RV10-Archive.digest.vol-il

October 17, 2011 - November 17, 2011



      > e -
      >          -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
      > t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      > ==========
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      ==========================
      =========
      ==========================
      =========
      ==========================
      =========
      ==========================
      =========
      > 
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plane Power and Lycoming Pulley Alignment Issue
From: "rleffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2011
To summarize what I believe happened that has not been confirmed by any of the three companies involved. Van's attempted to respond to a large customer and many other RV-10 builders that are installing air conditioning in their aircraft, requested Lycoming to switch the ring gear on the YIO-540-D4A5 that Van's resells to a dual pulley gear. Lycoming compiled with the request and supplied a LW-12227 ring gear. Lycoming failed to mention to Van's that the alternative belt grooved moved aft a little. Nobody told Plane Power that even the engine configuration was changed. With that stated, both Plane Power and Lycoming have responded to my inquiry and have been very actively working on a solution. The list price on a new ring gear is about $1,700. Van's has not responded other than to pass the buck to their suppliers. The following was the first email that I received today from Plane Power. Lycoming reports that the alignment difference is .130 with the alternator pulley forward of the flywheel pulley. This fits what you have reported as well. If the alternator is adjusted to move aft (toward the firewall) to align with the flywheel pulley the Tension Arm (99-1004) will also be off alignment. We intend to produce a kit solution for future applications. We understand your need is now so we offer the following suggestion to you. 1. Verify that you need your alternator to be moved .130 (or whatever your requirement is) and make that your new target point. 2. Leave the 99-1001 spacer attached to the alternator as it presently is. We dont think you can remove it with satisfactory results. Machine grind the 99-1001 spacer by .130. Leave a flat surface. This will move the entire alternator aft. In doing so it will create a void at the 99-1002 front spacer. 3. Add a spacer or washers between the 99-1002 spacer and the mount bracket. 4. Add a spacer or washers between the tension arm (99-1004) and alternator where the tension arm connects to the alternator. 5. The starter strap will be attached on the outside of the mount as usual and no modification should be needed. The above instructions have not gone through our engineering process. It represents our effort to give you suggestions to assist you in your EXPERIMENTAL effort to fabricate a solution for your application. It is up to you to verify that the above suggestions are appropriate for your application. To be honest, my immediate reaction was pretty negative with this response. I purchased an engine and a fire wall forward kit from Van's with the expectation that the alternator, alternator belt, and the engine ring gear alignment would be plug and play, just like it has been for years. I don't have the tools to perform these tasks nor the willingness to hire a firm to make them for me. Van's should have stepped up and admitted to the oversight, then work with the vendors to make all the builders that purchased this variation of the engine and the FWF suppled alternator a solution. The more I think about it, Van's should publish a service bulletin on this situation. If folks don't notice the 1/8" offset, they will eventually lose a belt due to coming off or premature wear. Fortunately, Plane Power understanding that I probably didn't have the tools to be sucessful with their original instructions, sent me the following email a little later today. We have a new solution for you. We are going to ship you some new spacers which we will cut down the size. So call me ASAP so we can get address, etc. and discus. We thought removing the existing spacers from the alternator would be very difficult. So we tried and experiment and liked the results. To get your current two spacers out of the alternator do this. Get a container that will allow you to fill to a certain point with lacquer thinner. Arrange your project so you can soak the ear and spacer of the alternator in the lacquer thinner. DO NOT GET THE ALTERNATOR CASING IN THE THINNER - JUST THE EAR AND SPACER. Leave submerged for one hour. Remove from the thinner and using a vice, pliers, etc twist the spacer out of the alternator ear. Perform the same task on the other ear & spacer. Then you can replace the old spacers with the new ones we will send you. I suspect it will be a week or so before I can attempt to make this modification. I'll post an update with the results. Bob -------- Bob Leffler N410BL - FWF RV-10 #40684 http://mykitlog.com/rleffler Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355317#355317 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Service report
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2011
I had my MT propeller off during the summer of 2010 when I was replacing my air conditioner compressor and alternator mounts. I had MT repaint the prop while it was off. MT went through the prop and replaced seals and checked everything while they had it. There was sludge in my crank (just under 300 hours at that time) and MT was unconcerned, as was the A&P next door to me that rebuilds quite a few engines. I cleaned it out and went on my way. My engine overhauler recommended W100 Plus for a warm climate airplane and that is what I have been using since shortly after finishing phase 1. Prior to that I was using W100 and adding camguard. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355318#355318 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 17, 2011
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Service report
Aeroshell 100Plus is a way to throw away good money that could be buying fuel. Only engines that require the Lycoming oil additive by AD (like the O320H2AD engine) need the Plus. Regular 100 is fine as is, and cam guard would be a good anti-corrosive. All the Lycoming additive does is add extreme pressure lube (TCP to be precise) but does nothing for corrosion protection. On 10/17/2011 3:18 PM, dmaib(at)me.com wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: "dmaib(at)me.com" > > I had my MT propeller off during the summer of 2010 when I was replacing my air conditioner compressor and alternator mounts. I had MT repaint the prop while it was off. MT went through the prop and replaced seals and checked everything while they had it. There was sludge in my crank (just under 300 hours at that time) and MT was unconcerned, as was the A&P next door to me that rebuilds quite a few engines. I cleaned it out and went on my way. My engine overhauler recommended W100 Plus for a warm climate airplane and that is what I have been using since shortly after finishing phase 1. Prior to that I was using W100 and adding camguard. > > -------- > David Maib > RV-10 #40559 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355318#355318 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Specketer" <speckter(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Plane Power and Lycoming Pulley Alignment Issue
Date: Oct 17, 2011
After flying since 2008 I rolled the belt on my second alternator which is mounted below the governor and driven by a second belt. Upon close examination of the large pulley I too, have one grove and one semi grove. The semi grove is so close I never noticed that it was different until I had belt problems. Someone mentioned that they had theirs machined into a actual belt grove. Who did the machining and what did it cost? Thanks Gary Specketer > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 2011 Copperstate RV10 Nest
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2011
I should be set up by early afternoon on Thurs. Chairs, shade, and water/soft drinks will always be available. Looking forward to a great turnout and show. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in mostly done, finishing kit in progress. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355347#355347 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Torque tube assembly doesn't fit
From: "Tom Biggs" <rv10(at)tmbiggs.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2011
I am at the step: "Cleco the assembly to the upper and lower flanges of the W-1010-R Inboard Wing Rib as shown in Figure 5. (The support brackets Cleco into the forth and fifth holes back from the front of the main flange not counting the tab.) Clamp the W-1029C Angle flush against the aft face of the W-1029B-L Torque Tube Support Bracket and the inboard face of the inboard wing rib." The problem is that the assembly is in contact with the aft end of the forward lightening hole. Because the edge of the torque tube assembly is not against the rib, the holes in the rib flange from lining up. (In other words, it doesn't fit) I am not sure what the best solution is..... take a bit off the assembly where it contacts the lightening hole or .... not sure what the other option is. Any ideas? (oh yea... working on the left wing. ) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355353#355353 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Torque tube assembly doesn't fit
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2011
Be careful when you start thinking about taking off metal to make something fit. There is a chance that you have something backwards, on the wrong wing, upside down, etc. As I recall, "R" or "L" at the end of the part number does not always mean "Right" or "Left" wing. Inboard fuel tanks end ribs are an example, if I recall correctly. At any rate, it might be worth going back over the plans and making sure all parts are the correct ones. Been there, done that. :? -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355450#355450 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Walt Cunningham gives me a "no go" for space fligh
From: "Tom Biggs" <rv10(at)tmbiggs.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2011
My dad is good friends with Walt Cunningham (Apollo 7 Lunar Module Pilot). We had lunch today and he came by to check the progress on my RV-10. Alas he says it is not fit for space travel. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355451#355451 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Torque tube assembly doesn't fit
From: "Tom Biggs" <rv10(at)tmbiggs.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2011
Everything is right except the lightening hole interferes with the bracket. I have been told that the best solution is to remove the bend in the lightening hole where it interferes. I am going to call Van's later today and see what they have to say. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355452#355452 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Cumins" <jcumins(at)jcis.net>
Subject: Re: Torque tube assembly doesn't fit
Date: Oct 18, 2011
I remember that part it will fit but be real close to the lightning hole. I will basically sit above the extrusion. I just looked at mine last night. John Cumins President 707-425-7100 707-425-7576 Fax -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Biggs Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:37 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Torque tube assembly doesn't fit Everything is right except the lightening hole interferes with the bracket. I have been told that the best solution is to remove the bend in the lightening hole where it interferes. I am going to call Van's later today and see what they have to say. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355452#355452 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Torque tube assembly doesn't fit
From: "Tom Biggs" <rv10(at)tmbiggs.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2011
Called Van's and they did not hesitate, flatten out the lightening hole where it obstructs the bracket. Can't wait to get home and literally knock it out. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355468#355468 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Walt Cunningham gives me a "no go" for space fligh
From: "Tom Biggs" <rv10(at)tmbiggs.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2011
Bah. Photo did not attach. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355472#355472 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/walt_cunningham_902.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Prop ground clearance
From: "MotoPOD" <MotoPOD(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 20, 2011
John, how much ground clearance do you have? As a point of reference, FAR 23.925 provides ground clearance requirements for certified airplanes. At gross weight and forward CG, there should ideally be at least 7 inches. In addition, there should still be positive ground clearance at 1.5 g's. While this doesn't legally apply to experimentals, it provides a good benchmark to strive for. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355629#355629 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 20, 2011
Subject: Re: 2011 Copperstate RV10 Nest
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Myron mentioned that few folks had given him any information as to whether they would come, so it is hard for him to determine what amount of supplies he needs. If you are coming Saturday, please let Myron know. Thanks, Kelly On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:48 PM, woxofswa wrote: > > I should be set up by early afternoon on Thurs. Chairs, shade, and water/soft drinks will always be available. Looking forward to a great turnout and show. > > -------- > Myron Nelson > Mesa, AZ > Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in mostly done, finishing kit in progress. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355347#355347 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 21, 2011
Subject: Fuel Leak
Listers, The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I talked myself into thinking it was nothing, and the next day it was stronger. Time to investigate. I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the tunnel, easily fixed with a flex hose. It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course keeping the fuel where it should be is key, but once it gets out, keeping it from igniting seems like a good defense. The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used for mounting, one is blocked by the gearbox, leaving five that expose the brushes to the tunnel atmosphere. I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of the motor, and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The motor works fine, no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the motor with the outer case taken off, which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I realize it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole was plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn't much fun. I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the leak was the best solution. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 21, 2011
From: Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel Leak
Wat caused the leak? Loose nut? Bad flare? Cracked tube? Inquiring minds need to know. Linn On 10/21/2011 2:31 PM, Dave Saylor wrote: > Listers, > > The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. snip > > I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" > but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. > Fixing the leak was the best solution. > > Dave Saylor > AirCrafters > 140 Aviation Way > Watsonville, CA 95076 > 831-722-9141 Shop > 831-750-0284 Cell ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 21, 2011
From: davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Fuel Leak
Thanks Dave, good info. Did you find the source of the leak? Cracked flare or what? Did you use Del Seals on your flares? Mine is all plumbed and I de cided to keep to the stock aluminum fittings and tubing instead of hoses to keep weight and costs down to a minimum. Those little things add up quick weight wise and from experience building a Cozy MKIV, weight adds up really quick with any deviations to plans. FWIW, we used all aluminum fuel lines and fittings for the fuel system in the cockpit on the Cozy and used Del Se als on all the flares on everything, FWF and aft including oil lines. Over 300 hours so far with no leaks. Careful attention to your flaring technique 's for quality flares, fitting alignment, and proper torque, are key ingred ients to a simple, light weight, low cost plumbing system. Plumbing the bra kes and fuel delivery system in the tunnel of the -10 gave me fits and I wa s tempted more that once to just order up some hoses, but every time I thou ght about the weight penalty kept me motivated to keep to plans and I am gl ad I spent the time fabricating and scraping lots of tubing until I got it right. Regardless, I WILL seal up the flap motor just in case! David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Saylor" <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 2:31:20 PM Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Listers, The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I t alked myself into thinking it was nothing, and the next day it was stronger . Time to investigate. I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the t unnel, easily fixed with a flex hose. It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course k eeping the fuel where it should be is key, but once it gets out, keeping it from igniting seems like a good defense. The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used f or mounting, one is blocked by the gearbox, leaving five that expose the br ushes to the tunnel atmosphere. I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of the motor, and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The mot or works fine, no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the motor wit h the outer case taken off, which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I realize it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole was plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn't much fun. I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the le ak was the best solution. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Roger Standley <taildragon(at)msn.com>
Subject: Fuel Leak
Date: Oct 21, 2011
Dave=2C Just curious=2C which fuel valve did you use? Was the leak fixed by tighten ing or tube replacement? Roger From: dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com Date: Fri=2C 21 Oct 2011 11:31:20 -0700 Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Listers=2C The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I talked myself into thinking it was nothing=2C and the next day it was stron ger. Time to investigate. I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the tunnel=2C easily fixed with a flex hose. It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course keeping the fuel where it should be is key=2C but once it gets out=2C keepi ng it from igniting seems like a good defense. The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used for mounting=2C one is blocked by the gearbox=2C leaving five that expose t he brushes to the tunnel atmosphere. I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of the motor=2C and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The motor works fine=2C no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the mot or with the outer case taken off=2C which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I realize it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole wa s plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn' t much fun. I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the l eak was the best solution. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville=2C CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 21, 2011
Subject: Re: Fuel Leak
I have an Andair valve with an AN fitting screwed into the bottom of it. The leak was between the AN fitting and the flared tube that I fabbed when I upgraded to the Andair about three years ago. I replaced the leaky flared tube with a flexible teflon hose. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Roger Standley wrote: > Dave, > > Just curious, which fuel valve did you use? Was the leak fixed by > tightening or tube replacement? > > Roger > > ------------------------------ > From: dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com > Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:31:20 -0700 > Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Listers, > > The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I > talked myself into thinking it was nothing, and the next day it was > stronger. Time to investigate. > > I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel > valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the > tunnel, easily fixed with a flex hose. > > It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. > > To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course > keeping the fuel where it should be is key, but once it gets out, keeping it > from igniting seems like a good defense. > > The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. > > There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used > for mounting, one is blocked by the gearbox, leaving five that expose the > brushes to the tunnel atmosphere. > > I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of the > motor, and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The > motor works fine, no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the motor > with the outer case taken off, which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I > realize it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole was > plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn't > much fun. > > I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but > I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the > leak was the best solution. > > Dave Saylor > AirCrafters > 140 Aviation Way > Watsonville, CA 95076 > 831-722-9141 Shop > 831-750-0284 Cell > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Cumins" <jcumins(at)jcis.net>
Subject: Fuel Leak
Date: Oct 21, 2011
Dave One question on the tubing. Was it the 3002 tube van supplies that=99s real soft, for was it 5052 standard certified aircraft tubing. I have seen the 3000 series tubes leak over time way more so than the 5052 type. Also, I think you are dead on with the plugging of the holes on the flap motor. Great idea. I will for sure do that on mine when I get to that point. Thanks for all the great information that you pass on the list as you become aware of it. Description: ISlogoLAsmall John Cumins President 707-425-7100 707-425-7576 Fax From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 1:50 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak I have an Andair valve with an AN fitting screwed into the bottom of it. The leak was between the AN fitting and the flared tube that I fabbed when I upgraded to the Andair about three years ago. I replaced the leaky flared tube with a flexible teflon hose. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Roger Standley wrote: Dave, Just curious, which fuel valve did you use? Was the leak fixed by tightening or tube replacement? Roger _____ From: dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:31:20 -0700 Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Listers, The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I talked myself into thinking it was nothing, and the next day it was stronger. Time to investigate. I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the tunnel, easily fixed with a flex hose. It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course keeping the fuel where it should be is key, but once it gets out, keeping it from igniting seems like a good defense. The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used for mounting, one is blocked by the gearbox, leaving five that expose the brushes to the tunnel atmosphere. I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of the motor, and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The motor works fine, no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the motor with the outer case taken off, which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I realize it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole was plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn't much fun. I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the leak was the best solution. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel Leak
From: "billz" <billz(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: Oct 21, 2011
Thank you for the information on the flap motor. It's a step in the right direction and I plan to make the changes. Many aircraft designs also provide a means of venting areas that may accumulate fumes (fuel/hydraulics/etc.) from the aircraft. Larger aircraft are required to have positive ventilation in these areas. Although the RV-10 doesn't have any major issues in this area, I decided to take some proactive steps to provide some separation between the fuel lines and the rest of the tunnel and also add a small amount of ventilation. I installed an aft facing vent on the bottom of the fuselage, directly under the fuel valve. This should create a small amount of negative pressure in the tunnel and draw any fumes out. I plan to enclose the area that has fuel lines/pump/filter with some easily removable insulation material. The insulation will be self supporting, easily removed and secured with velcro. Again, like the flap motor upgrade, this is not a perfect fix, but should improve the odds in case there is a small fuel leak. Attached are pictures of the fuselage vent. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355701#355701 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1382_571.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1381_769.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 21, 2011
Subject: Re: Fuel Leak
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
I'd like to find a direct replacement for the standard motor that is brushless. That's always been my thought. I suppose I could call the manufacturer and see if they could sell an equivalent motor in brushless form. Phil On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM, billz wrote: > > Thank you for the information on the flap motor. It's a step in the right > direction and I plan to make the changes. > > Many aircraft designs also provide a means of venting areas that may > accumulate fumes (fuel/hydraulics/etc.) from the aircraft. Larger aircraft > are required to have positive ventilation in these areas. Although the > RV-10 doesn't have any major issues in this area, I decided to take some > proactive steps to provide some separation between the fuel lines and the > rest of the tunnel and also add a small amount of ventilation. I installed > an aft facing vent on the bottom of the fuselage, directly under the fuel > valve. This should create a small amount of negative pressure in the tunnel > and draw any fumes out. I plan to enclose the area that has fuel > lines/pump/filter with some easily removable insulation material. The > insulation will be self supporting, easily removed and secured with velcro. > Again, like the flap motor upgrade, this is not a perfect fix, but should > improve the odds in case there is a small fuel leak. Attached are pictures > of the fuselage vent. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355701#355701 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1382_571.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1381_769.jpg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel Leak
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 21, 2011
I'm pretty sure the tubing was 3003. --Dave On Oct 21, 2011, at 16:54, "John Cumins" wrote: > Dave > > > > One question on the tubing. Was it the 3002 tube van supplies that=99 s real soft, for was it 5052 standard certified aircraft tubing. > > > > I have seen the 3000 series tubes leak over time way more so than the 5052 type. > > > > Also, I think you are dead on with the plugging of the holes on the flap m otor. Great idea. I will for sure do that on mine when I get to that point . > > > > Thanks for all the great information that you pass on the list as you beco me aware of it. > > > > > > > > John Cumins > > President > > 707-425-7100 > > 707-425-7576 Fax > > > > > > > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 1:50 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak > > > > I have an Andair valve with an AN fitting screwed into the bottom of it. T he leak was between the AN fitting and the flared tube that I fabbed when I u pgraded to the Andair about three years ago. > > I replaced the leaky flared tube with a flexible teflon hose. > > Dave Saylor > AirCrafters > 140 Aviation Way > Watsonville, CA 95076 > 831-722-9141 Shop > 831-750-0284 Cell > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Roger Standley wrote : > > Dave, > > Just curious, which fuel valve did you use? Was the leak fixed by tighteni ng or tube replacement? > > Roger > > From: dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com > Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:31:20 -0700 > Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Listers, > > The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I talked myself into thinking it was nothing, and the next day it was stronge r. Time to investigate. > > I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the t unnel, easily fixed with a flex hose. > > It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. > > To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course keeping the fuel where it should be is key, but once it gets out, keeping i t from igniting seems like a good defense. > > The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. > > There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used for mounting, one is blocked by the gearbox, leaving five that expose the b rushes to the tunnel atmosphere. > > I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of th e motor, and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The mo tor works fine, no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the motor wi th the outer case taken off, which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I realiz e it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole was plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn't much fun . > > I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the l eak was the best solution. > > Dave Saylor > AirCrafters > 140 Aviation Way > Watsonville, CA 95076 > 831-722-9141 Shop > 831-750-0284 Cell > > > > get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > tp://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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Battery choice
From: Marcus Cooper <coop85(at)verizon.net>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
There has been a lot of discussion in the past, but I'm now faced with replacing my battery and was wondering what the latest opinions are now that there are a number of years on a lot of the airplanes. I've got the standard Concorde RG-25XC in the airplane now and it's been great for the past 6 years but it's running out of steam. I know a number of you are running the Odyssey battery but is seems like most folks are using two. My system has no need for a backup battery so I was wondering what the thoughts were on a single Odyssey PC-625. If the 925 is more appropriate I'll probably stick with the Concorde as they are similar enough in price to avoid the installation change, but the 625 would be cost effective for the mods. Thanks Marcus 40286 530hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Battery choice
From: "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)Pacbell.net>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
Wow........ Six years from a battery. It does not get much better than that. I like the Concorde batteries and they have proven to be reliable in the past. Why mess with success! Saving a few bucks on the Oddysey is a nice option, but why bother when your operating costs are about $100/hr. -------- See you OSH '12 Q/B - flying 2 yrs. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355734#355734 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Panel Choice
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
I recently went through the tribulations of deciding what to put in my panel. The good news is that we have a lot of choices. The bad news is that we have a lot of choices, and the decisions are not easy. The other bad news is that you can either spend a lot of money or a whole lot of money. Here is one mans experience for the edification of those yet to come. I had been paying attention to what others were buying/flying and tried to do my homework by checking the websites and list traffic. My intent was to use an all glass panel with IFR capability centered on a GNS-430 or 530. My other intent was to not spend a fortune. I am a working stiff and have to pay attention to cost. My criterion was not to buy the best available but to get the best functionality for the cost. A key part of my plan was to buy nothing until the last minute. This summer it became the last minute since besides cosmetic work all that remains on the 10 are attaching the wings, seats, and engine sensors. My neighbors have experience with Grand Rapids, MGL, and Advanced systems, and Garmin can be found in many of the spam cans. I have visited their booths at OSH over the last several years and watched as new capabilities were added at a rapid pace. At this point the differences between them are really minimal in terms of functionality. It eventually boiled down to cost and preference. MGL: I think these are good units but for reasons I cant articulate, I never warmed up to them. At OSH 2010 an avionics dealer told me that they needed to work out some design issues which I understand they have done. Advanced: Excellent units. For a while I thought that a 2 screen AF-5600 would be the choice and they really would look nice in the panel. (See Robs RV-10 with the 5600 upgrade- beautiful!). Functionality and support are excellent and I like the knobology (button pushing) slightly better than the GRT (particularly on the 5600 and 5500). GRT: Two of my neighbors have been flying behind GRT systems for several years and they love them. They strongly recommended the GRT units. Again excellent functionality and support. As far as capability I would rank AFS and GRT as equals. Navigator: I had intended to install a GNS-430 or 530 but a couple months before OSH they announced the GTN-650 and 750. I liked them and decided to go with the GTN-650. I could not cost justify the 750 since all my buds say they rarely look at the navigator, instead focusing on the PFD/MFD. This anchored one decision. Before OSH I kept bouncing between AFS and GRT, and figured I would make the decision once I visited their booths. Once I got there, it just made my head hurt more. The problem got worse when I went by the Garmin booth, which I always do at OSH. They set up their outside tent for experimental stuff and parked next to it was Doug Reeves RV-6 with G3X system. I dont normally pay a whole lot of attention to the Garmin systems because they are so expensive and out of reach with my budget. They also require an avionics shop to make the harnesses, which I was considering doing myself. Then I saw a sign that said 2 screen G3X system for $8500. Wait a minute, thats about half what I had guessed. I looked at Dougs panel some more and continued going between the GRT and AFS booths. I knew there were other downsides with Garmin like costly map updates (which GRT and AFS give away). It is a given that for IFR you have to pay for the Jepp updates in the GNS-430/530/650/750. I know of no other option. In addition I understood that to get map updates on the Garmin PFD you had to buy another, separate subscription from Jepp. As a result some folks do it just once a year or so. Then the Garmin guy tells me that they struck a deal with Jepp. With the GTN-650/750 one subscription covers both the navigator updates (GTN-650) and map updates (G3X). No additional cost. One downside just disappeared. Im back looking at Dougs panel. Then Stein tells me that Garmin has relented and now lets builders make their own harnesses. The caveat: only experimental stuff (like the G3X) and only if the builder calls the avionics dealer for assistance. They dont want to be bothered with builders problems and troubleshooting due to installation errors. The installation manuals now have public access. Functionality They all have synthetic vision, moving maps, XM weather interface, capability of coupled approaches with a good autopilot, and good engine monitors. There are differences between the Garmin G3X and GRT/AFS systems which give upticks to Garmin. The G3X has geo-referenced approach plates and taxi diagrams (Safe Taxi) and the AOPA airport directory. Neither GRT nor AFS have these built in. Another difference is the format of Garmin vs. GRT/AFS. The Garmin is portrait while the others have a landscape look, meaning they are wider than tall. One of my friends that is building a RV-10 ruled out the G3X for this reason alone. I have to say that I also prefer the landscape format, but not that strongly. What about number of screens? I liked the symmetry of twin AF-5600 screens (in front of each seat). However I had near unanimous opinion that two screens in front of the pilot is better: one for flight instruments and the other for navigation/WX/engine. The AF-5600 is nearly as big as some two screens in terms of square inches, but what if it craps out? Here is where I deferred to experience since I have over 1,000 hours, but all behind round gages. I will go with 2 screens in front of the pilot. This ruled out the AF-5600 due to insufficient real estate. Cost So now what? Functionality is similar. Sometimes you pick one just because. None spoke to me like that so the brain goes to the next factor: whats the cost? Here there was a difference and not a trivial one. Price comparisons are not easy. Each company bundles the features differently, some included, some not. For example XM costs $800 for the AFS, $550 for the GRT, and it is included in the G3X price. The number of AHRS may be different. Some charge for maps, some not. I tried to get a reasonable comparison and calculated the cost. The comparison was for 2 screens, XM, synthetic vision, moving map, single AHRS, engine monitor, and engine sensors for the IO-540. If you used the AF-5500 screens then the AFS system cost is about $14,500. The same thing with GRT (Horizon 8.4 inch) it was about $15,950. A two screen G3X similarly configured came to $10,200. Wait a minute that is a big price difference. What if I wanted to add a third G3X screen? $2500 and just plug it in. That means the cost for a 3 screen G3X is $12,800, or about $1700-$3000 less than 2 screen AFS/GRT setups. The maintenance costs (database upgrades) are equal so in the end cost factored high. I went with the G3X. Upside: geo-reference plates and taxi diagrams, 3 screens that fit the panel nicely, cost less. Downside: portrait format, and Im feeding the gorilla. (Note that the above are for comparisons for the time I was shopping, there are minor adjustments to the equipment, and rounding may not make the math perfect. Prices appear to have changed for the GRT, coming down significantly based on their website today. You can usually get a 5% discount using a check and you may be able to negotiate a better deal.) The Rest of the Panel more decisions: Autopilot: Went with the GX Pilot which is made for the G3X. There are others with slightly more features, but they cost a lot more. Transponder: GTX-23ES remotely installed (behind baggage), operated from the G3X , mode S, partial ADS-B, and not a bad price. Experimental only. Com2: SL-40. Dont need the second VOR. Audio panel: PMA 5000EX. Note that if you get a GTN-750 you can use a remote Garmin audio panel. Standby instruments: a Dynon D-6 with battery backup, completely independent. No round gages on my panel and the D-6 cost less than the 3 gage backups seen in many glass panels. ELT: ACK E-04 406 MHz ADS-B: Im waiting for the Garmin model to come out. Garmin blocks the NavWorx interface which is the only full capability ADS-B out there. The NavWorks does interface with GRT/AFS. The Garmin folks told me it will be released soon. I only have 7 switches, 24 circuit breakers, and there is room for a large glove box and power plug. There is another choice you must make and that is to go with pre-made harnesses or make your own. The Approach Fast Stack hubs are really nice and provide flexibility. Stein will also make the harnesses for you. As Stein says, it isnt hard to do you just trade money for time. Figure $2000 - $1000 for harnesses depending on with or without Fast Stack hub. Im making my own and even then it is not cheap. Crimper: $400, wire: $300 - $400. Suggestions 1. Wait to the very last minute to buy. Functionality goes up and cost goes down frequently. 2. If cost doesnt matter then there are other choices that you may like even better. 3. I dont think there is a right or wrong choice. They are all good. 4. There may be other reasons to pick (I just like it!). Emotional reasons are good too. 5. Dont attach your upper forward fuselage assembly/center cabin brace before the panel is done. This allows you to remove the entire instrument panel section to work it on the bench. The above was my experience over the July-September time frame prices and capabilities have probably changed since then. I hope I got the facts right and invite other comparisons and opinions. This is meant to help the next one to make a decision and to not make their head hurt like mine did. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - Working G3X panel Rest almost done Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355740#355740 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Panel Choice
