RV10-List Archive Browser

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-ix
August 19, 2012 - September 07, 2012

> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
From: David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2012
Why no issue on take off, only landing? Dave Leikam On Aug 19, 2012, at 11:54 AM, johngoodman wrote: > > Going back to the original issue, I have experienced the 35-45k shimmy in another RV-10, but never in mine. I seriously doubt that stiffening the legs is a cure, only mitigates a symptom. > As far as why I don't have any shimmy, I haven't a clue. I can point out that I detest pants and have never put them on. I faired up everything without them and I'm content. It's tempting to suggest the pants, but I know that's not the issue. Obviously, wheel balancing didn't solve it, so it's something else. I have the better nose axle - as do most folks, so that's probably not it. > > I have several thoughts that should be explored. The first is Tire Pressure. Incredibly, my tires have not lost a single pound of air pressure in the year+ that I've been flying it. 42 on the mains and 40 on the nose. They are stock Van's tires and tubes. The tires are showing no wear. The smoking gun to me is the outside wear so many have experienced. Could it be that the tires are "scrubbing" on their outside edges due to some sort of "pronation or supination"? If the main axle was "toed in or out" a little (I mean something very small), I could envision a "scrubbing" issue. At higher speeds, the tires would simply sand themselves on the runway, and at slow speeds the flexibility of the rubber would compensate for the scrub, and not be felt. If my theory holds any water at all, the transition between the sanding to the scrubbing is at 40 knots, or so. > > IF, my theory is true (I'm no expert), then that would suggest the culprit is the bolt in the main mount. Without referring to the plans, I remember I needed a 7.9mm drill bit for that. I bought one and used it on mine. Van obviously wanted a close tolerance so the main couldn't move at all. If you used a 5/16" bit, you would have 0.0015" of slop. It sounds incredibly small but could it be enough? > > Anyway, it's the only thing I've come up with so far. > > John > > -------- > #40572 Phase One complete and flying. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381253#381253 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: Aug 19, 2012
I think on take off you pass through the shudder speed so quickly you don't notice it. Alan Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 2:09 PM, David Leikam wrote: > > Why no issue on take off, only landing? > > Dave Leikam > > On Aug 19, 2012, at 11:54 AM, johngoodman wrote: > >> >> Going back to the original issue, I have experienced the 35-45k shimmy in another RV-10, but never in mine. I seriously doubt that stiffening the legs is a cure, only mitigates a symptom. >> As far as why I don't have any shimmy, I haven't a clue. I can point out that I detest pants and have never put them on. I faired up everything without them and I'm content. It's tempting to suggest the pants, but I know that's not the issue. Obviously, wheel balancing didn't solve it, so it's something else. I have the better nose axle - as do most folks, so that's probably not it. >> >> I have several thoughts that should be explored. The first is Tire Pressure. Incredibly, my tires have not lost a single pound of air pressure in the year+ that I've been flying it. 42 on the mains and 40 on the nose. They are stock Van's tires and tubes. The tires are showing no wear. The smoking gun to me is the outside wear so many have experienced. Could it be that the tires are "scrubbing" on their outside edges due to some sort of "pronation or supination"? If the main axle was "toed in or out" a little (I mean something very small), I could envision a "scrubbing" issue. At higher speeds, the tires would simply sand themselves on the runway, and at slow speeds the flexibility of the rubber would compensate for the scrub, and not be felt. If my theory holds any water at all, the transition between the sanding to the scrubbing is at 40 knots, or so. >> >> IF, my theory is true (I'm no expert), then that would suggest the culprit is the bolt in the main mount. Without referring to the plans, I remember I needed a 7.9mm drill bit for that. I bought one and used it on mine. Van obviously wanted a close tolerance so the main couldn't move at all. If you used a 5/16" bit, you would have 0.0015" of slop. It sounds incredibly small but could it be enough? >> >> Anyway, it's the only thing I've come up with so far. >> >> John >> >> -------- >> #40572 Phase One complete and flying. >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381253#381253 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
From: Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2012
