a flexible, plastic hose that I can
> quickly stick the end through the hole and then squeeze the Halon handle
> discharging into the tunnel.
>
> grumpy
> N184JM
>
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:03 PM, John Cox wrote:
>
>>
>> Ted - several of your actions are Commendable. #1 you flew the aircraft
>> to the landing site and walked away. The remaining builders and your
>> underwriter should be appreciative. #2 You were willing to share and
>> encourage other builders with the facts, when known. - Invaluable! #3
>> You removed your EFIS screens and took steps to protect the residual
>> value of what looks like a repairable incident. Thank you.
>>
>> Several questions came immediately to mind after considering those
>> actions. Condition of Aluminum fuel tubing, flares and fittings? Fire
>> Annunciation & Suppression systems? What would or could have happened
>> if the tunnel had been composite rather than aluminum? Smoke evacuation
>> and hoods. All will come out in time. This incident is the second most
>> valuable RV-10 incident since the loss of Dan Lloyd and much will be
>> gained from the post incident review.
>>
>> What comes to my mind is I seem to remember Scott Schmidt (#40111) as
>> the first builder to provide side access panels to reach/inspect to the
>> maze of tubing and to service fuel filters. I reflect on DLM (#40168)
>> and his Halon (non dry powder) onboard suppression system. I now
>> reflect on the comment of lowering the inherent pressure in the tunnel
>> and venting fumes/smoke to the outside atmosphere and will await the
>> flap switch query. Your Picasso pictures are stunning! Glad your around
>> to share.
>>
>> Your summation should be reviewed by all builders.
>>
>> No modification to the VANS system.
>> Limiting fire damage is critical.
>> Fuel shutoff worked, as advertized.
>> Your prop strike damage was that to just the "now needed" engine
>> teardown or did it migrate into your avionics?
>>
>> As a Tech Advisor, no one wants to hear from us how often we find flares
>> on tubing incorrectly manufactured or improperly torqued (under and
>> over). Many builders have not added the test of their "Shutoff Valve to
>> cut engine operation" and confirm continued function at each conditional
>> inspection. This drives that action home. I am thrilled that you are
>> reporting and I look forward to more news of the landing gear mounts,
>> legs and what you find. I am willing to kick-in $100 for a N718PF Chang
>> Relief Fund, cause your data will be worth far more than that to current
>> aviators, current builders, future builders and loved ones. If I could
>> bring Dan back I would spend even more.
>>
>> Geoff can you weigh in on steps that can be applied to mitigate flame
>> damage to a composite tunnel under similar circumstance? Lizard skin
>> a.k.a. Johnston (#40410) or Zetex heat shield batting or flame-resistant
>> topcoat chemical application?
>>
>> John
>> #40600
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted Chang
>> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:53 AM
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV10-List: Fire and off field landing
>>
>>
>> I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this
>> point the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been spending
>> the time doing statements and answering inquiries from friends. Without
>>
>> opening the tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what happened.
>> Here are my observations:
>>
>> a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
>> b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
>> c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
>> particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was normal
>> when I taxied out and on the take off.
>> d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although I
>> still did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the airplane
>> stopped the cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
>> e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked
>> quickly and put it on the ground soon.
>> f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still small
>> fire but limited to inside the tunnel.
>> g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two tool
>> boxes in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B
>> requirement).
>> h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes off at
>>
>> around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes up
>> and I had a three point.
>> i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps and
>> just do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
>>
>>
>> Some facts:
>>
>> a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
>> b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It is
>> the quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from the
>> opening.
>> c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and firewall. I
>> do have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
>> d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire
>> department probably caused more damage than the fire.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
| From: | Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
Can someone post a link to the picassa photos?
Shannon
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Miller John wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, I have a Halon bottle mounted on top of the console
> with the pin and handle in easy reach (right above the fuel pump).
>
> I took aviation consumer's advice some time ago and removed the dry powder
> one from my airplane (if you've ever discharged one of these in a small
> area, you'll understand!).
>
> I have a spring-loaded-closed, quarter-sized access hole in the tunnel
> cover.
>
> Connected to the Halon nozzle is a flexible, plastic hose that I can
> quickly stick the end through the hole and then squeeze the Halon handle
> discharging into the tunnel.
>
> grumpy
> N184JM
>
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:03 PM, John Cox wrote:
>
> >
> > Ted - several of your actions are Commendable. #1 you flew the aircraft
> > to the landing site and walked away. The remaining builders and your
> > underwriter should be appreciative. #2 You were willing to share and
> > encourage other builders with the facts, when known. - Invaluable! #3
> > You removed your EFIS screens and took steps to protect the residual
> > value of what looks like a repairable incident. Thank you.
> >
> > Several questions came immediately to mind after considering those
> > actions. Condition of Aluminum fuel tubing, flares and fittings? Fire
> > Annunciation & Suppression systems? What would or could have happened
> > if the tunnel had been composite rather than aluminum? Smoke evacuation
> > and hoods. All will come out in time. This incident is the second most
> > valuable RV-10 incident since the loss of Dan Lloyd and much will be
> > gained from the post incident review.
> >
> > What comes to my mind is I seem to remember Scott Schmidt (#40111) as
> > the first builder to provide side access panels to reach/inspect to the
> > maze of tubing and to service fuel filters. I reflect on DLM (#40168)
> > and his Halon (non dry powder) onboard suppression system. I now
> > reflect on the comment of lowering the inherent pressure in the tunnel
> > and venting fumes/smoke to the outside atmosphere and will await the
> > flap switch query. Your Picasso pictures are stunning! Glad your around
> > to share.
> >
> > Your summation should be reviewed by all builders.
> >
> > No modification to the VANS system.
> > Limiting fire damage is critical.
> > Fuel shutoff worked, as advertized.
> > Your prop strike damage was that to just the "now needed" engine
> > teardown or did it migrate into your avionics?
> >
> > As a Tech Advisor, no one wants to hear from us how often we find flares
> > on tubing incorrectly manufactured or improperly torqued (under and
> > over). Many builders have not added the test of their "Shutoff Valve to
> > cut engine operation" and confirm continued function at each conditional
> > inspection. This drives that action home. I am thrilled that you are
> > reporting and I look forward to more news of the landing gear mounts,
> > legs and what you find. I am willing to kick-in $100 for a N718PF Chang
> > Relief Fund, cause your data will be worth far more than that to current
> > aviators, current builders, future builders and loved ones. If I could
> > bring Dan back I would spend even more.
> >
> > Geoff can you weigh in on steps that can be applied to mitigate flame
> > damage to a composite tunnel under similar circumstance? Lizard skin
> > a.k.a. Johnston (#40410) or Zetex heat shield batting or flame-resistant
> > topcoat chemical application?
> >
> > John
> > #40600
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted Chang
> > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:53 AM
> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RV10-List: Fire and off field landing
> >
> >
> > I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this
> > point the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been spending
> > the time doing statements and answering inquiries from friends. Without
> >
> > opening the tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what happened.
> > Here are my observations:
> >
> > a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
> > b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
> > c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
> > particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was normal
> > when I taxied out and on the take off.
> > d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although I
> > still did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the airplane
> > stopped the cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
> > e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked
> > quickly and put it on the ground soon.
> > f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still small
> > fire but limited to inside the tunnel.
> > g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two tool
> > boxes in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B
> > requirement).
> > h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes off at
> >
> > around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes up
> > and I had a three point.
> > i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps and
> > just do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
> >
> >
> > Some facts:
> >
> > a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
> > b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It is
> > the quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from the
> > opening.
> > c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and firewall. I
> > do have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
> > d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire
> > department probably caused more damage than the fire.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
| From: | "civengpe" <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
Would someone mind posting a link to the picassa photos?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338351#338351
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Using Matronics Site |
| From: | "civengpe" <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
I am new to this site and am having some issues using it properly. I have signed
up to get messages via email and that seems to be working just fine. The problem
is that I have replied, via email, to some of them, but they never get
posted on here or get sent out to the list. Am I doing something wrong or are
you only able to reply via the website?
Thanks in advance
Shannon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338352#338352
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin XM weather |
| From: | "civengpe" <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
When I called Garmin tech support yesterday, the prerecorded message stated that
the update was NOT mandatory for 696 users.
BTW, I complained about the price of the updates in relation to the cost of just
purchasing an IPAD and using foreflight and they gave me a 50% discount code
for the yearly subscription!
Shannon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338355#338355
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil N <philn(at)toosan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
https://picasaweb.google.com/tc1234c/4272011RV10Accident?authkey=Gv1sRgCPjmtviSyuKsQg#
----- Original Message -----
From: Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com>
To:
Cc:
Date: Thursday, April 28 2011 04:27 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fire and off field landing
Can someone post a link to the picassa photos?
Shannon
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Miller John wrote:
For what it's worth, I have a Halon bottle mounted on top of the console with the
pin and handle in easy reach (right above the fuel pump).
I took aviation consumer's advice some time ago and removed the dry powder one
from my airplane (if you've ever discharged one of these in a small area, you'll
understand!).
I have a spring-loaded-closed, quarter-sized access hole in the tunnel cover.