Date: Oct 22, 2011
Dave, Sounds like you covered it all. And as you said best to wait till the very last minute. We all seem to have to go through this to get to our final decision. I ended up doing something similar going with the G900X in the -10 (4 years ago) and a dual G3X in the 8A. Unfortunately I was one of the very last 430W buyers. I was kicking myself for not getting the 530W then I saw the 650/750. A little steam came out of my ears when they were released. I have to take issue with your decision to pass on the 750 because of the way your friends use their system. I think the 650/750 are different animals and because of all the touch interface usage (LOVE the glass alpha/numeric entry) plus the large screen that 750 is an amazing unit. I played with it for 90 minutes at the Garmin store in Chicago. I can definitely see the value of the extra real-estate. Especially when you realize how the G3X works with the external GPS signal. You might want to look as Sean's 3 screen G3X panel. Beautiful final product. Good luck with your panel build. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of nukeflyboy Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 1:27 PM Subject: RV10-List: Panel Choice I recently went through the tribulations of deciding what to put in my panel. The good news is that we have a lot of choices. The bad news is that we have a lot of choices, and the decisions are not easy. The other bad news is that you can either spend a lot of money or a whole lot of money. Here is one mans experience for the edification of those yet to come. I had been paying attention to what others were buying/flying and tried to do my homework by checking the websites and list traffic. My intent was to use an all glass panel with IFR capability centered on a GNS-430 or 530. My other intent was to not spend a fortune. I am a working stiff and have to pay attention to cost. My criterion was not to buy the best available but to get the best functionality for the cost. A key part of my plan was to buy nothing until the last minute. This summer it became the last minute since besides cosmetic work all that remains on the 10 are attaching the wings, seats, and engine sensors. My neighbors have experience with Grand Rapids, MGL, and Advanced systems, and Garmin can be found in many of the spam cans. I have visited their booths at OSH over the last several years and watched as new capabilities were added at a rapid pace. At this point the differences between them are really minimal in terms of functionality. It eventually boiled down to cost and preference. MGL: I think these are good units but for reasons I cant articulate, I never warmed up to them. At OSH 2010 an avionics dealer told me that they needed to work out some design issues which I understand they have done. Advanced: Excellent units. For a while I thought that a 2 screen AF-5600 would be the choice and they really would look nice in the panel. (See Robs RV-10 with the 5600 upgrade- beautiful!). Functionality and support are excellent and I like the knobology (button pushing) slightly better than the GRT (particularly on the 5600 and 5500). GRT: Two of my neighbors have been flying behind GRT systems for several years and they love them. They strongly recommended the GRT units. Again excellent functionality and support. As far as capability I would rank AFS and GRT as equals. Navigator: I had intended to install a GNS-430 or 530 but a couple months before OSH they announced the GTN-650 and 750. I liked them and decided to go with the GTN-650. I could not cost justify the 750 since all my buds say they rarely look at the navigator, instead focusing on the PFD/MFD. This anchored one decision. Before OSH I kept bouncing between AFS and GRT, and figured I would make the decision once I visited their booths. Once I got there, it just made my head hurt more. The problem got worse when I went by the Garmin booth, which I always do at OSH. They set up their outside tent for experimental stuff and parked next to it was Doug Reeves RV-6 with G3X system. I dont normally pay a whole lot of attention to the Garmin systems because they are so expensive and out of reach with my budget. They also require an avionics shop to make the harnesses, which I was considering doing myself. Then I saw a sign that said 2 screen G3X system for $8500. Wait a minute, thats about half what I had guessed. I looked at Dougs panel some more and continued going between the GRT and AFS booths. I knew there were other downsides with Garmin like costly map updates (which GRT and AFS give away). It is a given that for IFR you have to pay for the Jepp updates in the GNS-430/530/650/750. I know of no other option. In addition I understood that to get map updates on the Garmin PFD you had to buy another, separate subscription from Jepp. As a result some folks do it just once a year or so. Then the Garmin guy tells me that they struck a deal with Jepp. With the GTN-650/750 one subscription covers both the navigator updates (GTN-650) and map updates (G3X). No additional cost. One downside just disappeared. Im back looking at Dougs panel. Then Stein tells me that Garmin has relented and now lets builders make their own harnesses. The caveat: only experimental stuff (like the G3X) and only if the builder calls the avionics dealer for assistance. They dont want to be bothered with builders problems and troubleshooting due to installation errors. The installation manuals now have public access. Functionality They all have synthetic vision, moving maps, XM weather interface, capability of coupled approaches with a good autopilot, and good engine monitors. There are differences between the Garmin G3X and GRT/AFS systems which give upticks to Garmin. The G3X has geo-referenced approach plates and taxi diagrams (Safe Taxi) and the AOPA airport directory. Neither GRT nor AFS have these built in. Another difference is the format of Garmin vs. GRT/AFS. The Garmin is portrait while the others have a landscape look, meaning they are wider than tall. One of my friends that is building a RV-10 ruled out the G3X for this reason alone. I have to say that I also prefer the landscape format, but not that strongly. What about number of screens? I liked the symmetry of twin AF-5600 screens (in front of each seat). However I had near unanimous opinion that two screens in front of the pilot is better: one for flight instruments and the other for navigation/WX/engine. The AF-5600 is nearly as big as some two screens in terms of square inches, but what if it craps out? Here is where I deferred to experience since I have over 1,000 hours, but all behind round gages. I will go with 2 screens in front of the pilot. This ruled out the AF-5600 due to insufficient real estate. Cost So now what? Functionality is similar. Sometimes you pick one just because. None spoke to me like that so the brain goes to the next factor: whats the cost? Here there was a difference and not a trivial one. Price comparisons are not easy. Each company bundles the features differently, some included, some not. For example XM costs $800 for the AFS, $550 for the GRT, and it is included in the G3X price. The number of AHRS may be different. Some charge for maps, some not. I tried to get a reasonable comparison and calculated the cost. The comparison was for 2 screens, XM, synthetic vision, moving map, single AHRS, engine monitor, and engine sensors for the IO-540. If you used the AF-5500 screens then the AFS system cost is about $14,500. The same thing with GRT (Horizon 8.4 inch) it was about $15,950. A two screen G3X similarly configured came to $10,200. Wait a minute that is a big price difference. What if I wanted to add a third G3X screen? $2500 and just plug it in. That means the cost for a 3 screen G3X is $12,800, or about $1700-$3000 less than 2 screen AFS/GRT setups. The maintenance costs (database upgrades) are equal so in the end cost factored high. I ! went with the G3X. Upside: geo-reference plates and taxi diagrams, 3 screens that fit the panel nicely, cost less. Downside: portrait format, and Im feeding the gorilla. (Note that the above are for comparisons for the time I was shopping, there are minor adjustments to the equipment, and rounding may not make the math perfect. Prices appear to have changed for the GRT, coming down significantly based on their website today. You can usually get a 5% discount using a check and you may be able to negotiate a better deal.) The Rest of the Panel more decisions: Autopilot: Went with the GX Pilot which is made for the G3X. There are others with slightly more features, but they cost a lot more. Transponder: GTX-23ES remotely installed (behind baggage), operated from the G3X , mode S, partial ADS-B, and not a bad price. Experimental only. Com2: SL-40. Dont need the second VOR. Audio panel: PMA 5000EX. Note that if you get a GTN-750 you can use a remote Garmin audio panel. Standby instruments: a Dynon D-6 with battery backup, completely independent. No round gages on my panel and the D-6 cost less than the 3 gage backups seen in many glass panels. ELT: ACK E-04 406 MHz ADS-B: Im waiting for the Garmin model to come out. Garmin blocks the NavWorx interface which is the only full capability ADS-B out there. The NavWorks does interface with GRT/AFS. The Garmin folks told me it will be released soon. I only have 7 switches, 24 circuit breakers, and there is room for a large glove box and power plug. There is another choice you must make and that is to go with pre-made harnesses or make your own. The Approach Fast Stack hubs are really nice and provide flexibility. Stein will also make the harnesses for you. As Stein says, it isnt hard to do you just trade money for time. Figure $2000 - $1000 for harnesses depending on with or without Fast Stack hub. Im making my own and even then it is not cheap. Crimper: $400, wire: $300 - $400. Suggestions 1. Wait to the very last minute to buy. Functionality goes up and cost goes down frequently. 2. If cost doesnt matter then there are other choices that you may like even better. 3. I dont think there is a right or wrong choice. They are all good. 4. There may be other reasons to pick (I just like it!). Emotional reasons are good too. 5. Dont attach your upper forward fuselage assembly/center cabin brace before the panel is done. This allows you to remove the entire instrument panel section to work it on the bench. The above was my experience over the July-September time frame prices and capabilities have probably changed since then. I hope I got the facts right and invite other comparisons and opinions. This is meant to help the next one to make a decision and to not make their head hurt like mine did. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - Working G3X panel Rest almost done Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355740#355740 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Battery choice
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
I too am impressed with 6 years from an aircraft battery! I'm running a single PC-925 but I've only had it for a year or so (8 months on a charger testing avionics, 4 months flying) so too soon to tell anything about its lifetime. It certainly turns the engine over on starting very well, no hesitation at all. The installation change over from the Concord can be pretty easy. Odyssey says it's okay to mount the battery on its side, which I've done. On its side it's a good fit to the battery tray, with the only mod being a 1" or so spacer at the fore or aft end of the tray. You'll also need new #2 cables to ground and the master relay, as the Odyssey battery needs 1/4" lugs (not 5/16) on the cables. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355742#355742 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Panel Choice
Date: Oct 22, 2011
I went through this decision process last year. It can get painful. My criteria was similar to yours - and with "biggest bang for the buck" as the overriding factor. I really like GRT but consider the autopilot too pricey, and after you all it all up the GRT system was out of my price range. I decided to go with the Dynon Skyview for the following reasons: - I have a small Dynon EFIS in my RV-8A. It works perfectly and the customer support I received is better than any vendor I have worked with. - Dynon does their own autopilot - so total autopilot cost is $1500 as compared to $4000+ with the other options and pilot reports on the units are good. - Dynon offers a mode S behind the panel transponder - you save $1000 over the Garmin option and have more panel space. The unit is well known and has a very good reputation. - Dynon will soon provide a behind the panel comm radio. Again you save cash and panel space for the Comm #2 requirement. The EFIS itself fulfills the Nav 2 function as it has an independent GPS system. - With the (2) 10" displays you are still below the other options cost and you get a better visual presentation. - I choose the Garmin GNS-670. I got it from Stark avionics at a very nice price. So the panel has (2) 10" EFIS displays, and audio panel, the GNS-670, and altimeter and an airspeed instrument (I could not get myself to go without these two steam gauges). This install is not to be confused with a G1000 or similar panel - but it meets my needs and price range. Carl Just finished clear coat on the fuselage a couple of hours ago. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of nukeflyboy Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 4:27 PM Subject: RV10-List: Panel Choice I recently went through the tribulations of deciding what to put in my panel. The good news is that we have a lot of choices. The bad news is that we have a lot of choices, and the decisions are not easy. The other bad news is that you can either spend a lot of money or a whole lot of money. Here is one mans experience for the edification of those yet to come. I had been paying attention to what others were buying/flying and tried to do my homework by checking the websites and list traffic. My intent was to use an all glass panel with IFR capability centered on a GNS-430 or 530. My other intent was to not spend a fortune. I am a working stiff and have to pay attention to cost. My criterion was not to buy the best available but to get the best functionality for the cost. A key part of my plan was to buy nothing until the last minute. This summer it became the last minute since besides cosmetic work all that remains on the 10 are attaching the wings, seats, and engine sensors. My neighbors have experience with Grand Rapids, MGL, and Advanced systems, and Garmin can be found in many of the spam cans. I have visited their booths at OSH over the last several years and watched as new capabilities were added at a rapid pace. At this point the differences between them are really minimal in terms of functionality. It eventually boiled down to cost and preference. MGL: I think these are good units but for reasons I cant articulate, I never warmed up to them. At OSH 2010 an avionics dealer told me that they needed to work out some design issues which I understand they have done. Advanced: Excellent units. For a while I thought that a 2 screen AF-5600 would be the choice and they really would look nice in the panel. (See Robs RV-10 with the 5600 upgrade- beautiful!). Functionality and support are excellent and I like the knobology (button pushing) slightly better than the GRT (particularly on the 5600 and 5500). GRT: Two of my neighbors have been flying behind GRT systems for several years and they love them. They strongly recommended the GRT units. Again excellent functionality and support. As far as capability I would rank AFS and GRT as equals. Navigator: I had intended to install a GNS-430 or 530 but a couple months before OSH they announced the GTN-650 and 750. I liked them and decided to go with the GTN-650. I could not cost justify the 750 since all my buds say they rarely look at the navigator, instead focusing on the PFD/MFD. This anchored one decision. Before OSH I kept bouncing between AFS and GRT, and figured I would make the decision once I visited their booths. Once I got there, it just made my head hurt more. The problem got worse when I went by the Garmin booth, which I always do at OSH. They set up their outside tent for experimental stuff and parked next to it was Doug Reeves RV-6 with G3X system. I dont normally pay a whole lot of attention to the Garmin systems because they are so expensive and out of reach with my budget. They also require an avionics shop to make the harnesses, which I was considering doing myself. Then I saw a sign that said 2 screen G3X system for $8500. Wait a minute, thats about half what I had guessed. I looked at Dougs panel some more and continued going between the GRT and AFS booths. I knew there were other downsides with Garmin like costly map updates (which GRT and AFS give away). It is a given that for IFR you have to pay for the Jepp updates in the GNS-430/530/650/750. I know of no other option. In addition I understood that to get map updates on the Garmin PFD you had to buy another, separate subscription from Jepp. As a result some folks do it just once a year or so. Then the Garmin guy tells me that they struck a deal with Jepp. With the GTN-650/750 one subscription covers both the navigator updates (GTN-650) and map updates (G3X). No additional cost. One downside just disappeared. Im back looking at Dougs panel. Then Stein tells me that Garmin has relented and now lets builders make their own harnesses. The caveat: only experimental stuff (like the G3X) and only if the builder calls the avionics dealer for assistance. They dont want to be bothered with builders problems and troubleshooting due to installation errors. The installation manuals now have public access. Functionality They all have synthetic vision, moving maps, XM weather interface, capability of coupled approaches with a good autopilot, and good engine monitors. There are differences between the Garmin G3X and GRT/AFS systems which give upticks to Garmin. The G3X has geo-referenced approach plates and taxi diagrams (Safe Taxi) and the AOPA airport directory. Neither GRT nor AFS have these built in. Another difference is the format of Garmin vs. GRT/AFS. The Garmin is portrait while the others have a landscape look, meaning they are wider than tall. One of my friends that is building a RV-10 ruled out the G3X for this reason alone. I have to say that I also prefer the landscape format, but not that strongly. What about number of screens? I liked the symmetry of twin AF-5600 screens (in front of each seat). However I had near unanimous opinion that two screens in front of the pilot is better: one for flight instruments and the other for navigation/WX/engine. The AF-5600 is nearly as big as some two screens in terms of square inches, but what if it craps out? Here is where I deferred to experience since I have over 1,000 hours, but all behind round gages. I will go with 2 screens in front of the pilot. This ruled out the AF-5600 due to insufficient real estate. Cost So now what? Functionality is similar. Sometimes you pick one just because. None spoke to me like that so the brain goes to the next factor: whats the cost? Here there was a difference and not a trivial one. Price comparisons are not easy. Each company bundles the features differently, some included, some not. For example XM costs $800 for the AFS, $550 for the GRT, and it is included in the G3X price. The number of AHRS may be different. Some charge for maps, some not. I tried to get a reasonable comparison and calculated the cost. The comparison was for 2 screens, XM, synthetic vision, moving map, single AHRS, engine monitor, and engine sensors for the IO-540. If you used the AF-5500 screens then the AFS system cost is about $14,500. The same thing with GRT (Horizon 8.4 inch) it was about $15,950. A two screen G3X similarly configured came to $10,200. Wait a minute that is a big price difference. What if I wanted to add a third G3X screen? $2500 and just plug it in. That means the cost for a 3 screen G3X is $12,800, or about $1700-$3000 less than 2 screen AFS/GRT setups. The maintenance costs (database upgrades) are equal so in the end cost factored high. I ! went with the G3X. Upside: geo-reference plates and taxi diagrams, 3 screens that fit the panel nicely, cost less. Downside: portrait format, and Im feeding the gorilla. (Note that the above are for comparisons for the time I was shopping, there are minor adjustments to the equipment, and rounding may not make the math perfect. Prices appear to have changed for the GRT, coming down significantly based on their website today. You can usually get a 5% discount using a check and you may be able to negotiate a better deal.) The Rest of the Panel more decisions: Autopilot: Went with the GX Pilot which is made for the G3X. There are others with slightly more features, but they cost a lot more. Transponder: GTX-23ES remotely installed (behind baggage), operated from the G3X , mode S, partial ADS-B, and not a bad price. Experimental only. Com2: SL-40. Dont need the second VOR. Audio panel: PMA 5000EX. Note that if you get a GTN-750 you can use a remote Garmin audio panel. Standby instruments: a Dynon D-6 with battery backup, completely independent. No round gages on my panel and the D-6 cost less than the 3 gage backups seen in many glass panels. ELT: ACK E-04 406 MHz ADS-B: Im waiting for the Garmin model to come out. Garmin blocks the NavWorx interface which is the only full capability ADS-B out there. The NavWorks does interface with GRT/AFS. The Garmin folks told me it will be released soon. I only have 7 switches, 24 circuit breakers, and there is room for a large glove box and power plug. There is another choice you must make and that is to go with pre-made harnesses or make your own. The Approach Fast Stack hubs are really nice and provide flexibility. Stein will also make the harnesses for you. As Stein says, it isnt hard to do you just trade money for time. Figure $2000 - $1000 for harnesses depending on with or without Fast Stack hub. Im making my own and even then it is not cheap. Crimper: $400, wire: $300 - $400. Suggestions 1. Wait to the very last minute to buy. Functionality goes up and cost goes down frequently. 2. If cost doesnt matter then there are other choices that you may like even better. 3. I dont think there is a right or wrong choice. They are all good. 4. There may be other reasons to pick (I just like it!). Emotional reasons are good too. 5. Dont attach your upper forward fuselage assembly/center cabin brace before the panel is done. This allows you to remove the entire instrument panel section to work it on the bench. The above was my experience over the July-September time frame prices and capabilities have probably changed since then. I hope I got the facts right and invite other comparisons and opinions. This is meant to help the next one to make a decision and to not make their head hurt like mine did. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - Working G3X panel Rest almost done Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355740#355740 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
I"m sure you'll get lots of responses. Keep in mind that it's human nature not to be too critical of one's self, so everyone - myself included - will love what they did! The G3X was not available when I bought, and I must say, it looks attractively priced. I have a secret fear that the EFIS companies may drive the autopilot companies out of business, and that Garmin may then drive the EFIS companies out, and then be left, again, as a monopoly... Nor was the Sky View system out yet, when I started cutting metal.... I went with the GRT HX/HS pair, plus EIS. HX in front of left seat, HS right of center but not fully in front of right seat. From lots of 182 hours I'm used to looking to the right for engine instruments, so this works for me. I also like the landscape mode and, unlike many others, I mounted the EFIS units relatively low in the panel (the GRT fit with no cutting of ribs). This works for me because I'm relatively short (seat one notch back from full forward) and I wear bi-focals. With the EFIS low in the panel, my head is looking straight out the windscreen but the EFIS is in focus. This won't work as well for those of you young enough or lucky enough to not need bi-focals (yet!). I strongly recommend everyone sit in the airplane at the proper height and location, and look at paper mock ups, to see how it works for you. I went with a SL-30/G420 (not 430) pair just to split the nav radios, so if one quit I still had the other. The SL-40/G430 route would have saved almost a $1K. Also, the SL-30 is a much better VOR than the 430, it can still be used following a complete EFIS failure. It's also easier to wire. Like you, I have a D-6 backup, and I've done an a VOR approach (hood, during IPC) using just the D-6 and the SL-30 (using built in CDI), and that works fine. I built my own audio panel. I'm surprised more builders don't do this. The PS panel is a great audio panel (my former aircraft had one) but the do-it-yourself route works just fine, I got what I wanted (independent volume controls for pilot and passenger for intercom, radio, and music) and it cost about $50 and 3 days of my time. I really like the Trio autopilot. Not sure about the G3 version, but the Trio Pro can be ordered with "auto trim". Not only will it keep the elevator in trim while the autopilot is on; it can also be used to trim, manually, even when the servos are not engaged. The trim speed is adjustable by software to run slower as airspeed picks up. I use it rather than the stick trim (which runs full speed) to trim in cruise. It also provides a trim backup, should the stick switch stick on and you need to pull the trim breaker. (It also makes for another mode for trim runaway, so I put the autopilot and trim breakers together, right in front of the pilot.) I also really like the GRT EIS (engine instrument system). I put the red warning light in front of the pilot. Let me be honest, I never used to look at the ammeter, or even the oil pressure, that often in the 182. Now, the EIS looks for me! (I think it's even more important to monitor the amps, in an all electric plane). Coming from the "fuel on both" 182, the EIS also nags me every 30 minutes to switch tanks. On start up, the red light is on; I switch on the alternator, and the red light goes off. If it ever doesn't, I can look at the EIS to see if it's oil pressure, alternator, or whatever that's an issue. No need to wait for the EFIS to boot up. Although, at some point, I may put in a secondary battery so I can boot up the EFIS prior to engine start. Another comment: the independent dealers, like Stein, can usually get you a discount from list prices, as well as good service. Final comment: I riveted the front section in place before the avionics work. The only trying work was anchoring the radio rack to the forward subpanel. So much goes in from the front, I just left a little slack in the wiring, attached the plugs then installed (from the front). I did have to reach up underneath to bundle up the slack, but that wasn't that much of an ordeal. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355749#355749 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
I'm curious, is there any real world experience yet on how easy or hard the new Garmin touch screens are to use, in turbulence? -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355753#355753 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
Carl, Just to show how fast things change: what you said was true when you bought, a year ago. But now GRT offers their own autopilot for about $2k or slightly less. For a while they had an intro price of $1K. This was why I commented that I fear Trio and TruTrak may be driven out of business by the EFIS companies. Of course the EFIS driven autopilots do not have the redundancy that a true stand-alone autopilot offers. If the EFIS quits, so does their autopilot. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355754#355754 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
Dave, I have 115 hours on my 3 screen G3X and loving every minute of it. The iBBS back-up battery works great with the system. The system has dedicated pinouts for the iBBS. I also have the D6 as a AHRS/MAG back-up with an internal battery. I was also one of the last 430W buyers but would jump on the GTN750 if it was available. I played with one too and super user friendly. A lot less button pushing compared to the 430W or 530W. All the new jets have G1000/G3000/G5000 with touch pads so the touch screen is where it is going and turbulence must not be a factor if these are getting approved. I think turning a knob and pushing buttons in turbulence might be harder than using the grips and pushing a touch screen but I have no real experience in turbulence while using the touch screen. I seam to get by pushing my iphone touch screen while I'm listening to music through my audio panel. Here are some pics of mine . I need new ones to show my interior panels from Aerosport. -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355755#355755 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/1229502042_8kynv_m_539.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/cockpit_571.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
As far as the ADS-b, I have both the in/out with the G3X. I have the GTS800 TAS with ADS-b in and the GTX330(es) for the out. It's expensive compared to the Navworx but includes active TAS and works everywhere. -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355756#355756 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Thane States" <thane2(at)comporium.net>
Subject: Re: Battery choice
Date: Oct 22, 2011
Marcus, I have been running a pc-625. for the past 3 yrs. I live in the South, so no cold WX cranking problems. I just changed it this year after3 + yrs. I then put it in my Harley and it still works GRT. I personaly see no need for the bigger battery, down in the warmer climates. Plus it saves a bit of WGT. !! Thane RV-10 199 hrs. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)verizon.net> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 1:05 PM Subject: RV10-List: Battery choice > > There has been a lot of discussion in the past, but I'm now faced with > replacing my battery and was wondering what the latest opinions are now > that there are a number of years on a lot of the airplanes. I've got the > standard Concorde RG-25XC in the airplane now and it's been great for the > past 6 years but it's running out of steam. I know a number of you are > running the Odyssey battery but is seems like most folks are using two. > My system has no need for a backup battery so I was wondering what the > thoughts were on a single Odyssey PC-625. If the 925 is more appropriate > I'll probably stick with the Concorde as they are similar enough in price > to avoid the installation change, but the 625 would be cost effective for > the mods. > > Thanks > Marcus > 40286 > 530hrs > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
I know nothing about the new Garmins except that they're touch screen. But two people have now commented that they think the rather huge uptick in cost from a 430 to a 750 is worthwhile. I'd like to know why, specifically. As far as I can tell it gains you no capability, just ease of use. I have flown behind a 530 and a 430, and, given that TIS and WX can be displayed on an EFIS, I could not justify the cost of the 530 to myself. So I, too, wish Garmin had introduced the 650/750 several years ago. But not so I could buy one. Instead, I'd hope enough people traded in their 430's that I could find a good used one at a great price! (Not sure that has happened yet). -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355762#355762 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
Date: Oct 22, 2011
Yep - competition is a wonderful thing. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 6:59 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Panel Choice Carl, Just to show how fast things change: what you said was true when you bought, a year ago. But now GRT offers their own autopilot for about $2k or slightly less. For a while they had an intro price of $1K. This was why I commented that I fear Trio and TruTrak may be driven out of business by the EFIS companies. Of course the EFIS driven autopilots do not have the redundancy that a true stand-alone autopilot offers. If the EFIS quits, so does their autopilot. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355754#355754 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 23, 2011
Subject: Re: RV10-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 10/21/11
From: "Eli Stefansky" <eli@prime-quest.com>
please remove Sent from my Droid Charge on Verizon 4GLTE ------Original Message------ From: RV10-List Digest Server <rv10-list(at)matronics.com> Date: Saturday, October 22, 2011 12:00:15 AM GMT-7 Subject: RV10-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 10/21/11 * ================================================= Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive ================================================= Today's complete RV10-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the RV10-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 11-10-21&Archive=RV10 Text Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 11-10-21&Archive=RV10 =============================================== EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive =============================================== ---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 10/21/11: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 11:46 AM - Fuel Leak (Dave Saylor) 2. 12:54 PM - Re: Fuel Leak (Linn Walters) 3. 12:54 PM - Re: Fuel Leak (davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net) 4. 01:35 PM - Re: Fuel Leak (Roger Standley) 5. 02:04 PM - Re: Fuel Leak (Dave Saylor) 6. 05:13 PM - Re: Fuel Leak (John Cumins) 7. 06:55 PM - Re: Fuel Leak (billz) 8. 07:26 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Leak (Phillip Perry) 9. 07:32 PM - Re: Fuel Leak (Dave Saylor) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Listers, The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I talked myself into thinking it was nothing, and the next day it was stronger. Time to investigate. I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the tunnel, easily fixed with a flex hose. It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course keeping the fuel where it should be is key, but once it gets out, keeping it from igniting seems like a good defense. The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used for mounting, one is blocked by the gearbox, leaving five that expose the brushes to the tunnel atmosphere. I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of the motor, and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The motor works fine, no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the motor with the outer case taken off, which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I realize it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole was plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn't much fun. I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the leak was the best solution. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ From: Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Wat caused the leak? Loose nut? Bad flare? Cracked tube? Inquiring minds need to know. Linn On 10/21/2011 2:31 PM, Dave Saylor wrote: > Listers, > > The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. snip > > I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" > but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. > Fixing the leak was the best solution. > > Dave Saylor > AirCrafters > 140 Aviation Way > Watsonville, CA 95076 > 831-722-9141 Shop > 831-750-0284 Cell ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ From: davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Thanks Dave, good info. Did you find the source of the leak? Cracked flare or what? Did you use Del Seals on your flares? Mine is all plumbed and I de cided to keep to the stock aluminum fittings and tubing instead of hoses to keep weight and costs down to a minimum. Those little things add up quick weight wise and from experience building a Cozy MKIV, weight adds up really quick with any deviations to plans. FWIW, we used all aluminum fuel lines and fittings for the fuel system in the cockpit on the Cozy and used Del Se als on all the flares on everything, FWF and aft including oil lines. Over 300 hours so far with no leaks. Careful attention to your flaring technique 's for quality flares, fitting alignment, and proper torque, are key ingred ients to a simple, light weight, low cost plumbing system. Plumbing the bra kes and fuel delivery system in the tunnel of the -10 gave me fits and I wa s tempted more that once to just order up some hoses, but every time I thou ght about the weight penalty kept me motivated to keep to plans and I am gl ad I spent the time fabricating and scraping lots of tubing until I got it right. Regardless, I WILL seal up the flap motor just in case! David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Saylor" <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 2:31:20 PM Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Listers, The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I t alked myself into thinking it was nothing, and the next day it was stronger . Time to investigate. I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the t unnel, easily fixed with a flex hose. It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course k eeping the fuel where it should be is key, but once it gets out, keeping it from igniting seems like a good defense. The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used f or mounting, one is blocked by the gearbox, leaving five that expose the br ushes to the tunnel atmosphere. I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of the motor, and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The mot or works fine, no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the motor wit h the outer case taken off, which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I realize it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole was plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn't much fun. I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the le ak was the best solution. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ From: Roger Standley <taildragon(at)msn.com> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Dave=2C Just curious=2C which fuel valve did you use? Was the leak fixed by tighten ing or tube replacement? Roger From: dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Listers=2C The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I talked myself into thinking it was nothing=2C and the next day it was stron ger. Time to investigate. I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the tunnel=2C easily fixed with a flex hose. It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course keeping the fuel where it should be is key=2C but once it gets out=2C keepi ng it from igniting seems like a good defense. The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used for mounting=2C one is blocked by the gearbox=2C leaving five that expose t he brushes to the tunnel atmosphere. I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of the motor=2C and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The motor works fine=2C no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the mot or with the outer case taken off=2C which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I realize it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole wa s plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn' t much fun. I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the l eak was the best solution. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville=2C CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak I have an Andair valve with an AN fitting screwed into the bottom of it. The leak was between the AN fitting and the flared tube that I fabbed when I upgraded to the Andair about three years ago. I replaced the leaky flared tube with a flexible teflon hose. