RV10-Archive.digest.vol-it
May 24, 2012 - June 09, 2012
Any comment or thoughts appreciated
Thanks
Niko
Nikolaos Napoli
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
Rene
Thanks for the input, you make some good points.
Since I am cutting the panel myself it gives me some leeway to tweak it so t
he upper left corner fits. I might have to trim the perimeter angle at that
location. I am trying to get the panel as far to the left as possible. As
far as the main left side rib I dont know if I clear it. If I dont, I will
trim the rib and reinforce it.
As far as the switches, taking what you said into consideration, I will lay t
hem out in groups with space in between groups so that I dont accidentally t
urn off critical switches. Here is what I am thinking
Mastr, Alternator, Aux Battery
EIS, EFIS1, EFIS2, Avionics
Strobes, Nav lights, Taxi Lights, Landing Light
autopilot off, trim off, copilot stick off.
So the first two groups should not normally be touched during the flight. I
also have the infinity stick which reduces the number of switches on the pa
nel.
Thang again
Niko
Nikolaos Napoli
On May 24, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
> A couple of general comments.
>
> Is there enough room for the left panel.top left corner.
considering ribs, etc. Looks a little close
>
> The switches across the bottom of the panel. If any of them are critical,
than you will need some type of switch guard. Because, in turbulence, you r
each for one of the buttons on the bottom, you hit a bump and your hand gets
pulled down and turns off the switchask me how I know
..IPC, in a hold and I turned off my GRT.well I got som
e good practice flying on my backup instruments.
>
> Looks great to me.
>
> Rene' Felker
> N423CF
> 801-721-6080
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos Napoli
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:34 AM
> To: Matronics
> Subject: RV10-List: GRT Panel Layout
>
> Here is my final panel configuration. I should be cutting metal this week
end.
>
> Any comment or thoughts appreciated
>
> Thanks
> Niko
>
> Nikolaos Napoli
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Takeoff and Full flap landings |
I am about to take the family out on a camping trip. I was given
feedback that I should avoid full flaps with the plane loaded (2515lbs-
95lb of that in baggage area). I had planned to use full flaps, as I am
coming into a airport that is surrounded by hills and hence a steeper
approach will be needed on final. Speaking with a builder this morning I
received solid feedback on why I should use full flaps or a partial
(20-25 degrees) flap setting versus the 15/18 degrees.
I understand the wind requirement for when to and not use the full
flaps, I am interested in feedback about when do others use full flaps
and reasons not to use it.
On the flip side on takeoff- I may use 0 degrees for shorter/ need to
climb over obstacles at end of runway, but the discussion came up about
why not use 15 degrees?
Thoughts on use of flaps on takeoff? any real benefits?
Just looking for what others do and why, not a debate on which is right
or wrong.
Thank you!
Pascal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com> |
| Subject: | GRT Panel Layout |
If you do find yourself in the unfortunate event of relying on your backup
gauges (which sounds a bit more likely w/efis switches on the dash) your
scan will be difficult at best with the backups being on opposite ends of
the panel. You will end up focusing on the attitude indicator and in high
stress situations your alt and airspeed won't be scanned much.
What is the function of the efis switches? Are you using some of those to
facilitate e-buss wiring as it appears you are using a VP product? Is that
also the case for your "trim off" switch or is that simply for speed of
shutoff given a runaway scenario?
-Ben
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos Napoli
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 7:34 AM
Subject: RV10-List: GRT Panel Layout
Here is my final panel configuration. I should be cutting metal this
weekend.
Any comment or thoughts appreciated
Thanks
Niko
Nikolaos Napoli
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Johnson <bruce1hwjohnson(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
Nice layout, the only change I would make is to move the second screen to t
he right and put the two steam-gauges-closer to the middle for better v
isual for the PIC=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Nikolao
s Napoli =0ATo: Matronics =0ASent
: Thursday, May 24, 2012 7:33 AM=0ASubject: RV10-List: GRT Panel Layout=0A
=0A=0AHere is my final panel configuration. -I should be cutting metal th
is weekend.=0A=0AAny comment or thoughts appreciated=0A=0AThanks=0ANiko=0A
=0ANikolaos Napoli=0A=0A=0A-=0A>-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Takeoff and Full flap landings |
I use full flaps, all weights and wind conditions. Have not had a problem.
No opinion on the flaps on take off? Have tested it and half flap takeoffs
are interesting and would appear to be an advantage for short/soft fields.
But have not done enough to have a real opinion.
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 Pascal
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:19 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Takeoff and Full flap landings
I am about to take the family out on a camping trip. I was given feedback
that I should avoid full flaps with the plane loaded (2515lbs- 95lb of that
in baggage area). I had planned to use full flaps, as I am coming into a
airport that is surrounded by hills and hence a steeper approach will be
needed on final. Speaking with a builder this morning I received solid
feedback on why I should use full flaps or a partial (20-25 degrees) flap
setting versus the 15/18 degrees.
I understand the wind requirement for when to and not use the full flaps, I
am interested in feedback about when do others use full flaps and reasons
not to use it.
On the flip side on takeoff- I may use 0 degrees for shorter/ need to climb
over obstacles at end of runway, but the discussion came up about why not
use 15 degrees?
Thoughts on use of flaps on takeoff? any real benefits?
Just looking for what others do and why, not a debate on which is right or
wrong.
Thank you!
Pascal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Takeoff and Full flap landings |
Pascal... sounds like a great trip. my first camping trip in the -10
is high on my todo list!
i can't think of a good reason to avoid full flaps. it lowers my stall
speed by a good margin in all CG configurations, so not sure what is the
harm.
my word of warning is for a half-flaps takeoff. i casually decided to
give this a go one day. i normally do 0 degree takeoffs but this was my
first time at half-flaps. the plane wants to rotate so quickly, that it
caught me by surprise. i was still pushing the throttle in when the
mains left the ground before the nose wheel. i quickly pulled back on
the stick, so no harm done. anyway, i was quite surprised how quickly
everything happened.
next time, i will make sure to add some back elevator trim before doing
a half-flaps takeoff.
Jae
--
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
On 5/24/2012 10:18 AM, Pascal wrote:
> I am about to take the family out on a camping trip. I was given
> feedback that I should avoid full flaps with the plane loaded
> (2515lbs- 95lb of that in baggage area). I had planned to use full
> flaps, as I am coming into a airport that is surrounded by hills and
> hence a steeper approach will be needed on final. Speaking with a
> builder this morning I received solid feedback on why I should use
> full flaps or a partial (20-25 degrees) flap setting versus the 15/18
> degrees.
> I understand the wind requirement for when to and not use the full
> flaps, I am interested in feedback about when do others use full flaps
> and reasons not to use it.
> On the flip side on takeoff- I may use 0 degrees for shorter/ need to
> climb over obstacles at end of runway, but the discussion came up
> about why not use 15 degrees?
> Thoughts on use of flaps on takeoff? any real benefits?
> Just looking for what others do and why, not a debate on which is
> right or wrong.
> Thank you!
> Pascal
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bendix S1200 Mags |
| From: | "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> |
I have 2 of the S1200 mags on my IO540. Fits fine.
Jim Berry
N15JB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373785#373785
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Main gear shudder revisited |
| From: | "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> |
Rick,
You can get the Matco wheel and axle from www.matcomfg.com . Great people to do business with, and no reason to look elsewhere.
Jim Berry
N15JB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373786#373786
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Johnson <bruce1hwjohnson(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
After looking at it again, I might move the engine monitoring into the midd
le as it will be hard to read from the left. I put mine to far down and its
a pain. Also you might add a stereo to the area where the engine monitor w
as.-=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Bruce Johnson <bru
ce1hwjohnson(at)yahoo.com>=0ATo: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" =0ASent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:38 AM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: G
RT Panel Layout=0A =0A=0ANice layout, the only change I would make is to mo
ve the second screen to the right and put the two steam-gauges-closer t
o the middle for better visual for the PIC=0A=0A=0A________________________
________=0A From: Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com>=0ATo: Matronics <rv10-li
st(at)matronics.com> =0ASent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 7:33 AM=0ASubject: RV10-L
ist: GRT Panel Layout=0A =0A=0AHere is my final panel configuration. -I s
hould be cutting metal this weekend.=0A=0AAny comment or thoughts appreciat
ed=0A=0AThanks=0ANiko=0A=0ANikolaos Napoli=0A=0A=0A-=0A>-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | Experimental aircraft crashes |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Takeoff and Full flap landings |
To clarify what I think Jae was saying - it's not that it wants to
"rotate" in the classic sense, rather it will want to "wheelbarrow on
the nosewheel because half flaps requires significant up-trim at full
power. And I totally agree, you need to prepare for that if you
routinely make 0 deg TOs.
> my word of warning is for a half-flaps takeoff. i casually decided to
> give this a go one day. i normally do 0 degree takeoffs but this was
> my first time at half-flaps. the plane wants to rotate so quickly,
> that it caught me by surprise. i was still pushing the throttle in
> when the mains left the ground before the nose wheel. i quickly pulled
> back on the stick, so no harm done. anyway, i was quite surprised how
> quickly everything happened.
My standard procedure is to takeoff with half flaps and land with full
flaps. The half flaps probably has something to do with my home field
being turf with obstructions but I never vary even on 7,000' of
concrete. Full flaps work in most/all wind conditions for me though I'm
careful to liberal with power if the wind gradient gets you low and slow.
> Next time, i will make sure to add some back elevator trim before
> doing a half-flaps takeoff.
Yes, it really help to have a trim position figured out and set before
takeoff with half flaps.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | GRT Panel Layout |
Speaking as one that put a full audio/video system in my plane I say NOOOO
to the stereo. I have since ripped out 7+ pounds of AV equipment and replac
ed with iPad which I then upgraded to iPad2 then the New iPad. Tech changes
so quickly I suggest you don't lock yourself into 1970's stereo equipment.
I also added a Belkin Bluetooth adapter into my audio panel for ~$60.00. O
f course several audio panels have BT built in now.
As far as the panel layout goes I personally prefer each display being exac
tly centered in front of each stick so you can fly from either location as
if it was designed that way. That would leave room to place all 3 round gau
ges stacked for easier scan (prefer the smaller gauges).
Also what is going on with the ~5 lights above the PFD? Looks like 5 of one
style and one of another. No symmetry there as one light is centered betwe
en the PFD and the radio stack. Why? I would either find a way to tighten t
hem up so they ended flush right with the PFD or I would center them above
the radio stack ending flush left & right with the radio stack column.
Are you really installing dual 430W's?
Finally why do you need the engine monitoring at all on your panel? Doesn't
that all show up on your GRT's?
Good luck,
Robin
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Johnson
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: GRT Panel Layout
After looking at it again, I might move the engine monitoring into the midd
le as it will be hard to read from the left. I put mine to far down and its
a pain. Also you might add a stereo to the area where the engine monitor w
as.
________________________________
From: Bruce Johnson <bruce1hwjohnson(at)yahoo.com<mailto:bruce1hwjohnson@yahoo
.com>>
tronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: GRT Panel Layout
Nice layout, the only change I would make is to move the second screen to t
he right and put the two steam gauges closer to the middle for better visua
l for the PIC
________________________________
From: Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com<mailto:napolin(at)me.com>>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 7:33 AM
Subject: RV10-List: GRT Panel Layout
Here is my final panel configuration. I should be cutting metal this weeke
nd.
Any comment or thoughts appreciated
Thanks
Niko
Nikolaos Napoli
[cid:image001.jpg(at)01CD39A2.CF7AA920]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Takeoff and Full flap landings |
Thank you all who responded so quickly. Great information!
Sticking to the plan!
Thanks!
Pascal
From: Pascal
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:18 AM
Subject: Takeoff and Full flap landings
I am about to take the family out on a camping trip. I was given
feedback that I should avoid full flaps with the plane loaded (2515lbs-
95lb of that in baggage area). I had planned to use full flaps, as I am
coming into a airport that is surrounded by hills and hence a steeper
approach will be needed on final. Speaking with a builder this morning I
received solid feedback on why I should use full flaps or a partial
(20-25 degrees) flap setting versus the 15/18 degrees.
I understand the wind requirement for when to and not use the full
flaps, I am interested in feedback about when do others use full flaps
and reasons not to use it.
On the flip side on takeoff- I may use 0 degrees for shorter/ need to
climb over obstacles at end of runway, but the discussion came up about
why not use 15 degrees?
Thoughts on use of flaps on takeoff? any real benefits?
Just looking for what others do and why, not a debate on which is right
or wrong.
Thank you!
Pascal
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Contrarian: I'd leave the EIS box more or less out of sight, off to the right.
The HXr screens will display all the engine data. You can have the EIS flash if
there's no oil pressure after start up, but you will have to look over there.
I'm curious; looks like you're going with a remote transponder but opted not to
go with the remote audio panel or remote com?
Two Garmin boxes are overkill IMHO, but it's your money.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373800#373800
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Do I see just one headset jack at each end? Instead of a pair?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373801#373801
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Takeoff and Full flap landings |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
I'd kindly suggest you exercise caution in whose advice you seek. There is absolutely
no reason not to use full flaps for landing.
Some people do avoid full flaps because their aircraft's CG is too far forward
and they run out of elevator authority in the flare. Better to carry some ballast.
This shouldn't be an issue for you with that much weight in the back.
The -10 has a powerful rudder, and is a good cross wind plane. I would go to partial
flaps only if the winds were so strong that I thought a go-around was likely,
in which case I'd like to have the flaps already at 15-20.
Takeoffs with 15-20 flaps will shorten the ground roll, but also reduce the rate
of climb after lift off.
I presume you've done a weight and balance. With a lot of weight in the baggage
area but not so much elsewhere you may be pretty far aft. Did you check the C.G.
at the landing weight? As you burn gas it will move aft if it was aft to start
with.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373802#373802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Takeoff and Full flap landings |
I use full flaps on landing *all* the time.
I use 1 notch of flaps for takeoff when I'm on grass or short
fields.
Tim
On 5/24/2012 12:18 PM, Pascal wrote:
> I am about to take the family out on a camping trip. I was given
> feedback that I should avoid full flaps with the plane loaded (2515lbs-
> 95lb of that in baggage area). I had planned to use full flaps, as I am
> coming into a airport that is surrounded by hills and hence a steeper
> approach will be needed on final. Speaking with a builder this morning I
> received solid feedback on why I should use full flaps or a partial
> (20-25 degrees) flap setting versus the 15/18 degrees.
> I understand the wind requirement for when to and not use the full
> flaps, I am interested in feedback about when do others use full flaps
> and reasons not to use it.
> On the flip side on takeoff- I may use 0 degrees for shorter/ need to
> climb over obstacles at end of runway, but the discussion came up about
> why not use 15 degrees?
> Thoughts on use of flaps on takeoff? any real benefits?
> Just looking for what others do and why, not a debate on which is right
> or wrong.
> Thank you!
> Pascal
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Takeoff and Full flap landings |
Sometimes people give advice without one asking. It is a certainty at my
airport. Regardless if the advice comes from a friend of a friend whose
brother was an A/P or a experienced pilot, I consider every piece of
"advice" given.
This forum serves as a great jury on what may or may not be a problem. Since
most have flown their planes far more than I have, especially with folks and
cargo aboard, the advice is far more credible for my final decision on how
to fly into a mountainous valley airport.
I use Greg Hale's W&B that he offered up to the group. I have two kids in
the back that along with 95lbs in baggage (three women will do this!)
Differnce in CG is minimal for the 45 minute flight.
Appreciate your feedback!
Pascal
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Turner
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:58 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Takeoff and Full flap landings
I'd kindly suggest you exercise caution in whose advice you seek. There is
absolutely no reason not to use full flaps for landing.
Some people do avoid full flaps because their aircraft's CG is too far
forward and they run out of elevator authority in the flare. Better to carry
some ballast. This shouldn't be an issue for you with that much weight in
the back.
The -10 has a powerful rudder, and is a good cross wind plane. I would go to
partial flaps only if the winds were so strong that I thought a go-around
was likely, in which case I'd like to have the flaps already at 15-20.
Takeoffs with 15-20 flaps will shorten the ground roll, but also reduce the
rate of climb after lift off.
I presume you've done a weight and balance. With a lot of weight in the
baggage area but not so much elsewhere you may be pretty far aft. Did you
check the C.G. at the landing weight? As you burn gas it will move aft if it
was aft to start with.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373802#373802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
Thank you all for your replies.
Here is the thought process behind the panel layout which addresses some of t
he comments.
The system is a dual AHRS, dual magnetometer system. There will be a small b
ackup battery but its a single alternator system. There is a vacuum horizon
in case all electrical power is lost along with a mechanical airspeed and a
ltitude indicators.
The main backup is the second screen with the second AHRS, magnetometer and b
ackup battery. The likelihood that I will have to revert to only the steam
gages is very remote, and if I do, my first thought would be to get out of I
MC , I am not flying an approach with only those instruments if I can help i
t ,in which case the attitude indicator will be the control instrument and a
dequate to keep the plane on a relatively steady heading and altitude. Beca
use of this, the steam gages have tertiary importance, therefore, I placed t
he second screen closer to the left and the two steam gages to the right of t
he second screen. At this location the second screen is also easier to use
and see during normal flight displaying engine instruments maps etc adding t
o situational awareness.
The GRT screens have no on/off switches and cant be shut down without extern
ally removing power to them. I wanted to be able to shut them down individua
lly, therefore, the separate switches. I also wanted to be able to have the
screens shut before startup as thats what GRT recommends although with the b
ackup battery I will probably have the primary one on during startup.
The trim, autopilot and copilot switches on the right are there in case some
thing doesn't feel or look right I can quickly, without thinking, shut all t
hree down and then evaluate the situation. The VPX-Pro I am installing does
not cover all of the possible runway trim failure modes.
There are 5 warning lights and a panel screw next to each other, I will move
the warning lights over the radio stack and center them. That was a brain f
reeze.
I normally dont need to look at the engine monitor but it does have to be mo
unted somewhere. I placed it in an out of the way spot. I had extra room t
here anyway. That reminds me I need to make room for the alternator circuit
braker.
The audio panel has bluetooth capability, and I also have an overhead DVD pl
ayer mounted for the rear seats so I dont need any more stereo equipment.
Small steam gages dont work for my setup because I have found vacuum horizon
s only in the larger size, and most of the reasonably priced altimeters come
with only a single dial with a 100 ft altitude change about a tenth or two o
f an inch movement in the dial. Not enough resolution for my taste.
I dont have dual 430s, whats shown in the figure is dual GTN650s, one of whi
ch I have allready purchased with the second one coming next year.
Hope this explains the logic behind my choices. Again all your inputs are g
reatly appreciated.
Thanks
Niko
Nikolaos Napoli
On May 24, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
> Speaking as one that put a full audio/video system in my plane I say NOOOO
to the stereo. I have since ripped out 7+ pounds of AV equipment and replac
ed with iPad which I then upgraded to iPad2 then the New iPad. Tech changes s
o quickly I suggest you don=99t lock yourself into 1970's stereo equip
ment. I also added a Belkin Bluetooth adapter into my audio panel for ~$60.0
0. Of course several audio panels have BT built in now.
>
> As far as the panel layout goes I personally prefer each display being exa
ctly centered in front of each stick so you can fly from either location as i
f it was designed that way. That would leave room to place all 3 round gauge
s stacked for easier scan (prefer the smaller gauges).
> Also what is going on with the ~5 lights above the PFD? Looks like 5 of on
e style and one of another. No symmetry there as one light is centered betwe
en the PFD and the radio stack. Why? I would either find a way to tighten th
em up so they ended flush right with the PFD or I would center them above th
e radio stack ending flush left & right with the radio stack column.
>
> Are you really installing dual 430W's?
>
> Finally why do you need the engine monitoring at all on your panel? Doesn
=99t that all show up on your GRT's?
>
> Good luck,
> Robin
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:17 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: GRT Panel Layout
>
> After looking at it again, I might move the engine monitoring into the mid
dle as it will be hard to read from the left. I put mine to far down and its
a pain. Also you might add a stereo to the area where the engine monitor wa
s.
>
> From: Bruce Johnson <bruce1hwjohnson(at)yahoo.com>
> To: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com"
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:38 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: GRT Panel Layout
>
> Nice layout, the only change I would make is to move the second screen to t
he right and put the two steam gauges closer to the middle for better visual
for the PIC
>
> From: Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com>
> To: Matronics
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 7:33 AM
> Subject: RV10-List: GRT Panel Layout
>
> Here is my final panel configuration. I should be cutting metal this week
end.
>
> Any comment or thoughts appreciated
>
> Thanks
> Niko
>
> Nikolaos Napoli
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
The remote audio panel being offered is a relatively simple one with no bluetooth
and no marker beacon. I wanted both.
Since I am planning on flying IFR I wanted a backup navigator in case the GTN650
died on me. One option would be to go to a n SL30 which I might go for instead
of the second GTN650 as I have only purchased one of them at this time. During
IFR flying I enter a change in frequency on the radio as its being given
to me, I do not write it down, and for that I want a very simple way to enter
it. I am not sure how a single GTN650 will work for that. I believe to really
get all the remote equipment with the GRT system and make it work well you
need the android tablet. At that point the problem of where to mount it and sunlight
visibility comes in. And here is a look at the numbers, 1200 for remote
com, 4500 for remote Wass gps total 5700. GTN 650 set me back 8100 but for
the extra 2300 I have a vor navigator and can do ILS approaches and also have
a touch screen. It makes the GTN650 look like a pretty good deal to me.
Nikolaos Napoli
On May 24, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> Contrarian: I'd leave the EIS box more or less out of sight, off to the right.
The HXr screens will display all the engine data. You can have the EIS flash
if there's no oil pressure after start up, but you will have to look over there.
>
> I'm curious; looks like you're going with a remote transponder but opted not
to go with the remote audio panel or remote com?
>
> Two Garmin boxes are overkill IMHO, but it's your money.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373800#373800
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com> |
If you are going to have a backup battery that will allow you to keep one of the
GRT screens on during start, then you don't need to have the EIS on the panel,
as you will be able to see all of the engine instruments on the GRT during
start. I mounted my EIS behind the panel on a hinged swing down panel so I have
access to it for programming. Frees up some panel space and once you have the
EIS programmed, you will rarely need to see it again.
The EIS could either be powered from the main buss or from the backup battery so
that it is powered during start, as is the GRT screen.
--------
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
Transition Trainer
New Smyrna Beach, FL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373818#373818
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
Nikolaos,
Have you considered either the new Gemini due out (Last December :-)) inste
ad of your 3 round gauges? The Gemini will probably save you $ and at the s
ame time five you full 6 pack functionality in one location.
Or maybe a Dynon D60 or D100 with its own internal back up battery?
I have the D100 in my -10 as a backup and I like it a lot. I have reserved
a spot as a backup instrument in my 8A for the Gemini. Rumored pricing unde
r $1,300.
Robin
http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/products/Gemini_PFD.html
[Description: Gemini ADI]
http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/EFIS_intro.html
[Description: Dynon D100 EFIS (W Super Bright Screen)]
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos Napoli
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
olin(at)me.com>>
The remote audio panel being offered is a relatively simple one with no blu
etooth and no marker beacon. I wanted both.
Since I am planning on flying IFR I wanted a backup navigator in case the G
TN650 died on me. One option would be to go to a n SL30 which I might go f
or instead of the second GTN650 as I have only purchased one of them at thi
s time. During IFR flying I enter a change in frequency on the radio as it
s being given to me, I do not write it down, and for that I want a very sim
ple way to enter it. I am not sure how a single GTN650 will work for that.
I believe to really get all the remote equipment with the GRT system and
make it work well you need the android tablet. At that point the problem o
f where to mount it and sunlight visibility comes in. And here is a look a
t the numbers, 1200 for remote com, 4500 for remote Wass gps total 5700.
GTN 650 set me back 8100 but for the extra 2300 I have a vor navigator and
can do ILS approaches and also have a touch screen. It makes the GTN650 l
ook like a pretty good deal to me.
Nikolaos Napoli
On May 24, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Bob Turner > wrote:
lto:bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>>
>
> Contrarian: I'd leave the EIS box more or less out of sight, off to the r
ight. The HXr screens will display all the engine data. You can have the EI
S flash if there's no oil pressure after start up, but you will have to loo
k over there.
>
> I'm curious; looks like you're going with a remote transponder but opted
not to go with the remote audio panel or remote com?
>
> Two Garmin boxes are overkill IMHO, but it's your money.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373800#373800
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | NTSB recommendations |
Check you latest EAA email.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/EAB_Study/index.html
The latest study is less about safety than increasing the bureaucracy of the
FAA and extending its control/guidance over experimental aviation. When you
look at the overall trend, the FAA is providing more regulation over fewer
machines. The number of US airline aircraft is probably less than 10000 and
the number of new certified production aircraft are decreasing. The number
of new experimental aircraft licensed annually is increasing; many have
avionics whose capability exceed anything but the major carriers. The FAA
has no control over the military. What are they going to do with their
employees?
Look at the recommendations; a new intrusion of the FAA into the
experimental world. Anytime a report is required, you can bet it will be
either "boiler plate" or revised numerous times and reviewed at multiple
levels; most bureaucratic reviews cover months. The reason many persons fly
experimental is that anytime one wants to "improve" a certified aircraft,
there is the STC. To replace a solid hydraulic line with Stratoflex standard
hose, a one time STC is required. How much paper is involved depends on the
inspector involved. The experimental aircraft manufacturer can simply make
minor improvements while major improvements take the aircraft back through a
modified phase I; logbook entries and possibly a simple report to FAA may be
required.
You can argue that better inspection procedures might improve experimental
aircraft safety. The question is at what cost? Government's approach to most
problems is to "not address the problem individuals" but instead "build a
bigger fence". More rules and regulation might prevent some problems by
driving everyone through a more rigorous regulatory process. It will still
not keep any person from forfeiting their right to contribute to the gene
pool. Every year there are individuals who, in spite of all regulations to
the contrary, kill themselves in aircraft or weather that they are not
qualified to fly. Fortunately almost all of these individuals do to
themselves and their passengers rather than anyone on the ground.
Statistically that is not hard to understand given the vastness of the
country and the size of the aircraft.
You can see the trend also in the EAA; how many articles in Sport Aviation
are written about experimental aircraft or by experimental aircraft
builders? It seems many of the writers are FLYING or AOPA retreads writing
about their experiences in certified aircraft.
As they say in the Middle East " Beware the camel's nose in the tent".
Retired
after a career with four of the largest bureaucracies in the world.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
Yes I did look at the Gemini and I really like it. It looks like a great idea.
The only thing that stops mr from installing it instead is concern for lightning
strike. I have no idea how tolerant of lightning strike all this equipment
is and would hate to be in IMC and have a lightning strike take out my entire
panel. Maybe I am being too conservative, but like most of us I will have
my family in it.
The only conclusion I reached researching the literature is that in a relatively
large cockpit, i e airline, its unlikely that a direct lightning strike will
take the entire instrument panel out. If I could convice myself that lightning
is not a threat, or if I was going to only fly In VMC, then I would go with
the Gemini.
Niko
Nikolaos Napoli
On May 24, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
> Nikolaos,
> Have you considered either the new Gemini due out (Last December :-)) instead
of your 3 round gauges? The Gemini will probably save you $ and at the same time
five you full 6 pack functionality in one location.
> Or maybe a Dynon D60 or D100 with its own internal back up battery?
> I have the D100 in my -10 as a backup and I like it a lot. I have reserved a
spot as a backup instrument in my 8A for the Gemini. Rumored pricing under $1,300.
>
> Robin
>
> http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/products/Gemini_PFD.html
>
>
>
> http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/EFIS_intro.html
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos Napoli
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:12 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
>
>
> The remote audio panel being offered is a relatively simple one with no bluetooth
and no marker beacon. I wanted both.
>
> Since I am planning on flying IFR I wanted a backup navigator in case the GTN650
died on me. One option would be to go to a n SL30 which I might go for instead
of the second GTN650 as I have only purchased one of them at this time.