Connected to the Halon nozzle is a flexible, plastic hose that I can quickly stick
the end through the hole and then squeeze the Halon handle discharging into
the tunnel.
grumpy
N184JM
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:03 PM, John Cox wrote:
>
> Ted - several of your actions are Commendable. #1 you flew the aircraft
> to the landing site and walked away. The remaining builders and your
> underwriter should be appreciative. #2 You were willing to share and
> encourage other builders with the facts, when known. - Invaluable! #3
> You removed your EFIS screens and took steps to protect the residual
> value of what looks like a repairable incident. Thank you.
>
> Several questions came immediately to mind after considering those
> actions. Condition of Aluminum fuel tubing, flares and fittings? Fire
> Annunciation & Suppression systems? What would or could have happened
> if the tunnel had been composite rather than aluminum? Smoke evacuation
> and hoods. All will come out in time. This incident is the second most
> valuable RV-10 incident since the loss of Dan Lloyd and much will be
> gained from the post incident review.
>
> What comes to my mind is I seem to remember Scott Schmidt (#40111) as
> the first builder to provide side access panels to reach/inspect to the
> maze of tubing and to service fuel filters. I reflect on DLM (#40168)
> and his Halon (non dry powder) onboard suppression system. I now
> reflect on the comment of lowering the inherent pressure in the tunnel
> and venting fumes/smoke to the outside atmosphere and will await the
> flap switch query. Your Picasso pictures are stunning! Glad your around
> to share.
>
> Your summation should be reviewed by all builders.
>
> No modification to the VANS system.
> Limiting fire damage is critical.
> Fuel shutoff worked, as advertized.
> Your prop strike damage was that to just the "now needed" engine
> teardown or did it migrate into your avionics?
>
> As a Tech Advisor, no one wants to hear from us how often we find flares
> on tubing incorrectly manufactured or improperly torqued (under and
> over). Many builders have not added the test of their "Shutoff Valve to
> cut engine operation" and confirm continued function at each conditional
> inspection. This drives that action home. I am thrilled that you are
> reporting and I look forward to more news of the landing gear mounts,
> legs and what you find. I am willing to kick-in $100 for a N718PF Chang
> Relief Fund, cause your data will be worth far more than that to current
> aviators, current builders, future builders and loved ones. If I could
> bring Dan back I would spend even more.
>
> Geoff can you weigh in on steps that can be applied to mitigate flame
> damage to a composite tunnel under similar circumstance? Lizard skin
> a.k.a. Johnston (#40410) or Zetex heat shield batting or flame-resistant
> topcoat chemical application?
>
> John
> #40600
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ted Chang
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:53 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Fire and off field landing
>
>
> I thought I owe you, my fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this
> point the plane is still sitting in the field and I have been spending
> the time doing statements and answering inquiries from friends. Without
>
> opening the tunnel and cowling I can not say for sure what happened.
> Here are my observations:
>
> a. Fire was limited to the tunnel.
> b. It is a fuel leak inside the tunnel that fed into the fire.
> c. Fuel has been leaking some time before the fire started on this
> particular flight (based on the high fuel flow). Fuel flow was normal
> when I taxied out and on the take off.
> d. The smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although I
> still did not have much in-flight visibility, by the time the airplane
> stopped the cabin was almost cleared of smoke.
> e. There is no time to think. When my right leg felt warm I banked
> quickly and put it on the ground soon.
> f. After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still small
> fire but limited to inside the tunnel.
> g. Dead stick is very hard to do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two tool
> boxes in my baggage compartment to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B
> requirement).
> h. I have not calibrated my stall warning system. The buzzer goes off at
>
> around 60 kts. So, it was not a full stall landing. The field slopes up
> and I had a three point.
> i. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps and
> just do it. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.
>
>
> Some facts:
>
> a. There is no modification on my fuel system.
> b. The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It is
> the quickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from the
> opening.
> c. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and firewall. I
> do have insulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.
> d. Propeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire
> department probably caused more damage than the fire.
>
> Ted
>
>
==========
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Using Matronics Site |
At 01:14 PM 4/28/2011 Thursday, civengpe wrote:
>
>I am new to this site and am having some issues using it properly. I have signed
up to get messages via email and that seems to be working just fine. The
problem is that I have replied, via email, to some of them, but they never get
posted on here or get sent out to the list. Am I doing something wrong or are
you only able to reply via the website?
>
>
>Thanks in advance
>Shannon
Hi Shannon,
Welcome to the group! You should be able to just do a normal email "Reply" to
any message you receive from the RV10-List and it will automatically go back to
the whole List. Make sure that your email client is sending the replies to
"rv10-list(at)matronics.com" and not just the originator of the given post.
I checked the spam filter and didn't see that your email address had been blocked
for any reason.
Matt
-
Matt "Fox" Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Access From Below |
| From: | Phil Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Yeah, it is very simple and very clean. Almost too simple.
I keep waiting on someone who knows more than I do to say I missed something
, but that hasn't occurred yet. I do like the combo assembly and the engine
ering of the Andair pump vs AFP's (not that there is anything wrong with AFP
). Besides the recirculation feature, the Andair does not use vanes and ther
efore won't wear like the AFP. Instead it uses a series of expanding cavit
ies to create a siphon effect that moves fuel through it.
I like the setup a lot but I don't know what I don't know. Hopefully there i
s no obvious fuctionality missing from the system or any additional liabilit
y I created in the process. I am a believer that fewer fittings and less pl
umbing equates to a safer and more reliable system.
Phil
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:25 PM, "Albert Gardner" wrote:
> Phil, Wow! the Andair pump is a much cleaner install. If mine goes bad I
=99m switching. Simpler plumbing and belly access look like winners to me
. Fortunately, in 4 filter inspections to date I have never found anything i
n the filter. Before the belly access I always spilled a bit and left the tu
nnel open to air out for a few hours. Now, through the bottom, there=99
s no problem and I inspect that area much more often.
>
> I did leave a tee fitting near the valve in case I wanted to add a purge v
alve later. Hot starts in hot country aren=99t always easy.
>
>
>
> From: Phillip Perry
>
> Here's how I attempted to tackle the filter access issue from above. I th
ink it makes it quite a bit easier when getting everything aligned.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3mpcapeBA8
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | West Coast Formation Clinic (WCFC) This Weekend... |
Any listers planning on attending the WCFC this weekend in Madera California?
I'm planning on being there with the 'ol RV-8. Come up and say 'hi' and introduce
yourself; I'd love to meet some of the Listers in person!
-
Matt "Fox" Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Second fire in RV10 to date |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
One great solution.
John
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Second fire in RV10 to date
It took about one day to decide to order this product and another two
hours to install it. It is a no brainer.
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?produ
ctId=30673&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&storeId=11151&storeNum=101
07&subdep
tNum=10534&classNum=10535
The alarm is load as hell even with a headset on and an engine running.
The key point, the alarm sounds before the fire happens!
JOhn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fire and off field landing |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
I was! At work, we use Halon under high pressure nitrogen in a s.steel
accumulator bottle along with a squib. Your system could be quite
effective if directed to the most logical area around the fuel filter
and shutoff valve. Just pull the valve, no squib to worry about. Heat
rises so I am interested in steps which could be taken to provide
additional temperature protection to a composite cover. The one Picasso
shot Img. 1882 gives clarity to a "Sense of Urgency" with a hot seat.
There have been other posts on hydrocarbon sensors to alert when a
combustible source is sensed, temperature is rising above an established
threshold or other indicators. It was great that Ted responded quickly
and accurately to getting the aircraft on the ground.
"When the engine stops, the aircraft is on fire, or a medical emergency
requires immediate action, the obligation of the pilot is to get the
aircraft on the ground." Think of it as becoming immediately the
underwriter's aircraft. The pilots job is to be around to settle the
claim at a successful conclusion. A friend was lost 5 years ago leaving
OSH while attempting solutions "in-flight" and conscientiously passing
over 8 perfectly good airports. He made it up to the point of touchdown
in Madison, WI. Kudos to Ted regardless of what is going to be found as
the cause.
Fire Annunciation?
Fire Suppression?
Pilot Skill? We should all be discussing the various solutions and
pursue enhanced pilot training like LOBO.
John C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DLM
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fire and off field landing
I am considering using the unused port on my Halon bottle to plumb a
line
into the tunnel. WE are still discussing the Halon discharge in the
cabin as
the tunnel has some big holes to cabin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Access From Below |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
A product called " Pig Mat" is an absorbent material which can be placed
under the valve before servicing. Less fumes to evacuate. Just through
it outside, in the trash, away from a combustible structure.
John
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Albert
Gardner
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:26 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Tunnel Access From Below
Phil, Wow! the Andair pump is a much cleaner install. If mine goes bad
I'm switching. Simpler plumbing and belly access look like winners to
me. Fortunately, in 4 filter inspections to date I have never found
anything in the filter. Before the belly access I always spilled a bit
and left the tunnel open to air out for a few hours. Now, through the
bottom, there's no problem and I inspect that area much more often.
I did leave a tee fitting near the valve in case I wanted to add a purge
valve later. Hot starts in hot country aren't always easy.