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Roger Standley wrote: > Dave, > > Just curious, which fuel valve did you use? Was the leak fixed by > tightening or tube replacement? > > Roger > > ------------------------------ > From: dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com > Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:31:20 -0700 > Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Listers, > > The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I > talked myself into thinking it was nothing, and the next day it was > stronger. Time to investigate. > > I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel > valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the > tunnel, easily fixed with a flex hose. > > It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. > > To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course > keeping the fuel where it should be is key, but once it gets out, keeping it > from igniting seems like a good defense. > > The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. > > There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used > for mounting, one is blocked by the gearbox, leaving five that expose the > brushes to the tunnel atmosphere. > > I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of the > motor, and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The > motor works fine, no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the motor > with the outer case taken off, which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I > realize it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole was > plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn't > much fun. > > I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but > I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the > leak was the best solution. > > Dave Saylor > AirCrafters > 140 Aviation Way > Watsonville, CA 95076 > 831-722-9141 Shop > 831-750-0284 Cell > > * > > * > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ From: "John Cumins" <jcumins(at)jcis.net> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Dave One question on the tubing. Was it the 3002 tube van supplies that=99s real soft, for was it 5052 standard certified aircraft tubing. I have seen the 3000 series tubes leak over time way more so than the 5052 type. Also, I think you are dead on with the plugging of the holes on the flap motor. Great idea. I will for sure do that on mine when I get to that point. Thanks for all the great information that you pass on the list as you become aware of it. Description: ISlogoLAsmall John Cumins President 707-425-7100 707-425-7576 Fax From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 1:50 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak I have an Andair valve with an AN fitting screwed into the bottom of it. The leak was between the AN fitting and the flared tube that I fabbed when I upgraded to the Andair about three years ago. I replaced the leaky flared tube with a flexible teflon hose. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Roger Standley wrote: Dave, Just curious, which fuel valve did you use? Was the leak fixed by tightening or tube replacement? Roger _____ From: dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Listers, The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I talked myself into thinking it was nothing, and the next day it was stronger. Time to investigate. I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the tunnel, easily fixed with a flex hose. It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course keeping the fuel where it should be is key, but once it gets out, keeping it from igniting seems like a good defense. The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used for mounting, one is blocked by the gearbox, leaving five that expose the brushes to the tunnel atmosphere. I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of the motor, and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The motor works fine, no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the motor with the outer case taken off, which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I realize it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole was plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn't much fun. I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the leak was the best solution. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Leak From: "billz" <billz(at)roadrunner.com> Thank you for the information on the flap motor. It's a step in the right direction and I plan to make the changes. Many aircraft designs also provide a means of venting areas that may accumulate fumes (fuel/hydraulics/etc.) from the aircraft. Larger aircraft are required to have positive ventilation in these areas. Although the RV-10 doesn't have any major issues in this area, I decided to take some proactive steps to provide some separation between the fuel lines and the rest of the tunnel and also add a small amount of ventilation. I installed an aft facing vent on the bottom of the fuselage, directly under the fuel valve. This should create a small amount of negative pressure in the tunnel and draw any fumes out. I plan to enclose the area that has fuel lines/pump/filter with some easily removable insulation material. The insulation will be self supporting, easily removed and secured with velcro. Again, like the flap motor upgrade, this is not a perfect fix, but should improve the odds in case there is a small fuel leak. Attached are pictures of the fuselage vent. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355701#355701 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1382_571.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1381_769.jpg ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Leak From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> I'd like to find a direct replacement for the standard motor that is brushless. That's always been my thought. I suppose I could call the manufacturer and see if they could sell an equivalent motor in brushless form. Phil On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM, billz wrote: > > Thank you for the information on the flap motor. It's a step in the right > direction and I plan to make the changes. > > Many aircraft designs also provide a means of venting areas that may > accumulate fumes (fuel/hydraulics/etc.) from the aircraft. Larger aircraft > are required to have positive ventilation in these areas. Although the > RV-10 doesn't have any major issues in this area, I decided to take some > proactive steps to provide some separation between the fuel lines and the > rest of the tunnel and also add a small amount of ventilation. I installed > an aft facing vent on the bottom of the fuselage, directly under the fuel > valve. This should create a small amount of negative pressure in the tunnel > and draw any fumes out. I plan to enclose the area that has fuel > lines/pump/filter with some easily removable insulation material. The > insulation will be self supporting, easily removed and secured with velcro. > Again, like the flap motor upgrade, this is not a perfect fix, but should > improve the odds in case there is a small fuel leak. Attached are pictures > of the fuselage vent. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355701#355701 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1382_571.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1381_769.jpg > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> I'm pretty sure the tubing was 3003. --Dave On Oct 21, 2011, at 16:54, "John Cumins" wrote: > Dave > > > > One question on the tubing. Was it the 3002 tube van supplies that=99 s real soft, for was it 5052 standard certified aircraft tubing. > > > > I have seen the 3000 series tubes leak over time way more so than the 5052 type. > > > > Also, I think you are dead on with the plugging of the holes on the flap m otor. Great idea. I will for sure do that on mine when I get to that point .. > > > > Thanks for all the great information that you pass on the list as you beco me aware of it. > > > > > > > > John Cumins > > President > > 707-425-7100 > > 707-425-7576 Fax > > > > > > > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 1:50 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak > > > > I have an Andair valve with an AN fitting screwed into the bottom of it. T he leak was between the AN fitting and the flared tube that I fabbed when I u pgraded to the Andair about three years ago. > > I replaced the leaky flared tube with a flexible teflon hose. > > Dave Saylor > AirCrafters > 140 Aviation Way > Watsonville, CA 95076 > 831-722-9141 Shop > 831-750-0284 Cell > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Roger Standley wrote : > > Dave, > > Just curious, which fuel valve did you use? Was the leak fixed by tighteni ng or tube replacement? > > Roger > > From: dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com > Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:31:20 -0700 > Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Listers, > > The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I talked myself into thinking it was nothing, and the next day it was stronge r. Time to investigate. > > I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the t unnel, easily fixed with a flex hose. > > It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. > > To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course keeping the fuel where it should be is key, but once it gets out, keeping i t from igniting seems like a good defense. > > The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. > > There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used for mounting, one is blocked by the gearbox, leaving five that expose the b rushes to the tunnel atmosphere. > > I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of th e motor, and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The mo tor works fine, no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the motor wi th the outer case taken off, which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I realiz e it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole was plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn't much fun .. > > I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the l eak was the best solution. > > Dave Saylor > AirCrafters > 140 Aviation Way > Watsonville, CA 95076 > 831-722-9141 Shop > 831-750-0284 Cell > > > > get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > tp://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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 22, 2011
Subject: Re: : RV10-List:Unsub
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
It is considered very bad form to quote an entire digest to make a two word reply. Really screws up the archives. This is a self help list, just like building your plane...do it yourself, the same way you got on: - The RV10-List Email Forum - On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Eli Stefansky <eli@prime-quest.com> wrote: > > please remove > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 22, 2011
Subject: Re: 2011 Copperstate RV10 Nest
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Many thanks to Myron and his wife for providing an excellent feast, great place to catch up with fellow RV10 enthusiasts, with some shade, seats and refreshment, excellent lunch. Missed Deems and John Cox this year, but great times with all that did show up. As well as the personal RV10s that made it, there were the avionics demo birds from Advanced Flight Systems and Tru-Track. Not to mention other attractions such as demo flights of BD5J, P51, B17, Hellcat, among others. Booths by Advanced Flight Systems, Dynon, Trio, Tru-Track, Tosten stick grips, Aerotronics for those in the middle of panel choices, and unlike OSH, ability to get quality time with the principal reps explaining their products. > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:48 PM, woxofswa wrote: >> >> I should be set up by early afternoon on Thurs. Chairs, shade, and water/soft drinks will always be available. Looking forward to a great turnout and show. >> >> -------- >> Myron Nelson >> Mesa, AZ >> Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in mostly done, finishing kit in progress. >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355347#355347 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
About the comment on the Dynon Skyview - I did not consider it because of three reasons. First, they work only with their own autopilot which is internal to the EFIS. In the event of an EFIS failure you are out of luck but with all the other units, assuming you are using an external A/P, the A/P will fly the airplane. Second, it does not have XM weather capability. Third, it can not do a complete coupled approach, lacking vertical navigation. While I think the Skyview is a really nice unit (and may put one in my VFR RV-6), it did not measure up to the other choices. I'm sure some will disagree with me about whether these are worthy points or not. I hope Dynon catches up but they seem more interested in the LSA and VFR market. I wish I had the GTN-750 rather than the 650 because it is a joy to look at and use. From a pure functional standpoint it does not do much more than the 650 but if I recall, cost about $6-7K more. My heart told me to buy it but my brain overrode. I like the panel shots. The G3X fits the panel nicely without being overcrowded. I have mounted all the avionics and was also able to do it without touching the ribs in front of the panel. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - Working G3X panel Rest almost done Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355774#355774 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 2011 Copperstate RV10 Nest
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
Thanks to all who participated. Our numbers were down a bit this year but the event itself seemed bigger. We missed some regulars this year, nut made new friends. Hopefully it won't be so hot next year. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in mostly done, finishing kit in progress. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355775#355775 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 22, 2011
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
After looking at AFS, Dynon and G3X the last 3 days....to my old eyes the G3X is just to small....not to mention their expensive options and update prices. Dynon---vertical nav on autopilot is coming, probably in 6-9 months. ADS-B weather and ability to display sectional, enroute and approach charts are high priority for future features. Vertical nav is apparently going to require an external control panel similar to what they had on their legacy products. Also coming is Com radio, remotely mounted with a very small control head, similar to AP control head. AFS seems to be the most advanced at this point. They seem to be able to implement new features more quickly than others. Only downside I see is the size of the bezel, due to more hardware knobs and buttons and price. Current screens(5000 series) have significantly less depth than earlier versions. Other advantage is AHARS built-in, so only magnetometer needs to be mounted elsewhere on airframe. All of the above work with VPX from Vertical Power. Glad I have a few more months before I need to make a decision. On 10/22/2011 7:59 PM, nukeflyboy wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: "nukeflyboy" > > About the comment on the Dynon Skyview - I did not consider it because of three reasons. First, they work only with their own autopilot which is internal to the EFIS. In the event of an EFIS failure you are out of luck but with all the other units, assuming you are using an external A/P, the A/P will fly the airplane. Second, it does not have XM weather capability. Third, it can not do a complete coupled approach, lacking vertical navigation. While I think the Skyview is a really nice unit (and may put one in my VFR RV-6), it did not measure up to the other choices. I'm sure some will disagree with me about whether these are worthy points or not. > I hope Dynon catches up but they seem more interested in the LSA and VFR market. > > I wish I had the GTN-750 rather than the 650 because it is a joy to look at and use. From a pure functional standpoint it does not do much more than the 650 but if I recall, cost about $6-7K more. My heart told me to buy it but my brain overrode. > > I like the panel shots. The G3X fits the panel nicely without being overcrowded. I have mounted all the avionics and was also able to do it without touching the ribs in front of the panel. > > -------- > Dave Moore > RV-6 flying > RV-10 QB - Working G3X panel > Rest almost done > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355774#355774 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 22, 2011
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: 2011 Copperstate RV10 Nest
Who knows...we could dream of getting all flying RV-10s in Arizona to show at a single Copperstate. As is, I think close to 50 percent made it this year. On 10/22/2011 8:09 PM, woxofswa wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: "woxofswa" > > Thanks to all who participated. Our numbers were down a bit this year but the event itself seemed bigger. We missed some regulars this year, nut made new friends. Hopefully it won't be so hot next year. > > > -------- > Myron Nelson > Mesa, AZ > Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in mostly done, finishing kit in progress. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355775#355775 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Beyer <fehdxlbb(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
Subject: Re: 2011 Copperstate RV10 Nest
SSdtIGRyZWFtaW5nIG9mIGEgMTAtc2hpcCBvZiAxMCdzIGR1cmluZyBPc2hrb3NoIDIwMTIncyBz YWx1dGUgdG8gVmFuJ3MgLi4uIEFyZSB0aGVyZSBlbm91Z2ggMTAgZHJpdmVycyB3aXRoIGZvcm1h dGlvbiBjYXJkcyB0byBkbyBzbz8gIC1KaW0KCkRvIG5vdCBhcmNoaXZlCgpTZW50IHZpYSBEcm9p ZFgyIG9uIFZlcml6b24gV2lyZWxlc3PihKIKCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgbWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tCkZy b206IEtlbGx5IE1jTXVsbGVuIDxrZWxseW1AYXZpYXRpbmcuY29tPgpUbzogcnYxMC1saXN0QG1h dHJvbmljcy5jb20KU2VudDogU3VuLCBPY3QgMjMsIDIwMTEgMDM6MzE6MzkgR01UKzAwOjAwClN1 YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBSVjEwLUxpc3Q6IFJlOiAyMDExIENvcHBlcnN0YXRlIFJWMTAgTmVzdAoKLS0+ IFJWMTAtTGlzdCBtZXNzYWdlIHBvc3RlZCBieTogS2VsbHkgTWNNdWxsZW4gPGtlbGx5bUBhdmlh dGluZy5jb20+CgpXaG8ga25vd3MuLi53ZSBjb3VsZCBkcmVhbSBvZiBnZXR0aW5nIGFsbCBmbHlp bmcgUlYtMTBzIGluIEFyaXpvbmEgdG8gCnNob3cgYXQgYSBzaW5nbGUgQ29wcGVyc3RhdGUuIEFz IGlzLCBJIHRoaW5rIGNsb3NlIHRvICA1MCBwZXJjZW50IG1hZGUgCml0IHRoaXMgIHllYXIuCgpP biAxMC8yMi8yMDExIDg6MDkgUE0sIHdveG9mc3dhIHdyb3RlOgo+IC0tPiAgUlYxMC1MaXN0IG1l c3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiAid294b2Zzd2EiPHdveG9mQGFvbC5jb20+Cj4KPiBUaGFua3MgdG8g YWxsIHdobyBwYXJ0aWNpcGF0ZWQuICBPdXIgbnVtYmVycyB3ZXJlIGRvd24gYSBiaXQgdGhpcyB5 ZWFyIGJ1dCB0aGUgZXZlbnQgaXRzZWxmIHNlZW1lZCBiaWdnZXIuIFdlIG1pc3NlZCBzb21lIHJl Z3VsYXJzIHRoaXMgeWVhciwgbnV0IG1hZGUgbmV3IGZyaWVuZHMuICBIb3BlZnVsbHkgaXQgd29u J3QgYmUgc28gaG90IG5leHQgeWVhci4KPgo+Cj4gLS0tLS0tLS0KPiBNeXJvbiBOZWxzb24KPiBN ZXNhLCBBWgo+IEVtcCBjb21wbGV0ZWQsIFFCIHdpbmdzIGNvbXBsZXRlZCwgbGVnYWN5IGJ1aWxk IGZ1c2UgaW4gbW9zdGx5IGRvbmUsIGZpbmlzaGluZyBraXQgaW4gcHJvZ3Jlc3MuCj4KPgo+Cj4K PiBSZWFkIHRoaXMgdG9waWMgb25saW5lIGhlcmU6Cj4KPiBodHRwOi8vZm9ydW1zLm1hdHJvbmlj cy5jb20vdmlld3RvcGljLnBocD9wPTM1NTc3NSMzNTU3NzUKPgo+Cj4KPgo+Cj4KPgo+Cj4KPgoK Xy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT0KXy09ICAgICAgICAgIC0gVGhlIFJWMTAtTGlzdCBFbWFpbCBGb3J1bSAtCl8tPSBVc2Ug dGhlIE1hdHJvbmljcyBMaXN0IEZlYXR1cmVzIE5hdmlnYXRvciB0byBicm93c2UKXy09IHRoZSBt YW55IExpc3QgdXRpbGl0aWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgTGlzdCBVbi9TdWJzY3JpcHRpb24sCl8tPSBBcmNo aXZlIFNlYXJjaCAmIERvd25sb2FkLCA3LURheSBCcm93c2UsIENoYXQsIEZBUSwKXy09IFBob3Rv c2hhcmUsIGFuZCBtdWNoIG11Y2ggbW9yZToKXy09Cl8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJv bmljcy5jb20vTmF2aWdhdG9yP1JWMTAtTGlzdApfLT0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg LSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZPUlVNUyAtCl8tPSBTYW1lIGdyZWF0IGNvbnRlbnQgYWxzbyBhdmFp bGFibGUgdmlhIHRoZSBXZWIgRm9ydW1zIQpfLT0KXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0 cm9uaWNzLmNvbQpfLT0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgIC0gTGlzdCBDb250cmlidXRpb24g V2ViIFNpdGUgLQpfLT0gIFRoYW5rIHlvdSBmb3IgeW91ciBnZW5lcm91cyBzdXBwb3J0IQpfLT0g ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtTWF0dCBEcmFsbGUsIExpc3QgQWRtaW4uCl8t PSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vY29udHJpYnV0aW9uCl8tPT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09CgoKCg= ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2011
Size of the G3X screens was a big concern of mine before and when I got them. They are great when actually using them. They are only two feet away and probably have the same font size as the competition. I have flown behind Cheltons, GRT, AFS, G1000, SPZ5000, Primus 1000, Proline21, and the DA900EASy. I think Garmin has all you need in these boxes plus some. I like mine more than any of the others but again it's mine. The landscape is more broad in some of the others with synthetic vision, but the same info is there. As far as databases....well I spend 1300 per year on the Garmin bundle and the XM so that could be a lot better. Hopefully that will come down. I see they have a special with the 750 but that doesn't help me with my 430w. I think ease of use with the GTN 750 is the gain in capability. -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355783#355783 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
Date: Oct 23, 2011
I have the GRT system and have not flown behind other systems....but want to give my opinion, take it for what it is worth. :) I have not updated my GRT system to the HX screens and thus do not have synthetic Vision, but I do have one HS screen and one WS screen. I have a separate trutrak autopilot. I really like what I have.....here are the biggest pro's The autopilot is separate from the EFIS and can fly the plane without any external input. This was one of my original requirements and it performs great. Take off...turn on course and establish climb rate.....turn on autopilot and it is good to go. Easy to change track and rate of climb....great backup. It has a great interface with the GRT system and I have a switch that allows the autopilot to be commanded by the EFIS or 430. GRT system is easy to use and fully integrated with the EIS. Both screens provide all functions. Data are free............ Customer support is great........ Synthetic approach is great along with HITS.... Extended runway centerlines... Airport information is good......but I really use Wing X for all of that. But when you need it, it is great to be there. I was on a local flight on Friday and decided to fly up in the mountains (it is what he kids wanted to do) and could not remember the a frequency and instead of pulling my paper chart out (I do carry a paper chart for the local area....but not for outside the local area, I use Wing X) I just hit a couple of buttons and got the frequency. Also, if I look the Freq up on the GRT, I can push it to my SL30. Rene' 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Strasnuts Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:25 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Panel Choice Size of the G3X screens was a big concern of mine before and when I got them. They are great when actually using them. They are only two feet away and probably have the same font size as the competition. I have flown behind Cheltons, GRT, AFS, G1000, SPZ5000, Primus 1000, Proline21, and the DA900EASy. I think Garmin has all you need in these boxes plus some. I like mine more than any of the others but again it's mine. The landscape is more broad in some of the others with synthetic vision, but the same info is there. As far as databases....well I spend 1300 per year on the Garmin bundle and the XM so that could be a lot better. Hopefully that will come down. I see they have a special with the 750 but that doesn't help me with my 430w. I think ease of use with the GTN 750 is the gain in capability. -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355783#355783 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 23, 2011
Garmin update costs were a concern to me too initially but don't miss my point (in my lengthy note!) that with the 650/750 the update costs are the same as for everyone else. It comes with the IFR subscription, no extra charge for the map. If you have a 430/530/650/750 and you fly IFR then you pay a subscription cost for the database. With the G3X and 650/750 you get the map update free from Jepp. With GRT/AFS you get the map updates from GRT/AFS no charge, when they decide to send an update. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - Working G3X panel Rest almost done Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355808#355808 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 23, 2011
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
Ok, but do apples to apples. First, if you just use the GRT/AFS database, I'm not 100% positive but I'm doubtful you'll get actual JEPP data, and if not, or perhaps even if, you won't be getting Jepp APPROACHES with your data. Then your system really doesn't have that same level of IFR capabilities. You're relegated to using approach plates and flying the approaches using other references to get to your various waypoints. So you want to make it more apples to apples, which means you have to factor in the cost of your garmin updates for the IFR device (430W or similar) that you connect to your AFS/GRT system....well, those are gonna cost you a few hundred dollars a year. Certainly there's still a delta in cost between doing that and going all out with the $1300/yr package, but you get far more data components for that cost than you get with just updating a 430W. So it's all relative. In the end, IFR is a pay to play activity. For most people, it is NOT worth the added cost to be 100% equipped and ready for an IFR flight across the US...it's far too much money for additional biannual tests, data subscriptions, and things of that nature. But people don't do it to save money, they do it to be able to reach a destination despite some weather in the way. To NOT cancel that trip just due to some low ceilings and miserable weather down low. Or, just because it's a super fun challenge. In the end, after flying in Sean's plane with a G3X, I came to the conclusion that for the money, you can't beat that system these days, and personally I'd even choose it over a G900 panel, since you can do 3 screens across. It's a perfect fit for the RV-10. If he wants to save some data costs, he can drop some of the subscriptions for various components....some of what he subscribes to could be done on an iPad for less money. Either way, I think his panel is far more IFR ready than going with some of the other experimental EFIS systems. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD On 10/23/2011 2:42 PM, Jim Combs wrote: > WOW! spending $1300 a year just for Database updates is a reason to NOT > go with Garmin. I think you need to consider not just the initial cost > but also the cost of ownership. Heck for that kind of money I could > replace my EFIS units in the panel every 5 years or so. Keeps you up to > date with technology too! > > Just food for thought. > > Jim Combs > N312F - Flying dual AFS EFIS. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Oct 23, 2011
Just to add on to "apples to apples..." Don't forget the quoted $1300 includes xm weather (up to $600/yr depending on subscription). I don't think anyone else was including that cost in their discussion. OTOH: Is anyone NOT doing biennial pitot/static/transponder inspections, as I thought Tim was implying? To not do so would restrict you to below 10,000', 30 nm away from all Class B, and no Class C, areas. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355811#355811 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 23, 2011
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Why would that cost enter into the decisions? Whether you fly with steam gauges and a KX170B or equiv, you would need static system and transponder checked. (pitot only gets hooked up to protect the airspeed bellows, there is not testing required of it). If one chooses a VFR certification, cost can be under $100. On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > OTOH: Is anyone NOT doing biennial pitot/static/transponder inspections, as I thought Tim was implying? To not do so would restrict you to below 10,000', 30 nm away from all Class B, and no Class C, areas. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355811#355811 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Oct 23, 2011
Kelly, Actually, if you fly only VFR, there is no requirement for a pitot-static or transponder inspection. Of course, you may not use the transponder, which means no Class B or C, not above 10,000', etc. Which is why I thought maybe I misunderstood Tim's post. Did he mean biannual (which is what he wrote) meaning instrument currency every 6 months? Tim? -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355817#355817 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Oct 23, 2011
I actually was adding 700$ that I believe was the cost for the XM package I purchased. 600$ is the g3x bundle. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 23, 2011, at 17:57, "Bob Turner" wrote: > > Just to add on to "apples to apples..." > > Don't forget the quoted $1300 includes xm weather (up to $600/yr depending on subscription). I don't think anyone else was including that cost in their discussion. > > OTOH: Is anyone NOT doing biennial pitot/static/transponder inspections, as I thought Tim was implying? To not do so would restrict you to below 10,000', 30 nm away from all Class B, and no Class C, areas. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355811#355811 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 23, 2011
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
There is if you base like I do under a Mode C veil. I'm well familiar with the rules. Anyone know if there is any potential for damage to solid state pressure sensors used for airspeed in EFIS systems like a mechanical airspeed can be damaged if you take pressure up to high altitude while leaving pitot pressure at surface? On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > Kelly, > > Actually, if you fly only VFR, there is no requirement for a pitot-static or transponder inspection. Of course, you may not use the transponder, which means no Class B or C, not above 10,000', etc. Which is why I thought maybe I misunderstood Tim's post. Did he mean biannual (which is what he wrote) meaning instrument currency every 6 months? Tim? > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355817#355817 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plane Power and Lycoming Pulley Alignment Issue
From: "rleffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Oct 23, 2011
Here's the post that everyone has been waiting to see. I installed the new spacers from Plane Power this afternoon. They are a perfect fit for those that purchased a YIO-540-D4A5 from Vans and have a LW-12227 ring gear. If you fall into this category, I would highly recommend that you call Vans and demand that they supply you the appropriate Plane Power spacers for free. They made the decision to switch ring gears and they packaged the Plane Power 60a alternator in the firewall forward package, which out performing the necessary engineering to ensure power integration. I will say that the folks at Plane Power have been great to work with to find the appropriate solution. Lycoming was also cooperative in supplying Plane Power the appropriate data to allow Plane Power to fabricate new spacers. Also note that if you have a 70a alternator, you'll need a different set of spacers. I worked with Jason and Dick at Plane Power, Marlous at Lycoming (Van's sales rep), and Gus at Vans. Jason and Dick provided outstanding customer support. My last email to Gus recommended that Vans supply all customers that purchased this combination with the spacers at no charge and issue a service bulletin to ensure nobody attempts to fly in this configuration since it isn't safe. bob -------- Bob Leffler N410BL - FWF RV-10 #40684 http://mykitlog.com/rleffler Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355824#355824 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 23, 2011
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
Kelly, The EFIS pressure sensors seem to be immune to rapid changes. The guy who does our checks does nothing but static checks--not even repairs, just checks. He says the new stuff can go as fast as the pressure will change. I've seen him slam EFIS around in a way that would bust a mechanical instrument in a heartbeat and it just keeps working, mine included. The hardest part now is disconnecting the mechanical airspeed! Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > There is if you base like I do under a Mode C veil. I'm well familiar > with the rules. > Anyone know if there is any potential for damage to solid state > pressure sensors used for airspeed in EFIS systems like a mechanical > airspeed can be damaged if you take pressure up to high altitude while > leaving pitot pressure at surface? > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Bob Turner > wrote: > > > > Kelly, > > > > Actually, if you fly only VFR, there is no requirement for a pitot-static > or transponder inspection. Of course, you may not use the transponder, which > means no Class B or C, not above 10,000', etc. Which is why I thought maybe > I misunderstood Tim's post. Did he mean biannual (which is what he wrote) > meaning instrument currency every 6 months? Tim? > > > > -------- > > Bob Turner > > RV-10 QB > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355817#355817 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 23, 2011
There are two different databases which seem to cause confusion. The one required to fly legal IFR is for the 430/530/650/750 or whatever certified navigator you are using. If you fly IFR you can't get around this cost, even for paper. The other one is just for the backdrop on the moving map in the EFIS. Updates are free from GRT/AFS. With a G650/750 IFR subscription the EFIS moving map updates are free for the G3X. If you have a 430/530 then you pay an additional subscription to update the EFIS. I do not know the frequency of updates for the moving map in a GRT/AFS system. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - Working G3X panel Rest almost done Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355838#355838 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "orchidman" <gary(at)wingscc.com>
Date: Oct 24, 2011
nukeflyboy wrote: > I do not know the frequency of updates for the moving map in a GRT/AFS system. Not sure about GRT but AFS, the maps are updated every 28 days. -------- Gary Blankenbiller RV10 - # 40674 (N2GB Flying) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355849#355849 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 24, 2011
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com>
Sean, yes to be fair we all have to pay the darn recurring fees for the data updates. I can see the fees for XM radio, they have to pay to build, launch and fly the satellites. But the other data is (I think) supplied by the FAA. One can download approach plates in PDF form directly from the FAA.Gov website for free. The other data (Airport info, tower data also is from the FAA. So the question I have is what is the value add from the data suppliers (Garmin, Jepp) that warrants the large expense. Jim C D Not Archive On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Seano wrote: > > I actually was adding 700$ that I believe was the cost for the XM package I > purchased. 600$ is the g3x bundle. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 23, 2011, at 17:57, "Bob Turner" wrote: > > > > > Just to add on to "apples to apples..." > > > > Don't forget the quoted $1300 includes xm weather (up to $600/yr > depending on subscription). I don't think anyone else was including that > cost in their discussion. > > > > OTOH: Is anyone NOT doing biennial pitot/static/transponder inspections, > as I thought Tim was implying? To not do so would restrict you to below > 10,000', 30 nm away from all Class B, and no Class C, areas. > > > > -------- > > Bob Turner > > RV-10 QB > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355811#355811 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Oct 24, 2011
I don't think anything warrants the big expense for the data but it is worth it for me to have the G3X. AOPA supplies the airport directory. The flight charts are geo-referenced and are government. NAVDATA is from Jeppesen and includes N,C,and S America. Obstacles are from Garmin (i believe). SAFETAXI is from government charts and is geo-reference. Terrain is from Garmin and shows N, C, and S America. I have had absolutely no issues with the G3X/GX Pilot since I wired it and installed it. When I wish it had a certain functions, the next update bundle has it in it plus more options. The cost of the data is high but reliability, ease of use, company history/size and having everything from the same company "talk" to each other is nice in the cockpit and is why I bought the G3X. Although, I do have a separate D6 for AHRS/Magnetometer back-up. -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355859#355859 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com>
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
Date: Oct 24, 2011
IIRC flying IFR in the big birds requires three independent ways to keep the dirty side down in IMC. I accomplished this with a Chelton system as primary and a GRT Sport system as backup. The tie breaker is the Trutrak autopilot that can with its own solid state gyros ignore all inputs from the EFIS systems and fly the aircraft independently. The EFIS systems each have their own single dependency but their dependencies are different. Obviously all three systems must share in some fashion the primary and backup electrical system. I buy the Jepp/Chelton updates for the Cheltons for $550 annually; GRT updates are free and Trutrak has updated my Digiflite software without charge several times. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Strasnuts Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 6:50 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Panel Choice I don't think anything warrants the big expense for the data but it is worth it for me to have the G3X. AOPA supplies the airport directory. The flight charts are geo-referenced and are government. NAVDATA is from Jeppesen and includes N,C,and S America. Obstacles are from Garmin (i believe). SAFETAXI is from government charts and is geo-reference. Terrain is from Garmin and shows N, C, and S America. I have had absolutely no issues with the G3X/GX Pilot since I wired it and installed it. When I wish it had a certain functions, the next update bundle has it in it plus more options. The cost of the data is high but reliability, ease of use, company history/size and having everything from the same company "talk" to each other is nice in the cockpit and is why I bought the G3X. Although, I do have a separate D6 for AHRS/Magnetometer back-up. -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355859#355859 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Cumins" <jcumins(at)jcis.net>
Subject: Fuel Leak
Date: Oct 24, 2011
Thanks Dave 40864 Winds debur Top skins frep for primer From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 7:25 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak I'm pretty sure the tubing was 3003. --Dave On Oct 21, 2011, at 16:54, "John Cumins" wrote: Dave One question on the tubing. Was it the 3002 tube van supplies that=99s real soft, for was it 5052 standard certified aircraft tubing. I have seen the 3000 series tubes leak over time way more so than the 5052 type. Also, I think you are dead on with the plugging of the holes on the flap motor. Great idea. I will for sure do that on mine when I get to that point. Thanks for all the great information that you pass on the list as you become aware of it. John Cumins President 707-425-7100 707-425-7576 Fax From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 1:50 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak I have an Andair valve with an AN fitting screwed into the bottom of it. The leak was between the AN fitting and the flared tube that I fabbed when I upgraded to the Andair about three years ago. I replaced the leaky flared tube with a flexible teflon hose. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Roger Standley wrote: Dave, Just curious, which fuel valve did you use? Was the leak fixed by tightening or tube replacement? Roger _____ From: dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:31:20 -0700 Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak Listers, The other day on preflight I noticed a faint fuel smell in the cockpit. I talked myself into thinking it was nothing, and the next day it was stronger. Time to investigate. I found a pretty good drip coming from the flare at the bottom of the fuel valve. There was some staining and a little dampness on the bottom of the tunnel, easily fixed with a flex hose. It got me thinking again about the flap motor as an ignition source. To date there have been at least three RV-10 cockpit fires. Now of course keeping the fuel where it should be is key, but once it gets out, keeping it from igniting seems like a good defense. The flap motor in my RV-10 is described on the attached data sheet. There are four 6-32 threaded holes in each end of the motor. Two are used for mounting, one is blocked by the gearbox, leaving five that expose the brushes to the tunnel atmosphere. I wiped a little blob of silicone into the unused hole on the bottom of the motor, and put AN515-6R4s and split lock-washers in the top holes. The motor works fine, no issues with clearance. There's a picture of the motor with the outer case taken off, which I wouldn't recommend doing. Now I realize it's not necessary. I just included it to identify which hole was plugged with silicone. Putting the brushes and shims back together wasn't much fun. I kind of doubt that this makes the motor officially "explosion proof" but I don't see how it hurts and hopefully it's a tiny bit safer. Fixing the leak was the best solution. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List tp://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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 24, 2011
From: James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net>
Subject: I'm back!