During IFR flying I enter a change in frequency on the radio as its being given
to me, I do not write it down, and for that I want a very simple way to enter
it. I am not sure how a single GTN650 will work for that. I believe to really
get all the remote equipment with the GRT system and make it work well you
need the android tablet. At that point the problem of where to mount it and
sunlight visibility comes in. And here is a look at the numbers, 1200 for remote
com, 4500 for remote Wass gps total 5700. GTN 650 set me back 8100 but
for the extra 2300 I have a vor navigator and can do ILS approaches and also
have a touch screen. It makes the GTN650 look like a pretty good deal to me.
>
> Nikolaos Napoli
>
> On May 24, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> >
> > Contrarian: I'd leave the EIS box more or less out of sight, off to the right.
The HXr screens will display all the engine data. You can have the EIS flash
if there's no oil pressure after start up, but you will have to look over there.
> >
> > I'm curious; looks like you're going with a remote transponder but opted not
to go with the remote audio panel or remote com?
> >
> > Two Garmin boxes are overkill IMHO, but it's your money.
> >
> > --------
> > Bob Turner
> > RV-10 QB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373800#373800
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ===================
> bsp; - The RV10-List Email Forum -
> nd much much more:
> tronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ===================
> bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> eb Forums!
> .matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================
> bsp; - List Contribution Web Site -
> o:p>
> bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> tronics.com/contribution"> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Mekler" <amekler(at)metrocast.net> |
Check out this from clarity. Ads-b weather/ waas GPS/traffic(tis-B), and
AHRS all in one box.
http://sagetechcorp.com/clarity
think they'll take a trade in on my stratus?
Alan
N668G
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:48 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Stratus update
I just flew to Atlanta & back yesterday with the iPad & Stratus, then flew
up to PA today with it, but had to fly back from PA to NC with a 696 with XM
because the Stratus was needed in another plane. I would have easily given
up the 696 to have the iPad & Stratus combo. I did have coverage the whole
way, so that's a limiting factor of the ads-b in low/no coverage areas, but
I am extremely pleased with it.
I'll do a more detailed write up later from my computer including
screenshots. I did fly through a fair bit of IMC and it was right on, very
helpful and very easy to use.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Takeoff and Full flap landings |
Try doing a touch and go after landing with full flaps. The ten lifts
off like a Harrier!
Dave Leikam
On May 24, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Jae Chang wrote:
> Pascal... sounds like a great trip. my first camping trip in the -10
is high on my todo list!
>
> i can't think of a good reason to avoid full flaps. it lowers my stall
speed by a good margin in all CG configurations, so not sure what is the
harm.
>
> my word of warning is for a half-flaps takeoff. i casually decided to
give this a go one day. i normally do 0 degree takeoffs but this was my
first time at half-flaps. the plane wants to rotate so quickly, that it
caught me by surprise. i was still pushing the throttle in when the
mains left the ground before the nose wheel. i quickly pulled back on
the stick, so no harm done. anyway, i was quite surprised how quickly
everything happened.
>
> next time, i will make sure to add some back elevator trim before
doing a half-flaps takeoff.
>
> Jae
> --
> #40533 RV-10
> First flight 10/19/2011
> Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
>
> On 5/24/2012 10:18 AM, Pascal wrote:
>>
>> I am about to take the family out on a camping trip. I was given
feedback that I should avoid full flaps with the plane loaded (2515lbs-
95lb of that in baggage area). I had planned to use full flaps, as I am
coming into a airport that is surrounded by hills and hence a steeper
approach will be needed on final. Speaking with a builder this morning I
received solid feedback on why I should use full flaps or a partial
(20-25 degrees) flap setting versus the 15/18 degrees.
>> I understand the wind requirement for when to and not use the full
flaps, I am interested in feedback about when do others use full flaps
and reasons not to use it.
>> On the flip side on takeoff- I may use 0 degrees for shorter/ need to
climb over obstacles at end of runway, but the discussion came up about
why not use 15 degrees?
>> Thoughts on use of flaps on takeoff? any real benefits?
>> Just looking for what others do and why, not a debate on which is
right or wrong.
>> Thank you!
>> Pascal
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Clarity ADS-B |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 5/24/2012 8:55 PM, Alan Mekler wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Alan Mekler"
>
> Check out this from clarity. Ads-b weather/ waas GPS/traffic(tis-B), and
> AHRS all in one box.
>
> http://sagetechcorp.com/clarity
>
>
I contacted them earlier today, and they say it will be available
by Oshkosh, and they have a booth there too (#4036).
I am hoping for someone to do a PIREP for me since I am not
positive I will make OSH this year.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
It looks like you spent some time thinking about the 2 GRT displays. I
assume those are the new GRT displays (?).
I have 3 GRT HX displays spread out across the panel with the intent of
the left and right panels being in front of the two pilot positions.
The center one is canted towards the pilot.
I still think having a GRT HX in from of each panel made sense so the
plane can be flow from the right seat (even though it rarely is).
However, I wish the left and center panels were closer together. I find
the distance between them awkward during hood sessions in particular.
In retrospect, putting the two displays right up against each other
would have been ideal. I typically have the PFD and Map split screened
on one, the engine on the other. I guess I didn't expect how important
it was to me to have a full engine screen up at all times. Between
leaning, power management and monitoring temps, I end up keeping a
constant eye on the engine. But of course you always want to see the
PFD and often the map during ops in IMC. Minimizing the distance
between all of these is a good thing relative to one's scan.
For the right seat, having one centered display is more than enough
given the actual use of that screen.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kppg1w0g2k47h66/1%20015.jpg
FWIW,
Bill Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
I have read a lot of threads over the years about panel layouts. If you are expecting
to fly a lot with a copilot, or expect to do a lot of flying from the right
seat, a screen over there can make sense. Other than that it's a waste of
money IMHO. I do quite a bit of right seat flying and look over in front of the
pilot for instruments when needed. In reality, the autopilot does the flying
and I just navigate and monitor the systems, whether right or left seat. When
landing, whether vmc or imc, I take over the autopilot to land only after breaking
out, and then fly by feel and glance at the airspeed & altimeter to verify.
When laying out a panel, I put the stuff closest that I need to touch the most
and look at the most. That puts EFIS w moving map close and GPS/NAV/COM close
at hand. I almost always put radio stack left of center rib, EFIS/PFD left of
that, pilot center. Backup attitude near PFD. Engine monitor on PFD or just to
right of radio stack. I find that I never like flying without my engine info
displayed on the panel. Even though in cruise there are very few changes, I just
feel better having it available without touching/pushing anything. Oh, and
autopilot close at hand is a good idea unless its a hands off unit (controlled
via the EFIS through GPSS/V). When shooting an approach it's the most touched
thing with vectors then coupling.
A plug for the iPad, whether Foreflight or other App, a RAM mount right of center
panel & facing pilot is awesome. I'm amazed how much I use it in flight, vmc
or imc. When in a plane without aRAM mount, I have the copilot hold it facing
me when nearing and flying an approach. I can't get over how nice it is to have
georeferenced plates. The flight cheetah or 696 or any other plate display
I've seen doesn't hold a candle to the iPad. The easy zoom/pan is incredible.
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 May 24, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
> It looks like you spent some time thinking about the 2 GRT displays. I assume
those are the new GRT displays (?).
>
> I have 3 GRT HX displays spread out across the panel with the intent of the
left and right panels being in front of the two pilot positions. The center one
is canted towards the pilot.
>
> I still think having a GRT HX in from of each panel made sense so the plane can
be flow from the right seat (even though it rarely is). However, I wish the
left and center panels were closer together. I find the distance between them
awkward during hood sessions in particular.
>
> In retrospect, putting the two displays right up against each other would have
been ideal. I typically have the PFD and Map split screened on one, the engine
on the other. I guess I didn't expect how important it was to me to have
a full engine screen up at all times. Between leaning, power management and monitoring
temps, I end up keeping a constant eye on the engine. But of course
you always want to see the PFD and often the map during ops in IMC. Minimizing
the distance between all of these is a good thing relative to one's scan.
>
> For the right seat, having one centered display is more than enough given the
actual use of that screen.
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kppg1w0g2k47h66/1%20015.jpg
>
> FWIW,
> Bill Watson
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com> |
Thats pretty close to my thinking on the panel layout. I have also been flying
approaches with the Ipad and its great.
Those are the large 10.4inch HXr screens with one of them right of the center rib
so I don't think a passenger will have any problem flying from that screen.
Notice also that its also similar to the G1000 configuration in the small Cessnas.
They don't have a center stack but they do have a separate control panel
in the middle and relatively wide botton areas in each screen. The screen
viewing area ends up close to the same location.
Now if GRT comes out with a touch sensitive daylight readable screen I might go
to the three large screen configuration with a remote stack which would be ideal
in my mind. We are probably not too far off from such a configuration.
On May 24, 2012, at 11:38 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> I have read a lot of threads over the years about panel layouts. If you are expecting
to fly a lot with a copilot, or expect to do a lot of flying from the
right seat, a screen over there can make sense. Other than that it's a waste
of money IMHO. I do quite a bit of right seat flying and look over in front of
the pilot for instruments when needed. In reality, the autopilot does the flying
and I just navigate and monitor the systems, whether right or left seat. When
landing, whether vmc or imc, I take over the autopilot to land only after
breaking out, and then fly by feel and glance at the airspeed & altimeter to verify.
>
> When laying out a panel, I put the stuff closest that I need to touch the most
and look at the most. That puts EFIS w moving map close and GPS/NAV/COM close
at hand. I almost always put radio stack left of center rib, EFIS/PFD left of
that, pilot center. Backup attitude near PFD. Engine monitor on PFD or just
to right of radio stack. I find that I never like flying without my engine info
displayed on the panel. Even though in cruise there are very few changes, I
just feel better having it available without touching/pushing anything. Oh, and
autopilot close at hand is a good idea unless its a hands off unit (controlled
via the EFIS through GPSS/V). When shooting an approach it's the most touched
thing with vectors then coupling.
>
> A plug for the iPad, whether Foreflight or other App, a RAM mount right of center
panel & facing pilot is awesome. I'm amazed how much I use it in flight,
vmc or imc. When in a plane without aRAM mount, I have the copilot hold it facing
me when nearing and flying an approach. I can't get over how nice it is to
have georeferenced plates. The flight cheetah or 696 or any other plate display
I've seen doesn't hold a candle to the iPad. The easy zoom/pan is incredible.
>
> 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 May 24, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
>>
>> It looks like you spent some time thinking about the 2 GRT displays. I assume
those are the new GRT displays (?).
>>
>> I have 3 GRT HX displays spread out across the panel with the intent of the
left and right panels being in front of the two pilot positions. The center
one is canted towards the pilot.
>>
>> I still think having a GRT HX in from of each panel made sense so the plane
can be flow from the right seat (even though it rarely is). However, I wish the
left and center panels were closer together. I find the distance between them
awkward during hood sessions in particular.
>>
>> In retrospect, putting the two displays right up against each other would have
been ideal. I typically have the PFD and Map split screened on one, the engine
on the other. I guess I didn't expect how important it was to me to have
a full engine screen up at all times. Between leaning, power management and
monitoring temps, I end up keeping a constant eye on the engine. But of course
you always want to see the PFD and often the map during ops in IMC. Minimizing
the distance between all of these is a good thing relative to one's scan.
>>
>> For the right seat, having one centered display is more than enough given the
actual use of that screen.
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kppg1w0g2k47h66/1%20015.jpg
>>
>> FWIW,
>> Bill Watson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thane States" <thane2(at)comporium.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
Just my opinion, but if you are anywhere near lightning, then you are
taking added risk that is unnecessary. Where there is lightning there
is way to much convective activity. I would never put my family in that
scenario. With all those fancy avionics you can avoid WX like that.
Just my 2 cents. Great loking panel, I love my GRT.
Thane
----- Original Message -----
From: Nikolaos Napoli
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
Yes I did look at the Gemini and I really like it. It looks like a
great idea. The only thing that stops mr from installing it instead is
concern for lightning strike. I have no idea how tolerant of lightning
strike all this equipment is and would hate to be in IMC and have a
lightning strike take out my entire panel. Maybe I am being too
conservative, but like most of us I will have my family in it.
The only conclusion I reached researching the literature is that in a
relatively large cockpit, i e airline, its unlikely that a direct
lightning strike will take the entire instrument panel out. If I could
convice myself that lightning is not a threat, or if I was going to only
fly In VMC, then I would go with the Gemini.
Niko
Nikolaos Napoli
On May 24, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Robin Marks
wrote:
Nikolaos,
Have you considered either the new Gemini due out (Last December
:-)) instead of your 3 round gauges? The Gemini will probably save you $
and at the same time five you full 6 pack functionality in one location.
Or maybe a Dynon D60 or D100 with its own internal back up battery?
I have the D100 in my -10 as a backup and I like it a lot. I have
reserved a spot as a backup instrument in my 8A for the Gemini. Rumored
pricing under $1,300.
Robin
http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/products/Gemini_PFD.html
http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/EFIS_intro.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos
Napoli
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:12 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
The remote audio panel being offered is a relatively simple one with
no bluetooth and no marker beacon. I wanted both.
Since I am planning on flying IFR I wanted a backup navigator in
case the GTN650 died on me. One option would be to go to a n SL30 which
I might go for instead of the second GTN650 as I have only purchased one
of them at this time. During IFR flying I enter a change in frequency
on the radio as its being given to me, I do not write it down, and for
that I want a very simple way to enter it. I am not sure how a single
GTN650 will work for that. I believe to really get all the remote
equipment with the GRT system and make it work well you need the android
tablet. At that point the problem of where to mount it and sunlight
visibility comes in. And here is a look at the numbers, 1200 for
remote com, 4500 for remote Wass gps total 5700. GTN 650 set me back
8100 but for the extra 2300 I have a vor navigator and can do ILS
approaches and also have a touch screen. It makes the GTN650 look like
a pretty good deal to me.
Nikolaos Napoli
On May 24, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Bob Turner
wrote:
>
> Contrarian: I'd leave the EIS box more or less out of sight, off
to the right. The HXr screens will display all the engine data. You can
have the EIS flash if there's no oil pressure after start up, but you
will have to look over there.
>
> I'm curious; looks like you're going with a remote transponder but
opted not to go with the remote audio panel or remote com?
>
> Two Garmin boxes are overkill IMHO, but it's your money.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373800#373800
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===================
bsp; - The RV10-List Email Forum -
nd much much more:
tronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
===================
bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
eb Forums!
.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
===================
bsp; - List Contribution Web Site -
o:p>
bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
tronics.com/contribution"> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
05/24/12
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
I guess that depends on how you define "anywhere near". Flying through a thu
nderstorm is not wise, but flying near one is often necessary, especially on
a typical Florida summer day.
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 May 25, 2012, at 8:36 AM, "Thane States" wrote:
> Just my opinion, but if you are anywhere near lightning, then you are taki
ng added risk that is unnecessary. Where there is lightning there is way to
much convective activity. I would never put my family in that scenario. W
ith all those fancy avionics you can avoid WX like that. Just my 2 cents. G
reat loking panel, I love my GRT.
> Thane
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nikolaos Napoli
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:21 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
>
> Yes I did look at the Gemini and I really like it. It looks like a great i
dea. The only thing that stops mr from installing it instead is concern for
lightning strike. I have no idea how tolerant of lightning strike all this
equipment is and would hate to be in IMC and have a lightning strike take o
ut my entire panel. Maybe I am being too conservative, but like most of us
I will have my family in it.
>
> The only conclusion I reached researching the literature is that in a rela
tively large cockpit, i e airline, its unlikely that a direct lightning stri
ke will take the entire instrument panel out. If I could convice myself that
lightning is not a threat, or if I was going to only fly In VMC, then I wou
ld go with the Gemini.
>
> Niko
>
>
> Nikolaos Napoli
>
> On May 24, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
>
>> Nikolaos,
>> Have you considered either the new Gemini due out (Last December :-)) ins
tead of your 3 round gauges? The Gemini will probably save you $ and at the s
ame time five you full 6 pack functionality in one location.
>> Or maybe a Dynon D60 or D100 with its own internal back up battery?
>> I have the D100 in my -10 as a backup and I like it a lot. I have reserve
d a spot as a backup instrument in my 8A for the Gemini. Rumored pricing und
er $1,300.
>> Robin
>> http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/products/Gemini_PFD.html
>>
>> http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/EFIS_intro.html
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server
@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos Napoli
>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:12 PM
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
>> The remote audio panel being offered is a relatively simple one with no b
luetooth and no marker beacon. I wanted both.
>> Since I am planning on flying IFR I wanted a backup navigator in case the
GTN650 died on me. One option would be to go to a n SL30 which I might go f
or instead of the second GTN650 as I have only purchased one of them at this
time. During IFR flying I enter a change in frequency on the radio as its b
eing given to me, I do not write it down, and for that I want a very simple w
ay to enter it. I am not sure how a single GTN650 will work for that. I be
lieve to really get all the remote equipment with the GRT system and make it
work well you need the android tablet. At that point the problem of where t
o mount it and sunlight visibility comes in. And here is a look at the numb
ers, 1200 for remote com, 4500 for remote Wass gps total 5700. GTN 650 se
t me back 8100 but for the extra 2300 I have a vor navigator and can do ILS a
pproaches and also have a touch screen. It makes the GTN650 look like a pre
tty good deal to me.
>> Nikolaos Napoli
>> On May 24, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>> >
>> > Contrarian: I'd leave the EIS box more or less out of sight, off to the
right. The HXr screens will display all the engine data. You can have the E
IS flash if there's no oil pressure after start up, but you will have to loo
k over there.
>> >
>> > I'm curious; looks like you're going with a remote transponder but opte
d not to go with the remote audio panel or remote com?
>> >
>> > Two Garmin boxes are overkill IMHO, but it's your money.
>> >
>> > --------
>> > Bob Turner
>> > RV-10 QB
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Read this topic online here:
>> >
>> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373800#373800
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ===================
>> bsp; - The RV10-List Email Forum -
>> nd much much more:
>> tronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10
-List
>> ===================
>> bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>> eb Forums!
>> .matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ===================
>> bsp; - List Contribution Web Site -
>> o:p>
>> bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> tronics.com/contribution"> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ===================
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
I'd agree with that...it really depends. There are many times in the
summer that you'll get lines of stuff or many splotches scattered,
of popup cells. (Lines are usually worse) I've found that it's
usually best to stay VFR on those days....save the IFR for layers
and for wide areas of rain. So you stay VFR, but you end up
flying surprisingly nice air weaving between all of the buildups.
I am careful not to get where there are clouds overhead, because
then you have no idea what's above you that could fall (hail)
out of the cloud. But I've had many trips where I had to
weave through buildups to get places, and it didn't feel
especially dangerous at all. At the same time, I don't think
lightning would be likely to jump out to where I was either.
But, I think if you're flying IFR through rain clouds, you'd
have more worry about lightning even if it's only mildly
convective, and probably what's more of a concern than lightning
is P-static. You'll be far more likely to be affected by
P-static flying IFR than lighting, because as Thane States states
(fun to say) you probably will be avoiding the convective
stuff as much as possible anyway, and definitely you'll be
staying out of the worrysome convective stuff.
On my screens, I've found Green is usually good, yellow
is usually doable, and with WSI at least, it's been
pretty darn accurate with minimal delay, so easy
to navigate past. Red, is bad (or so I'd think), but I've
never flown through it to find out.
Tim
On 5/25/2012 8:32 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
> I guess that depends on how you define "anywhere near". Flying through a
> thunderstorm is not wise, but flying near one is often necessary,
> especially on a typical Florida summer day.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse(at)itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
> www.mavericklsa.com <http://www.mavericklsa.com>
> C: 352-427-0285
> O: 352-465-4545
> F: 815-377-3694
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 25, 2012, at 8:36 AM, "Thane States" > wrote:
>
>> Just my opinion, but if you are anywhere near lightning, then you are
>> taking added risk that is unnecessary. Where there is lightning there
>> is way to much convective activity. I would never put my family in
>> that scenario. With all those fancy avionics you can avoid WX like
>> that. Just my 2 cents. Great loking panel, I love my GRT.
>> Thane
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Nikolaos Napoli
>> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:21 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
>>
>> Yes I did look at the Gemini and I really like it. It looks like a
>> great idea. The only thing that stops mr from installing it
>> instead is concern for lightning strike. I have no idea how
>> tolerant of lightning strike all this equipment is and would hate
>> to be in IMC and have a lightning strike take out my entire panel.
>> Maybe I am being too conservative, but like most of us I will have
>> my family in it.
>>
>> The only conclusion I reached researching the literature is that
>> in a relatively large cockpit, i e airline, its unlikely that a
>> direct lightning strike will take the entire instrument panel out.
>> If I could convice myself that lightning is not a threat, or if I
>> was going to only fly In VMC, then I would go with the Gemini.
>>
>> Niko
>>
>>
>> Nikolaos Napoli
>>
>> On May 24, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Robin Marks > > wrote:
>>
>>> Nikolaos,
>>>
>>> Have you considered either the new Gemini due out (Last December
>>> :-)) instead of your 3 round gauges? The Gemini will probably
>>> save you $ and at the same time five you full 6 pack
>>> functionality in one location.
>>>
>>> Or maybe a Dynon D60 or D100 with its own internal back up battery?
>>>
>>> I have the D100 in my -10 as a backup and I like it a lot. I have
>>> reserved a spot as a backup instrument in my 8A for the Gemini.
>>> Rumored pricing under $1,300.
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/products/Gemini_PFD.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/EFIS_intro.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>
>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Nikolaos Napoli
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:12 PM
>>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> The remote audio panel being offered is a relatively simple one
>>> with no bluetooth and no marker beacon. I wanted both.
>>>
>>> Since I am planning on flying IFR I wanted a backup navigator in
>>> case the GTN650 died on me. One option would be to go to a n SL30
>>> which I might go for instead of the second GTN650 as I have only
>>> purchased one of them at this time. During IFR flying I enter a
>>> change in frequency on the radio as its being given to me, I do
>>> not write it down, and for that I want a very simple way to enter
>>> it. I am not sure how a single GTN650 will work for that. I
>>> believe to really get all the remote equipment with the GRT
>>> system and make it work well you need the android tablet. At that
>>> point the problem of where to mount it and sunlight visibility
>>> comes in. And here is a look at the numbers, 1200 for remote com,
>>> 4500 for remote Wass gps total 5700. GTN 650 set me back 8100 but
>>> for the extra 2300 I have a vor navigator and can do ILS
>>> approaches and also have a touch screen. It makes the GTN650 look
>>> like a pretty good deal to me.
>>>
>>> Nikolaos Napoli
>>>
>>> On May 24, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Bob Turner >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > Contrarian: I'd leave the EIS box more or less out of sight,
>>> off to the right. The HXr screens will display all the engine
>>> data. You can have the EIS flash if there's no oil pressure after
>>> start up, but you will have to look over there.
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > I'm curious; looks like you're going with a remote transponder
>>> but opted not to go with the remote audio panel or remote com?
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > Two Garmin boxes are overkill IMHO, but it's your money.
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > --------
>>>
>>> > Bob Turner
>>>
>>> > RV-10 QB
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
My point exactly. I actually have seen lightning as much as about 5nm (estimated)
away from the CB clouds when skirting a squall line before, but if you look
at a NEXRAD and Strikes overlay, the strikes are almost exclusively in the red.
I fly through green as often as necessary, yellow to avoid huge detours, and
NEVER red. I don't mind flying through building clouds with tops up to maybe
12,000-15,000 ft or so, but avoid towering cumulous much above that. I also try
to avoid flying under that stuff for the same reasons and because it's usually
pretty bumpy, although sometimes its necessary for takeoff and landing. I
would certainly much sooner go high and pick my way between the tops before going
under to get past a line.
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 May 25, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I'd agree with that...it really depends. There are many times in the
> summer that you'll get lines of stuff or many splotches scattered,
> of popup cells. (Lines are usually worse) I've found that it's
> usually best to stay VFR on those days....save the IFR for layers
> and for wide areas of rain. So you stay VFR, but you end up
> flying surprisingly nice air weaving between all of the buildups.
> I am careful not to get where there are clouds overhead, because
> then you have no idea what's above you that could fall (hail)
> out of the cloud. But I've had many trips where I had to
> weave through buildups to get places, and it didn't feel
> especially dangerous at all. At the same time, I don't think
> lightning would be likely to jump out to where I was either.
>
> But, I think if you're flying IFR through rain clouds, you'd
> have more worry about lightning even if it's only mildly
> convective, and probably what's more of a concern than lightning
> is P-static. You'll be far more likely to be affected by
> P-static flying IFR than lighting, because as Thane States states
> (fun to say) you probably will be avoiding the convective
> stuff as much as possible anyway, and definitely you'll be
> staying out of the worrysome convective stuff.
>
> On my screens, I've found Green is usually good, yellow
> is usually doable, and with WSI at least, it's been
> pretty darn accurate with minimal delay, so easy
> to navigate past. Red, is bad (or so I'd think), but I've
> never flown through it to find out.
>
> Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
This is a great discussion for me since the only weather we ever
really see at home is fog. Since I don't have much T-storm
experience, I was told to give them 20 miles. Is that too
conservative?
Along the same lines, there's a line of reasoning that says that EFIS
should be backed up with spinning gyro instruments. Gyros would
theoretically be less susceptible to a lightning strike or other major
electrical issue. I have a D-10A as my backup, and I'm starting to
wonder about it. We're designing a panel as I type and I'm
considering going with a turn coordinator, airspeed, altimeter, and
wet compass as the mechanical backups. I'm thinking that most of us
did some partial panel training with a failed attitude indicator, and
using the remaining "five-pack" works OK. Not great, but OK, and
maybe the TC will be a little more reliable than an electric attitude
indicator. I haven't had great luck with them.
I'm interested in what you all think about that scheme.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> My point exactly. I actually have seen lightning as much as about 5nm (estimated)
away from the CB clouds when skirting a squall line before, but if you look
at a NEXRAD and Strikes overlay, the strikes are almost exclusively in the
red. I fly through green as often as necessary, yellow to avoid huge detours,
and NEVER red. I don't mind flying through building clouds with tops up to maybe
12,000-15,000 ft or so, but avoid towering cumulous much above that. I also
try to avoid flying under that stuff for the same reasons and because it's usually
pretty bumpy, although sometimes its necessary for takeoff and landing.
I would certainly much sooner go high and pick my way between the tops before
going under to get past a line.
>
> 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 May 25, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd agree with that...it really depends. There are many times in the
>> summer that you'll get lines of stuff or many splotches scattered,
>> of popup cells. (Lines are usually worse) I've found that it's
>> usually best to stay VFR on those days....save the IFR for layers
>> and for wide areas of rain. So you stay VFR, but you end up
>> flying surprisingly nice air weaving between all of the buildups.
>> I am careful not to get where there are clouds overhead, because
>> then you have no idea what's above you that could fall (hail)
>> out of the cloud. But I've had many trips where I had to
>> weave through buildups to get places, and it didn't feel
>> especially dangerous at all. At the same time, I don't think
>> lightning would be likely to jump out to where I was either.
>>
>> But, I think if you're flying IFR through rain clouds, you'd
>> have more worry about lightning even if it's only mildly
>> convective, and probably what's more of a concern than lightning
>> is P-static. You'll be far more likely to be affected by
>> P-static flying IFR than lighting, because as Thane States states
>> (fun to say) you probably will be avoiding the convective
>> stuff as much as possible anyway, and definitely you'll be
>> staying out of the worrysome convective stuff.
>>
>> On my screens, I've found Green is usually good, yellow
>> is usually doable, and with WSI at least, it's been
>> pretty darn accurate with minimal delay, so easy
>> to navigate past. Red, is bad (or so I'd think), but I've
>> never flown through it to find out.