From: Phillip Perry
Here's how I attempted to tackle the filter access issue from above. I
think it makes it quite a bit easier when getting everything aligned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3mpcapeBA8
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Access From Below |
The one thing I heard in the video was that pump was for the o-360. So the
Question is how much fuel will it pump?
Patrick Thyssen
N15PT
--- On Thu, 4/28/11, Phil Perry wrote:
From: Phil Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Tunnel Access From Below
Date: Thursday, April 28, 2011, 4:03 PM
Yeah, it is very simple and very clean. =C2-Almost too simple.
I keep waiting on someone who knows more than I do to say I missed somethin
g, but that hasn't occurred yet. =C2-I do like the combo assembly and the
engineering of the Andair pump vs AFP's (not that there is anything wrong
with AFP). Besides the recirculation feature, the Andair does not use vanes
and therefore won't wear like the AFP. =C2- Instead it uses a series of
expanding cavities to create a siphon effect that moves fuel through it.
I like the setup a lot but I don't know what I don't know. =C2-Hopefully
there is no obvious fuctionality missing from the system or any additional
liability I created in the process. =C2-I am a believer that fewer fittin
gs and less plumbing equates to a safer and more reliable system.
Phil
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:25 PM, "Albert Gardner" wrote
:
Phil, Wow! the Andair pump is a much cleaner install. If mine goes bad I
=99m switching. Simpler plumbing and belly access look like winners to m
e. Fortunately, =C2-in 4 filter inspections to date I have never found an
ything in the filter. Before the belly access I always spilled a bit and le
ft the tunnel open to air out for a few hours. Now, through the bottom, the
re=99s no problem and I inspect that area much more often.I did leave
a tee fitting near the valve in case I wanted to add a purge valve later.
Hot starts in hot country aren=99t always easy. =C2-From: Phillip P
erryHere's how I attempted to tackle the filter access issue from above.=C2
- I think it makes it quite a bit easier when getting everything aligned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3mpcapeBA8
Phil
=C2- =0A=0A=0A
=========
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
=========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
=========
=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Johnson <bruce1hwjohnson(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
Good write up Ted. Glad your OK and sorry it happened. Good Luck=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Ted Chang <tc1234c@roadrunne
r.com>=0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Thu, April 28, 2011 3:53:00 AM
=0ASubject: RV10-List: Fire and off field landing=0A=0A--> RV10-List messag
e posted by: Ted Chang =0A=0AI thought I owe you, m
y fellow RV-10 builder some information. At this point the =0Aplane is stil
l sitting in the field and I have been spending the time doing =0Astatement
s and answering inquiries from friends.- Without opening the tunnel and
=0Acowling I can not say for sure what happened.- Here are my observation
s:=0A=0Aa. Fire was limited to the tunnel.=0Ab. It is a fuel leak inside th
e tunnel that fed into the fire.=0Ac. Fuel has been leaking some time befor
e the fire started on this particular =0Aflight (based on the high fuel flo
w). Fuel flow was normal when I taxied out and =0Aon the take off.=0Ad. The
smoke thinned out soon after I jettisoned the door. Although I still did
=0Anot have much in-flight visibility, by the time the airplane stopped the
cabin =0Awas almost cleared of smoke.=0Ae. There is no time to think. When
my right leg felt warm I banked quickly and =0Aput it on the ground soon.
=0Af.- After I turn off the fuel (it did shut off) there were still small
fire but =0Alimited to inside the tunnel.=0Ag. Dead stick is very hard to
do. RV-10 is nose heavy. I put two tool boxes in =0Amy baggage compartment
to keep the CG in the limit (my W&B requirement).=0Ah. I have not calibrate
d my stall warning system. The buzzer goes off at around =0A60 kts. So, it
was not a full stall landing. The field slopes up and I had a =0Athree poin
t.=0Ai. Don't rely on emergency checklist. Remember the important steps and
just do =0Ait. There is no time and visibility to find the checklist.=0A
=0A=0ASome facts:=0A=0Aa. There is no modification on my fuel system.=0Ab.
The door is still good except the area where bolts go through. It is the
=0Aquickest way to get ride of the smoke and get visibility from the openin
g.=0Ac. The fire damage seems to be limited to around tunnel and firewall.
I do have =0Ainsulation inside the tunnel floor and up on firewall.=0Ad. Pr
opeller strike and powder fire extinguisher from the fire department =0Apro
bably caused more damage than the fire.=0A=0A=0AI have to admit that for a
few seconds when the smoke came out and my leg felt =0Athe heat I had a tho
ught that I was in deep trouble (burn to death). I quickly =0Afocused on th
e tasks in front of me and tried to fly the airplane and solve the =0Aprobl
ems I was facing. From that point on there was no fear or regret.- After
I =0Acalled 911 and my insurance agent I got to walk down the hill, wait an
d think. =0AMy only negative thought was that my accident might negatively
impact a lot of =0Abuilders. I don't want to see anyone get disencouraged.
I am pretty sure that =0Awhat happened to me is not a design flaw, but a bu
ilder mistake. After I found =0Athe problem I will share with you so you ca
========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Access From Below |
| From: | Phil Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Pat,
Here is a thread that discusses it and includes Andair's response.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=63129
It's actually more of a function of line size and pressure relief valve cali
bration according to those who engineer this stuff.
Phil
On Apr 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Patrick Thyssen wrote:
> The one thing I heard in the video was that pump was for the o-360. So the
Question is how much fuel will it pump?
> Patrick Thyssen
> N15PT
>
> --- On Thu, 4/28/11, Phil Perry wrote:
>
> From: Phil Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Tunnel Access =46rom Below
> To: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com"
> Date: Thursday, April 28, 2011, 4:03 PM
>
> Yeah, it is very simple and very clean. Almost too simple.
>
> I keep waiting on someone who knows more than I do to say I missed somethi
ng, but that hasn't occurred yet. I do like the combo assembly and the engi
neering of the Andair pump vs AFP's (not that there is anything wrong with A
FP). Besides the recirculation feature, the Andair does not use vanes and th
erefore won't wear like the AFP. Instead it uses a series of expanding cav
ities to create a siphon effect that moves fuel through it.
>
> I like the setup a lot but I don't know what I don't know. Hopefully ther
e is no obvious fuctionality missing from the system or any additional liabi
lity I created in the process. I am a believer that fewer fittings and less
plumbing equates to a safer and more reliable system.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:25 PM, "Albert Gardner" wrot
e:
>
>> Phil, Wow! the Andair pump is a much cleaner install. If mine goes bad I
=99m switching. Simpler plumbing and belly access look like winners to me
. Fortunately, in 4 filter inspections to date I have never found anything i
n the filter. Before the belly access I always spilled a bit and left the tu
nnel open to air out for a few hours. Now, through the bottom, there=99
s no problem and I inspect that area much more often.
>>
>> I did leave a tee fitting near the valve in case I wanted to add a purge v
alve later. Hot starts in hot country aren=99t always easy.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Phillip Perry
>>
>> Here's how I attempted to tackle the filter access issue from above. I t
hink it makes it quite a bit easier when getting everything aligned.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3mpcapeBA8
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =========
>> ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> =========
>> ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> =========
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
>> =========================
=========
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Chang <tc1234c(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
I got the airplane back to the hangar and took a look into the engine
compartment. Now I am pretty sure the cause of the fire is a loose fuel
line b-nut on the mechanical fuel pump. It is entirely my mistake. So,
my follow builders, make sure all your nuts and fittings are tightened.
You don't need to worry about the fire problem I experienced. A few
observations to follow:
a. The fuel flow down and under the tunnel. I did not know when the fire
started since it was burning underneath.
b. After the fire burnt through the tunnel floor, it sent up some smoke
smell.
c. Soon brake line and fuel line melted and the brake fluid produced a
lot of smoke.
d. After brake fluid was consumed there were little smoke.
e. Fire did burn up around the mechanical fuel pump and up around left
mag. Wire bundle attached to the engine mount on top the mag is charred.
f. Fire did not burn through the aluminum heat boxes. The sealant on top
of the heat boxes are gone but not the ones around them.
g. I used plastic bushing, RTV, then a thick coat of 3M fire barrier
sealant for firewall penetration. None of them get compromised.
h. I brought firewall insulator but have not installed yet. It would not
do anything for this particular case.
i. The insulator on the tunnel floor can not withstand the fire. Most of
them are gone with the floor.
j. Nose gear link (WD1016) folded and the rest of the nose gear are in
good shape.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
| From: | Phil Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Ted,
Thanks for the report. Any idea what sparked the fuel? I'd like to figure out
what the ignition source is.
Phil
On Apr 28, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Ted Chang wrote:
>
> I got the airplane back to the hangar and took a look into the engine compartment.
Now I am pretty sure the cause of the fire is a loose fuel line b-nut on
the mechanical fuel pump. It is entirely my mistake. So, my follow builders,
make sure all your nuts and fittings are tightened. You don't need to worry about
the fire problem I experienced. A few observations to follow:
>
> a. The fuel flow down and under the tunnel. I did not know when the fire started
since it was burning underneath.
> b. After the fire burnt through the tunnel floor, it sent up some smoke smell.
> c. Soon brake line and fuel line melted and the brake fluid produced a lot of
smoke.