Finally! After a failed partial knee replacement, then a revision, and other bumps along the way the past one and a half years....... I am finally getting back to building! Now for the shame: RV# 40384 ( I got a lot of catching up to do! ) Let's see, 20,000 unread emails.... What did I miss? Have fun! -Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 24, 2011
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: I'm back!
#40303 here and I'm not even on the finishing kit yet. Started in the fall of 2004, still chugging along. I'm the tortoise in the race. Hopefully you won't pass me up too. :) Keep pounding... or in my case crimping... -Sean #40303 (wiring panel) On 10/24/11 6:25 PM, James Hein wrote: > > Finally! > After a failed partial knee replacement, then a revision, and > other bumps along the way the past one and a half years....... > > I am finally getting back to building! > > Now for the shame: > RV# 40384 ( I got a lot of catching up to do! ) > > Let's see, 20,000 unread emails.... What did I miss? > > Have fun! > -Jim > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Subject: Re: I'm back!
Date: Oct 25, 2011
40352 and no comment. :) Michael Sent from my iPad2 On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:26 PM, "Sean Stephens" wrote: > > #40303 here and I'm not even on the finishing kit yet. Started in the fall of 2004, still chugging along. I'm the tortoise in the race. Hopefully you won't pass me up too. :) > > Keep pounding... or in my case crimping... > > -Sean #40303 (wiring panel) > > On 10/24/11 6:25 PM, James Hein wrote: >> >> Finally! >> After a failed partial knee replacement, then a revision, and other bumps along the way the past one and a half years....... >> >> I am finally getting back to building! >> >> Now for the shame: >> RV# 40384 ( I got a lot of catching up to do! ) >> >> Let's see, 20,000 unread emails.... What did I miss? >> >> Have fun! >> -Jim >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Oct 25, 2011
Dave, Your numbers have been bothering me so I went back and looked at my avionics purchases. I bought almost exactly what you describe as the GRT system (2 displays, 1 air data computer, xm wx, IO-540 engine instruments including fuel flow) for $11.1K minus a 5% discount, or $10.6K - a lot less than you quoted, and comparable with the G3X. Possible differences: I got the standard size, not larger size, displays (+$1.2K for two). I also got an HX and a HS, e.g., synthetic vision on only one display. I couldn't reason the extra $2K for two HX's when the second display is used for engine instruments most of the time. Something you failed to mention: GRT is the only system that will continue to give you engine information if the EFIS fails. I'm sure you'll be happy with your choice. Just wanted to point out the cost differences are closer than you thought. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=355991#355991 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Oct 25, 2011
Bob, That's good info. You are correct about the engine monitor being independent from the EFIS which is not the case with the others. As far as cost goes the suppliers keep adjusting their prices so you need to use current data. Mine is already obsolete and it is only 2 months old. There is also a seemingly infinite number of combinations and this adds to the headache. The value of these discussions is to get the relevant data out in the open so the next guy is better prepared to ask the right questions. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - Working G3X panel Rest almost done Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356007#356007 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2011
With G3X you can have two EFIS screens fail and still get engine info. The GSU would have to fail or three screens. -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356008#356008 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
From: "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2011
I had to clear one more thing up. I just checked all of my data subscription prices so here they are for comparison: G3X Bundle 500.00 navdata, flightcharts, safetaxi, obstacle, terrain, Airport directory XM 745.55 XMWX Aviator with XM Select (1 Year Plan) 430W 385.00 Yearly NAVDATA for IFR What bums me out about this is the bundling now for G3X with the GTN6XX/7XX is 924.00 and you can get it all through Garmin. As of now I have to buy the G3X from Garmin and the 430W separately from Jeppesen. Also, my GX pilot will work individually if the EFIS goes TU. -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356026#356026 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2011
From: Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Panel Choice
Just to let you know I just got off the phone with Garmin even though I hav e a G500 and dual 430w's they won't give me the lower price either because thay are not the new GTN. Jeppesen does give you a lower price for the second 430. -The new GTN are coded so the card can be used in only one specific unit and not swapped around. -So I buy the nav data from Jep and will keep the Ipad up to date and upd ate the 696 once a year. Patrick Thyssen N15PT 383hrs --- On Wed, 10/26/11, Strasnuts wrote: From: Strasnuts <sean(at)braunandco.com> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Panel Choice Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 8:51 AM I had to clear one more thing up.- I just checked all of my data subscrip tion prices so here they are for comparison: G3X Bundle 500.00- - - - navdata, flightcharts, safetaxi, obstacle, terrain, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Air port directory XM- - - - - - - 745.55- - - - XMWX Aviator with XM Se lect- (1 Year Plan) 430W- - - - ---385.00- - - - Yearly NAVDATA for IFR What bums me out about this is the bundling now for G3X with the GTN6XX/7XX is 924.00 and you can get it all through Garmin.- As of now I have to bu y the G3X from Garmin and the 430W separately from Jeppesen. Also, my GX pilot will work individually if the EFIS goes TU. -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356026#356026 le, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Sealing Baggage Rear Bulkhead
From: "fdombroski" <f.dombroski(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2011
I am getting a significant draft in the back seat from the channels on the bulkhead at the aft end of the baggage compartment. What has been used to seal the gaps created by the corrugated grooves? Thanks Frank -------- Frank Dombroski RV-10 N10FD Flying RV-8 N84FD Finished and sold :-{ SMQ Somerset Airport NJ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356049#356049 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Sealing Baggage Rear Bulkhead
Date: Oct 26, 2011
I have an interior from Abbey at Flightline. Part of the kit is a cover that goes over the bulkhead and extends to the cabin wall. It limits the amount of air that gets through. Rene' Felker N423CF 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of fdombroski Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:05 PM Subject: RV10-List: Sealing Baggage Rear Bulkhead I am getting a significant draft in the back seat from the channels on the bulkhead at the aft end of the baggage compartment. What has been used to seal the gaps created by the corrugated grooves? Thanks Frank -------- Frank Dombroski RV-10 N10FD Flying RV-8 N84FD Finished and sold :-{ SMQ Somerset Airport NJ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356049#356049 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sealing Baggage Rear Bulkhead
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2011
Do you have your door seals on yet? If not, that will probably make the difference. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone On Oct 26, 2011, at 5:05 PM, "fdombroski" wrote: > > I am getting a significant draft in the back seat from the channels on the bulkhead at the aft end of the baggage compartment. What has been used to seal the gaps created by the corrugated grooves? > > Thanks > Frank > > -------- > Frank Dombroski > RV-10 N10FD Flying > RV-8 N84FD Finished and sold :-{ > SMQ Somerset Airport NJ > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356049#356049 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2011
From: <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: Sealing Baggage Rear Bulkhead
I filled them with RTV, left it a little proud, covered the edge of the bulkhead with clear tape so that the RTV would not stick to the frame, and then installed the bulkhead and let the RTV cure. Albert Gardner Yuma, AZ N991RV Jesse Saint wrote: > > Do you have your door seals on yet? If not, that will probably make the difference. > > Jesse Saint > I-TEC, Inc. > jesse(at)itecusa.org > www.itecusa.org > www.mavericklsa.com > C: 352-427-0285 > O: 352-465-4545 > F: 815-377-3694 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 26, 2011, at 5:05 PM, "fdombroski" wrote: > > > > > I am getting a significant draft in the back seat from the channels on the bulkhead at the aft end of the baggage compartment. What has been used to seal the gaps created by the corrugated grooves? > > > > Thanks > > Frank > > > > -------- > > Frank Dombroski > > RV-10 N10FD Flying > > RV-8 N84FD Finished and sold :-{ > > SMQ Somerset Airport NJ > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356049#356049 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sealing Baggage Rear Bulkhead
From: "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2011
I have the 4 vents that are built from the plans plus the 4 vents in the overhead console. I have the mcmastercarr seal that seals up all around the doors. Sometimes I wonder where all the air is going or if it is pressurizing the cabin:). It might be nice to have those open so there is somewhere for the air to go. Built in outflow valves. Maybe I'm crazy. I guess in the winter it would be nice to close them up. The tail has all the holes but I sealed up most in the forward fuselage. -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356058#356058 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sealing Baggage Rear Bulkhead
From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2011
I used a sheet of 1/2 inch foam rubber treated with fire retardant and glued it to the back of the 2 removable bulkhead pieces. Solved the problem for me. Got my foam from Flightline Interiors. grumpy N184JM On Oct 26, 2011, at 4:05 PM, fdombroski wrote: > > I am getting a significant draft in the back seat from the channels on the bulkhead at the aft end of the baggage compartment. What has been used to seal the gaps created by the corrugated grooves? > > Thanks > Frank > > -------- > Frank Dombroski > RV-10 N10FD Flying > RV-8 N84FD Finished and sold :-{ > SMQ Somerset Airport NJ > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356049#356049 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sealing Baggage Rear Bulkhead
From: "fdombroski" <f.dombroski(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2011
The doors are sealed. I have the 4 fuse vents, plus 4 overhead vents. I have plenty of airflow in the summer. At altitude, and during the winter the cold air from the tail cone is flowing aggressively past the rear baggage bulkhead. This is the corrugated structure. Looks like 1/2 inch foam is the probable solution. Thanks Frank -------- Frank Dombroski RV-10 N10FD Flying RV-8 N84FD Finished and sold :-{ SMQ Somerset Airport NJ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356065#356065 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2011
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Anyone know anything about this one?
Copperstate Reserve Grand Champion went to an RV-10 built by Calvin Zoch, Centerville, Texas. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2011
Subject: Re: Anyone know anything about this one?
From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com>
It is officially on the EAA site. I definately missed the best Copperstate yet. John On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Copperstate Reserve Grand Champion went to an RV-10 built by Calvin Zoch, > Centerville, Texas. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sealing Baggage Rear Bulkhead
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2011
I sealed off aileron pushrod openings, wing spar openings, still need to do baggage bulkhead and elevator pushrod at rear spar. -------- Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08 Bldr# 40983SB Final assembly, aw cert, transition training with David Maib. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356177#356177 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Anyone know anything about this one?
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2011
Nice folks. They came to the lunch. The airplane had the nice interior with the wood trim (professionally done), and the trick external handle locks. He didn't build the airplane. He said he bought it with 50 hours on it. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in mostly done, finishing kit in progress. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356250#356250 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Must sell my RV-10 project
From: "PilotMelch" <pilotmelch(at)Melchert.org>
Date: Oct 29, 2011
Life situations require me to sell my RV-10 project. It is #40740. QB Fuselage, QB Wings, with Empennage kit nearly complete (think of it as a super Quick Build). Its in my hangar at Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie, MN (KFCM). Im asking $37,000, with the buyer picking up on site (Id be happy to help load everything up carefully). Let me know if you or anyone you know might be interested. Thanks, John Melchert cell-612-327-6696 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356287#356287 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: Recreational pilot
Date: Oct 30, 2011
When I built my RV-8 ten years ago, I had an engine built that produced 210 HP, but was limited by placards to 180 for the purpose of qualifying it to be flown under the Recreational pilots license. Back then AOPA was trying to get the Feds to allow that class of pilot to operate under the medical self certification exemption that is allowed for sport pilots, glider and balloon pilots. The restrictions back then would also require a fixed pitch prop, so I put one of those on as well. The Feds didn't go for it then, but said they would re-evaluate after the Sport pilots exemption has been in effect for about ten years. Well in the last ten years, there has been zero medical deficiency caused accidents for sport pilots. Now, again the EAA and AOPA lawyers are submitting to the FAA an exemption to allow the Rec pilots to self certify. The aircraft requirements would once again allow for a max of 180HP, but not a restriction for fixed pitch prop. The 2 seat restriction is also removed, and replaced with "one Passenger". So my question is...How does the RV10 perform with the reduced payload of 1 pax and 180HP? It would be interesting to experiment with a flying RV10 that was limited by how far in you push the throttle to see if it would be practical to placard your engine instruments to allow you to operate under those conditions without a medical. Even if the Feds required modifications to your IO540 to physically limit you to 180, at what altitude? The rules would require you to operate under 10,000 msl, but you could probably still pull 180HP at that altitude with your downrated motor. And you could still have the other 80 HP available for emergencies down low. A pilot with a medical could simply remove whatever limiting devise is require (placards) and fly it like a normal RV10. It would be nice to have that flexibility and would open your machine up to a whole other class (market) of pilots. Chris Hukill ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2011
From: Matt Geans <mattgeans(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Recent Spam Mail
All,-=0A=0A=0A=0AIt's come to my attention that virtually everyone with m y yahoo accout has recently been sent spam mail from me. -It was not sent by me and I don't think any of you are lonely and in need of company - or whatever. -=0A=0AThere is another computer that I think my yahoo logon is still in the cookies and that computer was getting some suspect e-mails to my work e-mail account which may have downloaded some malware to that comp uter and read the saved log-ons to my yahoo account.=0A=0AI just tried to s end this mail to all of you and Yahoo had already recognized the suspicious activity and blocked sending mails to multiple accounts till I contacted t hem.=0A=0AI have been far from lonely these days and haven't been on any si tes to instigate such activity.....Sorry for any-inconvenience.-=0A=0AM att ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Recreational pilot
From: "Bobby J. Hughes" <bhughes(at)qnsi.net>
Date: Oct 30, 2011
Q2hyaXMsDQoNCkkgd291bGQgZXhwZWN0IGEgY2xpbWIgcmF0ZSBvZiA2MDAtNzAwIGZwbSBhdCAx ODAgSFAgd2l0aCBmd2Ygd2VpZ2h0IGVxdWFsIHRvIHRoZSBpbyA1NDAuIExpZ2h0ZXIgZndmIG1h eSBtYWtlIHRoZSByZWFyIGJhZ2dhZ2UgYXJlYSB3b3J0aGxlc3MuIA0KDQpCb2JieQ0KDQpTZW50 IGZyb20gbXkgaVBhZA0KDQpPbiBPY3QgMzAsIDIwMTEsIGF0IDg6MzcgQU0sICJDaHJpcyBIdWtp bGwiIDxjamh1a2lsbEBjb3gubmV0PiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBXaGVuIEkgYnVpbHQgbXkgUlYtOCB0 ZW4geWVhcnMgYWdvLCBJIGhhZCBhbiBlbmdpbmUgYnVpbHQgdGhhdCBwcm9kdWNlZCAyMTAgSFAs IGJ1dCB3YXMgbGltaXRlZCBieSBwbGFjYXJkcyB0byAxODAgZm9yIHRoZSBwdXJwb3NlIG9mIHF1 YWxpZnlpbmcgaXQgdG8gYmUgZmxvd24gdW5kZXIgdGhlIFJlY3JlYXRpb25hbCBwaWxvdHMgbGlj ZW5zZS4gQmFjayB0aGVuIEFPUEEgd2FzIHRyeWluZyB0byBnZXQgdGhlIEZlZHMgdG8gYWxsb3cg dGhhdCBjbGFzcyBvZiBwaWxvdCB0byBvcGVyYXRlIHVuZGVyIHRoZSBtZWRpY2FsIHNlbGYgY2Vy dGlmaWNhdGlvbiBleGVtcHRpb24gdGhhdCBpcyBhbGxvd2VkIGZvciBzcG9ydCBwaWxvdHMsIGds aWRlciBhbmQgYmFsbG9vbiBwaWxvdHMuIFRoZSByZXN0cmljdGlvbnMgYmFjayB0aGVuIHdvdWxk IGFsc28gcmVxdWlyZSBhIGZpeGVkIHBpdGNoIHByb3AsIHNvIEkgcHV0IG9uZSBvZiB0aG9zZSBv biBhcyB3ZWxsLg0KPiBUaGUgRmVkcyBkaWRuJ3QgZ28gZm9yIGl0IHRoZW4sIGJ1dCBzYWlkIHRo ZXkgd291bGQgcmUtZXZhbHVhdGUgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIFNwb3J0IHBpbG90cyBleGVtcHRpb24gaGFz IGJlZW4gaW4gZWZmZWN0IGZvciBhYm91dCB0ZW4geWVhcnMuIFdlbGwgaW4gdGhlIGxhc3QgdGVu IHllYXJzLCB0aGVyZSBoYXMgYmVlbiB6ZXJvIG1lZGljYWwgZGVmaWNpZW5jeSBjYXVzZWQgYWNj aWRlbnRzIGZvciBzcG9ydCBwaWxvdHMuIE5vdywgYWdhaW4gdGhlIEVBQSBhbmQgQU9QQSBsYXd5 ZXJzIGFyZSBzdWJtaXR0aW5nIHRvIHRoZSBGQUEgYW4gZXhlbXB0aW9uIHRvIGFsbG93IHRoZSBS ZWMgcGlsb3RzIHRvIHNlbGYgY2VydGlmeS4gVGhlIGFpcmNyYWZ0IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyB3b3Vs ZCBvbmNlIGFnYWluIGFsbG93IGZvciBhIG1heCBvZiAxODBIUCwgYnV0IG5vdCBhIHJlc3RyaWN0 aW9uIGZvciBmaXhlZCBwaXRjaCBwcm9wLiBUaGUgMiBzZWF0IHJlc3RyaWN0aW9uIGlzIGFsc28g cmVtb3ZlZCwgYW5kIHJlcGxhY2VkIHdpdGggIm9uZSBQYXNzZW5nZXIiLiBTbyBteSBxdWVzdGlv biBpcy4uLkhvdyBkb2VzIHRoZSBSVjEwIHBlcmZvcm0gd2l0aCB0aGUgcmVkdWNlZCBwYXlsb2Fk IG9mIDEgcGF4IGFuZCAxODBIUD8gSXQgd291bGQgYmUgaW50ZXJlc3RpbmcgdG8gZXhwZXJpbWVu dCB3aXRoIGEgZmx5aW5nIFJWMTAgdGhhdCB3YXMgbGltaXRlZCBieSBob3cgZmFyIGluIHlvdSBw dXNoIHRoZSB0aHJvdHRsZSB0byBzZWUgaWYgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgcHJhY3RpY2FsIHRvIHBsYWNh cmQgeW91ciBlbmdpbmUgaW5zdHJ1bWVudHMgdG8gYWxsb3cgeW91IHRvIG9wZXJhdGUgdW5kZXIg dGhvc2UgY29uZGl0aW9ucyB3aXRob3V0IGEgbWVkaWNhbC4gRXZlbiAgaWYgdGhlIEZlZHMgcmVx dWlyZWQgbW9kaWZpY2F0aW9ucyB0byB5b3VyIElPNTQwIHRvIHBoeXNpY2FsbHkgbGltaXQgeW91 IHRvIDE4MCwgYXQgd2hhdCBhbHRpdHVkZT8gVGhlIHJ1bGVzIHdvdWxkIHJlcXVpcmUgeW91IHRv IG9wZXJhdGUgdW5kZXIgMTAsMDAwIG1zbCwgYnV0IHlvdSBjb3VsZCBwcm9iYWJseSBzdGlsbCBw dWxsIDE4MEhQIGF0IHRoYXQgYWx0aXR1ZGUgd2l0aCB5b3VyIGRvd25yYXRlZCBtb3Rvci4gQW5k IHlvdSBjb3VsZCBzdGlsbCBoYXZlIHRoZSBvdGhlciA4MCBIUCBhdmFpbGFibGUgZm9yIGVtZXJn ZW5jaWVzIGRvd24gbG93LiAgQSBwaWxvdCB3aXRoIGEgbWVkaWNhbCBjb3VsZCBzaW1wbHkgcmVt b3ZlIHdoYXRldmVyIGxpbWl0aW5nIGRldmlzZSBpcyByZXF1aXJlIChwbGFjYXJkcykgYW5kIGZs eSBpdCBsaWtlIGEgbm9ybWFsIFJWMTAuIEl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIG5pY2UgdG8gaGF2ZSB0aGF0IGZs ZXhpYmlsaXR5IGFuZCB3b3VsZCBvcGVuIHlvdXIgbWFjaGluZSB1cCB0byBhIHdob2xlIG90aGVy IGNsYXNzIChtYXJrZXQpIG9mIHBpbG90cy4gDQo+IENocmlzIEh1a2lsbA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IF8t PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09DQo+IF8tPSAgICAgICAgICAtIFRoZSBSVjEwLUxpc3QgRW1haWwgRm9ydW0gLQ0KPiBfLT0g VXNlIHRoZSBNYXRyb25pY3MgTGlzdCBGZWF0dXJlcyBOYXZpZ2F0b3IgdG8gYnJvd3NlDQo+IF8t PSB0aGUgbWFueSBMaXN0IHV0aWxpdGllcyBzdWNoIGFzIExpc3QgVW4vU3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uLA0K PiBfLT0gQXJjaGl2ZSBTZWFyY2ggJiBEb3dubG9hZCwgNy1EYXkgQnJvd3NlLCBDaGF0LCBGQVEs DQo+IF8tPSBQaG90b3NoYXJlLCBhbmQgbXVjaCBtdWNoIG1vcmU6DQo+IF8tPQ0KPiBfLT0gICAt LT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9SVjEwLUxpc3QNCj4gXy09DQo+ IF8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09DQo+IF8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIC0gTUFUUk9OSUNTIFdFQiBGT1JVTVMgLQ0KPiBf LT0gU2FtZSBncmVhdCBjb250ZW50IGFsc28gYXZhaWxhYmxlIHZpYSB0aGUgV2ViIEZvcnVtcyEN Cj4gXy09DQo+IF8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vZm9ydW1zLm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20NCj4gXy09DQo+ IF8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09DQo+IF8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgICAtIExpc3QgQ29udHJpYnV0aW9uIFdlYiBTaXRlIC0N Cj4gXy09ICBUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHlvdXIgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3VwcG9ydCENCj4gXy09ICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWluLg0KPiBfLT0g ICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbg0KPiBfLT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KPiAN Cg= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2011
Subject: Re: Recreational pilot
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
I would expect the FAA to place the same stringent requirements on a qualifying aircraft as they do for Light Sport. That is that from certification forward it must have met the requirements of the category at all times. In other words they don't let you go back and forth between categories. Hard to say if they would place a gross wt limit on the category...don't recall if there ever was one. There are some numbers that Vans has for the prototype with Continental IO-360 engine as to performance. I don't believe that engine has ever been derated below 195hp. On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Bobby J. Hughes wrote: > Chris, > > I would expect a climb rate of 600-700 fpm at 180 HP with fwf weight equal > to the io 540. Lighter fwf may make the rear baggage area worthless. > > Bobby > > Sent from my iPad > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2011
From: davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Recreational pilot
There is also a maximum 130 knot limitation. David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:22:01 AM Subject: RV10-List: Recreational pilot When I built my RV-8 ten years ago, I had an engine built that produced 210 HP, but was limited by placards to 180 for the purpose of qualifying it to be flown under the Recreational pilots license. Back then AOPA was trying to get the Feds to allow that class of pilot to operate under the medical s elf certification exemption that is allowed for sport pilots, glider and ba lloon pilots. The restrictions back then would also require a fixed pitch p rop, so I put one of those on as well. The Feds didn't go for it then, but said they would re-evaluate after the S port pilots exemption has been in effect for about ten years. Well in the l ast ten years, there has been zero medical deficiency caused accidents for sport pilots. Now, again the EAA and AOPA lawyers are submitting to the FAA an exemption to allow the Rec pilots to self certify. The aircraft require ments would once again allow for a max of 180HP, but not a restriction for fixed pitch prop. The 2 seat restriction is also removed, and replaced with "one Passenger". So my question is...How does the RV10 perform with the re duced payload of 1 pax and 180HP? It would be interesting to experiment wit h a flying RV10 that was limited by how far in you push the throttle to see if it would be practical to placard your engine instruments to allow you t o operate under those conditions without a medical. Even if the Feds requir ed modifications to your IO540 to physically limit you to 180, at what alti tude? The rules would require you to operate under 10,000 msl, but you coul d probably still pull 180HP at that altitude with your downrated motor. And you could still have the other 80 HP available for emergencies down low. A pilot with a medical could simply remove whatever limiting devise is requi re (placards) and fly it like a normal RV10. It would be nice to have that flexibility and would open your machine up to a whole other class (market) of pilots. ============== == ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com>
Subject: INERTIAL BELTS
Date: Oct 30, 2011
My son is again asking whether I want to renew the URL for www.inertialbelts.com <http://www.inertialbelts.com/> . This was originally setup after I participated with AMSAFE to TSO some belts for my RV10. I kept the site on the net because I thought others may want to use the belts or techniques. If anyone is still interested please advise me directly so that I can determine whether to keep the site up another year. Thanks. IIRC we also TSOed a set for the RV 7 and 9 at someone's request even though the anchors were not documented. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Recreational pilot
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Oct 30, 2011
I don't recall any speed limitations for recreational pilots. There is one for Sport Pilots. The FAR wording says the aircraft must not have been certificated for more than 2 seats. So I don't think you can go back and forth between a "regular" RV-10 (4 seats) and a "recreational" one. You have to declare the number of seats when you get your A/W inspection. Once in writing, it's not easy to change. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356382#356382 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Recreational pilot
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Oct 30, 2011
Ignore my last comment. I see that you say the FAA has changed the wording from 2 seats to one passenger. Is this done, or a proposal? -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356384#356384 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com>
Subject: N968TP
Date: Oct 31, 2011
Anyone know about this? Report created 10/31/2011 Record 6 ** **************************************************************************** **** IDENTIFICATION Regis#: 968TP Make/Model: EXP Description: VANS RV10 Date: 10/30/2011 Time: 1514 Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: Minor Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: Unknown LOCATION City: FOLKSTON State: GA Country: US DESCRIPTION AIRCRAFT CRASHED IN A FIELD NEAR FOLKSTON, GA INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0 # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 1 Unk: # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: OTHER DATA Activity: Pleasure Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER FAA FSDO: COLLEGE PARK, GA (SO11) Entry date: 10/31/2011 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: FLTPLAN.COM
From: "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2011
Anyone want to share their fltplan.com numbers for their RV-10? I can use a donor aircraft username and populate my performance with yours on the website. So really I only need username and tail number. I don't need password. -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356438#356438 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2011
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: PLEASE READ - 2011 List Fund Raiser Kickoff - 21 Years Strong!!