I concur Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 12:23, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > > I think on take off you pass through the shudder speed so quickly you don't notice it. > Alan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 19, 2012, at 2:09 PM, David Leikam wrote: > >> >> Why no issue on take off, only landing? >> >> Dave Leikam >> >> On Aug 19, 2012, at 11:54 AM, johngoodman wrote: >> >>> >>> Going back to the original issue, I have experienced the 35-45k shimmy in another RV-10, but never in mine. I seriously doubt that stiffening the legs is a cure, only mitigates a symptom. >>> As far as why I don't have any shimmy, I haven't a clue. I can point out that I detest pants and have never put them on. I faired up everything without them and I'm content. It's tempting to suggest the pants, but I know that's not the issue. Obviously, wheel balancing didn't solve it, so it's something else. I have the better nose axle - as do most folks, so that's probably not it. >>> >>> I have several thoughts that should be explored. The first is Tire Pressure. Incredibly, my tires have not lost a single pound of air pressure in the year+ that I've been flying it. 42 on the mains and 40 on the nose. They are stock Van's tires and tubes. The tires are showing no wear. The smoking gun to me is the outside wear so many have experienced. Could it be that the tires are "scrubbing" on their outside edges due to some sort of "pronation or supination"? If the main axle was "toed in or out" a little (I mean something very small), I could envision a "scrubbing" issue. At higher speeds, the tires would simply sand themselves on the runway, and at slow speeds the flexibility of the rubber would compensate for the scrub, and not be felt. If my theory holds any water at all, the transition between the sanding to the scrubbing is at 40 knots, or so. >>> >>> IF, my theory is true (I'm no expert), then that would suggest the culprit is the bolt in the main mount. Without referring to the plans, I remember I needed a 7.9mm drill bit for that. I bought one and used it on mine. Van obviously wanted a close tolerance so the main couldn't move at all. If you used a 5/16" bit, you would have 0.0015" of slop. It sounds incredibly small but could it be enough? >>> >>> Anyway, it's the only thing I've come up with so far. >>> >>> John >>> >>> -------- >>> #40572 Phase One complete and flying. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381253#381253 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
Date: Aug 19, 2012
At 35 hours I again greased the nose fork and adjusted the tension. As someone suggested, I drilled another hole perhaps 30 degrees off the current hole as the tension was either too tight or too loose using the existing hole. This significantly reduced the shudder. I am also using the replacement nose wheel bearing - and recommend it. All tires have been balanced. On the 8A I noted a significant reduction in shudder after I replaced the main gear tires. Carl 38 hours. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan Mekler MD Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 2:23 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing I think on take off you pass through the shudder speed so quickly you don't notice it. Alan Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 2:09 PM, David Leikam wrote: > > Why no issue on take off, only landing? > > Dave Leikam > > On Aug 19, 2012, at 11:54 AM, johngoodman wrote: > >> --> >> >> Going back to the original issue, I have experienced the 35-45k shimmy in another RV-10, but never in mine. I seriously doubt that stiffening the legs is a cure, only mitigates a symptom. >> As far as why I don't have any shimmy, I haven't a clue. I can point out that I detest pants and have never put them on. I faired up everything without them and I'm content. It's tempting to suggest the pants, but I know that's not the issue. Obviously, wheel balancing didn't solve it, so it's something else. I have the better nose axle - as do most folks, so that's probably not it. >> >> I have several thoughts that should be explored. The first is Tire Pressure. Incredibly, my tires have not lost a single pound of air pressure in the year+ that I've been flying it. 42 on the mains and 40 on the nose. They are stock Van's tires and tubes. The tires are showing no wear. The smoking gun to me is the outside wear so many have experienced. Could it be that the tires are "scrubbing" on their outside edges due to some sort of "pronation or supination"? If the main axle was "toed in or out" a little (I mean something very small), I could envision a "scrubbing" issue. At higher speeds, the tires would simply sand themselves on the runway, and at slow speeds the flexibility of the rubber would compensate for the scrub, and not be felt. If my theory holds any water at all, the transition between the sanding to the scrubbing is at 40 knots, or so. >> >> IF, my theory is true (I'm no expert), then that would suggest the culprit is the bolt in the main mount. Without referring to the plans, I remember I needed a 7.9mm drill bit for that. I bought one and used it on mine. Van obviously wanted a close tolerance so the main couldn't move at all. If you used a 5/16" bit, you would have 0.0015" of slop. It sounds incredibly small but could it be enough? >> >> Anyway, it's the only thing I've come up with so far. >> >> John >> >> -------- >> #40572 Phase One complete and flying. >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381253#381253 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Preid <Rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Trip out West
Date: Aug 19, 2012