> d. After brake fluid was consumed there were little smoke.
> e. Fire did burn up around the mechanical fuel pump and up around left mag. Wire
bundle attached to the engine mount on top the mag is charred.
> f. Fire did not burn through the aluminum heat boxes. The sealant on top of the
heat boxes are gone but not the ones around them.
> g. I used plastic bushing, RTV, then a thick coat of 3M fire barrier sealant
for firewall penetration. None of them get compromised.
> h. I brought firewall insulator but have not installed yet. It would not do anything
for this particular case.
> i. The insulator on the tunnel floor can not withstand the fire. Most of them
are gone with the floor.
> j. Nose gear link (WD1016) folded and the rest of the nose gear are in good shape.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
Awesome data gathering Ted. Thanks so much for the follow-up.
When I do a final assembly I use the yellow torque seal on the
hardware. If it's missing, I know I've not tightened it down.
Back when I was a baby pilot, I bought the Grumman AA-1B I got my ticket
in. I took it back to the FBO I bought it from and they did the 'first'
annual ..... just before the fly-in at Lakeland FL (which started
Sun-n-Fun the next year). I started up to leave and I noticed a
handfull of folks running around giving me the 'cut off' sign. I shut
down and climbed out to find that they saw fluid spraying out from under
the cowl. When the FBO did the annual, the A&P pulled the B nut off the
inlet to the electric fuel pump to check and clean the screen. It went
back on finger tight, if that. I flew about 100 miles all total before
the problem was discovered. My Angels were at work. And that's the
last annual anyone else wrenched on my planes. I do all the
owner-assisted annuals and fix the squawks. MY A&P/IA does the paperwork.
Is the airframe undamaged?? Just gear and door???
Linn
On 4/28/2011 7:55 PM, Ted Chang wrote:
>
> I got the airplane back to the hangar and took a look into the engine
> compartment. Now I am pretty sure the cause of the fire is a loose
> fuel line b-nut on the mechanical fuel pump. It is entirely my
> mistake. So, my follow builders, make sure all your nuts and fittings
> are tightened. You don't need to worry about the fire problem I
> experienced. A few observations to follow:
>
> a. The fuel flow down and under the tunnel. I did not know when the
> fire started since it was burning underneath.
> b. After the fire burnt through the tunnel floor, it sent up some
> smoke smell.
> c. Soon brake line and fuel line melted and the brake fluid produced a
> lot of smoke.
> d. After brake fluid was consumed there were little smoke.
> e. Fire did burn up around the mechanical fuel pump and up around left
> mag. Wire bundle attached to the engine mount on top the mag is charred.
> f. Fire did not burn through the aluminum heat boxes. The sealant on
> top of the heat boxes are gone but not the ones around them.
> g. I used plastic bushing, RTV, then a thick coat of 3M fire barrier
> sealant for firewall penetration. None of them get compromised.
> h. I brought firewall insulator but have not installed yet. It would
> not do anything for this particular case.
> i. The insulator on the tunnel floor can not withstand the fire. Most
> of them are gone with the floor.
> j. Nose gear link (WD1016) folded and the rest of the nose gear are in
> good shape.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Just a guess but the mechanical pump is right above the hot exhaust, by not that
great a distance.
Thanks Ted, it's been informational! Glad you made it out fine. I had a fuel
fitting that was loose too, before first start, due to last minute hose removal
post-nut-check. It was on the fuel servo. Luckily I did a boost pump fuel
pressure test and found the dripping before I fired it up.
Even though I used torque seal all over on bolts, I think if for no other reason,
it would be worth doing it on the tunnel and fuel lines just to ensure that
you mark them after they are torqued. Could help prevent this type of failure.
I think I'll plan to do that next time I pull a fuel line.
Tim
On Apr 28, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Phil Perry wrote:
>
> Ted,
>
> Thanks for the report. Any idea what sparked the fuel? I'd like to figure out
what the ignition source is.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Ted Chang wrote:
>
>>
>> I got the airplane back to the hangar and took a look into the engine compartment.
Now I am pretty sure the cause of the fire is a loose fuel line b-nut on
the mechanical fuel pump. It is entirely my mistake. So, my follow builders,
make sure all your nuts and fittings are tightened. You don't need to worry about
the fire problem I experienced. A few observations to follow:
>>
>> a. The fuel flow down and under the tunnel. I did not know when the fire started
since it was burning underneath.
>> b. After the fire burnt through the tunnel floor, it sent up some smoke smell.
>> c. Soon brake line and fuel line melted and the brake fluid produced a lot of
smoke.
>> d. After brake fluid was consumed there were little smoke.
>> e. Fire did burn up around the mechanical fuel pump and up around left mag.
Wire bundle attached to the engine mount on top the mag is charred.
>> f. Fire did not burn through the aluminum heat boxes. The sealant on top of
the heat boxes are gone but not the ones around them.
>> g. I used plastic bushing, RTV, then a thick coat of 3M fire barrier sealant
for firewall penetration. None of them get compromised.
>> h. I brought firewall insulator but have not installed yet. It would not do
anything for this particular case.
>> i. The insulator on the tunnel floor can not withstand the fire. Most of them
are gone with the floor.
>> j. Nose gear link (WD1016) folded and the rest of the nose gear are in good
shape.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
which flight was the accident flight? how many hours into Phase I?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Chang" <tc1234c(at)roadrunner.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:55 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fire and off field landing
>
> I got the airplane back to the hangar and took a look into the engine
> compartment. Now I am pretty sure the cause of the fire is a loose fuel
> line b-nut on the mechanical fuel pump. It is entirely my mistake. So,
> my follow builders, make sure all your nuts and fittings are tightened.
> You don't need to worry about the fire problem I experienced. A few
> observations to follow:
>
> a. The fuel flow down and under the tunnel. I did not know when the fire
> started since it was burning underneath.
> b. After the fire burnt through the tunnel floor, it sent up some smoke
> smell.
> c. Soon brake line and fuel line melted and the brake fluid produced a
> lot of smoke.
> d. After brake fluid was consumed there were little smoke.
> e. Fire did burn up around the mechanical fuel pump and up around left
> mag. Wire bundle attached to the engine mount on top the mag is charred.
> f. Fire did not burn through the aluminum heat boxes. The sealant on top
> of the heat boxes are gone but not the ones around them.
> g. I used plastic bushing, RTV, then a thick coat of 3M fire barrier
> sealant for firewall penetration. None of them get compromised.
> h. I brought firewall insulator but have not installed yet. It would not
> do anything for this particular case.
> i. The insulator on the tunnel floor can not withstand the fire. Most of
> them are gone with the floor.
> j. Nose gear link (WD1016) folded and the rest of the nose gear are in
> good shape.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Chang <tc1234c(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
I just log on and read some of your comments. Here are answers to a few questions.
The accident flight was my sixth flight and 8th time running the engine.
I estimated that I had 1.2 min from the time I noticed the smoke to a sharp bank
to land.
During that time I had to get the fire extinguisher, shut the fuel, open the door,
identify the landing site and of course fly the airplane.
There was really no time to get the checklist, put on the smoke hood (I have two
in my hangar that I brought for my
RV-9A first flight), and doing some other things. If you had a fuel fire the best
thing is to shut the fuel valve.
I never shut the fuel valve before and in a hurry I turn the selector to in between
left and right. I am not even sure it was completely shut.
But engine stopped and fire reduced. So it worked for me. Do make sure you practice
shut off the fuel. When the fire begins there won't be time
to figure it out. Fire extinguisher works only when you remove the supply of fuel.
Of course shut off the fuel means the fan in front is going to stop
and you must find a place to put the airplane down. My RV9A will glide a long distance
without power. 10 really drop like a rock when compared with 9.
I landed without flap not because I was thinking about the spark (fire already
started) problem, but I just did not have time to lower it.
It turned out good since my flaps are not damaged. There are a lot of factors that
made my emergency landing a success. Most of them I have no control of.
There are many things I did not do correctly, for example, I forgot to turn off
the electrical system. With the smoke and fire I was busy trying to
land the airplane and did not think about turning off switches. I was not analyzing
the situation and figuring out the solution, I was just reacting
to the situation with my instinct. If I say that I have the skill to handle an
emergency like this I will be lying to myself.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Gonzalez <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire and off field landing |
"If I say that I have the skill to handle an emergency like this I will be
lying to myself."
You did/do have the skill=2C you are alive and uninjured.
You will need to get your confidence back and get back on the horse.
Altitude is life. Unless it takes too much time to get on the ground and ju
mp out due to being burned...then a parachute is a good thing.
Good work!!!
Date: Thu=2C 28 Apr 2011 23:32:42 -0400
From: tc1234c(at)roadrunner.com
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fire and off field landing
I just log on and read some of your comments. Here are answers to a few que
stions.
The accident flight was my sixth flight and 8th time running the engine.
I estimated that I had 1.2 min from the time I noticed the smoke to a sharp
bank to land.
During that time I had to get the fire extinguisher=2C shut the fuel=2C ope
n the door=2C identify the landing site and of course fly the airplane.
There was really no time to get the checklist=2C put on the smoke hood (I h
ave two in my hangar that I brought for my
RV-9A first flight)=2C and doing some other things. If you had a fuel fire
the best thing is to shut the fuel valve.