Dear Listers, This year marks 21 years of the Email Lists and Forums at Matronics! I've been running these forums for nearly half my life! I've made some great friends over the years and had countless email and personal conversations with builders about aircraft building and flying. What a great community of people! The advice, support, and friendship has be invaluable over the years. To support the continued operation and upgrade of the List servers, each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser. It is solely through the Contributions of List members that these Matronics Lists are possible. There is NO advertising to support the Lists. You might have noticed the conspicuous lack of flashing banners and annoying pop-ups on the Matronics Email List email messages and web site pages including: * Matronics List Forums http://forums.matronics.com * Matronics List Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search * Matronics List Browser http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse * Matronics List List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com You don't find advertising on any of these pages because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - airplanes! During the month of November, I will be sending out List messages every couple of days reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. I ask for your patience and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular messages. The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all of the bills associated with running these Lists. Your personal Contribution counts! Once again, this year we've got another terrific line up of free gifts to go along with the various Contribution levels. Many of these gifts have been provided by some of the vary members and vendors that you'll find on Matronics Lists and they have been either donated or provided at substantially discounted rates. This year, these generous people include: * Bob Nuckolls of the AeroElectric Connection http://www.aeroelectric.com * Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore http://www.buildersbooks.com These are extremely generous guys and I encourage you to visit their respective web sites. Each one offers a unique and very useful aviation-related product line. I would like publicly to thank Bob, and Andy for their generous support of the Lists again this year!! You can make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods including using a credit card, PayPal, or by personal check. All three methods afford you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with a qualifying Contribution amount!! To make your Contribution, please visit the secure site below: http://www.matronics.com/contribution I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral support over the years! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator RV-8 Builder (and Rebuilder) and Flyer RV-6 Rebuilder and Flyer RV-4 Builder ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2011
Subject: Re: N968TP
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Sounds like fuel exhaustion..... "The plane, out of Hilliard, was reportedly returning from Waycross when it ran out of fuel, clipped some trees and flipped into a hay field near the edge of Folkston." http://www.charltoncountyherald.com/articles/2011/11/02/news/doc4eb00f9f0f36c342285798.txt On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:50 AM, DLM wrote: > ** ** ** > > Anyone know about this?**** > > ** ** > > Report created 10/31/2011 Record 6 ****** > > ************************************************************************************ > > ** ** > > IDENTIFICATION**** > > Regis#: 968TP Make/Model: EXP Description: VANS RV10**** > > Date: 10/30/2011 Time: 1514**** > > ** ** > > Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: Minor Mid Air: N Missing: N**** > > Damage: Unknown**** > > ** ** > > LOCATION**** > > City: FOLKSTON State: GA Country: US**** > > ** ** > > DESCRIPTION**** > > AIRCRAFT CRASHED IN A FIELD NEAR ****FOLKSTON**, **GA******** > > ** ** > > INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0**** > > # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 1 Unk: **** > > # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: **** > > # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > OTHER DATA**** > > Activity: Pleasure Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > FAA FSDO: ****COLLEGE PARK**, **GA**** (SO11) Entry date: 10/31/2011 **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: N968TP
Date: Nov 01, 2011
TGlnaHQgcGxhbmUgY3Jhc2hlcyBpbiBGb2xrc3RvbiBmaWVsZA0KW0Rlc2NyaXB0aW9uOiBodHRw Oi8vd3d3LmNoYXJsdG9uY291bnR5aGVyYWxkLmNvbS9jb250ZW50L2FydGljbGVzLzIwMTEvMTEv MDIvbmV3cy9kb2M0ZWIwMGY5ZjBmMzZjMzQyMjg1Nzk4LmpwZ10NCg0KDQpQdWJsaXNoZWQ6DQpU dWVzZGF5LCBOb3ZlbWJlciAxLCAyMDExIDExOjQ2IEFNIEVEVA0KU29tZSBDaGFybHRvbiBDb3Vu dHkgY293cyBnb3QgYSBzdXJwcmlzZSBvbiBTdW5kYXkgbW9ybmluZyB3aGVuIGEgc21hbGwgcGxh bmUgY3Jhc2hlZCBpbnRvIGEgZmllbGQgdGhleSB3ZXJlIGdyYXppbmcuDQoNClRoZSBwbGFuZSwg b3V0IG9mIEhpbGxpYXJkLCB3YXMgcmVwb3J0ZWRseSByZXR1cm5pbmcgZnJvbSBXYXljcm9zcyB3 aGVuIGl0IHJhbiBvdXQgb2YgZnVlbCwgY2xpcHBlZCBzb21lIHRyZWVzIGFuZCBmbGlwcGVkIGlu dG8gYSBoYXkgZmllbGQgbmVhciB0aGUgZWRnZSBvZiBGb2xrc3Rvbi4NCg0KVGhlIHBpbG90IHdh cyBhYmxlIHRvIG1ha2UgaGlzIHdheSBvdXQgb2YgdGhlIGNydXNoZWQgYWlyY3JhZnQgYW5kIHRo ZW4gd2FsayBuZWFybHkgaGFsZi1hLW1pbGUgdG8gSHd5LiAxMjEgd2hlcmUgaGUgd2FzIHBpY2tl ZCB1cCBieSBhIHBhc3NpbmcgbW90b3Jpc3QgYW5kIHRyYW5zcG9ydGVkIHRvIENoYXJsdG9uIE1l bW9yaWFsIEhvc3BpdGFsIHdoZXJlIGhlIHdhcyB0cmVhdGVkLg0KDQpDaGFybHRvbiBDb3VudHkg U2hlcmlmZiBEb2JpZSBDb25uZXIgc2FpZCB0aGUgaW5jaWRlbnQgd2FzIHJlcG9ydGVkIHRvIGhp cyBkZXBhcnRtZW50IGFyb3VuZCAxIHAubS4gb24gU3VuZGF5LCBidXQgdGhlIGFjdHVhbCBjcmFz aCBvY2N1cnJlZCBlYXJsaWVyIGluIHRoZSBtb3JuaW5nLiBUaGUgcGlsb3Qgd2FzIHRoZSBsb25l IG9jY3VwYW50IG9mIHRoZSBwbGFuZSBhbmQgbm8gb25lIG9uIHRoZSBncm91bmQg77+977+94oCd IG5vdCBldmVuIGEgY293IO+/ve+/veKAnSB3YXMgaW5qdXJlZC4NClRoZSBGQUEgd2FzIGNhbGxl ZCBpbiB0byBpbnZlc3RpZ2F0ZSB0aGUgaW5jaWRlbnQuDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5h bCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IG93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNv bSBbbWFpbHRvOm93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbV0gT24gQmVoYWxm IE9mIERMTQ0KU2VudDogVHVlc2RheSwgTm92ZW1iZXIgMDEsIDIwMTEgMTA6NDQgQU0NClRvOiBy djEwLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUkU6IFJWMTAtTGlzdDogUmU6IE45NjhU UA0KDQoNCg0KLS0+IFJWMTAtTGlzdCBtZXNzYWdlIHBvc3RlZCBieTogIkRMTSIgPGRsbTM0MDc3 QHEuY29tPG1haWx0bzpkbG0zNDA3N0BxLmNvbT4+DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jaGFy bHRvbmNvdW50eWhlcmFsZC5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZXMvMjAxMS8xMS8wMi9uZXdzL2RvYzRlYjAwZjlm MGYzNg0KDQpjMzQyMjg1Nzk4LnR4dA0KDQoNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0N Cg0KRnJvbTogb3duZXItcnYxMC1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQoNClttYWlsdG86 b3duZXItcnYxMC1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgU2Vhbm8N Cg0KU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBPY3RvYmVyIDMxLCAyMDExIDExOjAxIEFNDQoNClRvOiBydjEwLWxp c3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogUlYxMC1MaXN0OiBSZTogTjk2OFRQDQoN Cg0KDQotLT4gUlYxMC1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiAiU2Vhbm8iIDxzZWFuQGJyYXVu YW5kY28uY29tPG1haWx0bzpzZWFuQGJyYXVuYW5kY28uY29tPj4NCg0KDQoNCkkgc2VlIGl0IHdh cyBjZXJ0aWZpZWQgb24gNC8yMDExIGxvdyBzZXJpYWwgbnVtYmVyIDQwMDMxLiAgSSBmb3VuZCBu b3RoaW5nIHRvby4NCg0KDQoNCi0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0NCg0KRnJvbTog PGRtYWliQG1lLmNvbT4NCg0KVG86IDxydjEwLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbT4NCg0KU2VudDog TW9uZGF5LCBPY3RvYmVyIDMxLCAyMDExIDExOjE3IEFNDQoNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJWMTAtTGlzdDog UmU6IE45NjhUUA0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCj4gLS0+IFJWMTAtTGlzdCBtZXNzYWdlIHBvc3RlZCBieTog ImRtYWliQG1lLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86ZG1haWJAbWUuY29tPiIgPGRtYWliQG1lLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86 ZG1haWJAbWUuY29tPj4NCg0KPg0KDQo+IENhbid0IHNlZW0gdG8gZmluZCBhbnkgbmV3cyByZXBv cnRzIGFib3V0IHRoaXMuIFN0cmFuZ2UuDQoNCj4NCg0KPiBkbyBub3QgYXJjaGl2ZQ0KDQo+DQoN Cj4gLS0tLS0tLS0NCg0KPiBEYXZpZCBNYWliDQoNCj4gUlYtMTAgIzQwNTU5DQoNCj4NCg0KPg0K DQo+DQoNCj4NCg0KPiBSZWFkIHRoaXMgdG9waWMgb25saW5lIGhlcmU6DQoNCj4NCg0KPiBodHRw Oi8vZm9ydW1zLm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vdmlld3RvcGljLnBocD9wPTM1NjQzMSMzNTY0MzENCg0K Pg0KDQo+DQoNCj4NCg0KPg0KDQo+DQoNCj4NCg0KPg0KDQo+DQoNCj4NCg0KPg0KDQoNCg0KDQoN Cg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KDQpfLT0NCg0KXy09ICAgICAgIC0tIFBsZWFzZSBTdXBw b3J0IFlvdXIgTGlzdHMgVGhpcyBNb250aCAtLQ0KDQpfLT0gICAgICAgICAgIChBbmQgR2V0IFNv bWUgQVdFU09NRSBGUkVFIEdpZnRzISkNCg0KXy09DQoNCl8tPSAgIE5vdmVtYmVyIGlzIHRoZSBB bm51YWwgTGlzdCBGdW5kIFJhaXNlci4gIENsaWNrIG9uDQoNCl8tPSAgIHRoZSBDb250cmlidXRp b24gbGluayBiZWxvdyB0byBmaW5kIG91dCBtb3JlIGFib3V0DQoNCl8tPSAgIHRoaXMgeWVhcidz IFRlcnJpZmljIEZyZWUgSW5jZW50aXZlIEdpZnRzIHByb3ZpZGVkDQoNCl8tPSAgIGJ5Og0KDQpf LT0NCg0KXy09ICAgICAqIEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYyB3d3cuYWVyb2VsZWN0cmljLmNvbTxodHRwOi8v d3d3LmFlcm9lbGVjdHJpYy5jb20+DQoNCl8tPSAgICAgKiBUaGUgQnVpbGRlcidzIEJvb2tzdG9y ZSB3d3cuYnVpbGRlcnNib29rcy5jb208aHR0cDovL3d3dy5idWlsZGVyc2Jvb2tzLmNvbT4NCg0K Xy09DQoNCl8tPSAgIExpc3QgQ29udHJpYnV0aW9uIFdlYiBTaXRlOg0KDQpfLT0NCg0KXy09ICAg LS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9jb250cmlidXRpb24NCg0KXy09DQoNCl8tPSAg IFRoYW5rIHlvdSBmb3IgeW91ciBnZW5lcm91cyBzdXBwb3J0IQ0KDQpfLT0NCg0KXy09ICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWluLg0KDQpfLT0N Cg0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT0NCg0KXy09ICAgICAgICAgIC0gVGhlIFJWMTAtTGlzdCBFbWFpbCBGb3J1bSAtDQoN Cl8tPSBVc2UgdGhlIE1hdHJvbmljcyBMaXN0IEZlYXR1cmVzIE5hdmlnYXRvciB0byBicm93c2UN Cg0KXy09IHRoZSBtYW55IExpc3QgdXRpbGl0aWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgTGlzdCBVbi9TdWJzY3JpcHRp b24sDQoNCl8tPSBBcmNoaXZlIFNlYXJjaCAmIERvd25sb2FkLCA3LURheSBCcm93c2UsIENoYXQs IEZBUSwNCg0KXy09IFBob3Rvc2hhcmUsIGFuZCBtdWNoIG11Y2ggbW9yZToNCg0KXy09DQoNCl8t PSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vTmF2aWdhdG9yP1JWMTAtTGlzdA0KDQpf LT0NCg0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT0NCg0KXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZPUlVNUyAt DQoNCl8tPSBTYW1lIGdyZWF0IGNvbnRlbnQgYWxzbyBhdmFpbGFibGUgdmlhIHRoZSBXZWIgRm9y dW1zIQ0KDQpfLT0NCg0KXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KDQpf LT0NCg0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT0NCg0KXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgIC0gTGlzdCBDb250cmlidXRpb24gV2ViIFNp dGUgLQ0KDQpfLT0gIFRoYW5rIHlvdSBmb3IgeW91ciBnZW5lcm91cyBzdXBwb3J0IQ0KDQpfLT0g ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtTWF0dCBEcmFsbGUsIExpc3QgQWRtaW4uDQoN Cl8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vY29udHJpYnV0aW9uDQoNCl8tPT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQo ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2011
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: N968TP
I think it's more than that... We've had: The Dan Lloyd Incident The IFR incident The possibly Medical incident The inflight fire The post-landing fire The out-of-gas (this one) ... and I'm not positive if the others were hull losses but I know there were at least a couple others, one being the V-8 I think that pancaked in (not sure if they got it flying again?), and another one that was a botched landing that punched the gear up through. Off the top of my head I can't remember if that's it or not. At least I *think* the hull losses are less than you can count on 2 hands. Tim On 11/1/2011 3:02 PM, Rob Kochman wrote: > So is that the 5th RV-10 hull loss now? > > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N968TP
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 01, 2011
More than that. By my count: 3 fatals: auto engine failure/botched corn field landing improper IMC Probable in flight heart attack non-fatal: auto engine/fire on the ground in flight fire-fuel connection loose- may not be total loss crash in OH 28 Sept 2011 cause unknown this one. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356577#356577 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geoff Combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com>
Subject: Re: N968TP
Date: Nov 01, 2011
Tim is correct with the accidents. I think it is 6 total losses so far. Geoff Combs 614-834-5227p 614-834-5230f www.aerosportmodeling.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:24 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N968TP I think it's more than that... We've had: The Dan Lloyd Incident The IFR incident The possibly Medical incident The inflight fire The post-landing fire The out-of-gas (this one) ... and I'm not positive if the others were hull losses but I know there were at least a couple others, one being the V-8 I think that pancaked in (not sure if they got it flying again?), and another one that was a botched landing that punched the gear up through. Off the top of my head I can't remember if that's it or not. At least I *think* the hull losses are less than you can count on 2 hands. Tim On 11/1/2011 3:02 PM, Rob Kochman wrote: > So is that the 5th RV-10 hull loss now? > > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: N968TP
Date: Nov 01, 2011
, one being the V-8 I think that pancaked in (not sure if they got it flying again?) It was repaired and flew into OSH 2 years ago. bob -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:24 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N968TP I think it's more than that... We've had: The Dan Lloyd Incident The IFR incident The possibly Medical incident The inflight fire The post-landing fire The out-of-gas (this one) ... and I'm not positive if the others were hull losses but I know there were at least a couple others, one being the V-8 I think that pancaked in (not sure if they got it flying again?), and another one that was a botched landing that punched the gear up through. Off the top of my head I can't remember if that's it or not. At least I *think* the hull losses are less than you can count on 2 hands. Tim On 11/1/2011 3:02 PM, Rob Kochman wrote: > So is that the 5th RV-10 hull loss now? > > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N968TP
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 01, 2011
"What about the one just before this one with the guy from Texas taking delivery? Did we ever find out what the cause was on that one?" This was the Ohio crash. Per VAF the pilots are now both out of the hospital although the builder was seriously burned. The builder has posted on VAF his condition but has not said anything about the cause. Curiously, it also is not listed on the NTSB web site yet. As to running out of gas, this certainly is very poor judgement. Although, until the facts are in, we don't know. Maybe there was a serious undetected fuel leak. I will say, though, that some pilots are type A personalities. The owner of this latest accident aircraft has previously posted on VAF about his (illegal) experimentation with car gas in a certified airplane. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356583#356583 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2011
From: Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: N968TP
On 11/1/2011 4:32 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" > > More than that. By my count: > > 3 fatals: auto engine failure/botched corn field landing > improper IMC > Probable in flight heart attack > > non-fatal: auto engine/fire on the ground > in flight fire-fuel connection loose- may not be total loss This one may be being rebuilt in Melbourne, FL. Linn > crash in OH 28 Sept 2011 cause unknown > this one. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356577#356577 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Cumins" <jcumins(at)jcis.net>
Subject: Re: N968TP
Date: Nov 01, 2011
Man people are stupid. Auto fuel in a certified plane, yes there are stc's for them, but not many really do not work out well. I have helped recover many a plane in Alaska out in the bush due to auto fuel for one reason or another. And when auto fuel burns it is very hard to see the flame when it is small and it's flash point is so much lower than 100LL. You would never catch me using auto fuel in any airplane. Bob yes I agree with you the story is not complete and that there could have been a fuel leak causing the plane to run out sooner than expected or very fast, but that's not the usual case. Bob another thing that might need to be brought up is the quality of the flares people are making on their own. I have seen so many flares that were not made correctly and over flared or the flare was not deep enough. This the leaks found in the Vans airplane is way too high. I am not sure if it is a training issue on how to make tubing flares correctly or is it the cheap soft tubing that vans supplies. I will be for sure using 5052 tubing in my -10, yes it is much stiffer and much harder to work with but it is much stronger and less likely to crack. So the real question is?? Is the leak rates that are being found due to material issues or craftsman quality of making the tubing?? Just my thoughts. John Cumins President 707-425-7100 707-425-7576 Fax -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:04 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: N968TP "What about the one just before this one with the guy from Texas taking delivery? Did we ever find out what the cause was on that one?" This was the Ohio crash. Per VAF the pilots are now both out of the hospital although the builder was seriously burned. The builder has posted on VAF his condition but has not said anything about the cause. Curiously, it also is not listed on the NTSB web site yet. As to running out of gas, this certainly is very poor judgement. Although, until the facts are in, we don't know. Maybe there was a serious undetected fuel leak. I will say, though, that some pilots are type A personalities. The owner of this latest accident aircraft has previously posted on VAF about his (illegal) experimentation with car gas in a certified airplane. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356583#356583 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: N968TP
Date: Nov 01, 2011
Did you count the one from several years ago from Lebanon=2C TN that crashe d in south Alabama in IMC?? > Date: Tue=2C 1 Nov 2011 17:28:31 -0400 > From: pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N968TP > > > On 11/1/2011 4:32 PM=2C Bob Turner wrote: > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" > > > > More than that. By my count: > > > > 3 fatals: auto engine failure/botched corn field landing > > improper IMC > > Probable in flight heart attack > > > > non-fatal: auto engine/fire on the ground > > in flight fire-fuel connection loose- may not be total loss > This one may be being rebuilt in Melbourne=2C FL. > Linn > > crash in OH 28 Sept 2011 cause unknown > > this one. > > > > -------- > > Bob Turner > > RV-10 QB > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356577#356577 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan Mekler" <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Subject: Re: N968TP
Date: Nov 01, 2011
Tim, What do you think these accidents/incidents will do to our insurance rates? Is the Rv-10 rate higher than other comparable planes? Alan N668G -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:24 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N968TP I think it's more than that... We've had: The Dan Lloyd Incident The IFR incident The possibly Medical incident The inflight fire The post-landing fire The out-of-gas (this one) ... and I'm not positive if the others were hull losses but I know there were at least a couple others, one being the V-8 I think that pancaked in (not sure if they got it flying again?), and another one that was a botched landing that punched the gear up through. Off the top of my head I can't remember if that's it or not. At least I *think* the hull losses are less than you can count on 2 hands. Tim On 11/1/2011 3:02 PM, Rob Kochman wrote: > So is that the 5th RV-10 hull loss now? > > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com>
Subject: Re: N968TP
Date: Nov 01, 2011
One thing about the fuel lines; when using 5052 a builder can segment the lines and connect with unions; then the numerous bends are not required. When required one can use flex lines (Teflon lines with braided Stainless sheath. Also use the approved flaring tool for aircraft fittings. The flare angle may be different. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cumins Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:37 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: N968TP Man people are stupid. Auto fuel in a certified plane, yes there are stc's for them, but not many really do not work out well. I have helped recover many a plane in Alaska out in the bush due to auto fuel for one reason or another. And when auto fuel burns it is very hard to see the flame when it is small and it's flash point is so much lower than 100LL. You would never catch me using auto fuel in any airplane. Bob yes I agree with you the story is not complete and that there could have been a fuel leak causing the plane to run out sooner than expected or very fast, but that's not the usual case. Bob another thing that might need to be brought up is the quality of the flares people are making on their own. I have seen so many flares that were not made correctly and over flared or the flare was not deep enough. This the leaks found in the Vans airplane is way too high. I am not sure if it is a training issue on how to make tubing flares correctly or is it the cheap soft tubing that vans supplies. I will be for sure using 5052 tubing in my -10, yes it is much stiffer and much harder to work with but it is much stronger and less likely to crack. So the real question is?? Is the leak rates that are being found due to material issues or craftsman quality of making the tubing?? Just my thoughts. John Cumins President 707-425-7100 707-425-7576 Fax -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:04 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: N968TP "What about the one just before this one with the guy from Texas taking delivery? Did we ever find out what the cause was on that one?" This was the Ohio crash. Per VAF the pilots are now both out of the hospital although the builder was seriously burned. The builder has posted on VAF his condition but has not said anything about the cause. Curiously, it also is not listed on the NTSB web site yet. As to running out of gas, this certainly is very poor judgement. Although, until the facts are in, we don't know. Maybe there was a serious undetected fuel leak. I will say, though, that some pilots are type A personalities. The owner of this latest accident aircraft has previously posted on VAF about his (illegal) experimentation with car gas in a certified airplane. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356583#356583 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N968TP
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 01, 2011
I'm not Tim, but the answer is obvious: insurance writers base their premiums on the perceived risk, and claim history. For a while the high-end Lancairs were almost un-insurable. As to how we compare to other aircraft: we're hurt by the very small number of insurance companies willing to cover homebuilts. Lack of competition, plus the small numbers don't make for good statistics, so they don't really have a feel for the risk. During my build I paid more for builder's insurance than I had previously paid for hull on a flying 182, even adjusted for the difference in value! I do know that when I asked about what I consider reasonable liability limits (at least $1M per passenger) I was told that it just wasn't available. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356598#356598 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com>
Subject: Re: N968TP
Date: Nov 01, 2011
I am not certain that these total crashes will adversely affect our rates. Assuming that there are 300 flying with 1000 more under construction the loss rate of flying aircraft is 2% of flying aircraft spread over about five years. Most of the premiums for insurance for well qualified pilots (>1000 hours,> 100 hours in type are about 2% of hull. Assuming that the average RV10 is insured for 150K and 300 pilots have paid the premium for 5 years the amount comes to about $4.5M plus investment income. The payout on those airframes is probably about $250K including liability for the non crew $100K seat or about $1.5M for the six major crashes. I don't know the numbers on the SR20-SR22 group but that group has a lot of fatal accidents and those aircraft are $500K aircraft with several seats filled; I would be more concerned about the Cirrus premiums than the RV10 fleet. Of course I am paying 50% more now than when I had my 1976 TC177RG. It had a hull value of $90K but I also had 2000+ in that aircraft. Ratings and time make a difference. RV10 N46007 Com CFII A&P 4000+ 400+ in type -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:49 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: N968TP I'm not Tim, but the answer is obvious: insurance writers base their premiums on the perceived risk, and claim history. For a while the high-end Lancairs were almost un-insurable. As to how we compare to other aircraft: we're hurt by the very small number of insurance companies willing to cover homebuilts. Lack of competition, plus the small numbers don't make for good statistics, so they don't really have a feel for the risk. During my build I paid more for builder's insurance than I had previously paid for hull on a flying 182, even adjusted for the difference in value! I do know that when I asked about what I consider reasonable liability limits (at least $1M per passenger) I was told that it just wasn't available. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356598#356598 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: insurance company homework
From: "jayb" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 02, 2011
Time to start doing my homework... Is there some sort of listing that describes the various RV-10 insurance providers along with contact info? Thanks, Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356641#356641 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: insurance company homework
From: "rleffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Nov 02, 2011
jayb wrote: > Time to start doing my homework... Is there some sort of listing that describes the various RV-10 insurance providers along with contact info? Not really, you don't even need all the fingers on one hand to count the underwriters. When I got my last renewal, there were basically three underwriters and Avemco. Unlike other insurance, once an agent turns in your N# to the underwriter, they won't provide another quote to another agent. They can, but the process is a PITA. Find an agent the you trust and work with them to get the best deal from the various underwriters. There are several that advertise and participate on VAF, and then there is Falcon (through EAA). I've heard go comments on NationAir on VAF, but I don't have any experience with them. I used to go through the EAA, but switched to a local agent for the RV-10. I've found I got better service with somebody I could actually meet face to face. The price was the same and I got better service. I'd be more than happy to pass along my agent's contact info, if you want one that is located in the central Ohio area. bob -------- Bob Leffler N410BL - FWF RV-10 #40684 http://mykitlog.com/rleffler Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356651#356651 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jenny" <jennyrvlist(at)nationair.com>
Subject: insurance company homework
Date: Nov 02, 2011
Jay, My name is Jenny Estes and I run the Vans program here at NationAir. I would be happy to help you. There are only 3 insurance companies that will insure RV's during the test phase period and they will cover you from day one with no restrictions. They will require that you get transition training in an RV-10. We have access to all the markets. If you would like a quote please give me a call at 877-648-8267. Regards, Jenny Estes NationAir Aviation Insurance. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jayb Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:34 AM Subject: RV10-List: insurance company homework Time to start doing my homework... Is there some sort of listing that describes the various RV-10 insurance providers along with contact info? Thanks, Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356641#356641 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: insurance company homework
From: Rick <ricksked(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 02, 2011
She has my endorsement. Great agent and same on the service. Rick Sent from my iPhone On Nov 2, 2011, at 1:46 PM, "Jenny" wrote: > > Jay, > > My name is Jenny Estes and I run the Vans program here at NationAir. I would > be happy to help you. There are only 3 insurance companies that will insure > RV's during the test phase period and they will cover you from day one with > no restrictions. They will require that you get transition training in an > RV-10. We have access to all the markets. If you would like a quote > please give me a call at 877-648-8267. Regards, Jenny Estes NationAir > Aviation Insurance. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jayb > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:34 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: insurance company homework > > > Time to start doing my homework... Is there some sort of listing that > describes the various RV-10 insurance providers along with contact info? > > Thanks, > Jay > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356641#356641 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: insurance company homework
Date: Nov 02, 2011
Lots of folks at Van's use Jenny. I'm well pleased with the service. > From: jennyrvlist(at)nationair.com > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: insurance company homework > Date: Wed=2C 2 Nov 2011 15:46:41 -0500 > > > Jay=2C > > My name is Jenny Estes and I run the Vans program here at NationAir. I wo uld > be happy to help you. There are only 3 insurance companies that will insu re > RV's during the test phase period and they will cover you from day one wi th > no restrictions. They will require that you get transition training in an > RV-10. We have access to all the markets. If you would like a quote > please give me a call at 877-648-8267. Regards=2C Jenny Estes NationAir > Aviation Insurance. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jayb > Sent: Wednesday=2C November 02=2C 2011 10:34 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: insurance company homework > > > Time to start doing my homework... Is there some sort of listing that > describes the various RV-10 insurance providers along with contact info? > > Thanks=2C > Jay > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356641#356641 > > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Standley" <taildragon(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: insurance company homework
Date: Nov 02, 2011
What are some of the rates that she has quoted? ----- Original Message ----- From: Danny Riggs<mailto:jdriggs49(at)msn.com> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 2:09 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: insurance company homework Lots of folks at Van's use Jenny. I'm well pleased with the service. > From: jennyrvlist(at)nationair.com<mailto:jennyrvlist(at)nationair.com> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: insurance company homework > Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:46:41 -0500 > > > > Jay, > > My name is Jenny Estes and I run the Vans program here at NationAir. I would > be happy to help you. There are only 3 insurance companies that will insure > RV's during the test phase period and they will cover you from day one with > no restrictions. They will require that you get transition training in an > RV-10. We have access to all the markets. If you would like a quote > please give me a call at 877-648-8267. Regards, Jenny Estes NationAir > Aviation Insurance. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jayb > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:34 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: insurance company homework > > > Time to start doing my homework... Is there some sort of listing that > describes the various RV-10 insurance providers along with contact info? > > Thanks, > Jay > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356641#356641 > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.aeroelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/> www.buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/> www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List igator?RV10-List> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Re: insurance company homework
Date: Nov 02, 2011
count me as a fan (builders insurance) Jeff Carpenter 40304 On Nov 2, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Jenny wrote: > > Jay, > > My name is Jenny Estes and I run the Vans program here at NationAir. > I would > be happy to help you. There are only 3 insurance companies that will > insure > RV's during the test phase period and they will cover you from day > one with > no restrictions. They will require that you get transition training > in an > RV-10. We have access to all the markets. If you would like a quote > please give me a call at 877-648-8267. Regards, Jenny Estes NationAir > Aviation Insurance. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jayb > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:34 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: insurance company homework > > > Time to start doing my homework... Is there some sort of listing that > describes the various RV-10 insurance providers along with contact > info? > > Thanks, > Jay > > > Read this topic online here: > >
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356641#356641 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: insurance company homework
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 02, 2011
$2795 for $140K hull, $1M/$100K liability. Pilot: commercial/instrument/cfii 2000+ TT/1000+ high performance/20 hr time in type (at the time). This was end of July 2011. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356671#356671 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: insurance company homework
Date: Nov 02, 2011
I am a fan.. Just from memory. $2,800 $150,000 Hull Discount for TAA I had >700 hours last year with 150 in RV-10...Commercial/Instrument ticket I insure myself and my flight instructor..when I added him it did not affect my premium. Rene' Felker N423CF 801-721-6080 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Standley Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 3:34 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: insurance company homework What are some of the rates that she has quoted? ----- Original Message ----- From: Danny Riggs <mailto:jdriggs49(at)msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 2:09 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: insurance company homework Lots of folks at Van's use Jenny. I'm well pleased with the service. > From: jennyrvlist(at)nationair.com > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: insurance company homework > Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:46:41 -0500 > > > Jay, > > My name is Jenny Estes and I run the Vans program here at NationAir. I would > be happy to help you. There are only 3 insurance companies that will insure > RV's during the test phase period and they will cover you from day one with > no restrictions. They will require that you get transition training in an > RV-10. We have access to all the markets. If you would like a quote > please give me a call at 877-648-8267. Regards, Jenny Estes NationAir > Aviation Insurance. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jayb > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:34 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: insurance company homework > > > Time to start doing my homework... Is there some sort of listing that > describes the various RV-10 insurance providers along with contact info? > > Thanks, > Jay > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356641#356641 > > > > > > > > > > > > > href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com title=http://www.buildersbooks.com/ href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navi gator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: insurance company homework
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Nov 02, 2011
And me....with Jenny since 2006. Rates dropped most every year. I pay less than Bob Turner quoted for more coverage now. Time in type helps. Tim On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: > > count me as a fan (builders insurance) > > Jeff Carpenter 40304 > On Nov 2, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Jenny wrote: > >> >> Jay, >> >> My name is Jenny Estes and I run the Vans program here at NationAir. I would >> be happy to help you. There are only 3 insurance companies that will insure >> RV's during the test phase period and they will cover you from day one with >> no restrictions. They will require that you get transition training in an >> RV-10. We have access to all the markets. If you would like a quote >> please give me a call at 877-648-8267. Regards, Jenny Estes NationAir >> Aviation Insurance. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jayb >> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:34 AM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: RV10-List: insurance company homework >> >> >> Time to start doing my homework... Is there some sort of listing that >> describes the various RV-10 insurance providers along with contact info? >> >> Thanks, >> Jay >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356641#356641 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2011
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Support The Lists...