>>
>> Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
Don't know how the EFISs hold up with lightning, however, I did
inadvertently (during an O sh*t moment) short an Odyssey 680 to ground via a
Chelton IDU case with no ill effect. The Cheltons can be installed in
certified aircraft so I believe they have been tested in adverse conditions.
Tim Olsen may know more.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
-->
This is a great discussion for me since the only weather we ever really see
at home is fog. Since I don't have much T-storm experience, I was told to
give them 20 miles. Is that too conservative?
Along the same lines, there's a line of reasoning that says that EFIS should
be backed up with spinning gyro instruments. Gyros would theoretically be
less susceptible to a lightning strike or other major electrical issue. I
have a D-10A as my backup, and I'm starting to wonder about it. We're
designing a panel as I type and I'm considering going with a turn
coordinator, airspeed, altimeter, and wet compass as the mechanical backups.
I'm thinking that most of us did some partial panel training with a failed
attitude indicator, and using the remaining "five-pack" works OK. Not
great, but OK, and maybe the TC will be a little more reliable than an
electric attitude indicator. I haven't had great luck with them.
I'm interested in what you all think about that scheme.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jesse Saint
wrote:
>
> My point exactly. I actually have seen lightning as much as about 5nm
(estimated) away from the CB clouds when skirting a squall line before, but
if you look at a NEXRAD and Strikes overlay, the strikes are almost
exclusively in the red. I fly through green as often as necessary, yellow to
avoid huge detours, and NEVER red. I don't mind flying through building
clouds with tops up to maybe 12,000-15,000 ft or so, but avoid towering
cumulous much above that. I also try to avoid flying under that stuff for
the same reasons and because it's usually pretty bumpy, although sometimes
its necessary for takeoff and landing. I would certainly much sooner go high
and pick my way between the tops before going under to get past a line.
>
> 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 May 25, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd agree with that...it really depends. There are many times in the
>> summer that you'll get lines of stuff or many splotches scattered, of
>> popup cells. (Lines are usually worse) I've found that it's usually
>> best to stay VFR on those days....save the IFR for layers and for
>> wide areas of rain. So you stay VFR, but you end up flying
>> surprisingly nice air weaving between all of the buildups.
>> I am careful not to get where there are clouds overhead, because then
>> you have no idea what's above you that could fall (hail) out of the
>> cloud. But I've had many trips where I had to weave through buildups
>> to get places, and it didn't feel especially dangerous at all. At
>> the same time, I don't think lightning would be likely to jump out to
>> where I was either.
>>
>> But, I think if you're flying IFR through rain clouds, you'd have
>> more worry about lightning even if it's only mildly convective, and
>> probably what's more of a concern than lightning is P-static. You'll
>> be far more likely to be affected by P-static flying IFR than
>> lighting, because as Thane States states (fun to say) you probably
>> will be avoiding the convective stuff as much as possible anyway, and
>> definitely you'll be staying out of the worrysome convective stuff.
>>
>> On my screens, I've found Green is usually good, yellow is usually
>> doable, and with WSI at least, it's been pretty darn accurate with
>> minimal delay, so easy to navigate past. Red, is bad (or so I'd
>> think), but I've never flown through it to find out.
>>
>> Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
I ratcheted though this thought process awhile back and ending up firmly on the
"no spinning gyro" answer.
I started with a very expensive RC Allen electric AI in my 8A. It started to go
south at 200 hours and I had to pull it shortly thereafter. I now have a Dynon
D10A in its place that been flawless for the last 500+ hours. This set the
stage for my choice of a dual SkyView EFIS install (with primary and back up
ADHRS) in the RV-10. Considering my experience and others I have engaged, the
reliability of dual EFIS and dual ADHRS far exceeds that of spinning gyros.
Note however that I have taken steps to mitigate against electrical failure from
taking down both EFIS systems. If you have a single power distribution scheme
and don't want to change it, then vacuum gyros may be the way to go.
Also of note, while the FARs state you must have a "magnetic heading reference",
this has been interpreted by the Washington FSDO office as a wet compass. They
did not wish to justify that policy, but since I wanted them to sign off my
plane I decided not to push the point (and I got the sign off last Wednesday!).
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
-->
This is a great discussion for me since the only weather we ever really see at
home is fog. Since I don't have much T-storm experience, I was told to give them
20 miles. Is that too conservative?
Along the same lines, there's a line of reasoning that says that EFIS should be
backed up with spinning gyro instruments. Gyros would theoretically be less
susceptible to a lightning strike or other major electrical issue. I have a D-10A
as my backup, and I'm starting to wonder about it. We're designing a panel
as I type and I'm considering going with a turn coordinator, airspeed, altimeter,
and wet compass as the mechanical backups. I'm thinking that most of us
did some partial panel training with a failed attitude indicator, and using
the remaining "five-pack" works OK. Not great, but OK, and maybe the TC will
be a little more reliable than an electric attitude indicator. I haven't had
great luck with them.
I'm interested in what you all think about that scheme.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> My point exactly. I actually have seen lightning as much as about 5nm (estimated)
away from the CB clouds when skirting a squall line before, but if you look
at a NEXRAD and Strikes overlay, the strikes are almost exclusively in the
red. I fly through green as often as necessary, yellow to avoid huge detours,
and NEVER red. I don't mind flying through building clouds with tops up to maybe
12,000-15,000 ft or so, but avoid towering cumulous much above that. I also
try to avoid flying under that stuff for the same reasons and because it's usually
pretty bumpy, although sometimes its necessary for takeoff and landing.
I would certainly much sooner go high and pick my way between the tops before
going under to get past a line.
>
> 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 May 25, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd agree with that...it really depends. There are many times in the
>> summer that you'll get lines of stuff or many splotches scattered, of
>> popup cells. (Lines are usually worse) I've found that it's usually
>> best to stay VFR on those days....save the IFR for layers and for
>> wide areas of rain. So you stay VFR, but you end up flying
>> surprisingly nice air weaving between all of the buildups.
>> I am careful not to get where there are clouds overhead, because then
>> you have no idea what's above you that could fall (hail) out of the
>> cloud. But I've had many trips where I had to weave through buildups
>> to get places, and it didn't feel especially dangerous at all. At
>> the same time, I don't think lightning would be likely to jump out to
>> where I was either.
>>
>> But, I think if you're flying IFR through rain clouds, you'd have
>> more worry about lightning even if it's only mildly convective, and
>> probably what's more of a concern than lightning is P-static. You'll
>> be far more likely to be affected by P-static flying IFR than
>> lighting, because as Thane States states (fun to say) you probably
>> will be avoiding the convective stuff as much as possible anyway, and
>> definitely you'll be staying out of the worrysome convective stuff.
>>
>> On my screens, I've found Green is usually good, yellow is usually
>> doable, and with WSI at least, it's been pretty darn accurate with
>> minimal delay, so easy to navigate past. Red, is bad (or so I'd
>> think), but I've never flown through it to find out.
>>
>> Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
Carl,
Congratulations on your sign off.
Do you consider the dedicated back up battery for the Dynon to be part of what
you describe as a " single power distribution scheme"? I have a triple battery
system. Primary & backup for all electronics and then the dedicated back up battery
for my D100. Seems like enough redundancy?
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
-->
I ratcheted though this thought process awhile back and ending up firmly on the
"no spinning gyro" answer.
I started with a very expensive RC Allen electric AI in my 8A. It started to go
south at 200 hours and I had to pull it shortly thereafter. I now have a Dynon
D10A in its place that been flawless for the last 500+ hours. This set the
stage for my choice of a dual SkyView EFIS install (with primary and back up
ADHRS) in the RV-10. Considering my experience and others I have engaged, the
reliability of dual EFIS and dual ADHRS far exceeds that of spinning gyros.
Note however that I have taken steps to mitigate against electrical failure from
taking down both EFIS systems. If you have a single power distribution scheme
and don't want to change it, then vacuum gyros may be the way to go.
Also of note, while the FARs state you must have a "magnetic heading reference",
this has been interpreted by the Washington FSDO office as a wet compass. They
did not wish to justify that policy, but since I wanted them to sign off my
plane I decided not to push the point (and I got the sign off last Wednesday!).
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
-->
This is a great discussion for me since the only weather we ever really see at
home is fog. Since I don't have much T-storm experience, I was told to give them
20 miles. Is that too conservative?
Along the same lines, there's a line of reasoning that says that EFIS should be
backed up with spinning gyro instruments. Gyros would theoretically be less
susceptible to a lightning strike or other major electrical issue. I have a D-10A
as my backup, and I'm starting to wonder about it. We're designing a panel
as I type and I'm considering going with a turn coordinator, airspeed, altimeter,
and wet compass as the mechanical backups. I'm thinking that most of us
did some partial panel training with a failed attitude indicator, and using
the remaining "five-pack" works OK. Not great, but OK, and maybe the TC will
be a little more reliable than an electric attitude indicator. I haven't had
great luck with them.
I'm interested in what you all think about that scheme.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> My point exactly. I actually have seen lightning as much as about 5nm (estimated)
away from the CB clouds when skirting a squall line before, but if you look
at a NEXRAD and Strikes overlay, the strikes are almost exclusively in the
red. I fly through green as often as necessary, yellow to avoid huge detours,
and NEVER red. I don't mind flying through building clouds with tops up to maybe
12,000-15,000 ft or so, but avoid towering cumulous much above that. I also
try to avoid flying under that stuff for the same reasons and because it's usually
pretty bumpy, although sometimes its necessary for takeoff and landing.
I would certainly much sooner go high and pick my way between the tops before
going under to get past a line.
>
> 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 May 25, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd agree with that...it really depends. There are many times in the
>> summer that you'll get lines of stuff or many splotches scattered, of
>> popup cells. (Lines are usually worse) I've found that it's usually
>> best to stay VFR on those days....save the IFR for layers and for
>> wide areas of rain. So you stay VFR, but you end up flying
>> surprisingly nice air weaving between all of the buildups.
>> I am careful not to get where there are clouds overhead, because then
>> you have no idea what's above you that could fall (hail) out of the
>> cloud. But I've had many trips where I had to weave through buildups
>> to get places, and it didn't feel especially dangerous at all. At
>> the same time, I don't think lightning would be likely to jump out to
>> where I was either.
>>
>> But, I think if you're flying IFR through rain clouds, you'd have
>> more worry about lightning even if it's only mildly convective, and
>> probably what's more of a concern than lightning is P-static. You'll
>> be far more likely to be affected by P-static flying IFR than
>> lighting, because as Thane States states (fun to say) you probably
>> will be avoiding the convective stuff as much as possible anyway, and
>> definitely you'll be staying out of the worrysome convective stuff.
>>
>> On my screens, I've found Green is usually good, yellow is usually
>> doable, and with WSI at least, it's been pretty darn accurate with
>> minimal delay, so easy to navigate past. Red, is bad (or so I'd
>> think), but I've never flown through it to find out.
>>
>> Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
I'm no expert but living in the SE, convection, cumulus, and T-storms
are almost daily occurences in the summer somewhere along your trip.
Twenty miles just won't let you get anywhere in this part of the country.
Here in the SE, getting up as high as you can w/o O2 will usually allow
you to fly among the tops. Even if they aren't raining or lightening
(yet), it's best to stay out of them unless you can clearly see what's
going on the other side and if don't mind being bumped around.
Controllers issue deviations freely... especially where and when you
need them most, e.g. JAX center in FL.
For short flights, it's often equally effective to stay below cloud base
and just fly around the rain shafts. But this depends on having a clear
look at the buildups on top of the rain shafts. If it's overcast and
convective (imbedded storms), that just doesn't work whether you stay
below or fly in the clouds. Even with Nexrad, there's no reason to be
flying around or underneath imbedded convective storms in my opinion.
I would say no one purposely goes into a convective storm anymore
including the airlines. But there's a lot of very informed flying
around them these days. I guess the big guys all have radar and Nexrad
and most of us little guys have Nexrad (and before that Cheap Bastard).
It works very well... especially if you stay visual.
Coming home last week I was flying between big buildups north of
Charlotte at 11k. Staying visual forced me towards a waypoint that all
the traffic in the KCLT seemed to be crossing at 11k. Sure enough, it
was on a commonly used STAR. I listened to plane after plane ask for
deviations as they came into the waypoint, but then they'd cross it and
proceed in. I was forced to ask for the same treatment but the
controllers didn't want me crossing the arrival point along with the
airliners, especially at a 90degree angle to the other traffic. I told
them I could stay 3 miles away from it and still get thru the break in
the buildups and that seemed to work for them. Funny thing is that I
never saw another plane during the passage (and my ADS-B was only
showing some of the storm and no traffic at that moment). But I ended
up flying less than a mile away from the buildups as I squeezed thru.
There were occassional flashes and it was clearly raining below them but
they were slow builders with almost no movement and it turned out fine.
For me, the key is staying visual on convective days but I will fly
close to buildups depending on how stuff looks. Sometimes you get
surprised a bit as I did out in AZ recently. Things are bigger,
higher, and faster out there and I still need to calibrate my eyeballs a
bit better for western conditions.
Bill "a thunderstorm is just a grown up thermal having a tantrum" Watson
On 5/25/2012 1:07 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Dave Saylor
>
> This is a great discussion for me since the only weather we ever
> really see at home is fog. Since I don't have much T-storm
> experience, I was told to give them 20 miles. Is that too
> conservative?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
I too have a wet compass; my IFR solution is a Chelton systen EFIS as
primary; a GRT Sport as backup which is powered by either the primary or
esential busses and a Trutrak Digiflite AP (on the primary buss) with its
own internal solid state gyros. Any of three systems can be used to keep te
dirty side down. The AP source can be selected by rotary switch so that the
Cheltons, the GRT or the AP provide flight control.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
-->
I ratcheted though this thought process awhile back and ending up firmly on
the "no spinning gyro" answer.
I started with a very expensive RC Allen electric AI in my 8A. It started
to go south at 200 hours and I had to pull it shortly thereafter. I now
have a Dynon D10A in its place that been flawless for the last 500+ hours.
This set the stage for my choice of a dual SkyView EFIS install (with
primary and back up ADHRS) in the RV-10. Considering my experience and
others I have engaged, the reliability of dual EFIS and dual ADHRS far
exceeds that of spinning gyros.
Note however that I have taken steps to mitigate against electrical failure
from taking down both EFIS systems. If you have a single power distribution
scheme and don't want to change it, then vacuum gyros may be the way to go.
Also of note, while the FARs state you must have a "magnetic heading
reference", this has been interpreted by the Washington FSDO office as a wet
compass. They did not wish to justify that policy, but since I wanted them
to sign off my plane I decided not to push the point (and I got the sign off
last Wednesday!).
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
-->
This is a great discussion for me since the only weather we ever really see
at home is fog. Since I don't have much T-storm experience, I was told to
give them 20 miles. Is that too conservative?
Along the same lines, there's a line of reasoning that says that EFIS should
be backed up with spinning gyro instruments. Gyros would theoretically be
less susceptible to a lightning strike or other major electrical issue. I
have a D-10A as my backup, and I'm starting to wonder about it. We're
designing a panel as I type and I'm considering going with a turn
coordinator, airspeed, altimeter, and wet compass as the mechanical backups.
I'm thinking that most of us did some partial panel training with a failed
attitude indicator, and using the remaining "five-pack" works OK. Not
great, but OK, and maybe the TC will be a little more reliable than an
electric attitude indicator. I haven't had great luck with them.
I'm interested in what you all think about that scheme.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jesse Saint
wrote:
>
> My point exactly. I actually have seen lightning as much as about 5nm
(estimated) away from the CB clouds when skirting a squall line before, but
if you look at a NEXRAD and Strikes overlay, the strikes are almost
exclusively in the red. I fly through green as often as necessary, yellow to
avoid huge detours, and NEVER red. I don't mind flying through building
clouds with tops up to maybe 12,000-15,000 ft or so, but avoid towering
cumulous much above that. I also try to avoid flying under that stuff for
the same reasons and because it's usually pretty bumpy, although sometimes
its necessary for takeoff and landing. I would certainly much sooner go high
and pick my way between the tops before going under to get past a line.
>
> 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 May 25, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd agree with that...it really depends. There are many times in the
>> summer that you'll get lines of stuff or many splotches scattered, of
>> popup cells. (Lines are usually worse) I've found that it's usually
>> best to stay VFR on those days....save the IFR for layers and for
>> wide areas of rain. So you stay VFR, but you end up flying
>> surprisingly nice air weaving between all of the buildups.
>> I am careful not to get where there are clouds overhead, because then
>> you have no idea what's above you that could fall (hail) out of the
>> cloud. But I've had many trips where I had to weave through buildups
>> to get places, and it didn't feel especially dangerous at all. At
>> the same time, I don't think lightning would be likely to jump out to
>> where I was either.
>>
>> But, I think if you're flying IFR through rain clouds, you'd have
>> more worry about lightning even if it's only mildly convective, and
>> probably what's more of a concern than lightning is P-static. You'll
>> be far more likely to be affected by P-static flying IFR than
>> lighting, because as Thane States states (fun to say) you probably
>> will be avoiding the convective stuff as much as possible anyway, and
>> definitely you'll be staying out of the worrysome convective stuff.
>>
>> On my screens, I've found Green is usually good, yellow is usually
>> doable, and with WSI at least, it's been pretty darn accurate with
>> minimal delay, so easy to navigate past. Red, is bad (or so I'd
>> think), but I've never flown through it to find out.
>>
>> Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
I have two Odyssey PC-625 batteries and one 60amp Plane Power alternator. I
am not using the Dynon back up battery as it is redundant in my install.
There are several ways to design a power distribution to guard against a
single failure taking out the whole panel. When doing this, one should
consider not just the individual component reliability, but overall system
reliability. There was a article a few years back in one of the magazines
about a twin engine plane having total electrical failure at night. This
was a standard spam can with two alternators and two batteries. The failure
was a common connection that failed (high resistance contact). A simple
example of this concept is the use of an "Avionics Master" switch. It fails
and you have no panel no matter how many batteries and alternators you have.
For those interested I can send you what I did in Power Point slides off
line.
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, May 25, 2012 2:34 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
Carl,
Congratulations on your sign off.
Do you consider the dedicated back up battery for the Dynon to be part of
what you describe as a " single power distribution scheme"? I have a triple
battery system. Primary & backup for all electronics and then the dedicated
back up battery for my D100. Seems like enough redundancy?
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
-->
I ratcheted though this thought process awhile back and ending up firmly on
the "no spinning gyro" answer.
I started with a very expensive RC Allen electric AI in my 8A. It started
to go south at 200 hours and I had to pull it shortly thereafter. I now
have a Dynon D10A in its place that been flawless for the last 500+ hours.
This set the stage for my choice of a dual SkyView EFIS install (with
primary and back up ADHRS) in the RV-10. Considering my experience and
others I have engaged, the reliability of dual EFIS and dual ADHRS far
exceeds that of spinning gyros.
Note however that I have taken steps to mitigate against electrical failure
from taking down both EFIS systems. If you have a single power distribution
scheme and don't want to change it, then vacuum gyros may be the way to go.
Also of note, while the FARs state you must have a "magnetic heading
reference", this has been interpreted by the Washington FSDO office as a wet
compass. They did not wish to justify that policy, but since I wanted them
to sign off my plane I decided not to push the point (and I got the sign off
last Wednesday!).
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
-->
This is a great discussion for me since the only weather we ever really see
at home is fog. Since I don't have much T-storm experience, I was told to
give them 20 miles. Is that too conservative?
Along the same lines, there's a line of reasoning that says that EFIS should
be backed up with spinning gyro instruments. Gyros would theoretically be
less susceptible to a lightning strike or other major electrical issue. I
have a D-10A as my backup, and I'm starting to wonder about it. We're
designing a panel as I type and I'm considering going with a turn
coordinator, airspeed, altimeter, and wet compass as the mechanical backups.
I'm thinking that most of us did some partial panel training with a failed
attitude indicator, and using the remaining "five-pack" works OK. Not
great, but OK, and maybe the TC will be a little more reliable than an
electric attitude indicator. I haven't had great luck with them.
I'm interested in what you all think about that scheme.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jesse Saint
wrote:
>
> My point exactly. I actually have seen lightning as much as about 5nm
(estimated) away from the CB clouds when skirting a squall line before, but
if you look at a NEXRAD and Strikes overlay, the strikes are almost
exclusively in the red. I fly through green as often as necessary, yellow to
avoid huge detours, and NEVER red. I don't mind flying through building
clouds with tops up to maybe 12,000-15,000 ft or so, but avoid towering
cumulous much above that. I also try to avoid flying under that stuff for
the same reasons and because it's usually pretty bumpy, although sometimes
its necessary for takeoff and landing. I would certainly much sooner go high
and pick my way between the tops before going under to get past a line.
>
> 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 May 25, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd agree with that...it really depends. There are many times in the
>> summer that you'll get lines of stuff or many splotches scattered, of
>> popup cells. (Lines are usually worse) I've found that it's usually
>> best to stay VFR on those days....save the IFR for layers and for
>> wide areas of rain. So you stay VFR, but you end up flying
>> surprisingly nice air weaving between all of the buildups.
>> I am careful not to get where there are clouds overhead, because then
>> you have no idea what's above you that could fall (hail) out of the
>> cloud. But I've had many trips where I had to weave through buildups
>> to get places, and it didn't feel especially dangerous at all. At
>> the same time, I don't think lightning would be likely to jump out to
>> where I was either.
>>
>> But, I think if you're flying IFR through rain clouds, you'd have
>> more worry about lightning even if it's only mildly convective, and
>> probably what's more of a concern than lightning is P-static. You'll
>> be far more likely to be affected by P-static flying IFR than
>> lighting, because as Thane States states (fun to say) you probably
>> will be avoiding the convective stuff as much as possible anyway, and
>> definitely you'll be staying out of the worrysome convective stuff.
>>
>> On my screens, I've found Green is usually good, yellow is usually
>> doable, and with WSI at least, it's been pretty darn accurate with
>> minimal delay, so easy to navigate past. Red, is bad (or so I'd
>> think), but I've never flown through it to find out.
>>
>> Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
I don't think the concerns are so much running out of power as they
are having some kind of other major electrical spasm take out several
screens at once. Lightning and static come to mind, but maybe there's
something else.
In 1000 hours we've had one gyro failure of the Dynon, one internal
power supply failure that blanked the AFS EFIS, an knob failure that
hobbled the AFS, three failures of a 696 that required return to the
factory, and an intermittent failure of our 530W that needed return to
the factory. All these happened at different times and didn't affect
one another. That is, any of these failures wouldn't have been
catastrophic in IMC. But with so many different kinds of failures,
all with plenty of power on board, it just kind of seems like a matter
of time until the blank screens overlap.
What do you guys thinks about staying level with mechanical airspeed,
altitude, compass, and TC? Without an attitude indicator? I don't
recall having too hard a time with that during IFR training, and I'm
far from SuperPilot.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Carl Froehlich
wrote:
>
> I ratcheted though this thought process awhile back and ending up firmly on the
"no spinning gyro" answer.
>
> I started with a very expensive RC Allen electric AI in my 8A. It started to
go south at 200 hours and I had to pull it shortly thereafter. I now have a Dynon
D10A in its place that been flawless for the last 500+ hours. This set the
stage for my choice of a dual SkyView EFIS install (with primary and back up
ADHRS) in the RV-10. Considering my experience and others I have engaged, the
reliability of dual EFIS and dual ADHRS far exceeds that of spinning gyros.
>
> Note however that I have taken steps to mitigate against electrical failure from
taking down both EFIS systems. If you have a single power distribution scheme
and don't want to change it, then vacuum gyros may be the way to go.
>
> Also of note, while the FARs state you must have a "magnetic heading reference",
this has been interpreted by the Washington FSDO office as a wet compass.
They did not wish to justify that policy, but since I wanted them to sign off
my plane I decided not to push the point (and I got the sign off last Wednesday!).
>
> Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 1:07 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
>
> -->
>
> This is a great discussion for me since the only weather we ever really see at
home is fog. Since I don't have much T-storm experience, I was told to give
them 20 miles. Is that too conservative?
>
> Along the same lines, there's a line of reasoning that says that EFIS should
be backed up with spinning gyro instruments. Gyros would theoretically be less
susceptible to a lightning strike or other major electrical issue. I have a D-10A
as my backup, and I'm starting to wonder about it. We're designing a panel
as I type and I'm considering going with a turn coordinator, airspeed, altimeter,
and wet compass as the mechanical backups. I'm thinking that most of us
did some partial panel training with a failed attitude indicator, and using the
remaining "five-pack" works OK. Not great, but OK, and maybe the TC will be
a little more reliable than an electric attitude indicator. I haven't had great
luck with them.
>
> I'm interested in what you all think about that scheme.
>
> Dave Saylor
> 831-750-0284CL
>
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>
>> My point exactly. I actually have seen lightning as much as about 5nm (estimated)
away from the CB clouds when skirting a squall line before, but if you look
at a NEXRAD and Strikes overlay, the strikes are almost exclusively in the
red. I fly through green as often as necessary, yellow to avoid huge detours,
and NEVER red. I don't mind flying through building clouds with tops up to maybe
12,000-15,000 ft or so, but avoid towering cumulous much above that. I also
try to avoid flying under that stuff for the same reasons and because it's usually
pretty bumpy, although sometimes its necessary for takeoff and landing.
I would certainly much sooner go high and pick my way between the tops before
going under to get past a line.
>>
>> 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 May 25, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'd agree with that...it really depends. There are many times in the
>>> summer that you'll get lines of stuff or many splotches scattered, of
>>> popup cells. (Lines are usually worse) I've found that it's usually
>>> best to stay VFR on those days....save the IFR for layers and for
>>> wide areas of rain. So you stay VFR, but you end up flying
>>> surprisingly nice air weaving between all of the buildups.
>>> I am careful not to get where there are clouds overhead, because then
>>> you have no idea what's above you that could fall (hail) out of the
>>> cloud. But I've had many trips where I had to weave through buildups
>>> to get places, and it didn't feel especially dangerous at all. At
>>> the same time, I don't think lightning would be likely to jump out to
>>> where I was either.
>>>
>>> But, I think if you're flying IFR through rain clouds, you'd have
>>> more worry about lightning even if it's only mildly convective, and
>>> probably what's more of a concern than lightning is P-static. You'll
>>> be far more likely to be affected by P-static flying IFR than
>>> lighting, because as Thane States states (fun to say) you probably
>>> will be avoiding the convective stuff as much as possible anyway, and
>>> definitely you'll be staying out of the worrysome convective stuff.
>>>
>>> On my screens, I've found Green is usually good, yellow is usually
>>> doable, and with WSI at least, it's been pretty darn accurate with
>>> minimal delay, so easy to navigate past. Red, is bad (or so I'd
>>> think), but I've never flown through it to find out.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
Well said.
Satellite weather is great for big picture and preflight planning. Picking your
way through is done with on board radar and a strike finder/stormscope,which
of course we don't have in a ten unless someone has installed one. Not many of
us in a ten should be picking our way through I guess.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 25, 2012, at 12:06, "DLM" wrote:
> Back when I flew hard IFR, the thing that was most helpful was the Strikefinder.
Those were the days when some federal judge "found" that digital and analog
technologies were patent infringing. With some effort one was installed and
the aircraft was flown where the lightning strikes were not. Smooth ride even
though the rain was so heavy that water came in the doors. The delay in the Sat
WX processing seems to cause some confusion about where not to fly. Looking
forward to ADS-B install and FAA installation completion. I will still be wary
the delay. Fog is not a problem; usually smooth ride but LIFR conditions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
Another possible solution. If its really bad and you are going, you can
sometimes follow the airlines since they have the equipment. I was setting
in the aircraft at the Cessna factory one stormy night and contacted ICT
approach to go to KICT to spend the night instead of flying to KTUL. As I
talked with the controller I heard him vectoring a B727 toward KTUL at
6000msl. I said. Can I have one of those? Sure! Cleared as filed! I followed
the track of the Boeing to KTUL.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: GRT Panel Layout
I'm no expert but living in the SE, convection, cumulus, and T-storms are
almost daily occurences in the summer somewhere along your trip.