I never shut the fuel valve before and in a hurry I turn the selector to in
between left and right. I am not even sure it was completely shut.
But engine stopped and fire reduced. So it worked for me. Do make sure you
practice shut off the fuel. When the fire begins there won't be time
to figure it out. Fire extinguisher works only when you remove the supply o
f fuel. Of course shut off the fuel means the fan in front is going to stop
and you must find a place to put the airplane down. My RV9A will glide a lo
ng distance without power. 10 really drop like a rock when compared with 9.
I landed without flap not because I was thinking about the spark (fire alre
ady started) problem=2C but I just did not have time to lower it.
It turned out good since my flaps are not damaged. There are a lot of facto
rs that made my emergency landing a success. Most of them I have no control
of.
There are many things I did not do correctly=2C for example=2C I forgot to
turn off the electrical system. With the smoke and fire I was busy trying t
o
land the airplane and did not think about turning off switches. I was not a
nalyzing the situation and figuring out the solution=2C I was just reacting
to the situation with my instinct. If I say that I have the skill to handle
an emergency like this I will be lying to myself.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Rudder gust lock |
I am trying to figure out how to create a rudder gust lock that is on
the rudder, not the pedals. I would rather control the movement at the
source rather than 20 feet away at the pedals. My RV8 has a 1/8 inch
thick angle longeron that runs aft at the same height as the rudder
horn, to which you mount the external rudder stops. A couple of U shaped
pieces of stainless rod connecting the horn to the stops acts as a
ground lock. The problem with the 10 is there is no longeron down by the
rudder horn to mount a similar type of bracket. I could make a bracket
that mounts through the skin and into the aft bulkhead of the tailcone
at the proper height to mate up to the horn, but I would like to hear if
anyone else has used a similar approach, and could send me a picture of
the results.
Chris Hukill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rudder gust lock |
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
Chris, this is exactly what we did on my -10 and I think it's an excellent
solution. Very simple to install & remove, extremely light & compact. Just
hang a huge Remove Before Flight ribbon off of it and you are set. Mine
clips on to my pitot tube cover when not in use so I pull both out at the
same time.
Sorry I am on the road and do not have any photos to share. I have posted
images in the past so they should be in the archives. Ping me in 3 days if
you want a photo posted.
Robin
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Hukill wrote:
> I am trying to figure out how to create a rudder gust lock that is on the
> rudder, not the pedals. I would rather control the movement at the source
> rather than 20 feet away at the pedals. My RV8 has a 1/8 inch thick angle
> longeron that runs aft at the same height as the rudder horn, to which you
> mount the external rudder stops. A couple of U shaped pieces of stainless
> rod connecting the horn to the stops acts as a ground lock. The problem with
> the 10 is there is no longeron down by the rudder horn to mount a similar
> type of bracket. I could make a bracket that mounts through the skin and
> into the aft bulkhead of the tailcone at the proper height to mate up to the
> horn, but I would like to hear if anyone else has used a similar approach,
> and could send me a picture of the results.
> Chris Hukill
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder gust lock |
two alumium angles (1/8") 24" long); padded with foam (attach foam with
RTV) single long bolt thru the center of each angle; paint RED; use wing
nut on bolt. This will securely lock rudder when inserted at/around the
lower hinge.
If desired make a smaller one for the aileron and/or elevator.
I use the belts for control lock, except rudder, for short periods;
otherwise I use individual control locks on each surface.
light weight but very secure.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Hukill
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 6:27 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Rudder gust lock
I am trying to figure out how to create a rudder gust lock that is on
the rudder, not the pedals. I would rather control the movement at the
source rather than 20 feet away at the pedals. My RV8 has a 1/8 inch
thick angle longeron that runs aft at the same height as the rudder
horn, to which you mount the external rudder stops. A couple of U shaped
pieces of stainless rod connecting the horn to the stops acts as a
ground lock. The problem with the 10 is there is no longeron down by the
rudder horn to mount a similar type of bracket. I could make a bracket
that mounts through the skin and into the aft bulkhead of the tailcone
at the proper height to mate up to the horn, but I would like to hear if
anyone else has used a similar approach, and could send me a picture of
the results.
Chris Hukill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder gust lock |
Here's a link to Robin's rudder gust lock pictures...
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=58911
-Sean #40303
On 4/29/11 8:51 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
> Chris, this is exactly what we did on my -10 and I think it's an
> excellent solution. Very simple to install & remove, extremely light &
> compact. Just hang a huge Remove Before Flight ribbon off of it and
> you are set. Mine clips on to my pitot tube cover when not in use so I
> pull both out at the same time.
> Sorry I am on the road and do not have any photos to share. I have
> posted images in the past so they should be in the archives. Ping me
> in 3 days if you want a photo posted.
>
> Robin
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Hukill > wrote:
>
> I am trying to figure out how to create a rudder gust lock that is
> on the rudder, not the pedals. I would rather control the movement
> at the source rather than 20 feet away at the pedals. My RV8 has a
> 1/8 inch thick angle longeron that runs aft at the same height as
> the rudder horn, to which you mount the external rudder stops. A
> couple of U shaped pieces of stainless rod connecting the horn to
> the stops acts as a ground lock. The problem with the 10 is there
> is no longeron down by the rudder horn to mount a similar type of
> bracket. I could make a bracket that mounts through the skin and
> into the aft bulkhead of the tailcone at the proper height to mate
> up to the horn, but I would like to hear if anyone else has used a
> similar approach, and could send me a picture of the results.
> Chris Hukill
>
> *
>
> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rudder gust lock |
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
Thanks Sean!
OK, on all my other RV's we built gust locks that "dropped" down instead of
the way this one is done with one down leg & one leg going up. This was a
test unit that worked well so I moved on to other items on "the list". At
some point we may fabricate a new unit that just "drops" into place. There
is no benefit to the one up one down design. Regardless it works GREAT in
either configuration but the drop into place design has gravity working for
you and is a touch easier to install.
Robin
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>
> Here's a link to Robin's rudder gust lock pictures...
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=58911
>
> -Sean #40303
>
>
> On 4/29/11 8:51 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
>
>> Chris, this is exactly what we did on my -10 and I think it's an excellent
>> solution. Very simple to install & remove, extremely light & compact. Just
>> hang a huge Remove Before Flight ribbon off of it and you are set. Mine
>> clips on to my pitot tube cover when not in use so I pull both out at the
>> same time.
>> Sorry I am on the road and do not have any photos to share. I have posted
>> images in the past so they should be in the archives. Ping me in 3 days if
>> you want a photo posted.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Hukill > cjhukill(at)cox.net>> wrote:
>>
>> I am trying to figure out how to create a rudder gust lock that is
>> on the rudder, not the pedals. I would rather control the movement
>> at the source rather than 20 feet away at the pedals. My RV8 has a
>> 1/8 inch thick angle longeron that runs aft at the same height as
>> the rudder horn, to which you mount the external rudder stops. A
>> couple of U shaped pieces of stainless rod connecting the horn to
>> the stops acts as a ground lock. The problem with the 10 is there
>> is no longeron down by the rudder horn to mount a similar type of
>> bracket. I could make a bracket that mounts through the skin and
>> into the aft bulkhead of the tailcone at the proper height to mate
>> up to the horn, but I would like to hear if anyone else has used a
>> similar approach, and could send me a picture of the results.
>> Chris Hukill
>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Flare Fitting Torque |
On 4/28/11 2:03 PM, John Cox wrote:
> As a Tech Advisor, no one wants to hear from us how often we find flares
> on tubing incorrectly manufactured or improperly torqued (under and
> over)
I changed the subject line to start a new thread here.
Yes, this brought me back to reviewing what I need to do in the tunnel.
I wanted to put this info out there to make sure I am "doing it right".
In AC 43.13-1B CHG1 on page 9-19 there is a table for flare nut torque
values.
-4 nut = 50-65 inch pounds
-6 nut = 110-130 inch pounds
Also on page 7-8 of AC 43.13-1B there is a formula for determining the
correct torque reading when using adapters such as crows feet.
E - Distance from drive centerline to adapter centerline
T - Recommended torque value
L - Length or torque wrench, drive centerline to handle centerline
Y - What the wrench should be set at with adapter in place
TxL / L+E = Y
So for my wrench with a crows foot and to torque a -6 flare nut to 110
inch lbs works out like this...
110x10 / 10+1 = 100
My wrench should be set at 100 and *not* 110 in this case.
So, do I have all this right? A few questions..
1. I've seen different tables out there with different torque values
for the flare nuts. Is what I'm using above correct?
2. So the torque range for -4 above is 50-65. What do people use to
set their wrench? low end of 50? high end of 65? Split the difference
for 57?
2. There are some places in the tunnel where it just doesn't work
getting a torque wrench in there even with a crows foot and/or
extension. What are folks doing in this case?
-Sean #40303
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder gust lock |
I did something similar to Robin, but with the ' drop down' . One word
of caution, when I initially installed the gust lock, I installed it
only on one side, and I did not put 'retainer pins/clips' to hold in
place, During a trip, we experienced some extremely strong winds one
evening (40-50 mph gusts) and with the drop down retainer 'crept'
upward bit by bit until it allowed some movement in the rudder, and then
it progressively crept up until the movement was large enough to pull
the attachment bracket off the plane.