Dear Listers, Just a reminder that November is the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser month. There are some very nice incentive gifts to choose from as well! Please make your Contribution today at: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2011
From: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Recreational pilot
No, this is a different animal. They're not talking about adding another category of aircraft. And actually there's some confusion in the original message. It doesn't just apply to pilots with Recreational licenses. EAA and FAA are going to submit, in January, a proposal to the FAA that would let pilots flying recreationally to self-certify. Under the proposed exemption, pilots holding recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificates who only fly recreationally could use the same drivers license medical self-certification standard currently available to sport pilots. The limitations would be that the plane has to have 180hp or less, fixed gear, max 4 seats, in daylight VFR, with up to one passenger. The pilot will have to take and pass an on-online course that shows they understand the ramifications of self-certification (it'll be similar to the ADIZ course in size and difficulty I think). You'll get a card to carry that shows you've passed. The specs on the aircraft were derived from the limitations imposed on Rec pilots as that's something the FAA is comfortable with. Since the proposal hasn't been submitted yet, the details could, of course, change. --Rick On 10/30/2011 5:09 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > I would expect the FAA to place the same stringent requirements on a > qualifying aircraft as they do for Light Sport. That is that from > certification forward it must have met the requirements of the category > at all times. In other words they don't let you go back and forth > between categories. Hard to say if they would place a gross wt limit on > the category...don't recall if there ever was one. There are some > numbers that Vans has for the prototype with Continental IO-360 engine > as to performance. I don't believe that engine has ever been derated > below 195hp. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2011
Subject: Re: Recreational pilot
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Hi Rick, I understand that the EAA and AOPA are wanting to define it as a set of rules that apply to a pilot. Odds are very strong that the FAA will want to apply it to a set of aircraft qualifying requirements, because that is much easier for them to draw the line in the sand. (inspectors can more easily determine if an airplane conforms than if a pilot does) I was under the impression that the request had been submitted. Otherwise, why all the press hoopla for a non-submittal? Kelly On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Rick Beebe wrote: > > No, this is a different animal. They're not talking about adding another > category of aircraft. And actually there's some confusion in the original > message. It doesn't just apply to pilots with Recreational licenses. > > EAA and FAA are going to submit, in January, a proposal to the FAA that > would let pilots flying recreationally to self-certify. Under the proposed > exemption, pilots holding recreational, private, commercial, or airline > transport pilot certificates who only fly recreationally could use the same > drivers license medical self-certification standard currently available to > sport pilots. The limitations would be that the plane has to have 180hp or > less, fixed gear, max 4 seats, in daylight VFR, with up to one passenger. > The pilot will have to take and pass an on-online course that shows they > understand the ramifications of self-certification (it'll be similar to the > ADIZ course in size and difficulty I think). You'll get a card to carry that > shows you've passed. > > The specs on the aircraft were derived from the limitations imposed on Rec > pilots as that's something the FAA is comfortable with. > > Since the proposal hasn't been submitted yet, the details could, of course, > change. > > --Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2011
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Navworx update
Can't wait... any sense of out their shipments are running? I ordered Sept 30. Meant to call them today. Bill "I love my panel, I love my engine, I love the RV10" Watson On 11/4/2011 1:30 PM, Rob Kermanj wrote: > I have installed my Navwox ADS-B and am very pleased with it's > performance. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Navworx update
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Nov 04, 2011
It took 6-8 weeks to get mine. I ordered in June thinking I would miss the osh rush. No such luck. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:00 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > > Can't wait... any sense of out their shipments are running? I ordered Sept 30. Meant to call them today. > > Bill "I love my panel, I love my engine, I love the RV10" Watson > > > On 11/4/2011 1:30 PM, Rob Kermanj wrote: >> I have installed my Navwox ADS-B and am very pleased with it's performance. >> >> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: Navworx update
Date: Nov 04, 2011
How much are they? > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Navworx update > From: rv(at)thelefflers.com > Date: Fri=2C 4 Nov 2011 21:06:01 -0400 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > > It took 6-8 weeks to get mine. I ordered in June thinking I would miss t he osh rush. No such luck. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 4=2C 2011=2C at 6:00 PM=2C Bill Watson wro te: > > > > > Can't wait... any sense of out their shipments are running? I ordered Sept 30. Meant to call them today. > > > > Bill "I love my panel=2C I love my engine=2C I love the RV10" Watson > > > > > > On 11/4/2011 1:30 PM=2C Rob Kermanj wrote: > >> I have installed my Navwox ADS-B and am very pleased with it's perform ance. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2011
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Navworx update
$2,500 On 11/4/2011 9:53 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: > How much are they? > > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Navworx update > > From: rv(at)thelefflers.com > > Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:06:01 -0400 > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > > > > > It took 6-8 weeks to get mine. I ordered in June thinking I would > miss the osh rush. No such luck. > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:00 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > > > > > > > > Can't wait... any sense of out their shipments are running? I > ordered Sept 30. Meant to call them today. > > > > > > Bill "I love my panel, I love my engine, I love the RV10" Watson > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2011
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Fund Raiser List of Contributors - Please Make A Contribution
Today! Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its sort of my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors (LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription! Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2011
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Helicoil kit for nose wheel - still in circulation?
Is the helicoil 'kit' still in circulation? Lew G. was gracious enough to get it going... if it's still available, I'd like to get it. (the rest of this is OT) We just did our first long trip down to FL and we're quickly making the transition from tailwheel to tricycle gear operations. With a trike, I'm discovering that most mid-size FBOs operate by having you park wherever, unload, kibitz, or whatever.. .then they tow your Pride & Joy to wherever for the rest of your stay. Okay, I get that, but I want a big fat protruding stud for whatever array of tow bars they may have on hand. The recessed bolt heat is just too obscure for anonymous handling. For those of you that have never used a tailwheel aircraft to operate in and out of larger FBO operations, a unique aspect is that generally, line people and especially front desk people don't know what to do with you. With that in mind, we used to play a game when operating at mid-size to large FBOs called, "let's see if we can avoid ramp and overnight fees by staying under the radar". Now understand, we have yet to see a ramp fee that I thought was really inappropriate. We may not want to pay it but compared to say, parking in Manhattan, parking our P&J near a place I want to go has some real value. Throw in a bathroom, internet access, coffee and a comfortable chair in out of the rain, paying 8-10-12-18 or even 25 bucks for an overnight stay or even a short stop is not all that bad. In fact, it should be cheerfully accepted and appreciated. Okay, the deal at KEYW where it's $30 a night but only $15 if you buy fuel - 50% off no matter how many days or gallons are involved - was a bit off-putting, but we still like to play the game. In any case the first step for the Maule is to tell the line guy what you intend to do at shut down, "we'll unload here but afterwards, I'll taxi it over there if I can find some rope. Otherwise, we'll park in the grass and use our tie downs... is that ok?" That generally causes the line to disengage and we start to become a UFO. Then we do the usual sign-in at the front desk. If we need fuel, we explain that we'll order it before leaving. Our departure is indeterminate. "Okay, we'll park the plane for you and you can just call us when ready to leave" "Well, no, we already did... we have a tail wheel Maule and tied it down in the lower forty" "Oh, okay" (inflection varies here and is noted for later use) The game has begun. The key to winning at larger FBOs is understanding that ordering the tow out for loading is often the initiator of the billing process. If we need gas, we order it, often go out to supervise, but we get the gas loaded while tied down then pay for it. Or if SS, we just taxi out to it. The front desk is generally tasked with making the call(s) required to get your craft ready for departure. When they start the process, one can usually interject and just say, "we have a tailwheel, so they can't move it (or untie it, or otherwise talk to it), so we'll just go out and get it" "uh, okay" "Thanks" There are many variations; "I have your N-number but not sure where it's tied down... what's a maul?" "it's in the grass, used my own stakes, I'll go get it" .....minutes later, a UFO departs.... Notes & Disclaimers: This works better the bigger the FBO, the city, and the airport. Fees generally not applied for weather escapes no matter who you are Many front desk people would rather not to have to deal with charging you anyway. YMMV Bill "transitioned from building to flying & maintaining" Watson (though I'm still going to take another whack at the pilot side door pin fit) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <lewgall(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Helicoil kit for nose wheel - still in circulation?
Date: Nov 05, 2011
Hey Bill "flying and loving it" Watson, The Helicoil kit is currently being used by Byron in GA. When it gets back, it will need new coil inserts, so I'll replenish those and get it on to you. I would recommend that you get the longer tow studs, spacer, large washer that I documented before so that tow jockies dont have to bang up your paint trying to get the bar in the blind hole. Let me know if you missed this. Later, - Lew -----Original Message----- From: Bill Watson Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 10:46 AM Subject: RV10-List: Helicoil kit for nose wheel - still in circulation? Is the helicoil 'kit' still in circulation? Lew G. was gracious enough to get it going... if it's still available, I'd like to get it. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2011
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Helicoil kit for nose wheel - still in circulation?
I did read about the studs and stuff last night but not really clear on the specifics. As I understand it, we're putting helicoils in the stud holes so they don't wear out too fast. I know zero about helicoils but I'm guessing that changes the thread size (? or not?). In any case, I'll just need a longer hex head bolt and some combination of spacers and washers (flattened lock or otherwise) to tighten down on. Sound like you positioned large washers to prevent the tow bar from hitting the fiberglass. Sound right? Bill On 11/5/2011 11:56 AM, lewgall(at)charter.net wrote: > > Hey Bill "flying and loving it" Watson, > > The Helicoil kit is currently being used by Byron in GA. When it gets > back, it will need new coil inserts, so I'll replenish those and get > it on to you. > > I would recommend that you get the longer tow studs, spacer, large > washer that I documented before so that tow jockies dont have to bang > up your paint trying to get the bar in the blind hole. Let me know if > you missed this. > > Later, - Lew > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2011
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Anyone had success with Matronics Fuel Flow Pulsation Damper
Has anyone installed this: http://www.matronics.com/fuelchec/damper.html to reduce the inaccuracies caused by mounting the fuel flow transducer too close to the boost pump? I definitely have the problem though it's not really that bad given that the boost pump is on only for short periods relative to long cross country trips. The error is in a conservative direction and so far is insignificant. ...but I'd still like to reduce the inaccuracy if I can do it without relocating the thing. Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Hanaway" <tomhanaway(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Helicoil kit for nose wheel - still in circulation?
Date: Nov 05, 2011
Lew, Please repost or send me directly info on longer tow studs, spacer, etc. recommendations you mention. Also, I'd like to get put on the list for the Helicoil Kit after Bill W. Thanks, Tom Hanaway 1029 Fosters Mill Road Boynton Beach, FL 33436 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of lewgall(at)charter.net Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 11:56 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Helicoil kit for nose wheel - still in circulation? Hey Bill "flying and loving it" Watson, The Helicoil kit is currently being used by Byron in GA. When it gets back, it will need new coil inserts, so I'll replenish those and get it on to you. I would recommend that you get the longer tow studs, spacer, large washer that I documented before so that tow jockies dont have to bang up your paint trying to get the bar in the blind hole. Let me know if you missed this. Later, - Lew -----Original Message----- From: Bill Watson Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 10:46 AM Subject: RV10-List: Helicoil kit for nose wheel - still in circulation? Is the helicoil 'kit' still in circulation? Lew G. was gracious enough to get it going... if it's still available, I'd like to get it. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Anyone had success with Matronics Fuel Flow Pulsation
Damper
Date: Nov 05, 2011
I vaguely recall someone trying it ~3 years ago with minimal success. The real answer is relocating the FF transducer but you already knew that. :) Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 10:58 AM Subject: RV10-List: Anyone had success with Matronics Fuel Flow Pulsation Damper Has anyone installed this: http://www.matronics.com/fuelchec/damper.html to reduce the inaccuracies caused by mounting the fuel flow transducer too close to the boost pump? I definitely have the problem though it's not really that bad given that the boost pump is on only for short periods relative to long cross country trips. The error is in a conservative direction and so far is insignificant. ...but I'd still like to reduce the inaccuracy if I can do it without relocating the thing. Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <lewgall(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Helicoil kit for nose wheel - still in circulation?
Date: Nov 05, 2011
Hey Bill, Byron, Tom, I use the same type of bolt Van's sends, but 2.5 inches long (measured from the thread end to the shoulder) -- same thread. If you can't find a source for the bolts, I can send them to you. Then a spacer cut to your exact length so that when placed on the aluminum block Van's has you make, it extends the stud heads beyond the surface of the pants, such that when you put a big flat washer on top of the spacer (to prevent the tow bar from sliding into the hole), the washer is flush with the pants. I made the washer, hole in the fiberglass such that no metal touches the fiberglass. Paint the washer/stud the same color as the pants and it is barely noticeable. The helocoil kit uses a slightly oversize bit (included) to drill out the original threads, then a slightly oversize tap to fit the coil inserts, which puts the threads back to the original size of the bolt. I have included loctite to insure the insert doesn't move once inserted. Therefore, you have stainless steel threads instead of aluminum. I had trouble aligning the bolts through the hole while jiggling the pants, etc. and didn't want to take the chance of cross threading the bolts in aluminum, stripping them out, then trying to access all this at an inopportune time! It works just fine. Just be very careful tapping aluminum. It tends to bind, so I go barely 1/4 turn before backing it off to clear the burr. A little patience and you're done. This kit is a bit pricey for just two holes, so I'm renting it out for $5 plus postage (usually less than $8 total). Yes, forwarding it to the next on the list works just like the traveling countersink for the cabin top seatbelt bolts, and incurs just my first postage fee. Just email me your address in a personal message and I'll make sure the address for the next on the list gets to whoever has it presently, then back to me eventually. Let me know if you have questions. Later, - Lew ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Anyone had success with Matronics Fuel Flow Pulsation Damper
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Nov 06, 2011
Bill, we installed it and really did not notice a difference on fuel flow accuracy. Ultimately the solution was as Robin said to relocate the fuel flow sensor to between the servo and the spider. Rock solid and accurate since then. The other thing we notice when using the pulsation dampener was that we started getting low fuel pressure warnings. Bottom line, we removed it. It is still on the shelf, if you want to give it a try let me know. I actually feel kind of bad posting this since Matronics does so much for our RV-10 community. Others might have had better success, just my experience. Thanks, Jason -------- 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=357063#357063 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2011
From: Bruce Johnson <bruce1hwjohnson(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: insurance company homework
I just renewed mine with AirPower Ins for A $175,000.00 hull and 1 Mil liab ility for $2295.00 their # is 602-628-2701 TJ is the Broker. I was with Fal con last time and paying over $3200. Nothing against Jenny,-just don't kn ow her=0A=0AFrom: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>=0ATo: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com " =0ASent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 3:13 PM=0AS ubject: Re: RV10-List: insurance company homework=0A=0A--> RV10-List messag e posted by: Tim Olson =0A=0AAnd me....with Jenny since 200 6.- Rates dropped most every year.=0AI pay less than Bob Turner quoted fo r more coverage now.- Time in type helps.=0ATim=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Nov 2, 2011 , at 4:36 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote:=0A=0A> --> RV1 0-List message posted by: Jeff Carpenter =0A> =0A> count me as a fan (builders insurance)=0A> =0A> Jeff Carpenter 40304=0A> On Nov 2, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Jenny wrote:=0A> =0A>> --> RV10-List message post ed by: "Jenny" =0A>> =0A>> Jay,=0A>> =0A>> My na me is Jenny Estes and I run the Vans program here at NationAir. I would=0A> > be happy to help you. There are only 3 insurance companies that will insu re=0A>> RV's during the test phase period and they will cover you from day one with=0A>> no restrictions. They will require that you get transition tr aining in an=0A>> RV-10.- We have access to all the markets.- If you wo uld like a quote=0A>> please give me a call at 877-648-8267. Regards, Jenny Estes NationAir=0A>> Aviation Insurance.=0A>> =0A>> -----Original Message- ----=0A>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com=0A>> [mailto:owner-rv1 0-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jayb=0A>> Sent: Wednesday, Novemb er 02, 2011 10:34 AM=0A>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0A>> Subject: RV10-Li "jayb" =0A>> =0A>> Time to start doing my homework ... Is there some sort of listing that=0A>> describes the various RV-10 ins urance providers along with contact info?=0A>> =0A>> Thanks,=0A>> Jay=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> Read this topic online here:=0A>> =0A>> http://foru ms.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356641#356641=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A >> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A> -======================== - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List Admi ==== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: insurance company homework
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Date: Nov 06, 2011
I too went with Airpower insurance. For me the rates were considerably chea per... I was with NationAir for many years (5+) with my RV-4, but their RV- 10 rates were less competitive then what I got from Airpower. Nothing against NationAir, they were great to work with and very responsive. Your mileage may very -Mike Sent from my iPhone On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > I just renewed mine with AirPower Ins for A $175,000.00 hull and 1 Mil lia bility for $2295.00 their # is 602-628-2701 TJ is the Broker. I was with Fal con last time and paying over $3200. Nothing against Jenny, just don't know h er > > From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> > To: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" > Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 3:13 PM > Subject: Re: RV10-List: insurance company homework > > > And me....with Jenny since 2006. Rates dropped most every year. > I pay less than Bob Turner quoted for more coverage now. Time in type hel ps. > Tim > > > > On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: > > > > > count me as a fan (builders insurance) > > > > Jeff Carpenter 40304 > > On Nov 2, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Jenny wrote: > > > >> > >> Jay, > >> > >> My name is Jenny Estes and I run the Vans program here at NationAir. I w ould > >> be happy to help you. There are only 3 insurance companies that will in sure > >> RV's during the test phase period and they will cover you from day one w ith > >> no restrictions. They will require that you get transition training in a n > >> RV-10. We have access to all the markets. If you would like a quote > >> please give me a call at 877-648-8267. Regards, Jenny Estes NationAir > >> Aviation Insurance. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jayb > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:34 AM > >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > >> Subject: RV10-List: insurance company homework > >> > >> > >> Time to start doing my homework... Is there some sort of listing that > >> describes the various RV-10 insurance providers along with contact info ? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jay > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Read this topic online here: > >> > >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=356641#356641 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > t; http:/nbsp; -Matt Drallttp://forums.matronics.com/" n bsp; --> > > > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2011
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Make A List Contribution - It's Your Personal Squelch Button...