Twenty miles just won't let you get anywhere in this part of the country.
Here in the SE, getting up as high as you can w/o O2 will usually allow you
to fly among the tops. Even if they aren't raining or lightening (yet),
it's best to stay out of them unless you can clearly see what's going on the
other side and if don't mind being bumped around.
Controllers issue deviations freely... especially where and when you need
them most, e.g. JAX center in FL.
For short flights, it's often equally effective to stay below cloud base and
just fly around the rain shafts. But this depends on having a clear look at
the buildups on top of the rain shafts. If it's overcast and convective
(imbedded storms), that just doesn't work whether you stay below or fly in
the clouds. Even with Nexrad, there's no reason to be flying around or
underneath imbedded convective storms in my opinion.
I would say no one purposely goes into a convective storm anymore including
the airlines. But there's a lot of very informed flying around them these
days. I guess the big guys all have radar and Nexrad and most of us little
guys have Nexrad (and before that Cheap Bastard).
It works very well... especially if you stay visual.
Coming home last week I was flying between big buildups north of Charlotte
at 11k. Staying visual forced me towards a waypoint that all the traffic in
the KCLT seemed to be crossing at 11k. Sure enough, it was on a commonly
used STAR. I listened to plane after plane ask for deviations as they came
into the waypoint, but then they'd cross it and proceed in. I was forced to
ask for the same treatment but the controllers didn't want me crossing the
arrival point along with the airliners, especially at a 90degree angle to
the other traffic. I told them I could stay 3 miles away from it and still
get thru the break in the buildups and that seemed to work for them. Funny
thing is that I never saw another plane during the passage (and my ADS-B was
only showing some of the storm and no traffic at that moment). But I ended
up flying less than a mile away from the buildups as I squeezed thru.
There were occassional flashes and it was clearly raining below them but
they were slow builders with almost no movement and it turned out fine.
For me, the key is staying visual on convective days but I will fly close to
buildups depending on how stuff looks. Sometimes you get
surprised a bit as I did out in AZ recently. Things are bigger,
higher, and faster out there and I still need to calibrate my eyeballs a bit
better for western conditions.
Bill "a thunderstorm is just a grown up thermal having a tantrum" Watson
On 5/25/2012 1:07 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Dave
> --> Saylor
>
> This is a great discussion for me since the only weather we ever
> really see at home is fog. Since I don't have much T-storm
> experience, I was told to give them 20 miles. Is that too
> conservative?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | BFR - Things to try |
| From: | Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com> |
I did my third BFR in the -10 this week. After 360 hours there are still
things to be learned. During our ground training work, we discussed
runaway trim and max decent procedures.
Runaway Trim - I don't have anything that can control my trim unit other
than the DPDT switch on the panel. KISS - it's a good thing. But we did
decide to run the trim to the limits during flight to see how fast does it
happen and can the pilot override it. The -10 has a LOT of up elevator
trim authority. Unless you slow WAY down you can't override it. It takes
a while to travel to full UP but I still think it would take a pilot by
surprise if it happened without warning. We never really got to full up
trim. Just way too much pressure needed to keep the nose down. Down trim
is manageable but still will take a pilot by surprise. Having a means to
turn off power to the trim would most likely not happen fast enough. Your
first focus would be on keeping the nose of the airplane where it needs to
be, then trying to figure out what happened. By then the trim would be all
the way to the limit. It was great to try that during the BFR with an
experienced pilot / CFI. Made me really glad I don't have a trim
controller. in short, it's not pretty at all.
Maximum Decent - First, you really need to set this up with some extra AGL
altitude. The scenario was this. You have an emergency and need to get to
the ground (Anywhere, and NOW). What is the fastest decent? Power back
and slow down to max flap speed and deploy full flaps. Push the nose over
to get to top of white arc (86 Knots). VSI was pegged at 3K. I meant to
get the data from the EFIS but have not done that yet. You are coming down
fast with full control. YES the ground is in FULL view. You really have
to push the nose over to get to the 86 knots with full flaps. Get down to
your landing area and ease up on the forward stick to set up your landing.
Try this. Any passengers need to know what you are going to do before you
do it. Not uncomfortable, but you do come down FAST and with full control
for any turns or positioning to the landing area.
Jim C
N312F - 370 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bendix S1200 Mags |
| From: | "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> |
Larry,
Got out to the hangar today and measured my clearance. There is 2.5" from the most
aft part of the mag (not counting the plug wires) to the firewall. I had to
change out the condenser in one mag awhile back. It was not fun, but doable
without pulling the mag.
Jim Berry
N16JB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373943#373943
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BFR - Things to try |
On your decent, try the same setup you described and put the airplane into a
45-60 degree bank to fly a spiral to the ground. When you put it in the ba
nk, you are dropping the vertical component of lift significantly. Now you
're coming down under control and much faster than 3000 fpm.
I haven't tried it in the -10, so you might tip-toe into it. But the more v
ertical lift you can shed the faster you're going to get down.
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
On May 25, 2012, at 5:11 PM, Jim Combs wrote:
> I did my third BFR in the -10 this week. After 360 hours there are still t
hings to be learned. During our ground training work, we discussed runaway t
rim and max decent procedures.
>
> Runaway Trim - I don't have anything that can control my trim unit other t
han the DPDT switch on the panel. KISS - it's a good thing. But we did dec
ide to run the trim to the limits during flight to see how fast does it happ
en and can the pilot override it. The -10 has a LOT of up elevator trim aut
hority. Unless you slow WAY down you can't override it. It takes a while t
o travel to full UP but I still think it would take a pilot by surprise if i
t happened without warning. We never really got to full up trim. Just way t
oo much pressure needed to keep the nose down. Down trim is manageable but s
till will take a pilot by surprise. Having a means to turn off power to the
trim would most likely not happen fast enough. Your first focus would be o
n keeping the nose of the airplane where it needs to be, then trying to figu
re out what happened. By then the trim would be all the way to the limit. I
t was great to try that during the BFR with an experienced pilot / CFI. Mad
e me really glad I don't have a trim controller. in short, it's not pretty a
t all.
>
> Maximum Decent - First, you really need to set this up with some extra AGL
altitude. The scenario was this. You have an emergency and need to get to
the ground (Anywhere, and NOW). What is the fastest decent? Power back an
d slow down to max flap speed and deploy full flaps. Push the nose over to g
et to top of white arc (86 Knots). VSI was pegged at 3K. I meant to get th
e data from the EFIS but have not done that yet. You are coming down fast w
ith full control. YES the ground is in FULL view. You really have to push t
he nose over to get to the 86 knots with full flaps. Get down to your landi
ng area and ease up on the forward stick to set up your landing. Try this.
Any passengers need to know what you are going to do before you do it. Not
uncomfortable, but you do come down FAST and with full control for any turn
s or positioning to the landing area.
>
> Jim C
> N312F - 370 hours
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | BFR - Things to try |
IIRC; the transport aircraft use thrust levers to flight idle, gear down,
pitch down 30 and bank 30-45. I don't think the flaps are lowered to prevent
possible structural overload since the wing is weaker with the flaps
extended. IIRC this was used for medical emergencies as well as
depressurization events depending on location of course. My point is that
flaps should remain up. Power, pitch and bank should be used to control
descent. Prop should be full forward (fine pitch) to act as a big brake.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil Perry
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: BFR - Things to try
On your decent, try the same setup you described and put the airplane into a
45-60 degree bank to fly a spiral to the ground. When you put it in the
bank, you are dropping the vertical component of lift significantly. Now
you're coming down under control and much faster than 3000 fpm.
I haven't tried it in the -10, so you might tip-toe into it. But the more
vertical lift you can shed the faster you're going to get down.
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
On May 25, 2012, at 5:11 PM, Jim Combs wrote:
I did my third BFR in the -10 this week. After 360 hours there are still
things to be learned. During our ground training work, we discussed runaway
trim and max decent procedures.
Runaway Trim - I don't have anything that can control my trim unit other
than the DPDT switch on the panel. KISS - it's a good thing. But we did
decide to run the trim to the limits during flight to see how fast does it
happen and can the pilot override it. The -10 has a LOT of up elevator trim
authority. Unless you slow WAY down you can't override it. It takes a
while to travel to full UP but I still think it would take a pilot by
surprise if it happened without warning. We never really got to full up
trim. Just way too much pressure needed to keep the nose down. Down trim
is manageable but still will take a pilot by surprise. Having a means to
turn off power to the trim would most likely not happen fast enough. Your
first focus would be on keeping the nose of the airplane where it needs to
be, then trying to figure out what happened. By then the trim would be all
the way to the limit. It was great to try that during the BFR with an
experienced pilot / CFI. Made me really glad I don't have a trim
controller. in short, it's not pretty at all.
Maximum Decent - First, you really need to set this up with some extra AGL
altitude. The scenario was this. You have an emergency and need to get to
the ground (Anywhere, and NOW). What is the fastest decent? Power back and
slow down to max flap speed and deploy full flaps. Push the nose over to
get to top of white arc (86 Knots). VSI was pegged at 3K. I meant to get
the data from the EFIS but have not done that yet. You are coming down fast
with full control. YES the ground is in FULL view. You really have to push
the nose over to get to the 86 knots with full flaps. Get down to your
landing area and ease up on the forward stick to set up your landing. Try
this. Any passengers need to know what you are going to do before you do
it. Not uncomfortable, but you do come down FAST and with full control for
any turns or positioning to the landing area.
Jim C
N312F - 370 hours
==================================
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
==================================
cs.com
==================================
matronics.com/contribution
==================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
> Satellite weather is great for big picture and preflight planning. Picking your
way through is done with on board radar and a strike finder/stormscope,which
of course we don't have in a ten unless someone has installed one. Not many
of us in a ten should be picking our way through I guess.
>
I have a different view, though it may be ill informed because I have
flown with neither radar or a strikefinder.
I've found what I'll call "nexrad" weather displays, whether from XM or
ADS-B, to be outstanding tools for picking my way thru storms. To be
clear, I'm not talking about flying in IMC and trying to pick my way
thru soft spots. I am talking about flying IFR but mainly staying
visual when near storms and using the slightly delayed Nexrad images,
along with altitude, to avoid storms and move towards my destination.
This works very well for me in typical spring/summer/fall conditions on
the east coast, particularly the in the south east. It doesn't really
work VFR because it's too difficult to get up over cloud base and too
risky getting trapped above an undercast.
As stated, Nexrad works best in getting the big picture but it also
works quite well in seeing any area of precipitation and can be used
quite effectively in tactical storm avoidance.
At times, Nexrad in the cockpit is superior to radar. I've listened
while the jets were trying to figure out where and how to penetrate a
line when I could see quite clearly on my G396 that an end-around would
work just fine. Radar just can't see around corners. Having said
that, I'm sure based on what I've been told that you can't beat radar in
most situations. I'm also under the impression that the jet crowd now
universally has Nexrad either in the newer panels or on a portable that
they never leave home without.
In FL where the daily buildups can be both big and numerous, the trick
is often just knowing whether to deviate left or right around the next
cloud so you don't get boxed in by 2 or 3 others on the other side.
When I was flying with the elegant pre-396 Cheap Bastard product
(involving an unholy alliance between a Palm pilot, an RF network, VOR
locations, and a rogue server somewhere) it was a revelation for both
the JAX controllers and I when I was able to correctly ask for the best
deviation in my little Maule, "How did you know that, do you have radar
in that thing?". 30 to 45 mins old Nexrad images were worth their
weight in gold when dealing with (Indy) controllers who often don't have
time for vector advice.
Where Nexrad-only may not work well is when closing in on a
destination. If the storms and the clouds go right down to <1000 AGL
like they often do in FL, you may not be able to stay visual while
getting to the airport. A 10 minute old Nexrad image is not the best
tool to penetrate with. Best to go somewhere else and wait it out. If
you can get under it in the clear, then you can use the Nexrad and your
eyeballs to assess the situation and hopefully get to the destination.
If you stay out of the buildups, then it seems to me only 2 things can
really ruin your day; lightning and hail. I know what hail can look
like and I try not to ever see that sight again. Lightning I don't
understand but I feel safer in the air than standing around on the airport.
After several steps forward (Cheap Bastard, XM on the 396, XM on the
GRT) I feel like I've taken a step backwards with ADS-B on the GRT.
When it's there, it's as good as the XM on the GRT. But it's not always
there (out west) and is frustratingly sporadic at the darndest times
(Asheville NC during storms).
Anyway, that's my experience so far,
Bill Watson
:
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BFR - Things to try |
| From: | Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com> |
We tried the prop both full forward and full out. No noticeable difference.
Without the flaps I don't think one would get the decent rate needed. I
will try it with flaps up and compare the descent rates. My CFI was
certain to use full flaps. Apparently this was a procedure used on other
GA aircraft he had flown.
Jim C
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:55 PM, DLM wrote:
> **
> IIRC; the transport aircraft use thrust levers to flight idle, gear down,
> pitch down 30 and bank 30-45. I don't think the flaps are lowered to
> prevent possible structural overload since the wing is weaker with the
> flaps extended. IIRC this was used for medical emergencies as well as
> depressurization events depending on location of course. My point is that
> flaps should remain up. Power, pitch and bank should be used to control
> descent. Prop should be full forward (fine pitch) to act as a big brake.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | BFR - Things to try |
Jim,
Don't you have the Safety Trim in your -10? I think Tim has a write up on t
his and I am sure I am telling you something you already know but the Safet
y Trim prevents the trim from running more than 3 seconds in a row. Additio
nally with the ST you have a switch that will both shut off the trim and al
so make the trim work in reverse in case you lose one trim direction you ca
n reverse the trim to get back to a more natural configuration. I also have
a switch on my panel that completely disengages the co-pilots stick functi
on. I leave the co-pilots stick inactive in all but a few scenarios where I
can confirm the person in the co-pilots seat knows how the stick grip func
tions and has a need to fly the plane.
[Description: J:\Users\Robin_2\Pictures\Airplanes\RV-8A\RV-8A Build Photos\
Safety Trim Switch.jpg]
http://www.tcwtech.com/Safety-Trim-Page.htm
Great tip on the rapid decent
Robin
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Combs
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: BFR - Things to try
We tried the prop both full forward and full out. No noticeable difference
.
Without the flaps I don't think one would get the decent rate needed. I wi
ll try it with flaps up and compare the descent rates. My CFI was certain
to use full flaps. Apparently this was a procedure used on other GA aircra
ft he had flown.
Jim C
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:55 PM, DLM
> wrote:
IIRC; the transport aircraft use thrust levers to flight idle, gear down,
pitch down 30 and bank 30-45. I don't think the flaps are lowered to preven
t possible structural overload since the wing is weaker with the flaps exte
nded. IIRC this was used for medical emergencies as well as depressurizatio
n events depending on location of course. My point is that flaps should rem
ain up. Power, pitch and bank should be used to control descent. Prop shou
ld be full forward (fine pitch) to act as a big brake.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BFR - Things to try |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
I have pull-able CB's, side by side and well marked, for the trim and autopilot.
The CB's are over my right knee, easy to reach with my right hand.
I also did not put a trim switch on the right stick. Flying from the right I use
a panel mounted switch. I also use the Trio autopilot's trim function even when
hand flying, for fine adjustments. The down side is that if I have a trim
runaway I have to pull both CB's (which is why they are placed side by side) and
then figure out where the problem is. I wrote a POH and these breakers are
prominently mentioned.
Years ago, the "power off steep spiral descent to a landing" was a required commercial
pilot maneuver. It was certainly more useful than lazy eights!
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373975#373975
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
For the VFR vs IFR (but in VMC) debate, don't forget the third option: file IFR
and if the controller won't allow your requested deviation, ask for VFR on top
at 500' above your altitude, assuming you are in VMC. Controller will be happy
because he's relieved of separation responsibility; you'll be happy because
you're still in the system, so if the weather goes below VFR just call them
up to get back to a "real" IFR clearance. This also works to avoid routing you
don't want. Of course you need VMC.
As to the partial panel question: yes I think it can be done, but:
In this emergency have you also lost pitch trim? (no power?). Flying pp without
pitch trim is a handful. I think you'd have to fly the approach at unusually
high speed, whatever indicated speed the plane was trimmed for when power was
lost.
Also, Murphy's law dictates that this failure will happen in turbulence, where
the TC will be rocking back and forth, you'll need to average by eye. I think
the basic roll stability of the -10 is just sufficient for this, I wouldn't want
to be forced to do it in an RV-7.
Does anyone know the current draw of a typical turn coordinator? Is it feasible
to run it off a small backup battery for, say, two hours?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373984#373984
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Clarity ADS-B |
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com> |
Looks like they are coming out with a miniature transponder also.
On May 24, 2012, at 9:01 PM, Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> On 5/24/2012 8:55 PM, Alan Mekler wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Alan Mekler"
>>
>> Check out this from clarity. Ads-b weather/ waas GPS/traffic(tis-B), and
>> AHRS all in one box.
>>
>> http://sagetechcorp.com/clarity
>>
>>
>
>
> I contacted them earlier today, and they say it will be available by Oshkosh,
and they have a booth there too (#4036).
>
> I am hoping for someone to do a PIREP for me since I am not positive I will
make OSH this year.
>
> -Dj
>
> --
> Dj Merrill - N1JOV
> Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
> Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BFR - Things to try |
| From: | Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com> |
Robin,
No I don't have the safety trim. I will check that out.
Thanks, Jim C
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
> Jim,****
>
> Don't you have the Safety Trim in your -10? I think Tim has a write up on
> this and I am sure I am telling you something you already know but the
> Safety Trim prevents the trim from running more than 3 seconds in a row.
> Additionally with the ST you have a switch that will both shut off the trim
> and also make the trim work in reverse in case you lose one trim direction
> you can reverse the trim to get back to a more natural configuration. I
> also have a switch on my panel that completely disengages the co-pilots
> stick function. I leave the co-pilots stick inactive in all but a few
> scenarios where I can confirm the person in the co-pilots seat knows how
> the stick grip functions and has a need to fly the plane.****
>
> [image: Description: J:\Users\Robin_2\Pictures\Airplanes\RV-8A\RV-8A Build
> Photos\Safety Trim Switch.jpg]****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.tcwtech.com/Safety-Trim-Page.htm ****
>
> ** **
>
> Great tip on the rapid decent****
>
> ** **
>
> Robin ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jim Combs
> *Sent:* Friday, May 25, 2012 5:07 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: BFR - Things to try****
>
> ** **
>
> We tried the prop both full forward and full out. No noticeable
> difference.
>
> Without the flaps I don't think one would get the decent rate needed. I
> will try it with flaps up and compare the descent rates. My CFI was
> certain to use full flaps. Apparently this was a procedure used on other
> GA aircraft he had flown.
>
> Jim C****
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:55 PM, DLM wrote:****
>
> IIRC; the transport aircraft use thrust levers to flight idle, gear down,
> pitch down 30 and bank 30-45. I don't think the flaps are lowered to
> prevent possible structural overload since the wing is weaker with the
> flaps extended. IIRC this was used for medical emergencies as well as
> depressurization events depending on location of course. My point is that
> flaps should remain up. Power, pitch and bank should be used to control
> descent. Prop should be full forward (fine pitch) to act as a big brake.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> ==============**** V10-List Email Forum -**** > :p> /o:p> tor?RV10-List">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List**** ==============****bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> **** :p> tp://forums.matronics.com**** ==============**** bsp; - List
> Contribution Web Site -**** e> bsp; -Matt Dralle, List
> Admin.**** bution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution****=============
> ****
>
> * *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BFR - Things to try |
| From: | Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com> |
Robin, I had managed to miss the Safety Trim notes. That will be ordered
soon!
Tim, Great write up.
Jim C
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
> Jim,****
>
> Don't you have the Safety Trim in your -10? I think Tim has a write up on
> this and I am sure I am telling you something you already know but the
> Safety Trim prevents the trim from running more than 3 seconds in a row.
> Additionally with the ST you have a switch that will both shut off the trim
> and also make the trim work in reverse in case you lose one trim direction
> you can reverse the trim to get back to a more natural configuration. I
> also have a switch on my panel that completely disengages the co-pilots
> stick function. I leave the co-pilots stick inactive in all but a few
> scenarios where I can confirm the person in the co-pilots seat knows how
> the stick grip functions and has a need to fly the plane.****
>
> [image: Description: J:\Users\Robin_2\Pictures\Airplanes\RV-8A\RV-8A Build
> Photos\Safety Trim Switch.jpg]****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.tcwtech.com/Safety-Trim-Page.htm ****
>
> ** **
>
> Great tip on the rapid decent****
>
> ** **
>
> Robin ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jim Combs
> *Sent:* Friday, May 25, 2012 5:07 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: BFR - Things to try****
>
> ** **
>
> We tried the prop both full forward and full out. No noticeable
> difference.
>
> Without the flaps I don't think one would get the decent rate needed. I
> will try it with flaps up and compare the descent rates. My CFI was
> certain to use full flaps. Apparently this was a procedure used on other
> GA aircraft he had flown.
>
> Jim C****
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:55 PM, DLM wrote:****
>
> IIRC; the transport aircraft use thrust levers to flight idle, gear down,
> pitch down 30 and bank 30-45. I don't think the flaps are lowered to
> prevent possible structural overload since the wing is weaker with the
> flaps extended. IIRC this was used for medical emergencies as well as
> depressurization events depending on location of course. My point is that
> flaps should remain up. Power, pitch and bank should be used to control
> descent. Prop should be full forward (fine pitch) to act as a big brake.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> ==============**** V10-List Email Forum -**** > :p> /o:p> tor?RV10-List">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List**** ==============****bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> **** :p> tp://forums.matronics.com**** ==============**** bsp; - List
> Contribution Web Site -**** e> bsp; -Matt Dralle, List
> Admin.**** bution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution****=============
> ****
>
> * *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New MGL iEFIS (was GRT Panel Layout) |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 5/25/2012 7:35 AM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:
> Now if GRT comes out with a touch sensitive daylight readable screen I might
go to the three large screen configuration with a remote stack which would be
ideal in my mind. We are probably not too far off from such a configuration.
>
>
You might want to take a look at the MGL iEFIS unit just released:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=86664
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Clarity ADS-B |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 5/26/2012 6:52 AM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Nikolaos Napoli
>
> Looks like they are coming out with a miniature transponder also.
>
>
I asked them about that, too. Here is the whole email:
> 1) With regards to the Clarity Dual SV receiver, would it be possible
> to have two Ipads using WingX communicating with a single Clarity
> receiver?
> I'm picturing having one iPad with a full screen Synthetic Vision
> display, and the other a full screen Terrain display with ADS-B
> weather, traffic, etc.
> *Great **question**DJ! Yes, **the Clarity**'s data stream can be
> received and utilized by multiple iPads/tablets within range of our
> **WiFi **out **signal.*
> 2) What is the cost of the XPS-TR and XPS-TRB transponders and User
> Interface, and when will they be available?
> *We are happy that you found information about our transponders and
> look forward to providing a solution. There are a couple of items that
> continue to delay the availability of a Sagetech solution for manned
> aircraft:*
>
> 1. *Units currently being built are not yet TSO certified. The
> process to achieve FAA certification is underway and is considered
> critical by Sagetech, but a firm schedule for completion has not
> been defined. *
> 2. *We are discussing integration with a number of glass panel
> manufacturers, where the transponder would be controlled from the
> multi-function displays (MFD) interface and a dedicated panel
> interface for the transponder would not be required. These
> discussions will become much more active when we approach
> completion of the TSO process.*
> 3. *We also need to complete the design of small front panel
> control-interface which will fit into a standard panel cut-out -
> which is required for the TSO process. This will also provide an
> option to have the normal transponder controls and a USB port to
> charge and possibly provide ADS-B information to the growing list
> of popular tablet electronic flight bag (EFB) applications.*
>
> *Your feedback on these items and any thoughts on design requirements
> are certainly welcome. We will be happy to keep you updated on our
> progress in completing these tasks. Please let me know if you would
> like any additional information at this time.*
> *Mode C units and Mode S with ADS-B Out units are currently in
> production and being delivered to unmanned aircraft customers.
> Qualification of the transponder variant providing ADS-B In/Out is
> underway, but has been delayed due to resource prioritization.
> Currently, the expectation is to have units for sale in late 2012. *
> 3) Is it possible to use the ADS-B In function of the XPS-TRB with an
> iPad running WingX using something like the Roving Networks WiFi Adapter
> (http://www.rovingnetworks.com/products/RN_370) ?
> *Once we have that transponder option completed and TSO'd (see note
> above), it would support such a configuration. We are also discussing
> a transponder option that would have a WiFi output to provide data to
> tablets in the aircraft -- but no engineering has begun on that
> possible product.*
> 4) Given that that XPS-TRB is a single frequency ADS-B receiver, I
> would most likely go with a combination of the XPS-TR for ADS-B out,
> and the Clarity Dual SV for ADS-B In/AHRS. Is it safe to assume that
> these units will work well together?
> *Once we have that transponder option completed and TSO'd (see note
> above), you are correct. *
> 5) Will you be at EAA Airventure (Oshkosh)?
> *We will most definitely be at Oshkosh for the entire show! Come by
> and visit with us at booth #4036.***
> Jeff Lemley | Product Coordinator
> Sagetech Corporation
> 509-493-2185 ,124 ext
> SagetechCorp.com
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
According to Mid-Continent, turn coordinators run between .28 and .35
amp (brushless vs. ...brushed? brushful?).
I use a TCW power supply to backup my GPS/Comm, Autopilot, and trim.
With any sort of power burble in IMC, I intend to immediately declare
an emergency and get to VMC before I loose Comm and AP. That doesn't
cover the "sudden and complete all-electronics failure", so hopefully
the TC and mechanical instruments would help out there.
Since transmitting is probably my biggest backup power draw, and trim
depends on conditions, so it's pretty hard to say how long the power
would last.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> For the VFR vs IFR (but in VMC) debate, don't forget the third option: file IFR
and if the controller won't allow your requested deviation, ask for VFR on
top at 500' above your altitude, assuming you are in VMC. Controller will be happy
because he's relieved of separation responsibility; you'll be happy because
you're still in the system, so if the weather goes below VFR just call them
up to get back to a "real" IFR clearance. This also works to avoid routing you
don't want. Of course you need VMC.
>
> As to the partial panel question: yes I think it can be done, but:
> In this emergency have you also lost pitch trim? (no power?). Flying pp without
pitch trim is a handful. I think you'd have to fly the approach at unusually
high speed, whatever indicated speed the plane was trimmed for when power was
lost.
> Also, Murphy's law dictates that this failure will happen in turbulence, where
the TC will be rocking back and forth, you'll need to average by eye. I think
the basic roll stability of the -10 is just sufficient for this, I wouldn't
want to be forced to do it in an RV-7.
>
> Does anyone know the current draw of a typical turn coordinator? Is it feasible
to run it off a small backup battery for, say, two hours?
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=373984#373984
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
If there's any question of how long the backup battery will last, I'd skip the
radio call. It might cost you 15 minutes of TC time. Turn off all the radios;
turn on the nav and check position as needed.
I've practiced flying a VOR approach with no radios except a handheld nav/com.
The com makes you feel warm and fuzzy but is useless. The VOR is what you want.
A handheld aviation GPS is even better.
With all the talk about lightning's effect on avionics, I'm more worried about
its effect on me. Inside a metal cage I'm pretty safe. But with the upper half
of my body surrounded by non-conducting fiberglass, I wonder if the lightning's
path of least resistance would't be thru my salt water filled body!
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374032#374032
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | N7ZK First Flight |
All went well. Very stable with plenty of power. I'll fly another week or
so to ring out the engine and them put on the gear leg fairings and wheel
pants.