The solution for me, was to replicate the gust lock on 'Both' sides of
the rudder, and to add retaining clips to the drop in brackets that do
not allow for any 'creep'. The retainers are just some 3/16" ss rod bent
in a wide "U" and drilled for some retaining clips which are wired
together ( so as not to loose them) with a Remove before Flight flag.
It's rock solid now and haven't had any subsequent issues.
Attached is an early picture before I added the other side and snugged
up the retaining pins.
Deems
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fehdxlbb(at)gmail.com" <fehdxlbb(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder gust lock |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Flare Fitting Torque |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Each builder is the Manufacturer (not VANS), many have happily followed
the mantra "just build it". Every builder receiving my Tech Inspection
hears the story of hats. On this list most of the readers are wearing
"The Builder/Manufacturer" hat. The moment the DAR is through with his
paperwork, you will learn the perspective of wearing "The Technician's"
hat. Often profanity follows and a dialog which goes something like
"Why didn't I think of that".
Access to an area, service loops, application of torque to any fitting
carrying fluids, support of electrical wires from chafing, they all play
into the dialog.
The reason for at least two tables are possibly the difference in B nut
construction between aluminum or steel. The proper use of a torque
wrench requires access, range of movement and proper application.
Hopefully the torque reading required is not at the lowest or highest
end of the measurement range. Both "under-torque" or more common "over
torque" lead to potential leaks and product failures. Every time you
open/loosen a fitting on a fluid line, you should pressurize, fly the
aircraft then reinspect for telltale signs. An improperly formed flare,
an over-torqued fitting, weak aluminum tubing or angular mis-match can
lead to potential leaks. Always remember to have the input or output
tubing with a bend to take up errors of using a straight run that can be
too short or too long.
Access to the tunnel whether from your favorite side or from the bottom
seem good points of consideration.
Think about what it will feel like when you re-enter a space for
servicing. Several of the readers have been great on the "I would have
done it this way, or I am thinking about changing" the product provided
or method suggested by a parts supplier.
AC 43.13 is only a baseline in the absence of one selected method or
standard by the responsible manufacturer. Often, such as with
electrical considerations, much has improved over the ideas of the
1940's - 50s techniques. Chose wisely.
In the absence of a standard in Experimental Built, Anything Goes. It's
an experiment. We are blessed with many somewhat similar aircraft in
reasonably similar construction.
On your torque calculation problem you did not mention if the 1" was
straight in line, at a 90 degree or some variant. Prop Hub bolts
provide a challenge.
John -#40600
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Stephens
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 8:06 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Flare Fitting Torque
On 4/28/11 2:03 PM, John Cox wrote:
> As a Tech Advisor, no one wants to hear from us how often we find
flares
> on tubing incorrectly manufactured or improperly torqued (under and
> over)
I changed the subject line to start a new thread here.
Yes, this brought me back to reviewing what I need to do in the tunnel.
I wanted to put this info out there to make sure I am "doing it right".
In AC 43.13-1B CHG1 on page 9-19 there is a table for flare nut torque
values.
-4 nut = 50-65 inch pounds
-6 nut = 110-130 inch pounds
Also on page 7-8 of AC 43.13-1B there is a formula for determining the
correct torque reading when using adapters such as crows feet.
E - Distance from drive centerline to adapter centerline
T - Recommended torque value
L - Length or torque wrench, drive centerline to handle centerline
Y - What the wrench should be set at with adapter in place
TxL / L+E = Y
So for my wrench with a crows foot and to torque a -6 flare nut to 110
inch lbs works out like this...
110x10 / 10+1 = 100
My wrench should be set at 100 and *not* 110 in this case.
So, do I have all this right? A few questions..
1. I've seen different tables out there with different torque values
for the flare nuts. Is what I'm using above correct?
2. So the torque range for -4 above is 50-65. What do people use to
set their wrench? low end of 50? high end of 65? Split the difference
for 57?
2. There are some places in the tunnel where it just doesn't work
getting a torque wrench in there even with a crows foot and/or
extension. What are folks doing in this case?
-Sean #40303
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
Perhaps a larger potential problem than torque values for B nuts , is
how to construct the proper flare. There are several different tools for
doing so, and the techniques of using the tools vary, It's quite
possible with at least one tool (Parker) to 'over torque' the flaring
tool and product a flare that becomes too thin and subject to breaking.
(Ask me how I know:-) ). Years ago I posted my experience of
'accidentally' finding that some fuel lines in the tunnel had been 'over
flared' and 'over torqued' and resulted in the flare breaking and the
line pulling free from the B nut! Fortunately I found it and redid all
of the alum lines, or I would have found myself in a similar situation
as Ted.
Deems
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
Sorry, yes the 1" is straight inline.
So if I understand correctly with the torque range, it's best to split
the difference as to be further away from both under and over torque.
The range numbers I gave were for Aluminum. Are the numbers below what
other builders are using? I'd like to "chose wisely" in this particular
case, but my choice is what the piece of paper tells me.
-4 nut = 50-65 inch pounds
-6 nut = 110-130 inch pounds
Thanks,
-Sean #40303
On 4/29/11 1:42 PM, John Cox wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Cox"
>
> Each builder is the Manufacturer (not VANS), many have happily followed
> the mantra "just build it". Every builder receiving my Tech Inspection
> hears the story of hats. On this list most of the readers are wearing
> "The Builder/Manufacturer" hat. The moment the DAR is through with his
> paperwork, you will learn the perspective of wearing "The Technician's"
> hat. Often profanity follows and a dialog which goes something like
> "Why didn't I think of that".
>
> Access to an area, service loops, application of torque to any fitting
> carrying fluids, support of electrical wires from chafing, they all play
> into the dialog.
>
> The reason for at least two tables are possibly the difference in B nut
> construction between aluminum or steel. The proper use of a torque
> wrench requires access, range of movement and proper application.
> Hopefully the torque reading required is not at the lowest or highest
> end of the measurement range. Both "under-torque" or more common "over
> torque" lead to potential leaks and product failures. Every time you
> open/loosen a fitting on a fluid line, you should pressurize, fly the
> aircraft then reinspect for telltale signs. An improperly formed flare,
> an over-torqued fitting, weak aluminum tubing or angular mis-match can
> lead to potential leaks. Always remember to have the input or output
> tubing with a bend to take up errors of using a straight run that can be
> too short or too long.
>
> Access to the tunnel whether from your favorite side or from the bottom
> seem good points of consideration.
>
> Think about what it will feel like when you re-enter a space for
> servicing. Several of the readers have been great on the "I would have
> done it this way, or I am thinking about changing" the product provided
> or method suggested by a parts supplier.
>
> AC 43.13 is only a baseline in the absence of one selected method or
> standard by the responsible manufacturer. Often, such as with
> electrical considerations, much has improved over the ideas of the
> 1940's - 50s techniques. Chose wisely.
>
> In the absence of a standard in Experimental Built, Anything Goes. It's
> an experiment. We are blessed with many somewhat similar aircraft in
> reasonably similar construction.
>
> On your torque calculation problem you did not mention if the 1" was
> straight in line, at a 90 degree or some variant. Prop Hub bolts
> provide a challenge.
>
> John -#40600
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Stephens
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 8:06 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Flare Fitting Torque
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens
>
> On 4/28/11 2:03 PM, John Cox wrote:
>> As a Tech Advisor, no one wants to hear from us how often we find
> flares
>> on tubing incorrectly manufactured or improperly torqued (under and
>> over)
> I changed the subject line to start a new thread here.
>
>
> Yes, this brought me back to reviewing what I need to do in the tunnel.
>
> I wanted to put this info out there to make sure I am "doing it right".
>
> In AC 43.13-1B CHG1 on page 9-19 there is a table for flare nut torque
> values.
>
> -4 nut = 50-65 inch pounds
> -6 nut = 110-130 inch pounds
>
> Also on page 7-8 of AC 43.13-1B there is a formula for determining the
> correct torque reading when using adapters such as crows feet.
>
> E - Distance from drive centerline to adapter centerline
> T - Recommended torque value
> L - Length or torque wrench, drive centerline to handle centerline
> Y - What the wrench should be set at with adapter in place
>
> TxL / L+E = Y
>
> So for my wrench with a crows foot and to torque a -6 flare nut to 110
> inch lbs works out like this...
>
> 110x10 / 10+1 = 100
>
> My wrench should be set at 100 and *not* 110 in this case.
>
> So, do I have all this right? A few questions..
>
> 1. I've seen different tables out there with different torque values
> for the flare nuts. Is what I'm using above correct?
>
> 2. So the torque range for -4 above is 50-65. What do people use to
> set their wrench? low end of 50? high end of 65? Split the difference
>
> for 57?
>
> 2. There are some places in the tunnel where it just doesn't work
> getting a torque wrench in there even with a crows foot and/or
> extension. What are folks doing in this case?
>
> -Sean #40303
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
| From: | "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)yahoo.com> |
instead of Van's supplied 3003-O. My 3003-O went in with my aluminum hvac scrap.