There is an automatic "squelch button" of sorts for the Fund Raiser messages. Here's how it works... As soon as a List member makes a Contribution through the Matronics Fund Raiser web site, their email address is automatically added to this year's Contributor List and they instantly cease to receive further Fund Raiser messages for the rest of the month! Its just that simple! :-) I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware and software that are required to run a List Site such as this one. It also goes to pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the huge electric bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered on. I run all of the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which allows me to control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in reliably and performance. Your personal Contribution matters because, when combined with other Listers such as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running. I accept exactly ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites. I can't stand the pop-up ads and all other commercials that are so prevalent on the Internet these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List sites. If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator [Note that there are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution related message. For example, if someone replies to one of the messages, when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum. The system keys on the given email address and since most of these are anonymous public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.] ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2011
From: Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Recreational pilot
I think because they wanted a "big announcement" at AOPA Summit. They're still working out the legalese of the proposal and they're waiting until after the elections. Word I have is that it will be submitted in January. --Rick On 11/04/2011 10:55 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen > > Hi Rick, > I understand that the EAA and AOPA are wanting to define it as a set > of rules that apply to a pilot. Odds are very strong that the FAA will > want to apply it to a set of aircraft qualifying requirements, because > that is much easier for them to draw the line in the sand. (inspectors > can more easily determine if an airplane conforms than if a pilot > does) I was under the impression that the request had been submitted. > Otherwise, why all the press hoopla for a non-submittal? > Kelly ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: insurance company homework
From: "tjyak50" <tomjohnson(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 07, 2011
Thanks for the referrals. I am Tom Johnson from Airpower Insurance based in Phoenix (KDVT). I spend most of my time on the Yak-list of the Matronics forum since I own a Yak 50. For new builders it is critical to cover the fly-off properly and there are a number of companies that do the fly-off well. It is also important to have your AOPA & EAA numbers handy. Also make sure you let me or your agent know if you have a moving-map GPS and altitude hold autopilot. These things can help your insurance. Lots of great choices for underwriters and brokers and several are here on this list. Find a broker that you trust and can reach when you need to. Glad to answer questions here or by phone / email. Tom Johnson tomjohnson(at)cox.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357207#357207 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: insurance company homework
From: "tjyak50" <tomjohnson(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 07, 2011
By the way, lets address this issue of "Blocking" N-numbers. For the vast majority this is a thing of the past. Underwriters are computerized and can now handle the load of quoting the same airplane to multiple brokers. Only one or 2 of the 6 or 7 markets that will write an RV on a daily basis still do the blocking. I think they mostly do it to reduce the workload and keep us brokers from eating each other alive which we are prone to doing. In the State of Arizona the State Law explicitly states the consumer has free choice of insurance producer. Arizona does not allow "programs" which are exclusive to only one Broker or Agency. So you really aren't ever locked in to anything. Get broker referrals from friends and fellow pilots. Call that broker and just have an "off the record" conversation about airplanes and insurance. Do that a few times and you will find the right person for you and your needs. Tj Airpower Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357208#357208 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2011
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Reminder
Dear Listers, Just a quick reminder that November is the annual List Fund Raiser. The Matronics Lists are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are provided for my your Contributions during this time of the year. Your personal Contribution makes a difference and keeps all of the Matronics Email Lists and Forums completely ad-free. Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Steve Farner <steve.farner(at)bellevue.edu>
Date: Nov 10, 2011
Subject: Insurance Question for the Group
Apologies in advance if this is supposed to go in a different forum, but si nce we were talking insurance last week, I was hoping someone could point m e in the right direction. I am an RV 10 builder in the early stages. It looks like I'm going to be on the "ultra slow build" plan. In the meantime, I have access to a Bonanza, but am having some insurance issues. I have 350 hours and an instrument r ating, 25 hours complex. I cannot be put on as a named insured under his p olicy because I need 750 hours and 100 hours in type. This is because he h as a higher liability coverage than the norm of $1,000,000. I'm content with a $1,000,000 policy while I build time, but have not found a carrier that will insure two different pilots in the same aircraft at di fferent levels of liability coverage. The explanation from the agent is th at courts have always upheld the higher liability under situations like thi s, so they just won't do it. It just seems like a person like me should have a way to fly a Bonanza. If anyone has ideas, let me know. Thanks! Steve Farner ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2011
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com>
Subject: Re: Insurance Question for the Group
It sounds like although you have access to a Bonanza, you really don't have access to a Bonanza that YOU can use. I don't know ANYTHING about the insurance industry other than the standard 1M type policies, so I'm no good for advice there, but, you're doing the right things. (i.e. the 350 hours and an instrument rating and 25 in complex) My advice for ALL pilots is to go build time before flying their RV-10. Get 100-200 hours if possible, just for insurance sake, if not more. Then DEFINITELY get the instrument rating, and go get HP signoff before you even get to fly your RV-10. All those things are worth it in the skills you get, plus they'll help with your insurance rates. My guess is, if you could find a different Bonanaza, or you owned your own, that you'd be insurable just fine, and would probably start at a higher rate but after a year the rate would drop and keep dropping as you build time in type. The >1M liability is probably killing you with that deal you have now. The RV-10 probably will not end up far off from the Bonanza in how the insurance requirements work...they're similar planes, and the RV-10 may have the higher hull value in some cases of various model years. (Not against new ones though) Tim On 11/10/2011 10:23 AM, Steve Farner wrote: > Apologies in advance if this is supposed to go in a different forum, but > since we were talking insurance last week, I was hoping someone could > point me in the right direction. > > I am an RV 10 builder in the early stages. It looks like Im going to be > on the ultra slow build plan. In the meantime, I have access to a > Bonanza, but am having some insurance issues. I have 350 hours and an > instrument rating, 25 hours complex. I cannot be put on as a named > insured under his policy because I need 750 hours and 100 hours in type. > This is because he has a higher liability coverage than the norm of > $1,000,000. > > Im content with a $1,000,000 policy while I build time, but have not > found a carrier that will insure two different pilots in the same > aircraft at different levels of liability coverage. The explanation from > the agent is that courts have always upheld the higher liability under > situations like this, so they just wont do it. > > It just seems like a person like me should have a way to fly a Bonanza. > If anyone has ideas, let me know. Thanks! > > Steve Farner > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Insurance Question for the Group
Date: Nov 10, 2011
I'm sure Tim is right that the higher liability is the sticking point. I was flying my D35 Bonanza when I was a 65 hours TT pilot with minimum high performance & retract sign off only. Insured by Avemco. Wow, one becomes a much better pilot with the added hours. Any chance the other individual will consider reducing his Liability limits? It's either that or there's a Cherokee/Cessna in your future. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:45 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Insurance Question for the Group It sounds like although you have access to a Bonanza, you really don't have access to a Bonanza that YOU can use. I don't know ANYTHING about the insurance industry other than the standard 1M type policies, so I'm no good for advice there, but, you're doing the right things. (i.e. the 350 hours and an instrument rating and 25 in complex) My advice for ALL pilots is to go build time before flying their RV-10. Get 100-200 hours if possible, just for insurance sake, if not more. Then DEFINITELY get the instrument rating, and go get HP signoff before you even get to fly your RV-10. All those things are worth it in the skills you get, plus they'll help with your insurance rates. My guess is, if you could find a different Bonanza, or you owned your own, that you'd be insurable just fine, and would probably start at a higher rate but after a year the rate would drop and keep dropping as you build time in type. The >1M liability is probably killing you with that deal you have now. The RV-10 probably will not end up far off from the Bonanza in how the insurance requirements work...they're similar planes, and the RV-10 may have the higher hull value in some cases of various model years. (Not against new ones though) Tim On 11/10/2011 10:23 AM, Steve Farner wrote: > Apologies in advance if this is supposed to go in a different forum, > but since we were talking insurance last week, I was hoping someone > could point me in the right direction. > > I am an RV 10 builder in the early stages. It looks like I'm going to > be on the "ultra slow build" plan. In the meantime, I have access to a > Bonanza, but am having some insurance issues. I have 350 hours and an > instrument rating, 25 hours complex. I cannot be put on as a named > insured under his policy because I need 750 hours and 100 hours in type. > This is because he has a higher liability coverage than the norm of > $1,000,000. > > I'm content with a $1,000,000 policy while I build time, but have not > found a carrier that will insure two different pilots in the same > aircraft at different levels of liability coverage. The explanation > from the agent is that courts have always upheld the higher liability > under situations like this, so they just won't do it. > > It just seems like a person like me should have a way to fly a Bonanza. > If anyone has ideas, let me know. Thanks! > > Steve Farner > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance Question for the Group
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 10, 2011
I can explain why the insurance company won't write a separate policy for you. In most states, the rule is that an injured party gets paid no matter what it takes, e.g., so-called "deep pockets" laws. So, for example: Your friend has $10M liability You have $1M You have an accident, and the jury finds: The injured person needs $8M. The jury finds that you were 99% responsible; your friend the owner is 1% responsible because he let you fly, or didn't change the oil on time, or some other excuse the plantiff's attorney will find. You owe 99% of $8M = $7.92M Your friend owes 1% of $8M = $80,000 Your insurance pays $1M. You pay $500K, your net worth, and declare bankruptcy. Your friend, and his insurance company, are now on the hook for the remaining $$6.5M, despite the "1% ruling". See why they won't write you a separate policy? -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357396#357396 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2011
Subject: Re: Insurance Question for the Group
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 11/10/2011 01:35 PM, Robin Marks wrote: > It's either that or there's a Cherokee/Cessna in your future. A Grumman Tiger might be a nice option more "closer" to the RV10. -Dj ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance Question for the Group
From: "tjyak50" <tomjohnson(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 10, 2011
Getting "Split Limits" is virtually impossible on smaller airplanes. On some larger accounts it is not unusual to have them. Example on a turboprop that might have $10m liability when "pro-flown" but only $3m when "owner flown". These policies bring a lot more money to the underwriter so they are more likely to do something special. Your situation is pretty typical and not much can be done about it. In the past i have had to cancel and re-write many policies for just this reason when a new partner came into an airplane group. That gets to be more work than some want to do. Not a whole lot of options in your case. Tj www.airpowerinsurance.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357404#357404 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2011
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists
Dear Listers, There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and Forums. The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions during the November Fund Raiser. Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making your Contribution too! You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site here: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or, you can send a personal check to the following address: Matronics / Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore, CA 94550 Thank you in advance for your generous support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Thane States" <thane2(at)comporium.net>
Subject: Re: Insurance Question for the Group
Date: Nov 11, 2011
I am not sure, but you have confused me with someone else. I dont want to split anything, I have no partner, just me. Are we on the same page?? Thane ----- Original Message ----- From: "tjyak50" <tomjohnson(at)cox.net> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 3:45 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Insurance Question for the Group > > Getting "Split Limits" is virtually impossible on smaller airplanes. On > some larger accounts it is not unusual to have them. > > Example on a turboprop that might have $10m liability when "pro-flown" but > only $3m when "owner flown". These policies bring a lot more money to > the underwriter so they are more likely to do something special. > > Your situation is pretty typical and not much can be done about it. In > the past i have had to cancel and re-write many policies for just this > reason when a new partner came into an airplane group. That gets to be > more work than some want to do. > > Not a whole lot of options in your case. > > Tj > www.airpowerinsurance.com > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357404#357404 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance Question for the Group
From: "tjyak50" <tomjohnson(at)cox.net>
Date: Nov 11, 2011
Thane, my post referenced the original post on this subject. Nothing to do with our conversation. Happy Friday all. TJ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357514#357514 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 40533 First Flight
From: "jchang10" <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2011
#40533 had its first flight a few weeks ago on 10/19/11 after 5 years and 11 months of building. (The slow build option added at least 2 years in my case.) The announcement is a bit overdue, but it sure has been a busy few weeks of test flying, taking panels and cowling on and off, and transitioning to being a pilot again. The plane flies straight, level, and oh so fast and has met or exceeded so many expectations. It truly is a wonderful feeling to have finally gotten here. Thanks go out to all those people in this wonderful community that have provided guidance, answered stupid questions :), and otherwise contributed their knowledge to the collective knowledge base over the years. I hope to meet some of you in some future fly-ins now that i have a means of getting there! :) Jae Phase 1 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357535#357535 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2011
Subject: Re: 40533 First Flight
Congrats Jae, is WVI in your radius? Stop in when you can. Dave Saylor AirCrafters 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 Shop 831-750-0284 Cell On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:58 AM, jchang10 wrote: > > #40533 had its first flight a few weeks ago on 10/19/11 after 5 years and 11 months of building. (The slow build option added at least 2 years in my case.) The announcement is a bit overdue, but it sure has been a busy few weeks of test flying, taking panels and cowling on and off, and transitioning to being a pilot again. > > The plane flies straight, level, and oh so fast and has met or exceeded so many expectations. It truly is a wonderful feeling to have finally gotten here. Thanks go out to all those people in this wonderful community that have provided guidance, answered stupid questions :), and otherwise contributed their knowledge to the collective knowledge base over the years. I hope to meet some of you in some future fly-ins now that i have a means of getting there! :) > > Jae > Phase 1 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357535#357535 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Steve Farner <steve.farner(at)bellevue.edu>
Date: Nov 11, 2011
Subject: Re: Insurance Question for the Group
Hi All- Thanks for the information. Maybe if I promise to always fly the Bonanza with the gear down? :) I realize they are going by the statistics, but it is interesting/frustrating that they put so much emphasis on the gear. I might be wrong on this, but it would seem that 100 hours in a 172RG would bring my rates dowm more than 100 hours in an RV10 (to fly a Bonanza). The other perplexing thing is why they just won't write a policy at a higher premium. I can see the premium doubling if I request 2m liability versus 1m, but am less clear why they won't write it at all. Thanks for the responses! Steve Farner ________________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tjyak50 [tomjohnson(at)cox.net] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:45 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Insurance Question for the Group Getting "Split Limits" is virtually impossible on smaller airplanes. On some larger accounts it is not unusual to have them. Example on a turboprop that might have $10m liability when "pro-flown" but only $3m when "owner flown". These policies bring a lot more money to the underwriter so they are more likely to do something special. Your situation is pretty typical and not much can be done about it. In the past i have had to cancel and re-write many policies for just this reason when a new partner came into an airplane group. That gets to be more work than some want to do. Not a whole lot of options in your case. Tj www.airpowerinsurance.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357404#357404 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Seano" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Subject: Re: 40533 First Flight
Date: Nov 11, 2011
Nice work Jae! ----- Original Message ----- From: "jchang10" <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 10:58 AM Subject: RV10-List: 40533 First Flight > > #40533 had its first flight a few weeks ago on 10/19/11 after 5 years and > 11 months of building. (The slow build option added at least 2 years in my > case.) The announcement is a bit overdue, but it sure has been a busy few > weeks of test flying, taking panels and cowling on and off, and > transitioning to being a pilot again. > > The plane flies straight, level, and oh so fast and has met or exceeded so > many expectations. It truly is a wonderful feeling to have finally gotten > here. Thanks go out to all those people in this wonderful community that > have provided guidance, answered stupid questions :), and otherwise > contributed their knowledge to the collective knowledge base over the > years. I hope to meet some of you in some future fly-ins now that i have a > means of getting there! :) > > Jae > Phase 1 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357535#357535 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Re: 40533 First Flight
Date: Nov 11, 2011
congrats Jae... that's great news. On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:58 AM, jchang10 wrote: > > > > #40533 had its first flight a few weeks ago on 10/19/11 after 5 > years and 11 months of building. (The slow build option added at > least 2 years in my case.) The announcement is a bit overdue, but it > sure has been a busy few weeks of test flying, taking panels and > cowling on and off, and transitioning to being a pilot again. > > The plane flies straight, level, and oh so fast and has met or > exceeded so many expectations. It truly is a wonderful feeling to > have finally gotten here. Thanks go out to all those people in this > wonderful community that have provided guidance, answered stupid > questions :), and otherwise contributed their knowledge to the > collective knowledge base over the years. I hope to meet some of you > in some future fly-ins now that i have a means of getting there! :) > > Jae > Phase 1 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357535#357535 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2011
Subject: Heavy wing
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
Hi, all... I have about 90 hours on the RV-10 now, and everything is great, with the exception of a significantly heavy right wing. I feel like I've tried just about everything, but still can't get it figured out, so looking for suggestions from the group. Here's what I know (and what I've ruled out): - Using the standard aileron trim, it takes nearly full left trim to keep the wings level at cruise speed. The heavy wing is less noticeable at slower speeds, so it's definitely an aerodynamic problem. - Problem has existed since first flight, so it's not a new issue and not an issue with the leg and wheel fairings - Rigghing is correct (per plans, verified with the aileron bellcrank templates). I tried adjusting one side a little, but as you can imagine, since the ailerons are interconnected, it didn't make a difference). - Flaps are even (measured with a digital level). just out of curiosity, I lowered the right flap a little to see if it would make a difference. It did not. - Loading is even (i.e. see the problem w/ balanced load in the cabin and balanced fuel tanks). - Perhaps the most telling: when holding the airplane level, the ailerons are even with the flaps (in the reflex position). *When I let go of the stick, with neutral trim, the left aileron goes down and the right up slightly (maybe 1/8" at most). This is consistent with the heavy left wing.* - I've verified that the ailerons are mounted evenly with respect to the rear wing spar, since Van's "heavy wing" document says this can cause issues. - Ailerons seem to be well-built and symmetrical (they're quickbuilds). I've tried everything in Van's "heavy wing" document and talked to several people over there. They don't have any ideas for me, other than to put a wedge under the left aileron to balance it out (which I've had on there for 60 hours or so). N410RV has a trim wedge, and one of the guys at Van's says that Van's personal RV-10 has a sizeable trim wedge. too. Though I'm usually pragmatic about issues like this, it seems that adding the wedge is just admitting defeat--something is giving it a heavy right wing (specifically something is deflecting the left aileron down and the right aileron up), and I should be able to figure out what it is. Anyone have any ideas? Much appreciated. -Rob -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2011
Subject: Re: 40533 First Flight
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
Congrats! On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: > > congrats Jae... that's great news. > > > On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:58 AM, jchang10 wrote: > >> >> #40533 had its first flight a few weeks ago on 10/19/11 after 5 years and >> 11 months of building. (The slow build option added at least 2 years in my >> case.) The announcement is a bit overdue, but it sure has been a busy few >> weeks of test flying, taking panels and cowling on and off, and >> transitioning to being a pilot again. >> >> The plane flies straight, level, and oh so fast and has met or exceeded >> so many expectations. It truly is a wonderful feeling to have finally >> gotten here. Thanks go out to all those people in this wonderful community >> that have provided guidance, answered stupid questions :), and otherwise >> contributed their knowledge to the collective knowledge base over the >> years. I hope to meet some of you in some future fly-ins now that i have a >> means of getting there! :) >> >> Jae >> Phase 1 >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/**viewtopic.php?p=357535#357535> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2011
From: <jfrjr(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: 40533 First Flight
Jae: Welcome aboard. I just got back to CA from Maine and, as usual, will be at KLVK until June. Where is your plane hangered? Give me a call so we can get together--I would love to check it out. Jay Rowe (207) 692-7093. wrote: > > #40533 had its first flight a few weeks ago on 10/19/11 after 5 years and 11 months of building. (The slow build option added at least 2 years in my case.) The announcement is a bit overdue, but it sure has been a busy few weeks of test flying, taking panels and cowling on and off, and transitioning to being a pilot again. > > The plane flies straight, level, and oh so fast and has met or exceeded so many expectations. It truly is a wonderful feeling to have finally gotten here. Thanks go out to all those people in this wonderful community that have provided guidance, answered stupid questions :), and otherwise contributed their knowledge to the collective knowledge base over the years. I hope to meet some of you in some future fly-ins now that i have a means of getting there! :) > > Jae > Phase 1 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357535#357535 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Heavy wing
Date: Nov 11, 2011
This may have no merit...so... Wing tip? I did not see anything about checking the wingtip and their position and possible effect. I spent a lot of time rebuilding mine because they did not line up with my Ailerons and were not the same on both sides. If I remember right , the tips have a little bit of a dihedral to them and being way out there on the wing, they could have a big effect if they were different. Just a wag.. Good luck, don't let the #$%$ win...or just go ugly early and put the wedge on.. Rene' Felker N423CF 801-721-6080 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kochman Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 1:13 PM Subject: RV10-List: Heavy wing Hi, all... I have about 90 hours on the RV-10 now, and everything is great, with the exception of a significantly heavy right wing. I feel like I've tried just about everything, but still can't get it figured out, so looking for suggestions from the group. Here's what I know (and what I've ruled out): * Using the standard aileron trim, it takes nearly full left trim to keep the wings level at cruise speed. The heavy wing is less noticeable at slower speeds, so it's definitely an aerodynamic problem. * Problem has existed since first flight, so it's not a new issue and not an issue with the leg and wheel fairings * Rigghing is correct (per plans, verified with the aileron bellcrank templates). I tried adjusting one side a little, but as you can imagine, since the ailerons are interconnected, it didn't make a difference). * Flaps are even (measured with a digital level). just out of curiosity, I lowered the right flap a little to see if it would make a difference. It did not. * Loading is even (i.e. see the problem w/ balanced load in the cabin and balanced fuel tanks). * Perhaps the most telling: when holding the airplane level, the ailerons are even with the flaps (in the reflex position). When I let go of the stick, with neutral trim, the left aileron goes down and the right up slightly (maybe 1/8" at most). This is consistent with the heavy left wing. * I've verified that the ailerons are mounted evenly with respect to the rear wing spar, since Van's "heavy wing" document says this can cause issues. * Ailerons seem to be well-built and symmetrical (they're quickbuilds). I've tried everything in Van's "heavy wing" document and talked to several people over there. They don't have any ideas for me, other than to put a wedge under the left aileron to balance it out (which I've had on there for 60 hours or so). N410RV has a trim wedge, and one of the guys at Van's says that Van's personal RV-10 has a sizeable trim wedge. too. Though I'm usually pragmatic about issues like this, it seems that adding the wedge is just admitting defeat--something is giving it a heavy right wing (specifically something is deflecting the left aileron down and the right aileron up), and I should be able to figure out what it is. Anyone have any ideas? Much appreciated. -Rob -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance Question for the Group
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 11, 2011
Steve, I'd guess you're wrong about the last post, since the emphasis here seems to be on liability coverage. No one gets hurt in gear up landings, so retract time affects hull coverage more than liability. OTOH, a V35 or an RV-10 is not a 172RG. Things happen much faster, it's easier for pilots to be overwhelmed, get behind, etc. I've been impressed by how quickly a 10 with full flaps can lose speed with just a little back pressure. A 172RG doesn't even qualify as a high performance airplane per the FARs. I may be wrong, but I'd guess it's your lack of time in a high speed airplane that's driving this. Of course the insurance industry is hard to understand. When I was in our 182 partnership, the second $1M of liability cost more than the first $1M! I have no explanation for that. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357567#357567 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 40533 First Flight
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 11, 2011
Congratulations (from another KLVK based -10). Where are you based? Is LVK in your phase 1 area? Bob -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357568#357568 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Heavy wing
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 11, 2011
I know you said you tried everything in Van's 'help' document, but.... In my case it was the left wing heavy in flight, and I could see the ailerons deflected, too. I moved the left aileron outboard attachment point lower by about 1/32" (barely noticeable) and it took out 90% of the heaviness. e.g., it is very sensitive to this. Bob -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357569#357569 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2011
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: 40533 First Flight
Congratulations - the next phase of enjoyment begins... > --> RV10-List message posted by: "jchang10" > > #40533 had its first flight a few weeks ago on 10/19/11 after 5 years and 11 months of building. (The slow build option added at least 2 years in my case.) The announcement is a bit overdue, but it sure has been a busy few weeks of test flying, taking panels and cowling on and off, and transitioning to being a pilot again. > > The plane flies straight, level, and oh so fast and has met or exceeded so many expectations. It truly is a wonderful feeling to have finally gotten here. Thanks go out to all those people in this wonderful community that have provided guidance, answered stupid questions :), and otherwise contributed their knowledge to the collective knowledge base over the years. I hope to meet some of you in some future fly-ins now that i have a means of getting there! :) > > Jae > Phase 1 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357535#357535 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Heavy wing
Date: Nov 11, 2011
As already mentioned, check the aileron height (compare left/right at inboard and outboard attach points using a straight edge running aft off the wing). A very small difference between aileron heights will make a big difference - and just how heavy the wing is will be dependent on speed. I found this problem in several heavy wing RVs, including my RV-8A. Moving the offending attachment point completely solve my problem on the 8A. Other things to look at: - Do not assume that if the ailerons (in neutral position) are even with the flaps (in reflex position) that they are rigged correctly as there may be a slight twist in the flap. Put the flaps in the reflex position, clamp one aileron to the flap, then compare using a straight edge running aft off the wing the two ailerons deflection. If there is a difference, adjust the push rods until they are exactly the same. - Do the same straight edge measurement on the flaps to compare. If you do have a slight twist in a flap, I would expect that you can compensate for it if the ailerons are symmetrically rigged as they provide the higher moment arm. - Once you have the ailerons at the same deflection, then look at the wingtips. When building the wingtips you can move the wingtip tailing edge up or down a good quarter of an inch when fitting the aft rib. Of note, the easy tone in Van's instructions on rigging the aircraft never seemed right for me. After chasing my tail on a heavy wing I went back to basics as discussed above and found the small difference in aileron mount height. Rigging is a big deal - and something that few will get right on the first attempt. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kochman Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 3:13 PM Subject: RV10-List: Heavy wing Hi, all... I have about 90 hours on the RV-10 now, and everything is great, with the exception of a significantly heavy right wing. I feel like I've tried just about everything, but still can't get it figured out, so looking for suggestions from the group. Here's what I know (and what I've ruled out): * Using the standard aileron trim, it takes nearly full left trim to keep the wings level at cruise speed. The heavy wing is less noticeable at slower speeds, so it's definitely an aerodynamic problem. * Problem has existed since first flight, so it's not a new issue and not an issue with the leg and wheel fairings * Rigghing is correct (per plans, verified with the aileron bellcrank templates). I tried adjusting one side a little, but as you can imagine, since the ailerons are interconnected, it didn't make a difference). * Flaps are even (measured with a digital level). just out of curiosity, I lowered the right flap a little to see if it would make a difference. It did not. * Loading is even (i.e. see the problem w/ balanced load in the cabin and balanced fuel tanks). * Perhaps the most telling: when holding the airplane level, the ailerons are even with the flaps (in the reflex position). When I let go of the stick, with neutral trim, the left aileron goes down and the right up slightly (maybe 1/8" at most). This is consistent with the heavy left wing. * I've verified that the ailerons are mounted evenly with respect to the rear wing spar, since Van's "heavy wing" document says this can cause issues. * Ailerons seem to be well-built and symmetrical (they're quickbuilds). I've tried everything in Van's "heavy wing" document and talked to several people over there. They don't have any ideas for me, other than to put a wedge under the left aileron to balance it out (which I've had on there for 60 hours or so). N410RV has a trim wedge, and one of the guys at Van's says that Van's personal RV-10 has a sizeable trim wedge. too. Though I'm usually pragmatic about issues like this, it seems that adding the wedge is just admitting defeat--something is giving it a heavy right wing (specifically something is deflecting the left aileron down and the right aileron up), and I should be able to figure out what it is. Anyone have any ideas? Much appreciated. -Rob -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Heavy wing
From: Ron Walker <n520tx(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2011
> Moving the offending attachment point How does one "move the attach point"? The ailerons are attached to a powder coated bracket that attaches at the pivot point of bracket riveted to the spar - I just looked at my wings in the cradle and tried to imagine how this would be done. Are you talking about elongating the holes in that bracket to allow the aileron to shift up or down relative to that pivot point ? A photo with some arrows to point things out would go a long way. I'm not disagreeing, just trying to visualize how you did this. --Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Heavy wing
Date: Nov 11, 2011
I think Matt elongated the hole on his -8 with success. I believe he was surprised at how very small the hole modification required. One may want to check the recent archives or throw the question out to Matt. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Walker Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 2:52 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Heavy wing > Moving the offending attachment point How does one "move the attach point"? The ailerons are attached to a powder coated bracket that attaches at the pivot point of bracket riveted to the spar - I just looked at my wings in the cradle and tried to imagine how this would be done. Are you talking about elongating the holes in that bracket to allow the aileron to shift up or down relative to that pivot point ? A photo with some arrows to point things out would go a long way. I'm not disagreeing, just trying to visualize how you did this. --Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Heavy wing
Date: Nov 11, 2011
On the 8A I got the brackets from Van's that don't have holes and drilled holes slightly offset from center. I don't know if these "no hole" brackets are available for the 10. I've seen others elongate the holes the small amount needed (I understand this was the advice the person received from Van's but that is second hand). Another approach is to take the current brackets and weld the holes shut, grind the weld flat and then re-drill. If the aileron height is off, you typically only need to adjust one bracket as the fix. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:30 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Heavy wing I think Matt elongated the hole on his -8 with success. I believe he was surprised at how very small the hole modification required. One may want to check the recent archives or throw the question out to Matt. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Walker Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 2:52 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Heavy wing > Moving the offending attachment point How does one "move the attach point"? The ailerons are attached to a powder coated bracket that attaches at the pivot point of bracket riveted to the spar - I just looked at my wings in the cradle and tried to imagine how this would be done. Are you talking about elongating the holes in that bracket to allow the aileron to shift up or down relative to that pivot point ? A photo with some arrows to point things out would go a long way. I'm not disagreeing, just trying to visualize how you did this. --Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Specketer" <speckter(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Heavy wing
Date: Nov 11, 2011
I am sure you probably checked this but is your rudder neutral with the heavy wing. Does the heavyness change as you step on one side or the other? Gary Specketer From: Rob Kochman Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 3:12 PM Subject: RV10-List: Heavy wing Hi, all... I have about 90 hours on the RV-10 now, and everything is great, with the exception of a significantly heavy right wing. I feel like I've tried just about everything, but still can't get it figured out, so looking for suggestions from the group. Here's what I know (and what I've ruled out): a.. Using the standard aileron trim, it takes nearly full left trim to keep the wings level at cruise speed. The heavy wing is less noticeable at slower speeds, so it's definitely an aerodynamic problem. b.. Problem has existed since first flight, so it's not a new issue and not an issue with the leg and wheel fairings c.. Rigghing is correct (per plans, verified with the aileron bellcrank templates). I tried adjusting one side a little, but as you can imagine, since the ailerons are interconnected, it didn't make a difference). d.. Flaps are even (measured with a digital level). just out of curiosity, I lowered the right flap a little to see if it would make a difference. It did not. e.. Loading is even (i.e. see the problem w/ balanced load in the cabin and balanced fuel tanks). f.. Perhaps the most telling: when holding the airplane level, the ailerons are even with the flaps (in the reflex position). When I let go of the stick, with neutral trim, the left aileron goes down and the right up slightly (maybe 1/8" at most). This is consistent with the heavy left wing. g.. I've verified that the ailerons are mounted evenly with respect to the rear wing spar, since Van's "heavy wing" document says this can cause issues. h.. Ailerons seem to be well-built and symmetrical (they're quickbuilds). I've tried everything in Van's "heavy wing" document and talked to several people over there. They don't have any ideas for me, other than to put a wedge under the left aileron to balance it out (which I've had on there for 60 hours or so). N410RV has a trim wedge, and one of the guys at Van's says that Van's personal RV-10 has a sizeable trim wedge. too. Though I'm usually pragmatic about issues like this, it seems that adding the wedge is just admitting defeat--something is giving it a heavy right wing (specifically something is deflecting the left aileron down and the right aileron up), and I should be able to figure out what it is. Anyone have any ideas? Much appreciated. -Rob -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Heavy wing
From: Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2011