Wings level and ball centered hands off - can't ask more than that.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N7ZK First Flight |
Congrats Carl.... we've got another 10 here (Dave Moore - Pecan Plantation
in TX) that's being inspected tomorrow with first flight scheduled for Tues
.=0AHow were the temps w/o the pants?=0ADon McDonald=0A =0A=0A_____________
___________________=0A From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>=0A
53 PM=0ASubject: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight=0A =0A=0AAll went well.=C2
- Very stable with plenty of power.=C2- I=99ll fly another week o
r so to ring out the engine and them put on the gear leg fairings and wheel
pants.=0A=C2-=0AWings level and ball centered hands off =93 can
=99t ask more than that.=0A=C2-=0ACarl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | N7ZK First Flight |
500 for the hottest cylinder heads (#1 & #2) on the climb out (120 kts).
All others were below 470 at the peak. All came down when I lowered
the nose to a 130 kt climb. Second hop all were below 460, #1 & #2
again hottest. Oil temp peak at 226. OAT 80 or so. I have air dams in
front of #1 and #2 that I knew were probably too tall. I just finish
trimming them down and will test tomorrow. It took me a couple of tries
on the 8A to get these the right height.
The significant drop in CHTs after the first hour is a hopeful sign that
the engine break in is progressing as expected.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don McDonald
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
Congrats Carl.... we've got another 10 here (Dave Moore - Pecan
Plantation in TX) that's being inspected tomorrow with first flight
scheduled for Tues.
How were the temps w/o the pants?
Don McDonald
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 12:53 PM
Subject: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
All went well. Very stable with plenty of power. I=99ll fly
another week or so to ring out the engine and them put on the gear leg
fairings and wheel pants.
Wings level and ball centered hands off =93 can=99t ask more
than that.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John MacCallum" <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | N7ZK First Flight |
Congratulations Carl,
More Photos please.
Cheers
John MacCallum
Builder #41016
VH-DUU
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich
Sent: Monday, 28 May 2012 3:53 AM
Subject: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
All went well. Very stable with plenty of power. I'll fly another week or
so to ring out the engine and them put on the gear leg fairings and wheel
pants.
Wings level and ball centered hands off - can't ask more than that.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: N7ZK First Flight |
| From: | Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com> |
Congrats! The grin keeps getting bigger, in my experience.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 3:22 PM, John MacCallum
wrote:
> Congratulations Carl,****
>
> More Photos please=85****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers****
>
> John MacCallum****
>
> Builder #41016****
>
> VH-DUU****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Carl Froehlich
> *Sent:* Monday, 28 May 2012 3:53 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com; dmaib(at)me.com
>
> *Subject:* RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight****
>
> ** **
>
> All went well. Very stable with plenty of power. I=92ll fly another wee
k
> or so to ring out the engine and them put on the gear leg fairings and
> wheel pants.****
>
> ** **
>
> Wings level and ball centered hands off ' can=92t ask more than that.**
**
>
> ** **
>
> Carl****
>
> *
>
===========
>
===========
===========
===========
>
> *
>
>
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John J" <n212pj(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | N7ZK First Flight |
Carl, congratulations! What an awesome experience!
John J
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:53 AM
Subject: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
All went well. Very stable with plenty of power. I'll fly another week or
so to ring out the engine and them put on the gear leg fairings and wheel
pants.
Wings level and ball centered hands off - can't ask more than that.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N7ZK First Flight |
Carl, I ca't believe no one else has commented.... those temps are WAY tooo
oooo hot.=C2- The Aluminum starts breaking down at those temps.... Questi
ons:=C2- Do you have a stk Vans cowl?=C2- Plenum?=C2-=C2- =0AI woul
d suggest you put the wheel pants on immediately... that will enable you to
climb and cruise at a higher speed, which will provide more cooling.=C2-
Also, pull back the rpm's and mp a little and keep those temps under 430 i
n climb, and 400 or so in cruise... optimally 360 to 380.=C2- Please keep
us informed.... talked to one of our RV guru's here, and he agrees totally
.=0ADon McDonald=0A =0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Carl Fr
oehlich =0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent:
Sunday, May 27, 2012 2:53 PM=0ASubject: RE: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
=0A =0A=0A500 for the hottest cylinder heads (#1 & #2) on the climb out (1
20 kts).=C2- All others were below 470 at the peak.=C2- All came down w
hen I lowered the nose to a 130 kt climb.=C2- Second hop all were below 4
60, #1 & #2 again hottest.=C2- Oil temp peak at 226.=C2- OAT 80 or so.
=C2- I have air dams in front of #1 and #2 that I knew were probably too
tall.=C2- I just finish trimming them down and will test tomorrow.=C2-
It took me a couple of tries on the 8A to get these the right height.=0A=C2
-=0AThe significant drop in CHTs after the first hour is a hopeful sign t
hat the engine break in is progressing as expected.=0A=C2-=0ACarl=0A=C2
-=0AFrom:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-ser
ver(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don McDonald=0ASent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 2
:25 PM=0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: N7ZK First F
light=0A=C2-=0ACongrats Carl.... we've got another 10 here (Dave Moore -
Pecan Plantation in TX) that's being inspected tomorrow with first flight s
cheduled for Tues.=0AHow were the temps w/o the pants?=0ADon McDonald=0A=C2
-=0AFrom:Carl Froehlich =0ATo: rv10-list@matr
onics.com; dmaib(at)me.com =0ASent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 12:53 PM=0ASubject: R
V10-List: N7ZK First Flight=0A=C2-=0AAll went well.=C2- Very stable wit
h plenty of power.=C2- I=99ll fly another week or so to ring out th
e engine and them put on the gear leg fairings and wheel pants.=0A=C2-=0A
Wings level and ball centered hands off =93 can=99t ask more th
an that.=0A=C2-=0ACarl=0A=C2-=0A=C2-=0A=C2-=0Ahttp://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV10-List=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com=0Ahttp://www.matronic
=====================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: N7ZK First Flight |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
Congrats!! I think most people are removing both cylinder dams. To get my e
ngine cool and to balance properly, that's what I had to do, along with a se
cond set of vents in the lower cowl to increase exit air and of course wheel
pants. They all help!
-Mike Kraus
Sent from my iPhone
On May 27, 2012, at 3:53 PM, "Carl Froehlich" w
rote:
> 500 for the hottest cylinder heads (#1 & #2) on the climb out (120 kts). A
ll others were below 470 at the peak. All came down when I lowered the nose
to a 130 kt climb. Second hop all were below 460, #1 & #2 again hottest. O
il temp peak at 226. OAT 80 or so. I have air dams in front of #1 and #2 t
hat I knew were probably too tall. I just finish trimming them down and wil
l test tomorrow. It took me a couple of tries on the 8A to get these the ri
ght height.
>
> The significant drop in CHTs after the first hour is a hopeful sign that t
he engine break in is progressing as expected.
>
> Carl
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don McDonald
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 2:25 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
>
> Congrats Carl.... we've got another 10 here (Dave Moore - Pecan Plantation
in TX) that's being inspected tomorrow with first flight scheduled for Tues
.
> How were the temps w/o the pants?
> Don McDonald
>
> From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com; dmaib(at)me.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 12:53 PM
> Subject: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
>
> All went well. Very stable with plenty of power. I=99ll fly anothe
r week or so to ring out the engine and them put on the gear leg fairings an
d wheel pants.
>
> Wings level and ball centered hands off =93 can=99t ask more t
han that.
>
> Carl
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: N7ZK First Flight |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Congrats Carl.
I agree with others, 500 is too hot. I know that's Lycoming's red line but most
people think that's just too high. OTOH it will be tough to break in a new engine
and keep the CHT's below 400. But below 430 is certainly doable, and lower
on a cool day or as the engine runs a few hours (shouldn't take more than 3
or 4 to see CHT's drop). Run full rich, as fast as you can (minimize climbs),
stay low where the air is denser, reduce RPM (that doesn't help with break in
anyway).
If there's one piece of advice I'd give to new owners with new engines, it would
be: "Forget the air dams. After break in decide if you want them, and how big".
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374065#374065
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Overhead Air - Bulkhead Penetration |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
What sized holes has everyone been punching through the bulkhead for
overhead air?
I've got the typical dual NACA setup on the sides feeding 2" tubing to the
bulkhead. I'm tempted to drill a hole in the neighborhood of 3/4 to 1" in
size and let the 2" tubing feed air through those smaller holes.
Has anyone done that and how much air are you getting? I'm not a fan of
knocking a 2" hole in a 3" bulkhead.
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick & Vicki Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: N7ZK First Flight |
Congratulations on the first flight. I will have to ditto Don=99s
comments and suggest you use what ever flight technique is necessary to
keep those temps significantly lower while you work out the cooling
issues. My cylinders have never seen more than 430 on the hottest even
at ISA +30F climb conditions out West.
Good luck.
Dick Sipp
N110DV
From: Don McDonald
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
Carl, I ca't believe no one else has commented.... those temps are WAY
tooooooo hot. The Aluminum starts breaking down at those temps....
Questions: Do you have a stk Vans cowl? Plenum?
I would suggest you put the wheel pants on immediately... that will
enable you to climb and cruise at a higher speed, which will provide
more cooling. Also, pull back the rpm's and mp a little and keep those
temps under 430 in climb, and 400 or so in cruise... optimally 360 to
380. Please keep us informed.... talked to one of our RV guru's here,
and he agrees totally.
Don McDonald
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 2:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
500 for the hottest cylinder heads (#1 & #2) on the climb out (120 kts).
All others were below 470 at the peak. All came down when I lowered
the nose to a 130 kt climb. Second hop all were below 460, #1 & #2
again hottest. co Oil temp peak at 226. OAT 80 or so. I have air dams
in front of #1 and #2 that I knew were probably too tall. I just finish
trimming them down and will test tomorrow. It took me a couple of tries
on the 8A to get these the right height.
The significant drop in CHTs after the first hour is a hopeful sign that
the engine break in is progressing as expected.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don McDonald
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
Congrats Carl.... we've got another 10 here (Dave Moore - Pecan
Plantation in TX) that's being inspected tomorrow with first flight
scheduled for Tues.
How were the temps w/o the pants?
Don McDonald
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 12:53 PM
Subject: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
All went well. Very stable with plenty of power. I=99ll fly
another week or so to ring out the engine and them put on the gear leg
fairings and wheel pants.
Wings level and ball centered hands off =93 can=99t ask more
than that.
Carl
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comht
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution
vigator?RV10-List" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.============
===========
forums.matronics.com" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank">http://forums.matr -->
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: N7ZK First Flight |
| From: | Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au> |
Congratulations mate, well done and well worth the blood, sweat and tears of
building. Hopefully I won't be too far behind you!
Safe skies to you my friend.
Warm regards from down under
Patrick Pulis
#40299
Adelaide, South Australia
On 28/05/2012, at 3:23 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wro
te:
> All went well. Very stable with plenty of power. I=99ll fly anothe
r week or so to ring out the engine and them put on the gear leg fairings an
d wheel pants.
>
> Wings level and ball centered hands off =93 can=99t ask more t
han that.
>
> Carl
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Overhead Air - Bulkhead Penetration |
| From: | Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
Must people (and myself) have gone with the standard 2" hole. You can get a
2" mounting bracket from Vans or ACS. The flange part of this bracket als
o serves as a doubler for some reinforcement.
They do make riveting the top skin a little more interesting, but if I could
figure it out, anyone can too.
Have you got Geoff's naca controller valve? You are going to want to have s
ome method to shut down the air flow when it's really cold. Even throttling
back at other times helps with whistling and pressure issues.
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> What sized holes has everyone been punching through the bulkhead for overh
ead air?
>
> I've got the typical dual NACA setup on the sides feeding 2" tubing to the
bulkhead. I'm tempted to drill a hole in the neighborhood of 3/4 to 1" in s
ize and let the 2" tubing feed air through those smaller holes.
>
> Has anyone done that and how much air are you getting? I'm not a fan of k
nocking a 2" hole in a 3" bulkhead.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Painting Screw Survey |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
Just curious what others have done.
Have you painted your screws for things like:
- underwing access covers
-
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Painting Screw Survey |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
Just curious what others have done.
Have you painted your screws for things like:
- underwing access covers
- wing root access fairings
- wing tip attachment
- fiberglass fairings
- etc
On my RV-4, I painted them all and alway fought with them chipping. I'm thinking
about using stainless screws and leaving them natural.
Wondering what others are doing.
-Mike Kraus
RV-10 flying
Going in for paint this week!!
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Painting Screw Survey |
| From: | Marcus Cooper <coop85(at)verizon.net> |
Mike,
I painted everything except for the screws on things I know would be removed
in the future for inspections or work. I use stainless screws in those locations
and think they actually look pretty sharp.
Marcus
On May 28, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Michael Kraus wrote:
Just curious what others have done.
Have you painted your screws for things like:
- underwing access covers
- wing root access fairings
- wing tip attachment
- fiberglass fairings
- etc
On my RV-4, I painted them all and alway fought with them chipping. I'm thinking
about using stainless screws and leaving them natural.
Wondering what others are doing.
-Mike Kraus
RV-10 flying
Going in for paint this week!!
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Seano" <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Painting Screw Survey |
I have all stainless. Not painted. I left all my door hardware and
everything you mentioned below unpainted stainless, even the wingtank
screws, thanks to Robin's suggestions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Kraus" <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 5:12 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Painting Screw Survey
>
>
> Just curious what others have done.
>
> Have you painted your screws for things like:
> - underwing access covers
> - wing root access fairings
> - wing tip attachment
> - fiberglass fairings
> - etc
>
> On my RV-4, I painted them all and alway fought with them chipping. I'm
> thinking about using stainless screws and leaving them natural.
>
> Wondering what others are doing.
>
> -Mike Kraus
> RV-10 flying
> Going in for paint this week!!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | N7ZK First Flight |
Some follow up. Second and third flight this morning. On the second
flight I had the air dams cut down to 1.6=9D at the highest point.
#1 and #2 CHTs were much cooler than yesterday, but still hotter than
the rest. On the third flight I just took the air dams off. Now #1 and
#2 are the coolest, but just a little. #4 and #5 are the hottest but
not much more than the rest.
Max CHT today was 440 after climb out from a quick fuel stop (yes
=93 another overly aggressive climb), oil peaked at 226. At
4500=99 with 24=9D and 2400RPM all cylinders now below 400,
oil at 208. OAT 80+ and humid.
Of note the oil temps are lower than I expected for these conditions. I
did a different cooler mount than Van=99s so perhaps that had an
effect. Next flight I=99ll shut the oil cooler butterfly valve
some to see if that puts more air over the cylinders.
Wheel pants and fairings go on next weekend. I=99m hopeful the
extra speed will further help.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don McDonald
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
Carl, I ca't believe no one else has commented.... those temps are WAY
tooooooo hot. The Aluminum starts breaking down at those temps....
Questions: Do you have a stk Vans cowl? Plenum?
I would suggest you put the wheel pants on immediately... that will
enable you to climb and cruise at a higher speed, which will provide
more cooling. Also, pull back the rpm's and mp a little and keep those
temps under 430 in climb, and 400 or so in cruise... optimally 360 to
380. Please keep us informed.... talked to one of our RV guru's here,
and he agrees totally.
Don McDonald
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 2:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
500 for the hottest cylinder heads (#1 & #2) on the climb out (120 kts).
All others were below 470 at the peak. All came down when I lowered
the nose to a 130 kt climb. Second hop all were below 460, #1 & #2
again hottest. Oil temp peak at 226. OAT 80 or so. I have air dams in
front of #1 and #2 that I knew were probably too tall. I just finish
trimming them down and will test tomorrow. It took me a couple of tries
on the 8A to get these the right height.
The significant drop in CHTs after the first hour is a hopeful sign that
the engine break in is progressing as expected.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don McDonald
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
Congrats Carl.... we've got another 10 here (Dave Moore - Pecan
Plantation in TX) that's being inspected tomorrow with first flight
scheduled for Tues.
How were the temps w/o the pants?
Don McDonald
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 12:53 PM
Subject: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
All went well. Very stable with plenty of power. I=99ll fly
another week or so to ring out the engine and them put on the gear leg
fairings and wheel pants.
Wings level and ball centered hands off =93 can=99t ask more
than that.
Carl
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
vigator?RV10-List" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.============
===========
forums.matronics.com" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank">http://forums.matr -->
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
Email Forum -
Features Navigator to browse
such as List Un/Subscription,
Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: N7ZK First Flight |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
Wheel pants = less drag and more speed. The plane doesn't work as hard an
d flys faster. You will notice some more improvement.
-Mike Kraus
Sent from my iPhone
On May 28, 2012, at 11:16 AM, "Carl Froehlich" w
rote:
> Some follow up. Second and third flight this morning. On the second flig
ht I had the air dams cut down to 1.6=9D at the highest point. #1 and
#2 CHTs were much cooler than yesterday, but still hotter than the rest. O
n the third flight I just took the air dams off. Now #1 and #2 are the cool
est, but just a little. #4 and #5 are the hottest but not much more than th
e rest.
>
> Max CHT today was 440 after climb out from a quick fuel stop (yes =93
another overly aggressive climb), oil peaked at 226. At 4500=99 with
24=9D and 2400RPM all cylinders now below 400, oil at 208. OAT 80+ a
nd humid.
>
> Of note the oil temps are lower than I expected for these conditions. I d
id a different cooler mount than Van=99s so perhaps that had an effect
. Next flight I=99ll shut the oil cooler butterfly valve some to see i
f that puts more air over the cylinders.
>
> Wheel pants and fairings go on next weekend. I=99m hopeful the extr
a speed will further help.
>
> Carl
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don McDonald
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:24 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
>
> Carl, I ca't believe no one else has commented.... those temps are WAY too
ooooo hot. The Aluminum starts breaking down at those temps.... Questions:
Do you have a stk Vans cowl? Plenum?
> I would suggest you put the wheel pants on immediately... that will enable
you to climb and cruise at a higher speed, which will provide more cooling.
Also, pull back the rpm's and mp a little and keep those temps under 430 i
n climb, and 400 or so in cruise... optimally 360 to 380. Please keep us in
formed.... talked to one of our RV guru's here, and he agrees totally.
> Don McDonald
>
> From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 2:53 PM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
>
> 500 for the hottest cylinder heads (#1 & #2) on the climb out (120 kts). A
ll others were below 470 at the peak. All came down when I lowered the nose
to a 130 kt climb. Second hop all were below 460, #1 & #2 again hottest. O
il temp peak at 226. OAT 80 or so. I have air dams in front of #1 and #2 t
hat I knew were probably too tall. I just finish trimming them down and wil
l test tomorrow. It took me a couple of tries on the 8A to get these the ri
ght height.
>
> The significant drop in CHTs after the first hour is a hopeful sign that t
he engine break in is progressing as expected.
>
> Carl
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don McDonald
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 2:25 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
>
> Congrats Carl.... we've got another 10 here (Dave Moore - Pecan Plantation
in TX) that's being inspected tomorrow with first flight scheduled for Tues
.
> How were the temps w/o the pants?
> Don McDonald
>
> From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com; dmaib(at)me.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 12:53 PM
> Subject: RV10-List: N7ZK First Flight
>
> All went well. Very stable with plenty of power. I=99ll fly anothe
r week or so to ring out the engine and them put on the gear leg fairings an
d wheel pants.
>
> Wings level and ball centered hands off =93 can=99t ask more t
han that.
>
> Carl
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> vigator?RV10-List" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.matronics
.=======================
> forums.matronics.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://forums.mat
r -->
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Painting Screw Survey |
I did not over-paint any screws.
I did paint a large number of screws including wing tanks, wing tips,
etc. Just poked holes in some cardboard for the requisite number of
screws and shot them when their color came up.
Used stainless on high use screws like wheel pants and cowling.
From a painting perspective, I removed all the wing tank screws for the
wing painting. It allowed paint down into the seams and seemed to be a
good thing to do for this first time painter.
So far, so good.
Bill Watson
On 5/28/2012 7:12 AM, Michael Kraus wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Michael Kraus
>
> Just curious what others have done.
>
> Have you painted your screws for things like:
> - underwing access covers
> - wing root access fairings
> - wing tip attachment
> - fiberglass fairings
> - etc
>
> On my RV-4, I painted them all and alway fought with them chipping. I'm thinking
about using stainless screws and leaving them natural.
>
> Wondering what others are doing.
>
> -Mike Kraus
> RV-10 flying
> Going in for paint this week!!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Painting Screw Survey |
After 4 years and 2 new RVs I still agree with...myself... S/S screws in all those
spots and unpainted. The only screws that ended up painted on my -10 were
4 rudder trim motor mount screws. When the position indicator fried removing the
screws was a sad day. Chip city... Requiring a repaint.
The unpainted S/S screws look good in my opinion. I can't imagine painting any
of the screws you mentioned because those bits and pieces ARE coming off at some
point.
Robin
Sent from the new iPad
On May 28, 2012, at 6:10 AM, "Seano" wrote:
>
> I have all stainless. Not painted. I left all my door hardware and everything
you mentioned below unpainted stainless, even the wingtank screws, thanks to
Robin's suggestions.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Kraus" <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 5:12 AM
> Subject: RV10-List: Painting Screw Survey
>
>
>>
>> Just curious what others have done.
>>
>> Have you painted your screws for things like:
>> - underwing access covers
>> - wing root access fairings
>> - wing tip attachment
>> - fiberglass fairings
>> - etc
>>
>> On my RV-4, I painted them all and alway fought with them chipping. I'm thinking
about using stainless screws and leaving them natural.
>>
>> Wondering what others are doing.
>>
>> -Mike Kraus
>> RV-10 flying
>> Going in for paint this week!!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pilotdds <pilotdds(at)aol.com> |
Lets all remember those who served and especially those who gave the ultima
te sacrifice so we can enjoy our freedoms.George you are with me whenever I
fly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | IO-540 Slick Mag |
I am in Albany, OR, with a mag problem. Lightspeed works fine but The new Slick
with only 20 hours on it is not sparking. Opened it up and everything looks fine,
points open and close, rotor turns, and the brush looks ok but no spark.
Even got brave and held it when I. Turned it over but no spark. Only good thing
is there are several RV's here and they are a great help. Any ideas would be
appreciated.
Albert Gardner
N991RV
Usually Yuma but OR for a while.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Slick Mag |
| From: | pilotdds <pilotdds(at)aol.com> |
can loan you a bendix in stockton ca can ship tommorrow morn-jim
-----Original Message-----
From: ibspud <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 11:11 am
Subject: RV10-List: IO-540 Slick Mag
I am in Albany, OR, with a mag problem. Lightspeed works fine but The new S
lick
ith only 20 hours on it is not sparking. Opened it up and everything looks
ine, points open and close, rotor turns, and the brush looks ok but no spar
k.
ven got brave and held it when I. Turned it over but no spark. Only good th
ing
s there are several RV's here and they are a great help. Any ideas would be
ppreciated.
lbert Gardner
991RV
sually Yuma but OR for a while.
-= - 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
-========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Slick Mag |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Can you get an ohmmeter across the coil? I don't know what it should read but "infinity"
is wrong.
I think your "hold it in your hand test" will not work, even with a good mag, unless
you have impulse couplings. The standard IO-540 sold by Vans does not have
them, it uses Slick Start instead.
Prior to flying I pulled all the plugs so there was no compression; laid one plug,
hooked up, on a good ground; and then rotated the prop as fast as I could
by hand. With no compression that's pretty fast. But it wasn't fast enough to
generate a spark.
(If the battery dies so much that the Slick start won't run, you can't hand prop
this engine).
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374115#374115
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Slick Mag |
Try disconnecting the P-Lead. Maybe it's shorted to ground somewhere.
Just remember the mag will be hot.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, wrote:
>
> I am in Albany, OR, with a mag problem. Lightspeed works fine but The new Slick
with only 20 hours on it is not sparking. Opened it up and everything looks
fine, points open and close, rotor turns, and the brush looks ok but no spark.
Even got brave and held it when I. Turned it over but no spark. Only good thing
is there are several RV's here and they are a great help. Any ideas would
be appreciated.
> Albert Gardner
> N991RV
> Usually Yuma but OR for a while.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Slick Mag |
| From: | John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com> |
A shorted Ground or P lead can create a lower resistance path. I have seen
two different Vans/Aircraft Spruce switches go "tango uniform".
Johnny Horizon
On May 28, 2012 5:40 PM, "Dave Saylor"
wrote:
> dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
>
> Try disconnecting the P-Lead. Maybe it's shorted to ground somewhere.
> Just remember the mag will be hot.
>
> Dave Saylor
> 831-750-0284 CL
>
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, wrote:
> >
> > I am in Albany, OR, with a mag problem. Lightspeed works fine but The
> new Slick with only 20 hours on it is not sparking. Opened it up and
> everything looks fine, points open and close, rotor turns, and the brush
> looks ok but no spark. Even got brave and held it when I. Turned it over
> but no spark. Only good thing is there are several RV's here and they are a
> great help. Any ideas would be appreciated.
> > Albert Gardner
> > N991RV
> > Usually Yuma but OR for a while.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Slick Mag |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
I have also had a P lead internally shorting to the shield, causing a dead
mag.
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM, John Cox wrote:
> A shorted Ground or P lead can create a lower resistance path. I have
> seen two different Vans/Aircraft Spruce switches go "tango uniform".
>
> Johnny Horizon
> On May 28, 2012 5:40 PM, "Dave Saylor"
> wrote:
>
>> dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
>>
>> Try disconnecting the P-Lead. Maybe it's shorted to ground somewhere.
>> Just remember the mag will be hot.
>>
>> Dave Saylor
>> 831-750-0284 CL
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, wrote:
>> >
>> > I am in Albany, OR, with a mag problem. Lightspeed works fine but The
>> new Slick with only 20 hours on it is not sparking. Opened it up and
>> everything looks fine, points open and close, rotor turns, and the brush
>> looks ok but no spark. Even got brave and held it when I. Turned it over
>> but no spark. Only good thing is there are several RV's here and they are a
>> great help. Any ideas would be appreciated.
>> > Albert Gardner
>> > N991RV
>> > Usually Yuma but OR for a while.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Painting Screw Survey |
| From: | "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I am in the process of painting the fuse, and I have removed all of the screws
that show on the outside. I plan on replacing them with either stainless or
just painting the heads in the case if the door side hinge screws. I plan on
using structural stainless for the fuel tank. I think they look cleaner than painted
over and, I know that one of the tanks will more than likely be removed
based on the weeping rivet stories I hear and possibly other maintenance.
--------
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374127#374127
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Slick Mag |
Early on, I think for my second flight, I went to start the engine and
it would not fire. I had started the engine many times before and had
flown once. Pulled plugs and found no spark when cranking. Pulled the
mag and found the retard contact point terminal had worn through and
shorted to the side of the mag case. This was hard to spot at first and
took very close inspection. I had to bend the wire slightly to see the
shine of the terminal metal through the heat shrink. You can see in the
photo the connector heat shrink on the orange wire touching the case. I
am sure vibration caused it to wear through the heat shrink and grounded
it to the case. I reinstalled the connector with new heat shrink and
bent the tab slightly to clear the case. This is how it came as
installed by Slick.
After the repair she fired right up. So far so good.
G3 ignition does the job of Slick Start.
Dave Leikam
On May 28, 2012, at 1:09 PM,
wrote:
>
> I am in Albany, OR, with a mag problem. Lightspeed works fine but The
new Slick with only 20 hours on it is not sparking. Opened it up and
everything looks fine, points open and close, rotor turns, and the brush
looks ok but no spark. Even got brave and held it when I. Turned it over
but no spark. Only good thing is there are several RV's here and they
are a great help. Any ideas would be appreciated.
> Albert Gardner
> N991RV
> Usually Yuma but OR for a while.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Slick Mag |
The guys here at Albany have been a big help. My mag was a new (20 hours) Slick
6351 impulse coupled, non-retard, left rotation, 20 degree lag. With the mag
out of the plane there was no spark. We found another mag and started swapping
parts eventually swapping out the coil, condenser, and the rotor. Nome of the
parts made my mag work but all of my parts worked fine in another mag. Assuming
we haven't confused ourselves that seems strange. I have located an A&P who
will look at it tomorrow. Many thanks for those of you who have offered advice
and/or offered to send a mag. So far the problem is still with me but tomorrow
is another day. Weather her in IMC in the mornings anyway so maybe I will be
good to go by the time the weather improves tomorrow. Again, thanks everyone.