5052 has nearly twice the fatigue and tensile strength. 5052-O is used on certified
aircraft for a reason. As noted above it flares much nicer. I used Bonaco
flex hoses at the pedals and down the gear legs.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338482#338482
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Improved product quality helps in the overall build. Getting rid of
H-5606 and upgrading hydraulic fluid is another Manufacturer decision.
Great call Wayne.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:36 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
instead of Van's supplied 3003-O. My 3003-O went in with my aluminum
hvac scrap.
5052 has nearly twice the fatigue and tensile strength. 5052-O is used
on certified aircraft for a reason. As noted above it flares much nicer.
I used Bonaco flex hoses at the pedals and down the gear legs.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08
Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338482#338482
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Rudder gust lock |
Thanks guys for the response. Robin's method is just the ticket, however
I'm not sure how much of the tailcone structure I need to pick up, so I
don't damage anything in winds like we had all day long yesterday, here
in Vegas. If I was building the tailcone now, and things were
accessible, I would put in some serious reinforcement to carry the load,
but now as an afterthought, I think an external bracket could be made
that goes forward and bolts to the little stiffener that attaches to the
aft bulkhead. The bracket could then go down to line up with the horn,
and catch a couple of inches of the aft bulkhead along the way. Or maybe
just one that runs up and down the bulkhead a few inches is strong
enough? A bracket on both sides with retaining clips is also a good
idea.
Chris Hukill
finding projects for the new mill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Les Kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
John et al
The flash point of Aeroshell 31 is 83 degrees C. The flash point of
Aeroshell 41 is 254 degreees C. Take you pick. I seem to recall reading of
brake fires due to leaking brake fluid onto hot brakes.
I believe the cost difference is trival.
Cheers
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: April-29-11 11:59 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
Improved product quality helps in the overall build. Getting rid of
H-5606 and upgrading hydraulic fluid is another Manufacturer decision.
Great call Wayne.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:36 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
instead of Van's supplied 3003-O. My 3003-O went in with my aluminum hvac
scrap.
5052 has nearly twice the fatigue and tensile strength. 5052-O is used on
certified aircraft for a reason. As noted above it flares much nicer.
I used Bonaco flex hoses at the pedals and down the gear legs.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08 Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338482#338482
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
After seeing brake fluid fires, I do not recommend H-5606. Then again
working with Skydrol (phosphate ester), I won't chose that either. Tim
posted sources for 1 gallon cans of Aeroshell 41. It can make all the
difference in a better day with composite wheel pants in close proximity
to the heat and fuel.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Les Kearney
Sent: Sat 4/30/2011 9:13 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
John et al
The flash point of Aeroshell 31 is 83 degrees C. The flash point of
Aeroshell 41 is 254 degreees C. Take you pick. I seem to recall reading
of
brake fires due to leaking brake fluid onto hot brakes.
I believe the cost difference is trival.
Cheers
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: April-29-11 11:59 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
Improved product quality helps in the overall build. Getting rid of
H-5606 and upgrading hydraulic fluid is another Manufacturer decision.
Great call Wayne.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:36 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
instead of Van's supplied 3003-O. My 3003-O went in with my aluminum
hvac
scrap.
5052 has nearly twice the fatigue and tensile strength. 5052-O is used
on
certified aircraft for a reason. As noted above it flares much nicer.
I used Bonaco flex hoses at the pedals and down the gear legs.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08 Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338482#338482
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
http://www.skygeek.com/royco-782-synthetic-fire-resistant-hydraulic-fluid.html
If you don't mind another brand, and don't want to have 3.5 qts unused for
the life of your plane.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Les Kearney wrote:
>
> John et al
>
> The flash point of Aeroshell 31 is 83 degrees C. The flash point of
> Aeroshell 41 is 254 degreees C. Take you pick. I seem to recall reading of
> brake fires due to leaking brake fluid onto hot brakes.
>
> I believe the cost difference is trival.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
> Sent: April-29-11 11:59 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
>
>
> Improved product quality helps in the overall build. Getting rid of
> H-5606 and upgrading hydraulic fluid is another Manufacturer decision.
> Great call Wayne.
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:36 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
>
>
> instead of Van's supplied 3003-O. My 3003-O went in with my aluminum hvac
> scrap.
>
> 5052 has nearly twice the fatigue and tensile strength. 5052-O is used on
> certified aircraft for a reason. As noted above it flares much nicer.
> I used Bonaco flex hoses at the pedals and down the gear legs.
>
> --------
> Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08 Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
> Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338482#338482
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
another reason to pitch the vans tubing solution and install manufactured
Teflon lines with the stainless steel braid from fuselage bulkhead fitting
to brake..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Les Kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 9:13 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
>
> John et al
>
> The flash point of Aeroshell 31 is 83 degrees C. The flash point of
> Aeroshell 41 is 254 degreees C. Take you pick. I seem to recall reading of
> brake fires due to leaking brake fluid onto hot brakes.
>
> I believe the cost difference is trival.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
> Sent: April-29-11 11:59 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
>
>
> Improved product quality helps in the overall build. Getting rid of
> H-5606 and upgrading hydraulic fluid is another Manufacturer decision.
> Great call Wayne.
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:36 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
>
>
> instead of Van's supplied 3003-O. My 3003-O went in with my aluminum hvac
> scrap.
>
> 5052 has nearly twice the fatigue and tensile strength. 5052-O is used on
> certified aircraft for a reason. As noted above it flares much nicer.
> I used Bonaco flex hoses at the pedals and down the gear legs.
>
> --------
> Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08 Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
> Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338482#338482
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
Les, I think you got it backwards...-- Aeroshell 31 is 205C, and 41 is
90C.=0ADon McDonald=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom:
Les Kearney =0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sat, Ap
ril 30, 2011 11:13:07 AM=0ASubject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
=0AJohn et al=0A=0AThe flash point of Aeroshell 31 is 83 degrees C. The fla
sh point of=0AAeroshell 41 is 254 degreees C. Take you pick. I seem to reca
ll reading of=0Abrake fires due to leaking brake fluid onto hot brakes.=0A
=0AI believe the cost difference is trival.=0A=0ACheers=0A=0ALes=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.c
om=0A[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox=0A
Sent: April-29-11 11:59 PM=0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: RE: RV1
n Cox" =0A=0AImproved product quality helps in the
overall build.- Getting rid of=0AH-5606 and upgrading hydraulic fluid is
another Manufacturer decision.=0AGreat call Wayne.=0A=0AJohn=0A=0A=0A=0A---
--Original Message-----=0AFrom: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com=0A[mai
lto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer=0ASent: Fr
iday, April 29, 2011 5:36 PM=0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: RV10-
lyer" =0A=0Ainstead of Van's supplied 3003-O. My
3003-O went in with my aluminum hvac=0Ascrap. =0A=0A5052 has nearly twice
the fatigue and tensile strength. 5052-O is used on=0Acertified aircraft fo
r a reason. As noted above it flares much nicer.=0AI used Bonaco flex hoses
at the pedals and down the gear legs.=0A=0A--------=0AWayne Gillispie, A&a
mp;P 5/93, PPC 10/08 Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.=0AFuselage Sec 46 Eng
mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A
=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338482#338482=0A=0A=0A=0A
========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
Guys,
In the FWIW category, here is what I've been using for brake fluid since
first flight in Nov 2006:
Valvoline DEX/MERC auto trans fluid VV324, flash point 202=B0 C / 395=B0
F.
It is readily available and very affordable.
grumpy
N184JM
On May 1, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Don McDonald wrote:
> Les, I think you got it backwards... Aeroshell 31 is 205C, and 41 is
90C.
> Don McDonald
>
> From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sat, April 30, 2011 11:13:07 AM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
>
>
> John et al
>
> The flash point of Aeroshell 31 is 83 degrees C. The flash point of
> Aeroshell 41 is 254 degreees C. Take you pick. I seem to recall
reading of
> brake fires due to leaking brake fluid onto hot brakes.
>
> I believe the cost difference is trival.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
> Sent: April-29-11 11:59 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
>
>
> Improved product quality helps in the overall build. Getting rid of
> H-5606 and upgrading hydraulic fluid is another Manufacturer decision.
> Great call Wayne.
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:36 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
>
>
> instead of Van's supplied 3003-O. My 3003-O went in with my aluminum
hvac
> scrap.
>
> 5052 has nearly twice the fatigue and tensile strength. 5052-O is used
on
> certified aircraft for a reason. As noted above it flares much nicer.
> I used Bonaco flex hoses at the pedals and down the gear legs.
>
> --------
> Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08 Bldr# 40983 SB Started
12/1/09.
> Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338482#338482
>
http://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution====
=======
>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Milspec H-83282 is the improved product over H-5606 regardless of
manufacturer name. Coming in hot on a short runway requires converting
the energy to heat transferred into the rotors. Another improvement is
increased rotor mass or larger surface area of calipers. You cannot go
wrong increasing a safety margin regarding fire. Tim James went with
improved mass and pad area.