When I started flying mine I had a heavy wing. During phase 1 I was always a lone, of course. Right rudder obviously helps and putting a right seater he lps too. I remember reading a lot of these on the FAQ's on vans site. You m ight want to look over these. They sell the brackets undrilled and recommen d elongating the originals first. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 11, 2011, at 13:12, Rob Kochman wrote: > Hi, all... I have about 90 hours on the RV-10 now, and everything is great , with the exception of a significantly heavy right wing. I feel like I've t ried just about everything, but still can't get it figured out, so looking f or suggestions from the group. Here's what I know (and what I've ruled out) : > Using the standard aileron trim, it takes nearly full left trim to keep th e wings level at cruise speed. The heavy wing is less noticeable at slower s peeds, so it's definitely an aerodynamic problem. > Problem has existed since first flight, so it's not a new issue and not an issue with the leg and wheel fairings > Rigghing is correct (per plans, verified with the aileron bellcrank templa tes). I tried adjusting one side a little, but as you can imagine, since the ailerons are interconnected, it didn't make a difference). > Flaps are even (measured with a digital level). just out of curiosity, I l owered the right flap a little to see if it would make a difference. It did not. > Loading is even (i.e. see the problem w/ balanced load in the cabin and ba lanced fuel tanks). > Perhaps the most telling: when holding the airplane level, the ailerons ar e even with the flaps (in the reflex position). When I let go of the stick, with neutral trim, the left aileron goes down and the right up slightly (ma ybe 1/8" at most). This is consistent with the heavy left wing. > I've verified that the ailerons are mounted evenly with respect to the rea r wing spar, since Van's "heavy wing" document says this can cause issues. > Ailerons seem to be well-built and symmetrical (they're quickbuilds). > I've tried everything in Van's "heavy wing" document and talked to several people over there. They don't have any ideas for me, other than to put a w edge under the left aileron to balance it out (which I've had on there for 6 0 hours or so). N410RV has a trim wedge, and one of the guys at Van's says t hat Van's personal RV-10 has a sizeable trim wedge. too. Though I'm usually pragmatic about issues like this, it seems that adding the wedge is just ad mitting defeat--something is giving it a heavy right wing (specifically some thing is deflecting the left aileron down and the right aileron up), and I s hould be able to figure out what it is. > > Anyone have any ideas? Much appreciated. > > -Rob > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Heavy wing
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 11, 2011
re: moving the aileron down. Yes, I elongated the holes in the steel bracket. Vans sells undrilled brackets for exactly this purpose. Unfortunately, not for the -10. But they say the ones for the -7 or -8 '...can be made to work...'. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357599#357599 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2011
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Heavy wing
I have seen several RV7s that the stock right aileron outer bracket made that aileron 1/8-1/4" high..like Vans punched holes are off. I would think builder error, except it is common when you start looking for it. Doesn't take much elongation, and you can do say 1/16th on wing, 1/16th" on bracket. On 11/11/2011 7:15 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" > > re: moving the aileron down. > Yes, I elongated the holes in the steel bracket. > Vans sells undrilled brackets for exactly this purpose. Unfortunately, not for the -10. But they say the ones for the -7 or -8 '...can be made to work...'. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357599#357599 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Heavy wing
Date: Nov 11, 2011
I agree with Gary. Try a rudder trim block if you don't have rudder trim. I thought I had a heavy wing until I played with my rudder trim after the first few flights. David Leikam RV10 Flying On Nov 11, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Gary Specketer wrote: > I am sure you probably checked this but is your rudder neutral with the heavy wing. Does the heavyness change as you step on one side or the other? > > Gary Specketer > > From: Rob Kochman > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 3:12 PM > To: rv10-list > Subject: RV10-List: Heavy wing > > Hi, all... I have about 90 hours on the RV-10 now, and everything is great, with the exception of a significantly heavy right wing. I feel like I've tried just about everything, but still can't get it figured out, so looking for suggestions from the group. Here's what I know (and what I've ruled out): > Using the standard aileron trim, it takes nearly full left trim to keep the wings level at cruise speed. The heavy wing is less noticeable at slower speeds, so it's definitely an aerodynamic problem. > Problem has existed since first flight, so it's not a new issue and not an issue with the leg and wheel fairings > Rigghing is correct (per plans, verified with the aileron bellcrank templates). I tried adjusting one side a little, but as you can imagine, since the ailerons are interconnected, it didn't make a difference). > Flaps are even (measured with a digital level). just out of curiosity, I lowered the right flap a little to see if it would make a difference. It did not. > Loading is even (i.e. see the problem w/ balanced load in the cabin and balanced fuel tanks). > Perhaps the most telling: when holding the airplane level, the ailerons are even with the flaps (in the reflex position). When I let go of the stick, with neutral trim, the left aileron goes down and the right up slightly (maybe 1/8" at most). This is consistent with the heavy left wing. > I've verified that the ailerons are mounted evenly with respect to the rear wing spar, since Van's "heavy wing" document says this can cause issues. > Ailerons seem to be well-built and symmetrical (they're quickbuilds). > I've tried everything in Van's "heavy wing" document and talked to several people over there. They don't have any ideas for me, other than to put a wedge under the left aileron to balance it out (which I've had on there for 60 hours or so). N410RV has a trim wedge, and one of the guys at Van's says that Van's personal RV-10 has a sizeable trim wedge. too. Though I'm usually pragmatic about issues like this, it seems that adding the wedge is just admitting defeat--something is giving it a heavy right wing (specifically something is deflecting the left aileron down and the right aileron up), and I should be able to figure out what it is. > > Anyone have any ideas? Much appreciated. > > -Rob > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > > > > href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com > href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com > href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/ch ref="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 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2011
Subject: Re: Heavy wing
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
Thanks, guys. It seems like my wing tips are even, and I've verified that the rudder is correct (i.e. ball is centered) when noting the heavy wing. I checked that the ailerons are mounted on the wing evenly, but I'll check more closely. Not sure I would have noticed a 1/32" difference, and it sounds like such a little difference might actually matter. Thanks again, and I'll report back. -Rob On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:27 PM, David Leikam wrote: > I agree with Gary. > Try a rudder trim block if you don't have rudder trim. I thought I had a > heavy wing until I played with my rudder trim after the first few flights. > > David Leikam > RV10 > Flying > > > On Nov 11, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Gary Specketer wrote: > > I am sure you probably checked this but is your rudder neutral with the > heavy wing. Does the heavyness change as you step on one side or the other? > > Gary Specketer > > *From:* Rob Kochman > *Sent:* Friday, November 11, 2011 3:12 PM > *To:* rv10-list > *Subject:* RV10-List: Heavy wing > > Hi, all... I have about 90 hours on the RV-10 now, and everything is > great, with the exception of a significantly heavy right wing. I feel like > I've tried just about everything, but still can't get it figured out, so > looking for suggestions from the group. Here's what I know (and what I've > ruled out): > > - Using the standard aileron trim, it takes nearly full left trim to > keep the wings level at cruise speed. The heavy wing is less noticeable at > slower speeds, so it's definitely an aerodynamic problem. > - Problem has existed since first flight, so it's not a new issue and > not an issue with the leg and wheel fairings > - Rigghing is correct (per plans, verified with the aileron bellcrank > templates). I tried adjusting one side a little, but as you can imagine, > since the ailerons are interconnected, it didn't make a difference). > - Flaps are even (measured with a digital level). just out of > curiosity, I lowered the right flap a little to see if it would make a > difference. It did not. > - Loading is even (i.e. see the problem w/ balanced load in the cabin > and balanced fuel tanks). > - Perhaps the most telling: when holding the airplane level, the > ailerons are even with the flaps (in the reflex position). *When I > let go of the stick, with neutral trim, the left aileron goes down and the > right up slightly (maybe 1/8" at most). This is consistent with the heavy > left wing.* > - I've verified that the ailerons are mounted evenly with respect to > the rear wing spar, since Van's "heavy wing" document says this can cause > issues. > - Ailerons seem to be well-built and symmetrical (they're > quickbuilds). > > I've tried everything in Van's "heavy wing" document and talked to several > people over there. They don't have any ideas for me, other than to put a > wedge under the left aileron to balance it out (which I've had on there for > 60 hours or so). N410RV has a trim wedge, and one of the guys at Van's > says that Van's personal RV-10 has a sizeable trim wedge. too. Though I'm > usually pragmatic about issues like this, it seems that adding the wedge is > just admitting defeat--something is giving it a heavy right wing > (specifically something is deflecting the left aileron down and the right > aileron up), and I should be able to figure out what it is. > > Anyone have any ideas? Much appreciated. > > -Rob > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > > * > > href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com > > href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com > href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="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 > * > > * > > href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com > href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com > href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > 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 > * > > > * > > > * > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Steve Farner <steve.farner(at)bellevue.edu>
Date: Nov 12, 2011
Subject: Re: Insurance Question for the Group
Bob- Good point, the 172 is "complex" but not "high performance." The email from the insurance broker said I needed "125 hours of retract," which led me to believe that 125 hours in a 172RG would help me much more than 125 hours in a Cirrus...interesting because you are right, the speed is the issue. Thanks, Steve ________________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner [bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 3:04 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Insurance Question for the Group Steve, I'd guess you're wrong about the last post, since the emphasis here seems to be on liability coverage. No one gets hurt in gear up landings, so retract time affects hull coverage more than liability. OTOH, a V35 or an RV-10 is not a 172RG. Things happen much faster, it's easier for pilots to be overwhelmed, get behind, etc. I've been impressed by how quickly a 10 with full flaps can lose speed with just a little back pressure. A 172RG doesn't even qualify as a high performance airplane per the FARs. I may be wrong, but I'd guess it's your lack of time in a high speed airplane that's driving this. Of course the insurance industry is hard to understand. When I was in our 182 partnership, the second $1M of liability cost more than the first $1M! I have no explanation for that. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357567#357567 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 40533 First Flight
From: pilotdds <pilotdds(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2011
congatulations you still owe me a meal-glad to have another 10 in the area- wvi has a great mexican restraunt and saylors place is very cool-jim -----Original Message----- From: jchang10 <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com> Sent: Fri, Nov 11, 2011 10:01 am Subject: RV10-List: 40533 First Flight #40533 had its first flight a few weeks ago on 10/19/11 after 5 years and 1 1 onths of building. (The slow build option added at least 2 years in my case .) he announcement is a bit overdue, but it sure has been a busy few weeks of test lying, taking panels and cowling on and off, and transitioning to being a p ilot gain. The plane flies straight, level, and oh so fast and has met or exceeded so many xpectations. It truly is a wonderful feeling to have finally gotten here. hanks go out to all those people in this wonderful community that have prov ided uidance, answered stupid questions :), and otherwise contributed their nowledge to the collective knowledge base over the years. I hope to meet so me f you in some future fly-ins now that i have a means of getting there! :) Jae hase 1 ead this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357535#357535 - -= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month -- -= (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!) - -= November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on -= the Contribution link below to find out more about -= this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided -= by: -= -= * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com -= * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com -= * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com - -= List Contribution Web Site: - -= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution - -= Thank you for your generous support! - -= -Matt Dralle, List Admin. - -======================== -= - 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: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: 40720 First Flight
Date: Nov 12, 2011
Jae; Congratulations! I know how you feel. I am about 2 weeks behind you. You finding that transitioning to being a pilot again is pretty easy in the -10? I did the transition training with Alex in June, I encourage everyone to get some time in a -10 before flying it alone, makes for a much easier first flight. Other than the usual high oil temps and CHT on the first couple of flights as the engine breaks in, the plane has been solid. Don McDonald has been a great mentor to me and I am so indebted to his patience, guidance and kindness the last couple of years, Jesse Saint was a great resource for avionics, Tim Olson and Deems were great in feedback along the early stages of building . They are just an example of all those who have been there to answer my questions the last 4 years of my building. Hard to grasp that I am flying the aluminum that arrived at my garage back in 2007. I was self build the whole way and loved every step, although I sure did stress myself over every detail, now that is paying off for me and I am quite happy with my doing it at the time, because I sure don=99t want to deal with it NOW!! Enjoy the flight and scenery. My scenery is hills and mountains north of San Diego, actually the same area the CAP uses for SAR training, so I should be mountain flying qualified and dead bored of all the rocks when my phase 1 is over, but I sure will enjoy the flight. There is so much to learn about the plane. As a fellow mentor has told me, you will always learn something even after flying the plane for a year. If you=99re ever in SoCal, let=99s hook up! Thanks for the feedback on the Skyview rpm issue Group; Looking forward to following in Tim=99s journeys along the country, I have two daughters, and a wife that wants to learn how to fly, so I=99m off to a great start! When we make the trip around the country and finish at Osh next summer I hope I=99ll meet many of you along the way. I plan 1 fly-in a year, it will be West Coast/Arizona but I will make it a point to meet and greet anyone there, just as Deems and others did for me along the way as a builder. Pascal -----Original Message----- From: jchang10 Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:58 AM Subject: RV10-List: 40533 First Flight #40533 had its first flight a few weeks ago on 10/19/11 after 5 years and 11 months of building. (The slow build option added at least 2 years in my case.) The announcement is a bit overdue, but it sure has been a busy few weeks of test flying, taking panels and cowling on and off, and transitioning to being a pilot again. The plane flies straight, level, and oh so fast and has met or exceeded so many expectations. It truly is a wonderful feeling to have finally gotten here. Thanks go out to all those people in this wonderful community that have provided guidance, answered stupid questions :), and otherwise contributed their knowledge to the collective knowledge base over the years. I hope to meet some of you in some future fly-ins now that i have a means of getting there! :) Jae Phase 1 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357535#357535 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2011
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Published in
December! Dear Listers, The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 40533 First Flight
From: "Eric_Kallio" <scout019(at)msn.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2011
Jae, you didn't take too long :-) I was truly slow build like you, and my first flight of kit 518 was in February. Haven't looked back since phase 1 was completed. Fly safe and enjoy the plane. Eric Kallio Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357775#357775 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Panel Upgrade AFS 5500S screens
From: "aerosport1" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2011
Got my panel upgraded with the new AFS 5500 screens. The new screens are awesome. A little learning curve from the 4500S screens. Rob has done a great job with the new screens. The user interface is really nice. It takes playing with them and understanding the layout. Once you understand them it is really easy and well organized. The more I played with them the more I like them. I decided to stay with the same size screens as the 4500S. The 5600 would be wonderful but did not feel like redoing the entire panel at this time. They have some great features and upgrades. Here are a couple pictures. I only have about 30 minutes flying them because of really bad winds here in Ohio the last 2 days. Another thing is the AFS support is fantastic. Geoff -------- Geoff Combs RV-10 QB N829GW Flying 40033 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357787#357787 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/5500_2_142.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/5500_1_172.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: no more free charts
Date: Nov 14, 2011
Here they go again. No more free charts. http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/2056-full.html#205722 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2011
Subject: Re: The rising cost of GA
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Why do I suspect that Garmin's lobbyists are marching lockstep with Jeppesen? On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:38 AM, John Ackerman wrote: > > How much better this world would be without Jepp... > Just another corporation with a strong lobby. > > > On Nov 14, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > > > Kind of makes you wonder how hard Jeppesen lobbied for that, > > doesn't it? > > > > If it were purely a money issue, they could have charged > > a subscription fee to individuals. Now individuals can't > > download at all...so no matter which option you go with, > > you have to pay. Hopefully the cost will be small enough > > to the entities that the pricing structure doesn't change > > much, since the feds aren't allowed to "profit" from it. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2011
From: Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com>
Subject: Re: 40720 First Flight
hi Pascal, congratulations on your first flight too! It would be great to compare notes for us just flying. Transitioning has been interesting to say the least. I stopped flying PIC in 2006 with too much competition for my time and money. My first PIC time since was 7/2011. Thus, these past few months have been very busy. I am fortunate to have a great group of local builders and pilots who have helped me with transition training. I needed much more than the typical 5 hours and was fortunate to be able to get it locally in my own complex airspace. Ultimately, i decided to let my baby go with a test pilot initially. It's a personal decision for everyone but ultimately, it would have been pretty dumb of me not to let someone with multiple first flights and 18k total hours test fly it for me. That brings up another great transition which was spending years building in almost total isolation in one's garage/workshop, to finally moving to an airport environment with so many people and personalities, most all of whom are immersed in aviation and looking out for each other. It's great to be in such a community. I certainly had that surreal moment when looking out the windshield realizing i wasn't looking at the back of the garage. Holy @#%@! This is nuts! It's a shame more people don't get to experience that euphoria. I never got it while flying Cessnas. ;) You realize just how important all those little details are when flight testing and stressing the plane you worked so hard to build. I am glad I redid this part or that part instead of accepting good enough. 200 knots sure sounds different than 120 in a C182. Hearing your HS buffeting when doing stall testing, sure is a nervous moment. You don't want any doubts while stress testing the plane. Looking forward to meeting up with you too! Jae On 11/12/2011 8:24 AM, Pascal wrote: > Jae; > Congratulations! I know how you feel. I am about 2 weeks behind you. > You finding that transitioning to being a pilot again is pretty easy > in the -10? I did the transition training with Alex in June, I > encourage everyone to get some time in a -10 before flying it alone, > makes for a much easier first flight. > Other than the usual high oil temps and CHT on the first couple of > flights as the engine breaks in, the plane has been solid. > Don McDonald has been a great mentor to me and I am so indebted to his > patience, guidance and kindness the last couple of years, Jesse Saint > was a great resource for avionics, Tim Olson and Deems were great in > feedback along the early stages of building . They are just an example > of all those who have been there to answer my questions the last 4 > years of my building. Hard to grasp that I am flying the aluminum that > arrived at my garage back in 2007. I was self build the whole way and > loved every step, although I sure did stress myself over every detail, > now that is paying off for me and I am quite happy with my doing it at > the time, because I sure dont want to deal with it NOW!! > Enjoy the flight and scenery. My scenery is hills and mountains north > of San Diego, actually the same area the CAP uses for SAR training, so > I should be mountain flying qualified and dead bored of all the rocks > when my phase 1 is over, but I sure will enjoy the flight. There is so > much to learn about the plane. As a fellow mentor has told me, you > will always learn something even after flying the plane for a year. > If youre ever in SoCal, lets hook up! Thanks for the feedback on the > Skyview rpm issue > Group; > Looking forward to following in Tims journeys along the country, I > have two daughters, and a wife that wants to learn how to fly, so Im > off to a great start! When we make the trip around the country and > finish at Osh next summer I hope Ill meet many of you along the way. > I plan 1 fly-in a year, it will be West Coast/Arizona but I will make > it a point to meet and greet anyone there, just as Deems and others > did for me along the way as a builder. > Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: jchang10 > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:58 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: 40533 First Flight > #40533 had its first flight a few weeks ago on 10/19/11 after 5 years > and 11 > months of building. (The slow build option added at least 2 years in my > case.) The announcement is a bit overdue, but it sure has been a busy few > weeks of test flying, taking panels and cowling on and off, and > transitioning to being a pilot again. > The plane flies straight, level, and oh so fast and has met or > exceeded so > many expectations. It truly is a wonderful feeling to have finally gotten > here. Thanks go out to all those people in this wonderful community that > have provided guidance, answered stupid questions :), and otherwise > contributed their knowledge to the collective knowledge base over the > years. > I hope to meet some of you in some future fly-ins now that i have a > means of > getting there! :) > Jae > Phase 1 > Read this topic online here: > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357535#357535 > ============ > Lists This Month -- > (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!) Click on about provided > www.aeroelectric.com www.buildersbooks.com www.homebuilthelp.com > http://www.matronics.com/contribution sp; -Matt > Dralle, List Admin. ============= RV10-List Email Forum - > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ============= sp; - > MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - ============= sp; - List Contribution Web Site > - sp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > http://www.matronics.com/contribution ============ > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: The rising cost of GA
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 14, 2011
I feel a little sad. There was a time (30 years ago) when Jepp offered a superior product at a competitive price. But they failed to adapt to the changing technology, and now they seem to have joined the many other companies that make money buy obtaining and maintaining monopolies. [that's not a typo, I meant "buy", not "by"; as in, lobbying and lawyers] -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357845#357845 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2011
From: Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: The rising cost of GA
Kelly, whazt you say is true, legally. My problem with this move is that it compromises safety when we (GA) refuse to pay higher rates to the one or two 'sources' for charts or chart data (moving map) and fly with outdated info. It's the same scenario with user fees. If we already have subscriptions to chart data (foreflight, GPS data etc.) then I see a big problem as they won't be able to compete with the two probable companies (Garmin and Jepp) leaving a big monopoly with no competition or price controls. I only see spiraling operating costs for us (the consumer) since the already high subscription price will only go higher due to the companies passing on the cost to us, the consumers. I wrote AOPA Safety explaining my position and asked for contact info for the members of the congressional aviation subcommittee. I think it's a good idea for everyone else to do the same. If this can't be killed, I see a proportionate rise in the accident rate in our future. Linn On 11/14/2011 11:39 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen > > You have a Catch 22. You only need what you can't remember. The FAR is > for preflight action to review all available information. For Part 91 > there is no chart requirement, just you need to remember everything > you saw on the chart. If you have the data in you glass panel, and > you have an electronic backup, whether that is an iPad or other > device, you would seem to have all the memory refreshing tools you > need. snip! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2011
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Panel Upgrade AFS 5500S screens
Geoff, How 'bout a picture? Maybe a before and after..... "Enquiring minds" Ralph -----Original Message----- >From: aerosport1 <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com> >Sent: Nov 13, 2011 9:53 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: Panel Upgrade AFS 5500S screens > > >Got my panel upgraded with the new AFS 5500 screens. The new screens >are awesome. A little learning curve from the 4500S screens. Rob has done a great job with the new screens. The user interface is really nice. >It takes playing with them and understanding the layout. Once you understand them it is really easy and well organized. The more I played with them the more I like them. I decided to stay with the same size screens as the 4500S. The 5600 would be wonderful but did not feel like >redoing the entire panel at this time. > >They have some great features and upgrades. Here are a couple pictures. >I only have about 30 minutes flying them because of really bad winds here in Ohio the last 2 days. Another thing is the AFS support is fantastic. > >Geoff > >-------- >Geoff Combs > RV-10 QB N829GW >Flying >40033 > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357787#357787 > > >Attachments: > >http://forums.matronics.com//files/5500_2_142.jpg >http://forums.matronics.com//files/5500_1_172.jpg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2011
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: The rising cost of GA
Please, no disparagement here. Remember, corporations have the same rights as individuals to influence .gov, the Supreme Court said so. Bill "coming on board just as the free ride comes to an end" Watson On 11/14/2011 10:50 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > Why do I suspect that Garmin's lobbyists are marching lockstep with > Jeppesen? > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:38 AM, John Ackerman > wrote: > > > > > How much better this world would be without Jepp... > Just another corporation with a strong lobby. > > > On Nov 14, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > > > > > Kind of makes you wonder how hard Jeppesen lobbied for that, > > doesn't it? > > > > If it were purely a money issue, they could have charged > > a subscription fee to individuals. Now individuals can't > > download at all...so no matter which option you go with, > > you have to pay. Hopefully the cost will be small enough > > to the entities that the pricing structure doesn't change > > much, since the feds aren't allowed to "profit" from it. > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geoff Combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com>
Subject: Panel Upgrade AFS 5500S screens
Date: Nov 14, 2011
It is at the bottom of the page Geoff Combs President 614-834-5227p 614-834-5230f www.aerosportmodeling.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 5:45 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Panel Upgrade AFS 5500S screens --> Geoff, How 'bout a picture? Maybe a before and after..... "Enquiring minds" Ralph -----Original Message----- >From: aerosport1 <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com> >Sent: Nov 13, 2011 9:53 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV10-List: Panel Upgrade AFS 5500S screens > >--> > >Got my panel upgraded with the new AFS 5500 screens. The new screens >are awesome. A little learning curve from the 4500S screens. Rob has done a great job with the new screens. The user interface is really nice. >It takes playing with them and understanding the layout. Once you >understand them it is really easy and well organized. The more I played with them the more I like them. I decided to stay with the same size screens as the 4500S. The 5600 would be wonderful but did not feel like redoing the entire panel at this time. > >They have some great features and upgrades. Here are a couple pictures. >I only have about 30 minutes flying them because of really bad winds here in Ohio the last 2 days. Another thing is the AFS support is fantastic. > >Geoff > >-------- >Geoff Combs > RV-10 QB N829GW >Flying >40033 > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357787#357787 > > >Attachments: > >http://forums.matronics.com//files/5500_2_142.jpg >http://forums.matronics.com//files/5500_1_172.jpg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: The rising cost of GA
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 14, 2011
Can you share you names when you get them. Rob Kermanj Sent from my iPhone On Nov 14, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Linn Walters wrote: > > Kelly, whazt you say is true, legally. My problem with this move is that it compromises safety when we (GA) refuse to pay higher rates to the one or two 'sources' for charts or chart data (moving map) and fly with outdated info. It's the same scenario with user fees. > > If we already have subscriptions to chart data (foreflight, GPS data etc.) then I see a big problem as they won't be able to compete with the two probable companies (Garmin and Jepp) leaving a big monopoly with no competition or price controls. I only see spiraling operating costs for us (the consumer) since the already high subscription price will only go higher due to the companies passing on the cost to us, the consumers. > > I wrote AOPA Safety explaining my position and asked for contact info for the members of the congressional aviation subcommittee. > I think it's a good idea for everyone else to do the same. If this can't be killed, I see a proportionate rise in the accident rate in our future. > Linn > > > On 11/14/2011 11:39 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen >> >> You have a Catch 22. You only need what you can't remember. The FAR is >> for preflight action to review all available information. For Part 91 >> there is no chart requirement, just you need to remember everything >> you saw on the chart. If you have the data in you glass panel, and >> you have an electronic backup, whether that is an iPad or other >> device, you would seem to have all the memory refreshing tools you >> need. > snip! > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2011
From: Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: The rising cost of GA
Sometimes I get frustrated with the people that keep asking me for help!!! Here's the answer I got from AOPA: Linn, Thank you for contacting the Pilot Information Center. AOPA will be investigating this issue in the near term, initially to gather all the details, and then decide on a course of action that may include a request for members to contact their elected representatives. You may find all House and Senate aviation committee members and contact information through their respective web sites - house.gov and senate.gov. Craig Brown Sr. Technical Specialist Government Affairs - Pilot Information Center ATP/A&P/CFI 800-USA-AOPA Basically a 'go find it yourself'. :-( My reply was that they should be a little more responsive with a canned list. Since they're too busy to send me a list maybe I'm too busy to send the subcommittee an email! Linn On 11/14/2011 6:31 PM, Rob Kermanj wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: Rob Kermanj > > Can you share you names when you get them. > > Rob Kermanj > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 14, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Linn Walters wrote: > >> --> RV10-List message posted by: Linn Walters >> >> Kelly, whazt you say is true, legally. My problem with this move is that it compromises safety when we (GA) refuse to pay higher rates to the one or two 'sources' for charts or chart data (moving map) and fly with outdated info. It's the same scenario with user fees. >> >> If we already have subscriptions to chart data (foreflight, GPS data etc.) then I see a big problem as they won't be able to compete with the two probable companies (Garmin and Jepp) leaving a big monopoly with no competition or price controls. I only see spiraling operating costs for us (the consumer) since the already high subscription price will only go higher due to the companies passing on the cost to us, the consumers. >> >> I wrote AOPA Safety explaining my position and asked for contact info for the members of the congressional aviation subcommittee. >> I think it's a good idea for everyone else to do the same. If this can't be killed, I see a proportionate rise in the accident rate in our future. >> Linn >> >> >> On 11/14/2011 11:39 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen >>> >>> You have a Catch 22. You only need what you can't remember. The FAR is >>> for preflight action to review all available information. For Part 91 >>> there is no chart requirement, just you need to remember everything >>> you saw on the chart. If you have the data in you glass panel, and >>> you have an electronic backup, whether that is an iPad or other >>> device, you would seem to have all the memory refreshing tools you >>> need. >> snip! >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2011
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What's Your Contribution Used For?
Dear Listers, You might have wondered at some pointd, "What's my Contribution used for?" Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables... It provides for the expensive, commercial-grade Internet connection used on the List. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling the highest performance possible for List services such as the Archive Search Engine, List Browser, and the Web Forums. It pays for over 21 years (yeah, I really said *21* years) worth of on line archive data available for instant search and access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing, developing, and maintaining the custom applications that power this List Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, Forums, and Wiki. But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation, censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these aspects of Matronics List services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its one of the best investments you can make in your Sport! List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or, you can send a personal check to the following address: Matronics / Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore, CA 94550 Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2011
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Panel Upgrade AFS 5500S screens
Nice! -----Original Message----- >From: Geoff Combs <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com> >Sent: Nov 14, 2011 6:09 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Upgrade AFS 5500S screens > >It is at the bottom of the page > > >Geoff Combs >President > >614-834-5227p >614-834-5230f >www.aerosportmodeling.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen >Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 5:45 PM >To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV10-List: Panel Upgrade AFS 5500S screens > >--> > >Geoff, > >How 'bout a picture? Maybe a before and after..... > >"Enquiring minds" > >Ralph > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: aerosport1 <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com> >>Sent: Nov 13, 2011 9:53 PM >>To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: RV10-List: Panel Upgrade AFS 5500S screens >> >>--> >> >>Got my panel upgraded with the new AFS 5500 screens. The new screens >>are awesome. A little learning curve from the 4500S screens. Rob has done a >great job with the new screens. The user interface is really nice. >>It takes playing with them and understanding the layout. Once you >>understand them it is really easy and well organized. The more I played >with them the more I like them. I decided to stay with the same size screens >as the 4500S. The 5600 would be wonderful but did not feel like redoing the >entire panel at this time. >> >>They have some great features and upgrades. Here are a couple pictures. >>I only have about 30 minutes flying them because of really bad winds here >in Ohio the last 2 days. Another thing is the AFS support is fantastic. >> >>Geoff >> >>-------- >>Geoff Combs >> RV-10 QB N829GW >>Flying >>40033 >> >> >> >> >>Read this topic online here: >> >>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357787#357787 >> >> >> >> >>Attachments: >> >>http://forums.matronics.com//files/5500_2_142.jpg >>http://forums.matronics.com//files/5500_1_172.jpg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 40533 First Flight
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2011
Congratulations Jae! Looking forward to meeting more great rv pilots and seeing the country with the family. Aw today, KY to FL tomorrow on the HD Road King(750 lbs EW, so Light Sport and looks like some ifr along the way). Transition trng then first flight after Thanksgiving. -------- Wayne Gillispie, A&P 5/93, PPC 10/08 Bldr# 40983SB Final assembly, aw cert, transition training with David Maib. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=357986#357986 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: The rising cost of GA
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2011
I think the FAA has been using the revenues from paper publications to supplement the digital information. I understand they did not profit from the paper charts, but profit and covering costs are separate. Since many of us have selected digital without purchasing paper backups, this seems to be a likely outcome. With digital they no longer have a way to recover costs (in the current model). Jason -------- 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=357987#357987 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: The rising cost of GA
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2011
But, while you're probably correct, there is still no reason to disallow end user purchases. It could be done via the current website where they sell paper charts. Ive bought that way before so why could I not by a digital sectional myself? Tim On Nov 15, 2011, at 6:48 AM, "jkreidler" wrote: > > I think the FAA has been using the revenues from paper publications to supplement the digital information. I understand they did not profit from the paper charts, but profit and covering costs are separate. Since many of us have selected digital without purchasing paper backups, this seems to be a likely outcome. With digital they no longer have a way to recover costs (in the current model). > > Jason > > -------- > 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=357987#357987 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: The rising cost of GA
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2011
Yup, but like I said in the 'current model'. I fully agree... -------- 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=357990#357990 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2011
From: Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com>
Subject: Yves Rossy: Jetman
http://www.ted.com/talks/yves_rossy_fly_with_the_jetman.html Man, I feel kind of dumb now. I didnt need the avionics, engine, prop, tail, fuse or finishing kits - just the wing kit! I love the answer, "Have you ever seen tandem birds?" ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2011
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Support The Lists...
Dear Listers, Just a reminder that November is the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser month. There are some very nice incentive gifts to choose from as well! Your Contributions alone keep these services up and running. Please make your Contribution today at: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator


October 17, 2011 - November 17, 2011

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-il