Albert Gardner
N991RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Have you planned on static wicks? If you are really going to plan on IFR, IMHO
they are a must. I had both comms fail in the clouds prior to installing them
on my current plane. After 19 years, I have never since had an issue. I am
planning on installing them on our current RV-10 project.
I agree with Robin, I went through the failure mode analysis, and the steam gauges
are not really necessary. Use a Dynon D6 or such and free up some space.
It comes with an internal backup battery that will last you well over an hour.
Put it on the left side were you have the AH.
I don't understand your comment regarding trim issues and using the VPX-pro. I
have the VPX setup, and I have the trim running through the VPX. The only issue
I could see would be a total VPX failure, which would kill the trim servo.
The VPX has the stuck switch feature and will allow operation of the trim from
the EFIS.
--------
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374142#374142
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Well, my current plane is well equipped with 1990s and older radio
equipment, without static wicks, is within 15 mph of the RV-10 in cruise,
and has never had static wicks in its 47 years. Has not had any sort of in
flight radio failure in the 14 years I've owned it. So I'm not so sure
about the "must". Maybe if that IFR is in high static producing
conditions. If installed, there needs to be bonding strap at the hinges of
control surfaces and control surfaces need to be balanced with the wick
installed.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:34 AM, bill.peyton wrote:
>
> Have you planned on static wicks? If you are really going to plan on IFR,
> IMHO they are a must. I had both comms fail in the clouds prior to
> installing them on my current plane. After 19 years, I have never since
> had an issue. I am planning on installing them on our current RV-10
> project.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Slick Mag |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
What about the P lead suggestion?Find any shorts?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374168#374168
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Slick Mag |
P-lead is ok, funny thing is that all the components work in another mag. Unfortunately,
that mag won't work on my engine!
Heading over to get it checked out by an a&p this morning now that the world is
back to work. Holiday weekends are not good if you need something done.
Albert Gardner
N991RV
---- Bob Turner wrote:
>
> What about the P lead suggestion?Find any shorts?
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374168#374168
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
Hi Bill
I am not sure about static wicks at this time. I wont be painting the aircraft
until about a year after I start flying which is hopefully this fall so I have
some time to decide.
As far as the VPX, itdoes a great job protecting you from a relay failure as its
not only solid state with the higher reliability but its using the equivalent
of two "relays" in series with both having to commend a trim change for it to
occur.
As far as switch failure, I think the timed activation feature provide by another
vendor is better. The VPX literature states that for switch failure all you
have to do is give opposite trim and the trim motor will stop. Well if the
switch is broken maybe its stuck and wont operate in the opposite direction.
So I would have to realize I have a runway trim then try opposite trim, and if
that doesnt work go for the copilot stick or try to bring up the menues in the
VPX to shut the trim off as the forces on the stick are getting larger and larger.
Doesnt sound like a good plan to me and by the time it gets turned off
I will probably be at max trim condition.I prefer a trim off switch on the panel,
no thinking necessary. I dont want to get to the max trim condition to
begin with, the fact that I can bring the trim back to neutral after the max trim
condition occurs is nice but not sufficient by itself.
Nikolaos Napoli
On May 29, 2012, at 7:34 AM, "bill.peyton" wrote:
>
> Have you planned on static wicks? If you are really going to plan on IFR, IMHO
they are a must. I had both comms fail in the clouds prior to installing them
on my current plane. After 19 years, I have never since had an issue. I
am planning on installing them on our current RV-10 project.
>
> I agree with Robin, I went through the failure mode analysis, and the steam gauges
are not really necessary. Use a Dynon D6 or such and free up some space.
It comes with an internal backup battery that will last you well over an hour.
Put it on the left side were you have the AH.
>
> I don't understand your comment regarding trim issues and using the VPX-pro.
I have the VPX setup, and I have the trim running through the VPX. The only
issue I could see would be a total VPX failure, which would kill the trim servo.
The VPX has the stuck switch feature and will allow operation of the trim
from the EFIS.
>
> --------
> Bill
> WA0SYV
> Aviation Partners, LLC
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374142#374142
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au> |
The risks of lightning strike causing multiple panel failures of glass equipment
in an all-metal plane like an RV are extremely low. Your fuel tank is more likely
to explode, in which case your instruments are the least of your worries!
[Shocked]
The beauty of a properly constructed metal-skinned plane is that the electric charge
in the highly conductive aluminium until it exits back to the atmosphere
an instant later. They might flicker briefly, but having been hit by lightning
multiple times in a big aircraft, I've never seen a glass instrument fail. They
barely skip a heartbeat (more than I can say for myself!)
"Glass" redundancy is the norm for the big jets now. They generally have a backup
PFD, much like the Trutrak "Gemini", which is totally independently powered.
Cheers
--------
Mike
Your political opinions are noted. And ignored.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374218#374218
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Mike,
I agree with your post, except that the -10 is not an "all metal" plane. The top
half - including where my head resides - is non-conducting fiberglass. I would
hope a lightning strike on the cabin top would find the path of least resistance
down the center post. But if the strike is off center it might think my
body is the way to go!
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374220#374220
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Nick,
With the VPX system, when it detects a stuck switch, it disables the mechanical
switch. It then allows trim operation directly from a soft switch
on the EFIS
--------
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374222#374222
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Main gear shudder revisited |
| From: | "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Rick,
The match guys will give you a credit for your new uninstalled wheel
Bill
--------
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374224#374224
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Main gear shudder revisited |
I presume you are talking Matco, and yes, if the wheel is new, never
split, never had a tire on it you can get direct exchange.
On 5/29/2012 5:08 PM, bill.peyton wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "bill.peyton"
>
> Rick,
> The match guys will give you a credit for your new uninstalled wheel
> Bill
>
> --------
> Bill
> WA0SYV
> Aviation Partners, LLC
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374224#374224
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Main gear shudder revisited |
| From: | Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com> |
Guys, so am I farther ahead to just delete the Vans nose wheel when
ordering the finshing kit or does it not matter one way or another?
Thx,
Rick
#40956
Southampton, Ont
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I presume you are talking Matco, and yes, if the wheel is new, never
> split, never had a tire on it you can get direct exchange.
>
> On 5/29/2012 5:08 PM, bill.peyton wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "bill.peyton"
>> >
>>
>> Rick,
>> The match guys will give you a credit for your new uninstalled wheel
>> Bill
>>
>> --------
>> Bill
>> WA0SYV
>> Aviation Partners, LLC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/**viewtopic.php?p=374224#374224>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Main gear shudder revisited |
| From: | "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> |
You can save one shipping charge if you delete Van's wheel and order directly from
Matco.
Jim Berry
N15JB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374231#374231
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Main gear shudder revisited |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Kind of a wash. You pay shipping to send one back and get new correct
wheel(and highly recommend axle) or you get credit for wheel at less than
1:1 if you delete from order. I think the latter is less hassle.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Rick Lark wrote:
> Guys, so am I farther ahead to just delete the Vans nose wheel when
> ordering the finshing kit or does it not matter one way or another?
>
> Thx,
>
> Rick
> #40956
> Southampton, Ont
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>>
>> I presume you are talking Matco, and yes, if the wheel is new, never
>> split, never had a tire on it you can get direct exchange.
>>
>> On 5/29/2012 5:08 PM, bill.peyton wrote:
>>
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "bill.peyton"
>>> >
>>>
>>> Rick,
>>> The match guys will give you a credit for your new uninstalled wheel
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Bill
>>> WA0SYV
>>> Aviation Partners, LLC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/**viewtopic.php?p=374224#374224>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>
>>
>> ====**==============================**=
>> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/**Navigator?RV10-List
>> ====**==============================**=
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ====**==============================**=
>>
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/**contribution
>> ====**==============================**=
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com> |
Hey Bill,
Maybe I am missing something but I dont think the VPX can detect a stuck switch.
I don't believe it has a way to detect if a switch is on because you are commanding
it or its on because its stuck, it also has no timer to detect how long
a switch has been on. It fact I don't think there is a way to detect that
at all. It has no circuitry inside the switch, so all it knows is the switch
is on or off. If you know otherwise please point me to the pertinent section
in the manual.
Thanks
Niko
On May 29, 2012, at 7:56 PM, bill.peyton wrote:
>
> Nick,
> With the VPX system, when it detects a stuck switch, it disables the mechanical
switch. It then allows trim operation directly from a soft switch
> on the EFIS
>
> --------
> Bill
> WA0SYV
> Aviation Partners, LLC
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374222#374222
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com> |
Mike,
Extremely low risk is a relative term.
I don't know how you have reached that conclusion but I don't think its true.
On non-certified equipment its anyones guess as to how tolerant these computers
are to lightning As I have stated earlier, I believe your statement is true
for large cockpits with certified equipment, i.e. airliners, but not true for
the small craft we are flying. There are document cases in RVs where lightning
took out the EFIS, there are also document cases of damage to instruments due
to lightning in many aircraft.
Niko
On May 29, 2012, at 6:34 PM, mmayfield wrote:
>
> The risks of lightning strike causing multiple panel failures of glass equipment
in an all-metal plane like an RV are extremely low. Your fuel tank is more
likely to explode, in which case your instruments are the least of your worries!
[Shocked]
>
> The beauty of a properly constructed metal-skinned plane is that the electric
charge in the highly conductive aluminium until it exits back to the atmosphere
an instant later. They might flicker briefly, but having been hit by lightning
multiple times in a big aircraft, I've never seen a glass instrument fail.
They barely skip a heartbeat (more than I can say for myself!)
>
> "Glass" redundancy is the norm for the big jets now. They generally have a backup
PFD, much like the Trutrak "Gemini", which is totally independently powered.
>
> Cheers
>
> --------
> Mike
>
> Your political opinions are noted. And ignored.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374218#374218
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
If you know anything about the electrical standard DO-160, most of the
non-TSO EFIS meet this DO-160 standard which is the same as TSO
electronics meet. It is a standard as to withstanding voltage spikes and
other system disruptions. I really don't see that the size of the
cockpit has anything to do with it, since the length of electrical path
has little to do with transmission of a lightning discharge.
On 5/29/2012 8:32 PM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Nikolaos Napoli
>
> Mike,
> Extremely low risk is a relative term.
>
> I don't know how you have reached that conclusion but I don't think its true.
On non-certified equipment its anyones guess as to how tolerant these computers
are to lightning As I have stated earlier, I believe your statement is true
for large cockpits with certified equipment, i.e. airliners, but not true for
the small craft we are flying. There are document cases in RVs where lightning
took out the EFIS, there are also document cases of damage to instruments
due to lightning in many aircraft.
>
> Niko
> On May 29, 2012, at 6:34 PM, mmayfield wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "mmayfield"
>>
>> The risks of lightning strike causing multiple panel failures of glass equipment
in an all-metal plane like an RV are extremely low. Your fuel tank is more
likely to explode, in which case your instruments are the least of your worries!
[Shocked]
>>
>> The beauty of a properly constructed metal-skinned plane is that the electric
charge in the highly conductive aluminium until it exits back to the atmosphere
an instant later. They might flicker briefly, but having been hit by lightning
multiple times in a big aircraft, I've never seen a glass instrument fail.
They barely skip a heartbeat (more than I can say for myself!)
>>
>> "Glass" redundancy is the norm for the big jets now. They generally have a backup
PFD, much like the Trutrak "Gemini", which is totally independently powered.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --------
>> Mike
>>
>> Your political opinions are noted. And ignored.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374218#374218
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au> |
napolin(at)me.com wrote:
> Mike,
> Extremely low risk is a relative term.
>
> I don't know how you have reached that conclusion but I don't think its true.
I reached that conclusion because although there may have been RVs hit by lightning
I'm not aware of any which have been "brought down" by it, or where pilots
have been fried by it. This fact leads me to conclude that the chances of a
lightning strike causing your premature demise while you're out flying are very
low. [Wink]
> On non-certified equipment its anyones guess as to how tolerant these computers
are to lightning As I have stated earlier, I believe your statement is true
for large cockpits with certified equipment, i.e. airliners, but not true for
the small craft we are flying.
I disagree. If the uncertified equipment from certain manufacturers is not at least
crafted with fault-tolerant design principles and DO160 in mind, I'd be a
little disappointed and openly wonder why they're inflicting it on the OBAM community
(and why people are buying it).
> There are document cases in RVs where lightning took out the EFIS, there are
also document cases of damage to instruments due to lightning in many aircraft.
I guess my whole point is: how far do you want to take this? I mean, fighter pilots
don't have metal roofs over their heads either. I've known of accidents where
the pilot has been killed by a birdstrike, a "tree" strike, a heart attack,
GLOC, even by the ricochet of their own explosive ordnance, but never a lightning
strike, even though aircraft get hit now and again. From the instrument
perspective, backup basic flight instruments of some form (electronic or otherwise)
are essential for sure, with an independent power supply of course. But
how far do you want to take it?[/quote]
Cheers,
--------
Mike
Your political opinions are noted. And ignored.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374245#374245
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
The VPX does have a timer for how long a switch has been pressed. It will disable
that circuit if a switch is pressed for more than a preset length of time,
at which time you can control the circuit (trim or flaps) from the screen.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
On May 29, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:
>
> Hey Bill,
>
> Maybe I am missing something but I dont think the VPX can detect a stuck switch.
I don't believe it has a way to detect if a switch is on because you are
commanding it or its on because its stuck, it also has no timer to detect how
long a switch has been on. It fact I don't think there is a way to detect that
at all. It has no circuitry inside the switch, so all it knows is the switch
is on or off. If you know otherwise please point me to the pertinent section
in the manual.
>
> Thanks
> Niko
>
>
> On May 29, 2012, at 7:56 PM, bill.peyton wrote:
>
>>
>> Nick,
>> With the VPX system, when it detects a stuck switch, it disables the mechanical
switch. It then allows trim operation directly from a soft switch
>> on the EFIS
>>
>> --------
>> Bill
>> WA0SYV
>> Aviation Partners, LLC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374222#374222
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
Here is a handbook on lightning from NASA and industry. It was specifically geared
for small aircraft.
http://www.niar.twsu.edu/agate/Documents/Lightning/WP3.1-031027-043.pdfIt
An interesting quote from it "it is also important to note that many strike incidents
have been reported where no bona fide thunderstorms have been visually
observed or reported "
As far as RV's being brought down by lightning, not many hours have been accumulated
in rv's with experimental EFIS's and no vacuum artificial horizons in IMC
condition. Until recently, most small aircraft flying in IMC had vacuum systems,
and even certified EFIS systems that are in certified aircraft like Cessnas
with G1000 have vacuum systems. A lightning strike or other phenomena taking
the instrument panel out on these aircraft is not a catastrophic event and
will not get reported. The same event, in an all electric, experimental EFIS
aircraft might be a different story. I do not know how tolerant my EFIS is to
lightening strike, I have no information, therefore, I don't assume, I work
around it.
Another point is that if a person loses control in IMC and crashes due to lightning
strike taking out their all electric panel I don't think it would be reported
as such or one would even find out. There are many loss of control in IMC
accidents that are not explained. So there really isn't much data on this at
all to base a conclusion on.
As for the fiberglass roof on the RV10, I personally have a bunch of wires including
coaxial cable running above my head. Don't know how much it helps but that
small risk would take a lot of effort to mitigate I am not willing to do it.
How far do I want to take this? Simple for me, by installing a vacuum system I
mitigate this risk for relatively small effort and cost. I don't have to figure
out the unknowns. Don't have to assume. Its simple, its been proven over
decades, its cheap, it works when the lights go out. It fits my risk mitigation
criteria. So yes, the risk is low and so is the effort to guard against
it. Its like seat belts, the risk of me getting into an accident while driving
to work today is extremely low, but putting on my seat belt to make the accident
more survivable is not much of an effort.
On May 30, 2012, at 2:32 AM, mmayfield wrote:
>
>
> napolin(at)me.com wrote:
>> Mike,
>> Extremely low risk is a relative term.
>>
>> I don't know how you have reached that conclusion but I don't think its true.
>
> I reached that conclusion because although there may have been RVs hit by lightning
I'm not aware of any which have been "brought down" by it, or where pilots
have been fried by it. This fact leads me to conclude that the chances of
a lightning strike causing your premature demise while you're out flying are very
low. [Wink]
>
>> On non-certified equipment its anyones guess as to how tolerant these computers
are to lightning As I have stated earlier, I believe your statement is true
for large cockpits with certified equipment, i.e. airliners, but not true for
the small craft we are flying.
>
> I disagree. If the uncertified equipment from certain manufacturers is not at
least crafted with fault-tolerant design principles and DO160 in mind, I'd be
a little disappointed and openly wonder why they're inflicting it on the OBAM
community (and why people are buying it).
>
>> There are document cases in RVs where lightning took out the EFIS, there are
also document cases of damage to instruments due to lightning in many aircraft.
>
> I guess my whole point is: how far do you want to take this? I mean, fighter
pilots don't have metal roofs over their heads either. I've known of accidents
where the pilot has been killed by a birdstrike, a "tree" strike, a heart attack,
GLOC, even by the ricochet of their own explosive ordnance, but never a lightning
strike, even though aircraft get hit now and again. From the instrument
perspective, backup basic flight instruments of some form (electronic or otherwise)
are essential for sure, with an independent power supply of course. But
how far do you want to take it?[/quote]
>
> Cheers,
>
> --------
> Mike
>
> Your political opinions are noted. And ignored.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374245#374245
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com> |
I don't think thats true Jesse. I have personally asked him about incorporating
a 3 second limit at Sun-n-Fun. He said that it could be incorporated but he
didn't seem too enthusiastic about it. He said "3 seconds is a long time."
If enough people ask for it he might incorporate it in future revisions of the
software. If you know otherwise please point me to the location where it states
that.
Thanks
On May 30, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> The VPX does have a timer for how long a switch has been pressed. It will disable
that circuit if a switch is pressed for more than a preset length of time,
at which time you can control the circuit (trim or flaps) from the screen.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse(at)saintaviation.com
> C: 352-427-0285
> F: 815-377-3694
>
> On May 29, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey Bill,
>>
>> Maybe I am missing something but I dont think the VPX can detect a stuck switch.
I don't believe it has a way to detect if a switch is on because you are
commanding it or its on because its stuck, it also has no timer to detect how
long a switch has been on. It fact I don't think there is a way to detect that
at all. It has no circuitry inside the switch, so all it knows is the switch
is on or off. If you know otherwise please point me to the pertinent section
in the manual.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Niko
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2012, at 7:56 PM, bill.peyton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nick,
>>> With the VPX system, when it detects a stuck switch, it disables the mechanical
switch. It then allows trim operation directly from a soft switch
>>> on the EFIS
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Bill
>>> WA0SYV
>>> Aviation Partners, LLC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374222#374222
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
You are right. That was a feature that they advertised early in the company, where
the flaps or trim would cancel if pressed for 15 seconds or something like
that. Now, it tells you when the trim or flaps are running, and pushing the opposite
switch for 3 seconds will disable that circuit. They apparently replaced
the feature I was talking about with the above, as well as disabling all trims
and flaps if a switch is active during boot-up. I will request that feature
too, as I thought I had it already.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
On May 30, 2012, at 8:11 AM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:
>
> I don't think thats true Jesse. I have personally asked him about incorporating
a 3 second limit at Sun-n-Fun. He said that it could be incorporated but he
didn't seem too enthusiastic about it. He said "3 seconds is a long time."
If enough people ask for it he might incorporate it in future revisions of the
software. If you know otherwise please point me to the location where it states
that.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On May 30, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
>>
>> The VPX does have a timer for how long a switch has been pressed. It will disable
that circuit if a switch is pressed for more than a preset length of time,
at which time you can control the circuit (trim or flaps) from the screen.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>> C: 352-427-0285
>> F: 815-377-3694
>>
>> On May 29, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hey Bill,
>>>
>>> Maybe I am missing something but I dont think the VPX can detect a stuck switch.
I don't believe it has a way to detect if a switch is on because you are
commanding it or its on because its stuck, it also has no timer to detect how
long a switch has been on. It fact I don't think there is a way to detect that
at all. It has no circuitry inside the switch, so all it knows is the switch
is on or off. If you know otherwise please point me to the pertinent section
in the manual.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Niko
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 29, 2012, at 7:56 PM, bill.peyton wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nick,
>>>> With the VPX system, when it detects a stuck switch, it disables the mechanical
switch. It then allows trim operation directly from a soft switch
>>>> on the EFIS
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> Bill
>>>> WA0SYV
>>>> Aviation Partners, LLC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374222#374222
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Maybe not a lot of initial labor effort, but you are looking at approx.
$5-600 in vacuum system, $700 for vacuum art. horizon, both of which have
500 mean time before failure estimates, at which time you get to spend
another $1000 replacing them, along with more labor to clean the lines of
carbon dust, along with annual filter changes. Not exactly low cost or low
effort in the long run. More money and effort if you elect to use more
reliable wet vacuum pump over a dry pump. Or you could spend about the same
money for a backup EFIS that likely will last 4 times longer (or more) than
the vacuum pump items.
Kelly
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:
>
> How far do I want to take this? Simple for me, by installing a vacuum
> system I mitigate this risk for relatively small effort and cost. I don't
> have to figure out the unknowns. Don't have to assume. Its simple, its
> been proven over decades, its cheap, it works when the lights go out. It
> fits my risk mitigation criteria. So yes, the risk is low and so is the
> effort to guard against it. Its like seat belts, the risk of me getting
> into an accident while driving to work today is extremely low, but putting
> on my seat belt to make the accident more survivable is not much of an
> effort.
>
>
> On May 30, 2012, at 2:32 AM, mmayfield wrote:
>
>
> napolin(at)me.com wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Extremely low risk is a relative term.
>
>
> I don't know how you have reached that conclusion but I don't think its
> true.
>
>
> I reached that conclusion because although there may have been RVs hit by
> lightning I'm not aware of any which have been "brought down" by it, or
> where pilots have been fried by it. This fact leads me to conclude that the
> chances of a lightning strike causing your premature demise while you're
> out flying are very low. [Wink]
>
> On non-certified equipment its anyones guess as to how tolerant these
> computers are to lightning As I have stated earlier, I believe your
> statement is true for large cockpits with certified equipment, i.e.
> airliners, but not true for the small craft we are flying.
>
>
> I disagree. If the uncertified equipment from certain manufacturers is not
> at least crafted with fault-tolerant design principles and DO160 in mind,
> I'd be a little disappointed and openly wonder why they're inflicting it on
> the OBAM community (and why people are buying it).
>
>
> There are document cases in RVs where lightning took out the EFIS, there
> are also document cases of damage to instruments due to lightning in many
> aircraft.
>
>
> I guess my whole point is: how far do you want to take this? I mean,
> fighter pilots don't have metal roofs over their heads either. I've known
> of accidents where the pilot has been killed by a birdstrike, a "tree"
> strike, a heart attack, GLOC, even by the ricochet of their own explosive
> ordnance, but never a lightning strike, even though aircraft get hit now
> and again. From the instrument perspective, backup basic flight instruments
> of some form (electronic or otherwise) are essential for sure, with an
> independent power supply of course. But how far do you want to take
> it?[/quote]
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --------
> Mike
>
> Your political opinions are noted. And ignored.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374245#374245
>
>
> - The RV10-List --> &n========================**
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | curtis groote <cgroote1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | fuel filter inspection |
How often does one actually physically remove the fuel filter for inspection?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel filter inspection |
If you talk to the mfg, they will tell you that it takes so much crap to actually
clog the filter... you take it from there...... also,,,,, I have heard say
that probably the most important "year", is the first year... due to the building
process.... personally, my first inspection revealed only a very small amount
of debris.
Don
________________________________
From: curtis groote <cgroote1(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 9:28 AM
Subject: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
How often does one actually physically remove the fuel filter for inspection?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | fuel filter inspection |
I did it the first two inspections..With about 50 hours or so run
time...first year, there was something to clean out, second year no much.
So I skipped a year..4th year (little over 100 hours run time). Filter was
still clean. In my inspection guide I am changing the frequency to every two
years or > than 100 hours.
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 curtis groote
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:29 AM
Subject: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
How often does one actually physically remove the fuel filter for
inspection?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel filter inspection |
Clean the main fuel filter annually, and more often if you fly much
more than 100 hours/year.
It probably won't show much dirt from year to year, but it's a mistake
to assume the build-up is proportional to time. What you're looking
for is a big slug of something that got into the fuel tank somehow.
That could come from a fuel pump or truck at any time, maybe right
after the last time you cleaned the filter.
Remember, there's a second filter in the fuel servo, too!
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:28 AM, curtis groote wrote:
> How often does one actually physically remove the fuel filter for
> inspection?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Slick Mag |
Made it back to Yuma last night with a repaired mag. I will post details of the
problem as soon as I work it out with the supplier of the problem mag. The aviation
guys at Albany, OR (S67) are some of the best and were quick to help out.
Jay Sluiter-thanks for spending your holiday working with my mag and Larry
Hagmeister, thanks for making it flight worthy.
Albert Gardner
N991RV
Yuma, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel filter inspection |
I took mine apart after 40 hours and found minor debris, really almost
nothing there.
Pascal
From: Don McDonald
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
If you talk to the mfg, they will tell you that it takes so much crap to
actually clog the filter... you take it from there...... also,,,,, I
have heard say that probably the most important "year", is the first
year... due to the building process.... personally, my first inspection
revealed only a very small amount of debris.Don
From: curtis groote <cgroote1(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 9:28 AM
Subject: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
How often does one actually physically remove the fuel filter for
inspection?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | fuel filter inspection |
I suspect a lot depends on how well the builder flushes the tanks prior to
use. I flushed multiple times before use and found a few small grains at 300
hours in the filter ; I also found a couple of aluminum
fragments that clogged the fuel sump drain at about 500 hours..
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene Felker
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 7:59 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
I did it the first two inspections..With about 50 hours or so run
time...first year, there was something to clean out, second year no much.
So I skipped a year..4th year (little over 100 hours run time). Filter was
still clean. In my inspection guide I am changing the frequency to every two
years or > than 100 hours.
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 curtis groote
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:29 AM
Subject: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
How often does one actually physically remove the fuel filter for
inspection?
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel filter inspection |
What is the preferred method of flushing the tanks?
On 5/30/12 11:01 AM, DLM wrote:
> I suspect a lot depends on how well the builder flushes the tanks
> prior to use. I flushed multiple times before use and found a few
> small grains at 300 hours in the filter ; I also found a couple of
> aluminum
> fragments that clogged the fuel sump drainat about 500 hours..
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rene Felker
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2012 7:59 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
>
> I did it the first two inspectionsWith about 50 hours or so run
> time..first year, there was something to clean out, second year no
> much. So I skipped a year.4^th year (little over 100 hours run time).
> Filter was still clean. In my inspection guide I am changing the
> frequency to every two years or > than 100 hours.
>
> 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 *curtis groote
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:29 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
>
> How often does one actually physically remove the fuel filter for
> inspection?
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *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/c
> *
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | fuel filter inspection |
I used half mineral oil and half aviation gas; five gallons sloshed multiple
times into each and drained through the open tank sump hole. Found numerous
bits of proseal from QB tanks. Even that did not get it all; also found
aluminum shavings which caused the fuel sump to stick open and leak. It was
not the O-ring but two small aluminum chips holding the valve partially
open. Recommend getting an additional fuel sump valve and O-rings to carry
along, since you never know when leak will occur and for what reason. I
carry two already O-ringed and fuel lubed to install should a leak occur. It
is pretty tough to change one if you do not have a spare. They are just
swapped on the fly and you lose a few ounces of gas. Have the new valve and
1/2" wrench ready.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Stephens
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
What is the preferred method of flushing the tanks?