John
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 4:36 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
http://www.skygeek.com/royco-782-synthetic-fire-resistant-hydraulic-flui
d.html
If you don't mind another brand, and don't want to have 3.5 qts unused
for the life of your plane.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Les Kearney wrote:
John et al
The flash point of Aeroshell 31 is 83 degrees C. The flash point of
Aeroshell 41 is 254 degreees C. Take you pick. I seem to recall reading
of
brake fires due to leaking brake fluid onto hot brakes.
I believe the cost difference is trival.
Cheers
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: April-29-11 11:59 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
Improved product quality helps in the overall build. Getting rid of
H-5606 and upgrading hydraulic fluid is another Manufacturer decision.
Great call Wayne.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:36 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
instead of Van's supplied 3003-O. My 3003-O went in with my aluminum
hvac
scrap.
5052 has nearly twice the fatigue and tensile strength. 5052-O is used
on
certified aircraft for a reason. As noted above it flares much nicer.
I used Bonaco flex hoses at the pedals and down the gear legs.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08 Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338482#338482
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
Several improvements can be made to stopping distances; Matco is
developing a wheel/brake (dual puck) which can be used in lieu of the
Cleveland mains; secondly making certain that the prop control is full
forward will increase aerodynamic braking.
On a different note using Arial font and size 12 will increase the
readability of the email; my main computer display is an HD TV screen,
so I am sitting 6-8 feet from the screen. You last answer must have
been about size 8 and faint. Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Cox
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 12:09 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
Milspec H-83282 is the improved product over H-5606 regardless of
manufacturer name. Coming in hot on a short runway requires converting
the energy to heat transferred into the rotors. Another improvement is
increased rotor mass or larger surface area of calipers. You cannot go
wrong increasing a safety margin regarding fire. Tim James went with
improved mass and pad area.
John
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 4:36 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
http://www.skygeek.com/royco-782-synthetic-fire-resistant-hydraulic-fluid
.html
If you don't mind another brand, and don't want to have 3.5 qts unused
for the life of your plane.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Les Kearney wrote:
John et al
The flash point of Aeroshell 31 is 83 degrees C. The flash point of
Aeroshell 41 is 254 degreees C. Take you pick. I seem to recall
reading of
brake fires due to leaking brake fluid onto hot brakes.
I believe the cost difference is trival.
Cheers
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: April-29-11 11:59 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
Improved product quality helps in the overall build. Getting rid of
H-5606 and upgrading hydraulic fluid is another Manufacturer decision.
Great call Wayne.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:36 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
instead of Van's supplied 3003-O. My 3003-O went in with my aluminum
hvac
scrap.
5052 has nearly twice the fatigue and tensile strength. 5052-O is used
on
certified aircraft for a reason. As noted above it flares much nicer.
I used Bonaco flex hoses at the pedals and down the gear legs.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08 Bldr# 40983 SB Started
12/1/09.
Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338482#338482
==========
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comht
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | searchable part list |
| From: | Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com> |
I am looking for a link to a set of searchable .doc or .pdf parts list for
the various rv-10 kits. I can't seem to loacate a document online.
A friend of mine has just purchased an emp kit from an estate sale and is
doing an inventory.
Thanks, Jim Combs
N312F - Flying 240 hours (Still needs paint!)
Note: Paint it BEFORE you fly it!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James McGrew" <jsmcgrew(at)alum.mit.edu> |
| Subject: | Retrofit locking fuel caps |
I've been researching retrofit locking fuel caps. I've seen some write-ups
on the Van's retrofit locking fuel caps and the Andair ones. Both require an
insert to be pro-sealed into the existing fuel cap. I just found some at
Aircraft Spruce that don't require an insert (see link).
Has anyone tried these?
http://www.aircraftspruce.ca/catalog/appages/retrofitfc.php
Thanks.
Jim
N312JE - temporarily grounded for Dynon Skyview panel upgrade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Retrofit locking fuel caps |
It's a little hard to tell exactly from the picture on ACS, but the
locking cap shown in the link looks a lot like the ones I have. They
did require an insert. I think the clue is the "1-3/8" orifice",
after the insert goes in. Isn't the original filler closer to 2" in
diameter?
I've been happy with these caps although the opening doesn't offer
much of a view inside the tank. I also tried the caps just above, the
SPRLs, which fell apart and dropped their guts in the tank after a few
hours.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:48 PM, James McGrew wrote:
> Ive been researching retrofit locking fuel caps. Ive seen some write-ups
> on the Vans retrofit locking fuel caps and the Andair ones. Both require an
> insert to be pro-sealed into the existing fuel cap. I just found some at
> Aircraft Spruce that dont require an insert (see link).
>
>
> Has anyone tried these?
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.ca/catalog/appages/retrofitfc.php
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Jim
>
> N312JE temporarily grounded for Dynon Skyview panel upgrade
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Les Kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Flare Fitting Torque |
Don
That was a test! You passed. The specs from Shell say that the fire point on
the Aeroshell 31 is 254C so you only get part marks .
Brett at Bonaco Inc does a wonderful job supplying high quality brake / fuel
lines. I have eliminated the plastic lines in the Van's spec and have also
used his hoses on the gear legs to the brakes.
All my fuel lines will be / are braided steel lines.
Cheers
Les
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don McDonald
Sent: May-01-11 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
Les, I think you got it backwards... Aeroshell 31 is 205C, and 41 is 90C.
Don McDonald
_____
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Sent: Sat, April 30, 2011 11:13:07 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
John et al
The flash point of Aeroshell 31 is 83 degrees C. The flash point of
Aeroshell 41 is 254 degreees C. Take you pick. I seem to recall reading of
brake fires due to leaking brake fluid onto hot brakes.
I believe the cost difference is trival.
Cheers
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: April-29-11 11:59 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
Improved product quality helps in the overall build. Getting rid of
H-5606 and upgrading hydraulic fluid is another Manufacturer decision.
Great call Wayne.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:36 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Flare Fitting Torque
instead of Van's supplied 3003-O. My 3003-O went in with my aluminum hvac
scrap.
5052 has nearly twice the fatigue and tensile strength. 5052-O is used on
certified aircraft for a reason. As noted above it flares much nicer.
I used Bonaco flex hoses at the pedals and down the gear legs.
--------
Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08 Bldr# 40983 SB Started 12/1/09.
Fuselage Sec 46 Eng mount/Gear- 1359 hrs to date.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=338482#338482
http://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: [LML] Re: Beware update |
| From: | "Bobby J. Hughes" <bhughes(at)qnsi.net> |
Here's a post from another group that may be of intrest to some. It
appears AOPA has been in contact with CBP regarding a "new trend". I
find AOPA's (Craig Spence) comments disturbing.
Bobby Hughes
N416AS
________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: vtailjeff(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 10:00 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Beware update
As most of you on the list know we had an incident in April here in St.
Louis where one of our own was "stopped" by local police based on a
"tip" from Customs and Border Patrol. Here is an update to that story:
Bob Rickard (who was the individual stopped) and I have received more
emails from other Lancair pilots who have been stopped as well based on
"tips" from CBP. So this is not an isolated incident. I contacted AOPA,
my congressman's staff, and CBP themselves. AOPA's Craig Spence is
presently working this issue on our behalf. He already had ascheduled
meeting with CBP on Wednesday, so he brought this subject up. He said
that CBP wants to be the new "skycop". He conveyed our concerns to them
--targeting GA for poloce searches and the issue of the fax that is sent
to police agencies justifying detaining pilots. Mr. Spence told them
that the fax has errors on it and agreed to help them correct those. On
the issue of tracking GA flights and detaining pilots, Mr. Spence said
the CBP is not budging. He believes we need to take this to
Congressional leaders --he said we are in for a long battle with CBP.
The day after Mr. Spence's meeting I received two phone calls from CBP
(so it is true about smelly stuff rolling downhill). The first call was
from "Carlos" at CBP HQ. Carlos works in Gen. Mike Kostelnik's office in
DC. Kostelnik, a retired AF two star, is the head of the CBP Air and
Marine Center. Carlos wanted to know what our concerns were and I
repeated that we did not like getting stopped based on bogus
information. He wanted to know how I was certain CBP was behind these
stops (he implied they had nothing to do with it) and I said it was from
information from the local police and the fax AMOC sent to them. (Ah,
the truth and evidence is so great) He was pretty agitated during our
conversation and said if we were stopped and the police questioned us
then we should tell them what they wanted to know. I said I disagreed
(Fifth Amendment) . I gave him the specifics of Bobaloos stop two weeks
ago and he agreed to look into it. I said that in the best light their
intell is either unvetted or their analyis is poor. He disagreed (of
course) and gave many other reasons (all bogus) as to why their intel
was good. He said it could have been because the aircraft was a prior
drug aircraft. I replied that would be pretty difficult since I built
it, flew it and then sold it to Col. Rickard. I said that in the worst
light --their folks are making up stories to get the local police to
stop GA pilots--for the crime of ....flying. Of course he about blew a
gasket. I asked him to tell me where CBP got this information about Bob
carrying a fugitive. He replied that is a matter of national security
and could not tell me.
A couple of hours later I receive a phone call from Tony C. at the CBP
AMOC in Riverside, CA asking again about my concerns. Again I expressed
the same and while he was very polite and cordial and appears to be a
April 08, 2011 - May 02, 2011
RV10-Archive.digest.vol-id