On 5/30/12 11:01 AM, DLM wrote:
> I suspect a lot depends on how well the builder flushes the tanks
> prior to use. I flushed multiple times before use and found a few
> small grains at 300 hours in the filter ; I also found a couple of
> aluminum fragments that clogged the fuel sump drainat about 500
> hours..
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rene
> Felker
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2012 7:59 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
>
> I did it the first two inspections..With about 50 hours or so run
> time...first year, there was something to clean out, second year no
> much. So I skipped a year..4^th year (little over 100 hours run time).
> Filter was still clean. In my inspection guide I am changing the
> frequency to every two years or > than 100 hours.
>
> 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 *curtis
> groote
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:29 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
>
> How often does one actually physically remove the fuel filter for
> inspection?
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> **
> * *
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matroni
> cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
> c
> *
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Slick Mag |
Sorry I misidentified Albany, OR as S67 (Nampa) when it's really S12. Got to meet
Rv-10r Ron Terharr but his plane was not on the field. Great paintjob however.
Really nice RV-12 there also, looks like RVs are alive and well there.
Albert Gardner
N991RV
Yuma, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT Panel Layout |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Risk analysis is a tricky business, because everything effects everything else.
For example, you might encounter a microburst - one that you could have out-climbed
except for the extra weight, and slight HP loss, of a vacuum pump. Or the
pump's shear shaft could fail to shear when it was supposed to, and a vane
breakage and pump jam lead to internal damage and failure of the engine. Or, the
finite lifetime of vacuum pumps leads to more frequent work around the engine.
Every once in a while the gasket is forgotten, or defective, or over or under
torqued, resulting in loss of engine oil and engine seizure. Or the mechanic
just leaves a wrench on top of the engine, causing mayhem later.
Very low probabilities, for sure. But so, apparently are lightning strikes. With
such low statistics it's very hard to say for certain that one approach is more
risk adverse than another. But my opinion - just my 2 cents - is that maintenance
activities introduce risk, more than lightning does (at least as long
as you make an effort to avoid the latter). In point of fact, I think GA would
be slightly safer if airframes were only inspected every other year (for aircraft
flying less than some amount, say, 300 hours). I think annuals cause more
problems than they find. (I'd advocate looking at the engine every year).
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374307#374307
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | fuel filter inspection |
Couple of things to keep in mind. First, it only takes a few ounces of bad gas/contaminant
to restrict your flow. Your motor will run rough or not at all.
Seldom will it plug and let no gas thru.
Second, you only have one filter for both tanks, so when the filter restricts flow
from right tank, switching to the left will not help. That begs the question..........has
anyone put in two filters? One in right tank feed line and one
in the left tank feed line..........maybe in wing root and eliminate the one
in the tunnel. This would truly give you backup fuel flow if one filter was
restricted.
Also, DO not trust your eyes to verify filter is clean. We had a plane on the
field that landed with symptoms of fuel starvation. They looked at the filter
SS mesh 70 micron and it was clean. It had been cleaned/inspected 20 hours
earlier. Yet when then did a flow test it was only 45% of normal flow rate.
After putting in a new filter, pressure and flow were perfect.
Moral of checking/changing fuel filter: Fan on plane not run well with no/low
fuel flow!
Just my 2cents,
Dean
Fly safe!
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fc68c31ad7d7a843e3st05vuc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fuel filter inspection |
| From: | pilotdds <pilotdds(at)aol.com> |
I used two filters one under each seat to hard to get to deep tunnel recess
es
-----Original Message-----
From: ddddsp1 <ddddsp1(at)juno.com>
Sent: Wed, May 30, 2012 2:12 pm
Subject: RE: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
Couple of things to keep in mind. First, it only takes a few ounces of ba
d
as/contaminant to restrict your flow. Your motor will run rough or not at
all.
eldom will it plug and let no gas thru.
econd, you only have one filter for both tanks, so when the filter restrict
s
low from right tank, switching to the left will not help. That begs the
uestion..........has anyone put in two filters? One in right tank feed line
and
ne in the left tank feed line..........maybe in wing root and eliminate the
one
n the tunnel. This would truly give you backup fuel flow if one filter wa
s
estricted.
Also, DO not trust your eyes to verify filter is clean. We had a plane on
the
ield that landed with symptoms of fuel starvation. They looked at the filt
er
S mesh 70 micron and it was clean. It had been cleaned/inspected 20 hours
arlier. Yet when then did a flow test it was only 45% of normal flow rate.
fter putting in a new filter, pressure and flow were perfect.
Moral of checking/changing fuel filter: Fan on plane not run well with
o/low fuel flow!
Just my 2cents,
Dean
Fly safe!
____________________________________________________________
3 Year Old Mom Looks 33
he Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
ttp://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fc68c31ad7d7a843e3st05vuc
-========================
-= - The RV10-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
-
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel filter inspection |
I used two filters for the fuel system, one at each wing root. I can
inspect and clean them by removing the wing root covers. (which takes
all of 10 minutes)
I used the andair gas filter/collators, however I decided to NOT put in
sump-able drains, but rather plug the bottom fitting. I wanted no
chance of ever drawing air in since this part would be in vacuum with
respect to outside air pressure, therefore, sucking air means no fuel
flow.
So far so good. and no need to work inside the tunnel on a regular
basis.
Regarding cleaning, we have the same filter on our glastar (13 years
now), it gets cleaned at every annual condition inspection.
Here is a link to pictures in my picasa album with the pictures.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/30eqPlZJYV9kbhKtAZr5D9MTjNZETYmyPJy
0liipFm0?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/DdM_Qnx2tIXgNyCIg3bspdMTjNZETYmyPJy
0liipFm0?feat=directlink
Bob Newman
N541RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel filter inspection |
Properly vented your tanks should always be at very close to atmospheric
pressure, with any drain point at positive pressure for the head of fuel
over it. Thus a vacuum would only occur if the vent became plugged some
how.
On 5/30/2012 6:20 PM, bob-tcw wrote:
> *I used two filters for the fuel system, one at each wing root. I
> can inspect and clean them by removing the wing root covers. (which
> takes all of 10 minutes) *
> *I used the andair gas filter/collators, however I decided to NOT put
> in sump-able drains, but rather plug the bottom fitting. I wanted no
> chance of ever drawing air in since this part would be in vacuum with
> respect to outside air pressure, therefore, sucking air means no fuel
> flow. *
> **
> So far so good. and no need to work inside the tunnel on a regular basis.
> Regarding cleaning, we have the same filter on our glastar (13 years
> now), it gets cleaned at every annual condition inspection.
> *Here is a link to pictures in my picasa album with the pictures.*
> **
> https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/30eqPlZJYV9kbhKtAZr5D9MTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
> https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/DdM_Qnx2tIXgNyCIg3bspdMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
> Bob Newman
> N541RV
> *
>
>
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel filter inspection |
Bob,
Please consider the aspect that unless the gas collators are physically loca
ted below the lowest point of the fuel tank (for the RV-10 this means below t
he wing in the breeze), they will not provide a means to remove water from t
he fuel tank. Collators are not a water separator, they simply provide a p
lace to collect water as gravity lets it find it's lowest level under static
, no flow conditions. This is why collators are so popular on high wing air
craft.
By design the fuel tank sumps are located at the lowest point in the tank. W
ithout these sumps you have no means of draining water from the tanks - unti
l of course the collected water builds to the point of being picked up in th
e fuel suction. Again, the collators are not water separators. Any water p
icked up in the fuel suction will simply pass through the collator to the en
gine.
Carl
RV-8A (800 hrs)
RV-10 (4 hrs)
On May 30, 2012, at 9:20 PM, "bob-tcw" wrote:
> I used two filters for the fuel system, one at each wing root. I can i
nspect and clean them by removing the wing root covers. (which takes all of
10 minutes)
>
> I used the andair gas filter/collators, however I decided to NOT put in su
mp-able drains, but rather plug the bottom fitting. I wanted no chance of e
ver drawing air in since this part would be in vacuum with respect to outsid
e air pressure, therefore, sucking air means no fuel flow.
>
> So far so good. and no need to work inside the tunnel on a regular basis.
>
> Regarding cleaning, we have the same filter on our glastar (13 years now)
, it gets cleaned at every annual condition inspection.
>
> Here is a link to pictures in my picasa album with the pictures.
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/30eqPlZJYV9kbhKtAZr5D9MTjNZETYmyPJy0
liipFm0?feat=directlink
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/DdM_Qnx2tIXgNyCIg3bspdMTjNZETYmyPJy0
liipFm0?feat=directlink
>
>
> Bob Newman
> N541RV
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel filter inspection |
Carl, Thanks for clarifying that point. I have the stock
Van=99s drain sumps for this exact reason. I chose the Andair
filter/collators not for the collator function at all, but because they
had a nice mounting means and they have the same micron level filter as
recommended by AFP for the fuel injection system. Also, from my
experience in the glastar, they are very easy to disassemble and clean
without disturbing any of the associated plumbing.
Bob
N541RV
From: Carl Froehlich
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
Bob,
Please consider the aspect that unless the gas collators are physically
located below the lowest point of the fuel tank (for the RV-10 this
means below the wing in the breeze), they will not provide a means to
remove water from the fuel tank. Collators are not a water separator,
they simply provide a place to collect water as gravity lets it find
it's lowest level under static, no flow conditions. This is why
collators are so popular on high wing aircraft.
By design the fuel tank sumps are located at the lowest point in the
tank. Without these sumps you have no means of draining water from the
tanks - until of course the collected water builds to the point of being
picked up in the fuel suction. Again, the collators are not water
separators. Any water picked up in the fuel suction will simply pass
through the collator to the engine.
Carl
RV-8A (800 hrs)
RV-10 (4 hrs)
On May 30, 2012, at 9:20 PM, "bob-tcw" wrote:
I used two filters for the fuel system, one at each wing root. I
can inspect and clean them by removing the wing root covers. (which
takes all of 10 minutes)
I used the andair gas filter/collators, however I decided to NOT put
in sump-able drains, but rather plug the bottom fitting. I wanted no
chance of ever drawing air in since this part would be in vacuum with
respect to outside air pressure, therefore, sucking air means no fuel
flow.
So far so good. and no need to work inside the tunnel on a regular
basis.
Regarding cleaning, we have the same filter on our glastar (13 years
now), it gets cleaned at every annual condition inspection.
Here is a link to pictures in my picasa album with the pictures.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/30eqPlZJYV9kbhKtAZr5D9MTjNZETYmyPJy
0liipFm0?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/DdM_Qnx2tIXgNyCIg3bspdMTjNZETYmyPJy
0liipFm0?feat=directlink
Bob Newman
N541RV
=========
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
cs.com
=========
matronics.com/contribution
=========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fuel filter inspection |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On May 31, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
> Again, the collators are not water separators. Any water picked up in the fuel
suction will simply pass through the collator to the engine.
>
Just FYI, the Andair gascolator has a water separator filter built into it that
will allow fuel to pass but hold water back. I asked Andair what would happen
if the gascolator were to fill with water, would it pass any water in order to
allow further fuel to pass, and it will. Looking at the inside of the one I
bought, there appears to be a small 1/4 inch "override" screen at the top of
the gascolator.
I agree completely with the assessment of the fuel drains in the tank. Bad Idea
not to include them.
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Royco Brake fluid |
| From: | "hotwheels" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> |
I received a quart of Royco Brake Fluid recently. It's the high temp mil-spec stuff
and comes in a metal can. I understand that it doesn't take a whole lot of
fluid to top off -10 brakes. So the question is... What to do with the leftover
fluid once the can is opened?
1) Toss it (I hate this one)
2) Save in another container of some sort. Plastic? Maybe that would break down
(no pun intended)? Glass?
3) Seal it up in a zip-lock and try not to dump it. Ugh.
4) Something else?
Thanks for any thoughts on this one.
Regards,
Jay
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374415#374415
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Royco Brake fluid |
I think it would store fine in a nice poly bottle.
I had a leftover bottle from some of the standard
fluid that I emptied and I put it in that.
Worst case, I'm sure it would be ok in a standard
oil bottle....so you could completely drain and
drip out a quart of ATF and put it in there,
but you'd want to label it well.
Tim
On 5/31/2012 2:41 PM, hotwheels wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "hotwheels"
>
> I received a quart of Royco Brake Fluid recently. It's the high temp mil-spec
stuff and comes in a metal can. I understand that it doesn't take a whole lot
of fluid to top off -10 brakes. So the question is... What to do with the leftover
fluid once the can is opened?
>
> 1) Toss it (I hate this one)
>
> 2) Save in another container of some sort. Plastic? Maybe that would break down
(no pun intended)? Glass?
>
> 3) Seal it up in a zip-lock and try not to dump it. Ugh.
>
> 4) Something else?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts on this one.
>
> Regards,
> Jay
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374415#374415
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Royco Brake fluid |
When I opened mine, I did it with a two screws that I could put a gasket on and
reinsert in to the openings.
I kept it - glad I did as I recently replaced the brake fluid (three years service)
and used the 'fresh' stuff I had kept.
-----Original Message-----
>From: hotwheels <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
>Sent: May 31, 2012 3:41 PM
>To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Royco Brake fluid
>
>
>I received a quart of Royco Brake Fluid recently. It's the high temp mil-spec
stuff and comes in a metal can. I understand that it doesn't take a whole lot
of fluid to top off -10 brakes. So the question is... What to do with the leftover
fluid once the can is opened?
>
>1) Toss it (I hate this one)
>
>2) Save in another container of some sort. Plastic? Maybe that would break down
(no pun intended)? Glass?
>
>3) Seal it up in a zip-lock and try not to dump it. Ugh.
>
>4) Something else?
>
>Thanks for any thoughts on this one.
>
>Regards,
>Jay
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374415#374415
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | speckter(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Incert tool |
Is the tool for putting incerts into the fork still floating around?=C2-
I could use it.
Gary Specketer
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Royco Brake fluid |
| From: | "hotwheels" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> |
I liked the oil can idea. I think one of those should be easy to find.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=33493&highlight=brake+fluid
Jay
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374428#374428
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Royco Brake fluid |
Just take an empty oil bottle, flush it with some mineral spirits and
drain thoroughly, re-label and add your brake fluid.
On 5/31/2012 2:05 PM, hotwheels wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "hotwheels"
>
> I liked the oil can idea. I think one of those should be easy to find.
>
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=33493&highlight=brake+fluid
>
> Jay
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374428#374428
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Lark" <jrlark(at)bmts.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel filter inspection |
As DJ states, the Andair gascolator does collect water, thus the reason us
Canadian builders are required to install it. Having said that type
certified aircraft also have them in Canada. Are they required on TC
aircraft in the US?
Rick
#40956
Southampton, Ont
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej(at)deej.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: fuel filter inspection
>
> On May 31, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Carl Froehlich
> wrote:
>
>> Again, the collators are not water separators. Any water picked up in
>> the fuel suction will simply pass through the collator to the engine.
>>
>
> Just FYI, the Andair gascolator has a water separator filter built into it
> that will allow fuel to pass but hold water back. I asked Andair what
> would happen if the gascolator were to fill with water, would it pass any
> water in order to allow further fuel to pass, and it will. Looking at the
> inside of the one I bought, there appears to be a small 1/4 inch
> "override" screen at the top of the gascolator.
>
> I agree completely with the assessment of the fuel drains in the tank. Bad
> Idea not to include them.
>
> -Dj
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Another plans omission? |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
I have looked through the plans from the point where the door halves are
glassed together(Chap 45-50), trying to find when you are supposed to put
in the rivets that were left out to be able to cleco the door halves in
place during bonding. I have not found one mention. Obviously they also
were not prepared anywhere in the plans for flush rivets, so it seems that
countersinking is the only choice at this point. While I don't expect the
later chapters to discuss deburring etc, I also don't expect to have them
leaving more than a dozen rivet holes empty on each side of the completed
fuselage.
Kelly
Still fighting to get out of door fiberglass hell
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Another plans omission? |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Fill the holes with flox.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374569#374569
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Another plans omission? |
| From: | John Trollinger <john(at)trollingers.com> |
Kelly,
Are you talking about the rivets around the bottom of the door frame
that were left open to cleco the door in place? I do not know if I
did it on purpose or not, but all those were dimpled on my fuselage,
they do have beefy aluminum behind them if I recall so countersinking
should not be a problem.
John
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> I have looked through the plans from the point where the door halves are
> glassed together(Chap 45-50), trying to find when you are supposed to put in
> the rivets that were left out to be able to cleco the door halves in place
> during bonding. I have not found one mention. Obviously they also were not
> prepared anywhere in the plans for flush rivets, so it seems that
> countersinking is the only choice at this point. While I don't expect the
> later chapters to discuss deburring etc, I also don't expect to have them
> leaving more than a dozen rivet holes empty on each side of the completed
> fuselage.
> Kelly
> Still fighting to get out of door fiberglass hell
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Another plans omission? |
| From: | "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I don't recall whether our QB fuse were dimpled, I am 90% sure they were. Section
29-15 clearly shows dimpling those holes, and 29-17 clearly shows leaving
out the rivets.
--------
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374574#374574
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Another plans omission? |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Ah ha, another wonderful omission by the "new" QB facility. They were not
dimpled on my QB built in summer of 2009, nor were the longerons behind
them countersunk. Which still leaves the apparent fact that they never call
for you to actually place rivets in the holes.
Kelly
40866
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:10 AM, bill.peyton wrote:
>
> I don't recall whether our QB fuse were dimpled, I am 90% sure they were.
> Section 29-15 clearly shows dimpling those holes, and 29-17 clearly shows
> leaving out the rivets.
>
> --------
> Bill
> WA0SYV
> Aviation Partners, LLC
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374574#374574
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Another plans omission? |
IIRC, the plans said not to simple those holes when the skins were being dim
pled. I'm just countersinking mine.
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 3, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Ah ha, another wonderful omission by the "new" QB facility. They were not d
impled on my QB built in summer of 2009, nor were the longerons behind them c
ountersunk. Which still leaves the apparent fact that they never call for yo
u to actually place rivets in the holes.
> Kelly
> 40866
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:10 AM, bill.peyton wrote
:
>
> I don't recall whether our QB fuse were dimpled, I am 90% sure they were.
Section 29-15 clearly shows dimpling those holes, and 29-17 clearly shows l
eaving out the rivets.
>
> --------
> Bill
> WA0SYV
> Aviation Partners, LLC
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374574#374574
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
| Subject: | airport security |
So much for the vaunted airport security; a group went out for our Sunday
breakfast; we met at a small feeder airport for breakfast. When we prepared
to leave, we entered the gate code as written on the opposite side of the
gate. No Joy. Various previous combinations were tried and again no joy.
The local police car was parked adjacent but the police substation and car
was unoccupied. finally found the TSA guy who said he had no way to allow
anyone to the transient ramp; At some point a man with a law enforcement
T-shirt appeared and his code did not work either. So now eight aircraft are
inaccessible and no numbers to call for help. etc. Then one enterprising
pilot put his fingers through the chain link fence and manually operated the
inside lever from the outside. We merrily departed secure in the knowledge
that we are safe since TSA is on the job.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com> |
Not sure whether someone already mentioned it, but we're at 400 known
completed RV-10s now!
http://vansaircraft.com/public/flights.htm
-Rob
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
Wow..400. Anybody know how many kits have been sold.
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kochman
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 5:07 PM
Subject: RV10-List: #400
Not sure whether someone already mentioned it, but we're at 400 known
completed RV-10s now!
http://vansaircraft.com/public/flights.htm
-Rob
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Kranz <ed.kranz(at)gmail.com> |
I had kit number 41347 delivered in February, so at least 1347. Almost a
thousand unfinished kits out there...
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Rene wrote:
> Wow=85.400. Anybody know how many kits have been sold.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rob Kochman
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 03, 2012 5:07 PM
> *To:* rv10-list
> *Subject:* RV10-List: #400****
>
> ** **
>
> Not sure whether someone already mentioned it, but we're at 400 known
> completed RV-10s now!****
>
> http://vansaircraft.com/public/flights.htm****
>
> ****
>
> -Rob
>
> -- ****
>
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011****
>
> Woodinville, WA****
>
> http://kochman.net/N819K****
>
> ** **
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: airport security |
Classic! Thanks for the laugh.
"We have met the enemy and he is us"
-Pogo-
David Maib
Transition Trainer
N380DM
On Jun 3, 2012, at 5:18 PM, DLM wrote:
So much for the vaunted airport security; a group went out for our Sunday breakfast;
we met at a small feeder airport for breakfast. When we prepared to leave,
we entered the gate code as written on the opposite side of the gate. No Joy.
Various previous combinations were tried and again no joy. The local police
car was parked adjacent but the police substation and car was unoccupied. finally
found the TSA guy who said he had no way to allow anyone to the transient
ramp; At some point a man with a law enforcement T-shirt appeared and his code
did not work either. So now eight aircraft are inaccessible and no numbers
to call for help. etc. Then one enterprising pilot put his fingers through the
chain link fence and manually operated the inside lever from the outside. We
merrily departed secure in the knowledge that we are safe since TSA is on the
job.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: airport security |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
That Pogo quote is my all time favorite.
True story: shortly after 9-11 the National Guard was sent to SFO. Soldier hands
his M16 to the TSA guy, walks thru the metal detector which goes off. TSA guy
confiscates the soldier's Swiss army knife, hands him back his M16.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374645#374645
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: airport security |
| From: | David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com> |
My son had a similar thing happen on his first deployment to Iraq. While boarding
the charter DC-10 at Ft. Hood, carrying their M-16's, He called me on his cell
phone to laughingly tell me that TSA was efficiently confiscating pocket knives
as the troops boarded.
Kind of funny until you start thinking about the billions of $$ being poured down
this huge bureaucratic Homeland Security rat hole with questionable results.
David Maib
Transition Trainer
N380DM
On Jun 4, 2012, at 2:19 AM, Bob Turner wrote:
That Pogo quote is my all time favorite.
True story: shortly after 9-11 the National Guard was sent to SFO. Soldier hands
his M16 to the TSA guy, walks thru the metal detector which goes off. TSA guy
confiscates the soldier's Swiss army knife, hands him back his M16.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374645#374645
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: airport security |
| From: | Jason Wodack <psychobob96(at)gmail.com> |
Over several deployments I have faced similar situations. Even when the
Army has contracted the aircraft we were forced to pack all knives and even
cigarette lighters in our "check" bags. Of course the semi automatic
rifles, and light machine guns are OK. Oh, and a couple times we were told
to keep all rifles facing barrel down, you know towards all the hydraulic
hoses an important stuff under the floor.
Gotta love the government.
Jason
On Jun 4, 2012 10:55 AM, "Bob Turner" wrote:
>
> That Pogo quote is my all time favorite.
>
> True story: shortly after 9-11 the National Guard was sent to SFO. Soldier
> hands his M16 to the TSA guy, walks thru the metal detector which goes off.
> TSA guy confiscates the soldier's Swiss army knife, hands him back his M16.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374645#374645
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com> |
| Subject: | Whelen LED nav/strobes |
Does anyone have experience with Whelen's newer Microburst LED Nav/Strobe
setup?
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/microburstIItailwhelen.php
At first glance they seem equivalent in functionality to the Aero Leds
and/or Aveo products at roughly half the price.
Ben Westfall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "egodfrey(at)ameritech.net" <egodfrey(at)ameritech.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
Could anyone tell me where to get a copy of Les' document? I am at that
stage and would like to do the research necessary. Thanks.
Ed Godfrey
40717
On 4/9/2012 7:48 PM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>
> I've read Les' document on using McMaster Carr door seals. He trimmed
> off the entire radius on the door gutter. I ordered the same 1/4 inch
> with 3/8 inch bulb seals he used.
>
> I have yet to trim off the full radius as he did, but it seems that if
> I do, there will me no way the 3/8 inch bulb will be enough to
> actually touch and seal against the door. Seems the gap between the
> gutter and the door would be too large.
>
> His doc showed the older green canopy instead of the pink. Is there a
> difference there? Did others using the McMaster seals trim off the
> full radius on the gutter and have it work with the 3/8 inch bulb?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Sean #40303 (very dim light at the end of the tunnel)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Whelen LED nav/strobes |
| From: | Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net> |
You need to ask do they meet FAA regulation for night flight, able50 see the
m up and down. Not just outward.
Patrick Thyssen
N15pt
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:21 PM, "Ben Westfall" wrote:
> Does anyone have experience with Whelen=99s newer Microburst LED Nav
/Strobe setup?
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/microburstIItailwhelen.php
>
> At first glance they seem equivalent in functionality to the Aero Leds and
/or Aveo products at roughly half the price.
>
> Ben Westfall
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <lewgall(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Whelen LED nav/strobes |
Hey Ben,
One of the RV-8=99s I just finished painting has these, and they
are NICE in the hangar. He=99s not flying yet, but these
LED=99s put out a lot of light.
Later, =93 Lew
From: Ben Westfall
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 2:21 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Whelen LED nav/strobes
Does anyone have experience with Whelen=99s newer Microburst LED
Nav/Strobe setup?
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/microburstIItailwhelen.php
At first glance they seem equivalent in functionality to the Aero Leds
and/or Aveo products at roughly half the price.
Ben Westfall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
Sent to your email...
-Sean #40303
On 6/4/12 1:59 PM, egodfrey(at)ameritech.net wrote:
>
>
> Could anyone tell me where to get a copy of Les' document? I am at
> that stage and would like to do the research necessary. Thanks.
>
> Ed Godfrey
> 40717
>
> On 4/9/2012 7:48 PM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>>
>> I've read Les' document on using McMaster Carr door seals. He
>> trimmed off the entire radius on the door gutter. I ordered the same
>> 1/4 inch with 3/8 inch bulb seals he used.
>>
>> I have yet to trim off the full radius as he did, but it seems that
>> if I do, there will me no way the 3/8 inch bulb will be enough to
>> actually touch and seal against the door. Seems the gap between the
>> gutter and the door would be too large.
>>
>> His doc showed the older green canopy instead of the pink. Is there
>> a difference there? Did others using the McMaster seals trim off the
>> full radius on the gutter and have it work with the 3/8 inch bulb?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Sean #40303 (very dim light at the end of the tunnel)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
Ed and colleagues, this is a compilation of door seal installation guidelin
es provided by various builders.=0A-=0AI hope that it helps you too.=0A
-=0AWarm regards=0A-=0APatrick Pulis=0AAdelaide, South Australia=0A-
=0A#40299 - Engine & Avionics have arrived =0A=0AFrom: "egodfrey@ameritech.
net" =0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Tuesda
y, 5 June 2012 4:29 AM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: Door Gutter and McMaster S
ey(at)ameritech.net>=0A=0ACould anyone tell me where to get a copy of Les' doc
ument? I am at that stage and would like to do the research necessary. Than
ks.=0A=0AEd Godfrey=0A40717=0A=0AOn 4/9/2012 7:48 PM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>=0A> =0A> I've read Les' document on using McMaster Carr door seals.- He
trimmed off the entire radius on the door gutter.- I ordered the same 1/
4 inch with 3/8 inch bulb seals he used.=0A> =0A> I have yet to trim off th
e full radius as he did, but it seems that if I do, there will me no way th
e 3/8 inch bulb will be enough to actually touch and seal against the door.
- Seems the gap between the gutter and the door would be too large.=0A>
=0A> His doc showed the older green canopy instead of the pink.- Is there
a difference there?- Did others using the McMaster seals trim off the fu
ll radius on the gutter and have it work with the 3/8 inch bulb?=0A> =0A> T
hanks,=0A> =0A> -Sean #40303 (very dim light at the end of the tunnel)=0A>
====================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Williams, M.D." <drfred(at)suddenlinkmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
Ed
I forwarded the email that you needed directly to your box. Let me know
if you didn't get it.
Fred Williams
515FW
On 6/4/2012 1:59 PM, egodfrey(at)ameritech.net wrote:
>
>
> Could anyone tell me where to get a copy of Les' document? I am at
> that stage and would like to do the research necessary. Thanks.
>
> Ed Godfrey
> 40717
>
> On 4/9/2012 7:48 PM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>>
>> I've read Les' document on using McMaster Carr door seals. He
>> trimmed off the entire radius on the door gutter. I ordered the same
>> 1/4 inch with 3/8 inch bulb seals he used.
>>
>> I have yet to trim off the full radius as he did, but it seems that
>> if I do, there will me no way the 3/8 inch bulb will be enough to
>> actually touch and seal against the door. Seems the gap between the
>> gutter and the door would be too large.
>>
>> His doc showed the older green canopy instead of the pink. Is there
>> a difference there? Did others using the McMaster seals trim off the
>> full radius on the gutter and have it work with the 3/8 inch bulb?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Sean #40303 (very dim light at the end of the tunnel)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Chapman <tomrv4(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Whelen LED nav/strobes |
Ben,
I have the Microburst III's=EF=BB on my S-7S. They look good, are quite
bright, are light weight, draw very little power, and I eliminated the bi
g ol' strobe power supplies from my previous setup.
I like them a lot...
Tom Chapman
San Antonio
On Jun 04, 2012, at 01:21 PM, Ben Westfall wrote:
> Does anyone have experience with Whelen=99s newer Microburst LED N
av/Strobe setup?
>
>
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/microburstIItailwhelen.php
>
>
>
>
> At first glance they seem equivalent in functionality to the Aero Leds a
nd/or Aveo products at roughly half the price.
>
>
>
> Ben Westfall
>
>
>
>
>
>
===
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com> |
| Subject: | Whelen LED nav/strobes |
That=99s a good point to which I am unsure.
Their website is not the best and I cannot seem to find much in the way
of tech doc=99s. The Aveo embedded ones are probably the slickest
=9Clooking=9D ones out there but buying those w/tail strobe
is well over $1k compared to Whelen=99s $499 for all 3.
I=99m aware of the Kestrel products and ztronlabs.com alternatives
but was really wondering about Whelen=99s in particular.
-Ben
You need to ask do they meet FAA regulation for night flight, able50 see
them up and down. Not just outward.
Patrick Thyssen
N15pt
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:21 PM, "Ben Westfall" wrote:
Does anyone have experience with Whelen=99s newer Microburst LED
Nav/Strobe setup?
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/microburstIItailwhelen.php
At first glance they seem equivalent in functionality to the Aero Leds
and/or Aveo products at roughly half the price.
Ben Westfall
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Whelen LED nav/strobes |
SSBoYXZlIHRoZW0uICBWZXJ5IGJyaWdodAoKU2VudCBmcm9tIG15IFZlcml6b24gV2lyZWxlc3Mg
NEcgTFRFIERST0lECgotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIG1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQpGcm9tOiBsZXdnYWxsQGNo
YXJ0ZXIubmV0ClRvOiBydjEwLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQpTZW50OiBNb24sIEp1biA0LCAy
MDEyIDE0OjM2OjE1IENEVApTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogUlYxMC1MaXN0OiBXaGVsZW4gTEVEIG5hdi9z
dHJvYmVzCgpIZXkgQmVuLAoKT25lIG9mIHRoZSBSVi044oCZcyBJIGp1c3QgZmluaXNoZWQgcGFp
bnRpbmcgaGFzIHRoZXNlLCBhbmQgdGhleSBhcmUgTklDRSBpbiB0aGUgaGFuZ2FyLiAgSGXigJlz
IG5vdCBmbHlpbmcgeWV0LCBidXQgdGhlc2UgTEVE4oCZcyBwdXQgb3V0IGEgbG90IG9mIGxpZ2h0
LgoKTGF0ZXIsIOKAkyBMZXcKCkZyb206IEJlbiBXZXN0ZmFsbCAKU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBKdW5l
IDA0LCAyMDEyIDI6MjEgUE0KVG86IHJ2MTAtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIApTdWJqZWN0OiBS
VjEwLUxpc3Q6IFdoZWxlbiBMRUQgbmF2L3N0cm9iZXMKCkRvZXMgYW55b25lIGhhdmUgZXhwZXJp
ZW5jZSB3aXRoIFdoZWxlbuKAmXMgbmV3ZXIgTWljcm9idXJzdCBMRUQgTmF2L1N0cm9iZSBzZXR1
cD8KCiAKCmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYWlyY3JhZnRzcHJ1Y2UuY29tL2NhdGFsb2cvZWxwYWdlcy9taWNy
b2J1cnN0SUl0YWlsd2hlbGVuLnBocAoKIAoKQXQgZmlyc3QgZ2xhbmNlIHRoZXkgc2VlbSBlcXVp
dmFsZW50IGluIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWxpdHkgdG8gdGhlIEFlcm8gTGVkcyBhbmQvb3IgQXZlbyBwcm9k
dWN0cyBhdCByb3VnaGx5IGhhbGYgdGhlIHByaWNlLgoKIAoKQmVuIFdlc3RmYWxsCgogCgogCgog
CgoKCgoK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thane States" <thane2(at)comporium.net> |
Hey guys, I went out flying this weekend and had a strange rise in
oil psi. Ist, I have a BPE, IO-540. 222 hrs. I was at 4500 msl when I
glanced over to see my oil psi at 91 psi. Within a minute it jumped one
more psi and so on until it showed 99 psi. By this time I already
turned back for home, and had reduced power to see if that helped. That
didn't change anything. Once I landed, and was at taxi power, it showed
in the low 70's.
Anyone else ever see this? BTW, I have the GRT system, and I am on
my 3rd. fuel psi sender. Could this be the same problem, bad sender??
Thane states
RV-10
321BY
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Incert tool |
| From: | "Lew Gallagher" <lewgall(at)charter.net> |
OK guys,
The insert kit AND bolts are on the way to 5 of you. Frank, the person after you
is Les in Canada and it is shipping in a USPS flat rate box, so I don't know
how that goes to Canada and back.
Mike and Tom, you wanted bolts only and I ran out. So I'll get some more and get
them out to you individually in a couple of days.
Later, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
Fly off completed !
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374721#374721
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
After much consideration, I've decided that on my pink canopy I don't
choose to remove that full radius, because of the implications to reducing
strength of the door post. I also did not want to do the huge amount of
build up and sanding that would be required to make the door sill uniform
enough for an even sealing edge with the door. So I will try the seal that
Alex D sells.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, egodfrey(at)ameritech.net <
egodfrey(at)ameritech.net> wrote:
> egodfrey(at)ameritech.net>
>
> Could anyone tell me where to get a copy of Les' document? I am at that
> stage and would like to do the research necessary. Thanks.
>
> Ed Godfrey
> 40717
>
> On 4/9/2012 7:48 PM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>
>>
>> I've read Les' document on using McMaster Carr door seals. He trimmed
>> off the entire radius on the door gutter. I ordered the same 1/4 inch with
>> 3/8 inch bulb seals he used.
>>
>> I have yet to trim off the full radius as he did, but it seems that if I
>> do, there will me no way the 3/8 inch bulb will be enough to actually touch
>> and seal against the door. Seems the gap between the gutter and the door
>> would be too large.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net> |
N215DW broke the surlies on Tuesday, 5/29 but I didn't tell Vans until 6/2 so I
don't think I am in the 400 quoted on the website.
Everything went per the book, flew great with no bad habits. Like Carl my temps
have been a little high. Cylinders 2,1, and 5 are the hottest but with care
I can keep them under 420 fairly easily. Oil temps stay below 200 which is not
bad since it has been hot here in TX already. It flies and handles great and
is a piece of cake to land (relative to my RV-6 taildragger). The fuel flow
takes my breath away.
I have 15 hours tach time on it now so I am changing the oil and knocking down
the dams on the #1 and #2 cylinders. I am also adding a cover on the inside of
the lower cowl to block the gap in the cowl above the gear leg. The 10 is much
noisier than my 6 and 175 knots probably has something to do with it. During
high power cruise I have been attempting to learn my G3X, GTN-650, and GX
A/P integrated operations. I am very impressed with it.
Plane is fairly stock. MT weight is 1630 and I did all of the avionics wiring
myself.
--------
Dave Moore
RV-6 flying
RV-10 QB - flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374723#374723
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/334_reduced_111.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv10_reduced_284.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
This is what I used from McMaster. Easy on and seals well. I put them on
the door, not the frame. I also used some semi ridged foam to fill in the
door hinge recess so that this seal just goes over it around the perimeter
of the door.
1
<http://www.mcmaster.com/nav/enter.asp?partnum=93085K11> 93085K11
Adhesive Back Foam Rubber Bulb Seal, 3/8" Overall Width, 7/16" Overall
Height, 3/16" ID, 20' L
20
feet
in the morning
0.54
per foot
10.80
You need 30 feet.
Carl
RV-10 (6 hours)
RV-8A (800 hours)
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals
After much consideration, I've decided that on my pink canopy I don't choose
to remove that full radius, because of the implications to reducing strength
of the door post. I also did not want to do the huge amount of build up and
sanding that would be required to make the door sill uniform enough for an
even sealing edge with the door. So I will try the seal that Alex D sells.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, egodfrey(at)ameritech.net
wrote:
Could anyone tell me where to get a copy of Les' document? I am at that
stage and would like to do the research necessary. Thanks.
Ed Godfrey
40717
On 4/9/2012 7:48 PM, Sean Stephens wrote:
I've read Les' document on using McMaster Carr door seals. He trimmed off
the entire radius on the door gutter. I ordered the same 1/4 inch with 3/8
inch bulb seals he used.
I have yet to trim off the full radius as he did, but it seems that if I do,
there will me no way the 3/8 inch bulb will be enough to actually touch and
seal against the door. Seems the gap between the gutter and the door would
be too large.
===================================
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
===================================
http://forums.matronics.com
===================================
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
I've seen the GRT fuel pressure sender go bad and read real high.
I'd guess you have a bad sender.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Thane States
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:01 PM
Subject: RV10-List: high oil PSI.
Hey guys, I went out flying this weekend and had a strange rise in oil
psi. Ist, I have a BPE, IO-540. 222 hrs. I was at 4500 msl when I glanced
over to see my oil psi at 91 psi. Within a minute it jumped one more psi
and so on until it showed 99 psi. By this time I already turned back for
home, and had reduced power to see if that helped. That didn't change
anything. Once I landed, and was at taxi power, it showed in the low 70's.
Anyone else ever see this? BTW, I have the GRT system, and I am on my
3rd. fuel psi sender. Could this be the same problem, bad sender??
Thane states
RV-10
321BY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Seano" <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
Congrats Dave,
If you have any questions with the G3X let me know, I have flown 210 hours
with it.
Sean
N801VR
----- Original Message -----
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 7:07 PM
Subject: RV10-List: #401
>
> N215DW broke the surlies on Tuesday, 5/29 but I didn't tell Vans until 6/2
> so I don't think I am in the 400 quoted on the website.
>
> Everything went per the book, flew great with no bad habits. Like Carl my
> temps have been a little high. Cylinders 2,1, and 5 are the hottest but
> with care I can keep them under 420 fairly easily. Oil temps stay below
> 200 which is not bad since it has been hot here in TX already. It flies
> and handles great and is a piece of cake to land (relative to my RV-6
> taildragger). The fuel flow takes my breath away.
>
> I have 15 hours tach time on it now so I am changing the oil and knocking
> down the dams on the #1 and #2 cylinders. I am also adding a cover on the
> inside of the lower cowl to block the gap in the cowl above the gear leg.
> The 10 is much noisier than my 6 and 175 knots probably has something to
> do with it. During high power cruise I have been attempting to learn my
> G3X, GTN-650, and GX A/P integrated operations. I am very impressed with
> it.
>
> Plane is fairly stock. MT weight is 1630 and I did all of the avionics
> wiring myself.
>
> --------
> Dave Moore
> RV-6 flying
> RV-10 QB - flying
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374723#374723
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/334_reduced_111.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv10_reduced_284.jpg
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Congratulations Dave.
I am not too far behind. I have the fuselage painted with exception of the stripes,
soon it will be home and ready for final installation.
Sean, I can't believe you have flown that thing 200+ hours! How are your CHT's?
Did you modify your front dams at all?
Bill
--------
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374733#374733
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)q.com> |
welcome to the club.the VDO 360-003 is the same used on a certified Piper
product. The cost with the FAA PMA stamped exceeds $200. they are available
to the experimental machines for $28 from
<http://www.jegs.com/i/VDO/918/360-003/10002/-1>
http://www.jegs.com/i/VDO/918/360-003/10002/-1. The first lasted about $500
hours; the second gave intermittent high readings in about 25 hours.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 6:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: high oil PSI.
I've seen the GRT fuel pressure sender go bad and read real high.
I'd guess you have a bad sender.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Thane States
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:01 PM
Subject: RV10-List: high oil PSI.
Hey guys, I went out flying this weekend and had a strange rise in oil
psi. Ist, I have a BPE, IO-540. 222 hrs. I was at 4500 msl when I glanced
over to see my oil psi at 91 psi. Within a minute it jumped one more psi
and so on until it showed 99 psi. By this time I already turned back for
home, and had reduced power to see if that helped. That didn't change
anything. Once I landed, and was at taxi power, it showed in the low 70's.
Anyone else ever see this? BTW, I have the GRT system, and I am on my
3rd. fuel psi sender. Could this be the same problem, bad sender??
Thane states
RV-10
321BY
===================http://www.matronic================
http://forums.matronics.com - List Contribution Web generous nbsp;
--> http://www.matronics.com/c=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
| From: | "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> |
[quote="Kelly McMullen"]After much consideration, I've decided that on my pink
canopy I don't choose to remove that full radius, because of the implications
to reducing strength of the door post. I also did not want to do the huge amount
of build up and sanding that would be required to make the door sill uniform
enough for an even sealing edge with the door. So I will try the seal that Alex
D sells.
Kelly,
Another option is a method that I borrowed from Dave Saylor IIRC.
It uses a EDPM rectangular seal 1/8" x 1/2" and mounts on the inner surface of
the door. It allows you to leave a significant portion of the gutter and is easy
to fit. With the doors closed, trim the gutter so there is 1/8" gap between
the door surface and the edge of the gutter; install seal, done.
Jim Berry
N15JB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374738#374738
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Seano" <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
Bill,
Not yet ;) My CHT highs were never a problem, I just wanted the CHT's a
little closer to each other. I have half dams from the get go and my #5 is
the hottest. I could give up 10 degrees on #1 for -10 on #5. My EGT's
(LOP) are usually within 15 and sometimes 20.....no GAMI's. I feel lucky
with the numbers but may try changing air dams some day. I really wish I
would have left my air dams full for the first 100 hours to see where they
settled after break-in.
----- Original Message -----
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:12 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: #401
>
> Congratulations Dave.
>
> I am not too far behind. I have the fuselage painted with exception of
> the stripes, soon it will be home and ready for final installation.
>
> Sean, I can't believe you have flown that thing 200+ hours! How are your
> CHT's? Did you modify your front dams at all?
> Bill
>
> --------
> Bill
> WA0SYV
> Aviation Partners, LLC
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374733#374733
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
>>trim the gutter so there is 1/8" gap<<
It turns out you don't even need 1/8". The seals compress to less than
1/16. I use a couple layers to build up any areas that are more than 1/8,
or you can use thicker material.
I posted a couple pictures to the list on 10/5/09.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Jim Berry wrote:
>
> [quote="Kelly McMullen"]After much consideration, I've decided that on my
pink canopy I don't choose to remove that full radius, because of the
implications to reducing strength of the door post. I also did not want to
do the huge amount of build up and sanding that would be required to make
the door sill uniform enough for an even sealing edge with the door. So I
will try the seal that Alex D sells.
>
> Kelly,
>
> Another option is a method that I borrowed from Dave Saylor IIRC.
> It uses a EDPM rectangular seal 1/8" x 1/2" and mounts on the inner
surface of the door. It allows you to leave a significant portion of the
gutter and is easy to fit. With the doors closed, trim the gutter so there
is 1/8" gap between the door surface and the edge of the gutter; install
seal, done.
>
> Jim Berry
> N15JB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374738#374738
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LeoCruz" <leocruz.cruz1(at)gmail.com> |
Roof supports.com is a reliable site of roof; pipe manufactures a variety of pipe
supports and pipe hangers. Pipe system designers must calculate the pull of
gravity and for the progress due to thermal expansion. Supports, variables, and
constants are devices which are cost effective and structurally sound in solving
certain pipe support issues.
The air duct support and heat and A/C are important components of any home. In
order to live comfortably it is important the HVAC serviceman you hire is competent
and open to your questions. As you search for the right person for the job,
don't be afraid to ask what's on your mind. If you're thorough, you'll be
able to breathe easy.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374746#374746
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | : broken pilot step |
| From: | Etandrews <etandrews(at)westnet.com.au> |
Everyone
I have had a broken pilots step after approximately 200hrs flying. I noticed
a minor crack in the paint above the top weld where the upright section of the
step connected to the horizontal fuselage section. Later that day when alighting
the step it failed. The weld appeared almost non existent. It may be
worth inspecting your own steps for signs of failure. I am planning to install
an inspection hatch to access the step anchor bolt along with a new step.
Kind regards
Evan Andrews
VH-OSH Australia flying
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: : broken pilot step |
| From: | "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)Pacbell.net> |
Truly sorry to hear about the broken step. At least nobody was hurt when it broke
- could have caused a nasty gash. I have long recommended an inspection hatch
for the step bolt as well as to check on corrosion. I used the access hatch
from the wing. Installed it fits flush.
--------
See you OSH '12
Q/B - flying 2 yrs.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374755#374755
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1000864_434.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com> |
| Subject: | Whelen LED nav/strobes |
A follow up about the Microburst line of lights from Whelen as Patrick
eluded to I did find the install instructions which state
right at the top =9CProduct does not meet the requirements of
91.205(c), required equipment for night flight. Airplanes certified for
night operation should not consider this product.=9D
http://www.whelen.com/install/143/14360.pdf
-Ben
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Westfall
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 3:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Whelen LED nav/strobes
That=99s a good point to which I am unsure.
Their website is not the best and I cannot seem to find much in the way
of tech doc=99s. The Aveo embedded ones are probably the slickest
=9Clooking=9D ones out there but buying those w/tail strobe
is well over $1k compared to Whelen=99s $499 for all 3.
I=99m aware of the Kestrel products and ztronlabs.com alternatives
but was really wondering about Whelen=99s in particular.
-Ben
You need to ask do they meet FAA regulation for night flight, able50 see
them up and down. Not just outward.
Patrick Thyssen
N15pt
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:21 PM, "Ben Westfall" wrote:
Does anyone have experience with Whelen=99s newer Microburst LED
Nav/Strobe setup?
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/microburstIItailwhelen.php
At first glance they seem equivalent in functionality to the Aero Leds
and/or Aveo products at roughly half the price.
Ben Westfall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : broken pilot step |
Mike,
how did you solve that two of your screws are hidden behind the riveted
baggage side panel? Any picture with that panel in place? I moved mine a
little bit to the center and cut out a bit on the flange of the panel.
Cheers Werner
On 05.06.2012 15:57, AirMike wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "AirMike"
>
> Truly sorry to hear about the broken step. At least nobody was hurt when it broke
- could have caused a nasty gash. I have long recommended an inspection hatch
for the step bolt as well as to check on corrosion. I used the access hatch
from the wing. Installed it fits flush.
>
> --------
> See you OSH '12
> Q/B - flying 2 yrs.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374755#374755
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1000864_434.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Seano" <sean(at)braunandco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
Ditto for me, thanks to Robin. I copied the grinder tool and it made
the job a lot easier. If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't
change a thing with the door seal. Definitely quieter than the vans
seal possibly due to the hinge covers and consistent pressure around the
door.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robin Marks
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals
I cannot hope for a better seal and door fit on my -10 partially due
to the McMaster Carr door seal. Extremely happy we used it. Like many
items on the build you just have to put one foot in front of the other
and one day you are flying. As far as effort we built a simple guide
that we attached to pneumatic grinder and had each door precisely
trimmed in 15 minutes.
Robin
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jae Chang
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 9:27 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals
I never did the build-up for the mcmaster seal, so it is constantly
falling off. In retrospect, i wish i had used a simple foam seal. It
would have been far far simpler and easier to maintain than either the
mcmaster seal or the stock seal.
Jae
--
#40533 RV-10First flight 10/19/2011Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011do not
archiveOn 6/4/2012 9:09 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:
>>trim the gutter so there is 1/8" gap<<
It turns out you don't even need 1/8". The seals compress to less
than 1/16. I use a couple layers to build up any areas that are more
than 1/8, or you can use thicker material.
I posted a couple pictures to the list on 10/5/09.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
=======================
=EF=BD=EF=BD=EF=BD~=EF=BD=EF=BD=EF=BD,=EF=BD=03g(=EF
=BD=EF=BD=EF=BDM=EF=BDGq=EF=BDz=EF=BD=EF=BD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "egodfrey(at)ameritech.net" <egodfrey(at)ameritech.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
Just to ask a question, since I am not at the stage installing sun
visors, would it be possible to glass in a "block" that the visor could
be mounted to? That way, you could screw the mount into the block and
not to the cabin top. Any problems with this method that anyone can
throw a flag on the idea?
Ed Godfrey
40717
On 4/10/2012 7:35 AM, jkreidler wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "jkreidler"
>
> We each build our own airplanes and make our own decisions please dont take
this as criticism just food for thought. I had a conversation with Ken K. regarding
drilling holes in the gutter in order to add sun visors the cabin top,
specifically the cabin top posts. Ken indicated that one of the challenges in
the design was getting the cabin top to pass the inverted drop test. He was
visibly uncomfortable with the idea of drilling any holes in the gutter to mount
visors, for those who have had conversations with Ken K. in person you may
know the wince he gives.
>
> By removing the entire inside radius of the gutter in order to install the McMaster
Carr style seal you are significantly changing the section modulus of the
cabin top post and COULD be significantly increasing the likelihood of a cabin
top failure in a roll over type accident. Just something to consider as you
make what may seem to be a harmless improvement to the design.
>
> Again, these are your decisions I am only trying to provide an alternate perspective
to the decision.
>
> 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=370434#370434
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
That is what I wanted to do originally. But there just isn't that much
space to work with, so they kinda find their own spot.
If you don't have an overhead center console, you might have a few more
inches to work with, but not much. The curve of the door frame pretty much
dictates where they go.
On that topic, I would wait on determining the visors position until the
the panel can be installed temporarily and the seats (with foam) adjusted
so they're comfortable. Once you're comfortable in the cockpit, then
figure out where the visors go. It's pretty easy to put them directly in
the line of vision if you don't go through the prep work to put the cockpit
together.
Phil
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:34 PM, egodfrey(at)ameritech.net <
egodfrey(at)ameritech.net> wrote:
> egodfrey(at)ameritech.net>
>
> Just to ask a question, since I am not at the stage installing sun visors,
> would it be possible to glass in a "block" that the visor could be mounted
> to? That way, you could screw the mount into the block and not to the cabin
> top. Any problems with this method that anyone can throw a flag on the idea?
>
> Ed Godfrey
> 40717
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)painttheweb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: : broken pilot step |
| From: | Etandrews <etandrews(at)westnet.com.au> |
Thanks Mike - this one caught me by surprise. Very good thinking about the installation
of the hatch during the build. It will be fun to get the building
gear out for a change.
Regards
Evan
Sent from my iPad
On 05/06/2012, at 11:57 PM, "AirMike" wrote:
>
> Truly sorry to hear about the broken step. At least nobody was hurt when it broke
- could have caused a nasty gash. I have long recommended an inspection hatch
for the step bolt as well as to check on corrosion. I used the access hatch
from the wing. Installed it fits flush.
>
> --------
> See you OSH '12
> Q/B - flying 2 yrs.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=374755#374755
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1000864_434.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals |
| From: | John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> |
Hi Carl,
Can you show us photo of your install?
John Maccallum
41016
VH-DUU
Sent from my iPad
On 05/06/2012, at 11:39, "Carl Froehlich" wrote
:
> This is what I used from McMaster. Easy on and seals well. I put them on
the door, not the frame. I also used some semi ridged foam to fill in the d
oor hinge recess so that this seal just goes over it around the perimeter of
the door.
>
> 1
> 93085K11
> Adhesive Back Foam Rubber Bulb Seal, 3/8" Overall Width, 7/16" Overall Hei
ght, 3/16" ID, 20' L
> 20
> feet
> in the morning
> 0.54
> per foot
> 10.80
> You need 30 feet.
> Carl
> RV-10 (6 hours)
> RV-8A (800 hours)
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:51 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals
>
> After much consideration, I've decided that on my pink canopy I don't choo
se to remove that full radius, because of the implications to reducing stren
gth of the door post. I also did not want to do the huge amount of build up a
nd sanding that would be required to make the door sill uniform enough for a
n even sealing edge with the door. So I will try the seal that Alex D sells.
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, egodfrey(at)ameritech.net wrote:
ech.net>
>
> Could anyone tell me where to get a copy of Les' document? I am at that st
age and would like to do the research necessary. Thanks.
>
> Ed Godfrey
> 40717
>
> On 4/9/2012 7:48 PM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>
> I've read Les' document on using McMaster Carr door seals. He trimmed off
the entire radius on the door gutter. I ordered the same 1/4 inch with 3/8
inch bulb seals he used.
>
> I have yet to trim off the full radius as he did, but it seems that if I d
o, there will me no way the 3/8 inch bulb will be enough to actually touch a
nd seal against the door. Seems the gap between the gutter and the door wou
ld be too large.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =========================
> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> =========================
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> =========================
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV10-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 06/08/12 |
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 9, 2012, at 3:00 AM, RV10-List Digest Server wrote:
> *
>
> =================================================
> 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 12-06-08&Archive=RV10
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 12-06-08&Archive=RV10
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> RV10-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Fri 06/08/12: 1
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 07:25 AM - Re: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals (John MacCallum)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals
> From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
>
> Hi Carl,
> Can you show us photo of your install?
>
> John Maccallum
> 41016
> VH-DUU
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 05/06/2012, at 11:39, "Carl Froehlich" wrote
> :
>
>> This is what I used from McMaster. Easy on and seals well. I put them on
> the door, not the frame. I also used some semi ridged foam to fill in the d
> oor hinge recess so that this seal just goes over it around the perimeter of
> the door.
>>
>> 1
>> 93085K11
>> Adhesive Back Foam Rubber Bulb Seal, 3/8" Overall Width, 7/16" Overall Hei
> ght, 3/16" ID, 20' L
>> 20
>> feet
>> in the morning
>> 0.54
>> per foot
>> 10.80
>> You need 30 feet.
>> Carl
>> RV-10 (6 hours)
>> RV-8A (800 hours)
>>
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
> matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:51 PM
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Door Gutter and McMaster Seals
>>
>> After much consideration, I've decided that on my pink canopy I don't choo
> se to remove that full radius, because of the implications to reducing stren
> gth of the door post. I also did not want to do the huge amount of build up a
> nd sanding that would be required to make the door sill uniform enough for a
> n even sealing edge with the door. So I will try the seal that Alex D sells.
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, egodfrey(at)ameritech.net h.net> wrote:
> ech.net>
>>
>> Could anyone tell me where to get a copy of Les' document? I am at that st
> age and would like to do the research necessary. Thanks.
>>
>> Ed Godfrey
>> 40717
>>
>> On 4/9/2012 7:48 PM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>>
>> I've read Les' document on using McMaster Carr door seals. He trimmed off
> the entire radius on the door gutter. I ordered the same 1/4 inch with 3/8
> inch bulb seals he used.
>>
>> I have yet to trim off the full radius as he did, but it seems that if I d
> o, there will me no way the 3/8 inch bulb will be enough to actually touch a
> nd seal against the door. Seems the gap between the gutter and the door wou
> ld be too large.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ========================
May 24, 2012 - June 09, 2012
RV10-Archive.digest.vol-it