How about between FL and TX for overnight and fuel? With kids, no big city Tx Sent from my iPhone On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:13 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Well, I'll presume that you are changing planes in Phoenix to some > small aircraft to fly to Prescott. Not that it matters. Bell DeRouchey > and John Ackerman are in Prescott, may be others. Both have been > flying for sometime. > As for fuel stops, I'll assume you are starting full. On southern > route, first cheap spot is Lordsburg NM at 5.15 a gal. In the past I > have used PEQ, Pecos, as a fuel and overnight stop. > If you elect to stay north, St Johns is cheapest in AZ. BGD in TX > panhandle is good overnight stop and usually cheap fuel with courtesy > car available. Altus OK isn't too bad for overnight, IIRC had to get > ride from FBO to motel and back. > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: >> >> I'm going to be flying (big aluminum tube) to Prescott, AZ on Wednesday morning, then flying back (little cessna spam can) from there to Birmingham. Is anybody in the Prescott, AZ area or Dallas, TX area? Any recommendations for fuel stops and/or routes that I should follow? Any projects that I could take a look at? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> Jesse Saint >> Saint Aviation, Inc. >> jesse(at)saintaviation.com >> C: 352-427-0285 >> F: 815-377-3694 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris" <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com>
Subject: Shudder/shimmy on landing
Date: Aug 19, 2012
And the RV-14 has main gear with rectangular cross section...they finally listened. -Chris N919AR -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 12:44 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Shudder/shimmy on landing --> I asked Robby Grove about aluminum legs for the -10. He said the cross section where they fit into the socket just doesn't provide enough area for aluminum. So it would be a fairly complex task to either modify the socket to accept a rectangular leg or create some kind of adapter to make the changeover outside of the socket. And leaving the biggest part of the leg in steel with the rest in some lighter material kind of defeats the purpose. I agree though, it seems like there must be something better. I'm just not sure I'd want to be the guinea pig if means a broken gear leg. Dave Saylor 831-750-0284 CL On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Scott Schmidt wrote: > --> > > Tim, I have done everything you have as well as realigned my gear to exactly 1.5 degrees of toe-in. I talked with Van and he recommended the wood on the gear. > It is a design problem for sure. A round gear is not optimal but is cheap to manufacture. > > I think the real fix is a total redesign of the gear leg. What I would like to see is a titanium, composite or aluminum gear shaped in a rectangle like the Cirrus or RV-8 taildragger. > I believe the Cirrus gear is composite. I think you could reduce the weight by 50% which would add around 50 lbs to the useful load and eliminate the shimmy. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 19, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Tim Lewis wrote: > >> Sean, >> >> Thanks for relating your experience. It's encouraging to hear that worked. >> >> I remember doing something similar on my RV-6A gear legs 15 years ago as part of the per-plans construction. Although I gave the plans to the new owner when I sold the plane, I was able to find the relevant section in the preview plans. For anybody who is interested, here's a link to that portion of the RV-6 plans: >> >> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/Wood%20Shimmy%20Damper.pdf >> >> Tim >> >> -- >> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) >> RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold >> RV-10 N31TD -- 340 hrs >> >> Seano said the following on 8/18/2012 2:05 PM: >>> >>> Tim, >>> >>> I fiberglassed oak stiffeners on the back of my gear legs. They fit inside the fairing and are basically triangle shaped and milled to fit on the round tapered gear leg. They have really helped with the shimmy. Mine started around 30 kias. >>> If I'm really light and by myself I feel a little shimmy but much less than ever before the stiffeners. If I have any passengers with me or cargo I have no shimmy at all with the stiffeners. Before it would shimmy in any configuration. >>> You can try what I did an that was using strapping tape first to try then out. After it worked I prosealed the woo to the gear leg then glasses them in using a spiral technique with 3" glass tape. >>> >>> Good luck >>> I might be delivering a CJ to Manassas at the end of the month. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Aug 18, 2012, at 11:35, Tim Lewis wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Like many RV-10s (apparently), mine shudders during the landing rollout. Mine starts when decelerating through 35-40 knots (or so) on landing. The speed range at which the shudder occurs is only a small number of knots - less than 5 knot range I think, so the shudder phase stops pretty quickly during deceleration. Hard braking may make the shudder more intense. >>>> >>>> Based on the successful experiences reported by Tim Olson and others, I bought the Marc Parnes DU42 wheel balancer (http://www.marcparnes.com/Ducati_Motorcycle_Wheel_Balancer.htm#DU42), and used that to balance all my wheels. The DU42 is very nice piece of equipment -- surprisingly sensitive. >>>> >>>> http://www.marcparnes.com/Ducati_Motorcycle_Wheel_Balancer.htm#DU42 >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/ParnesOnStands.JPG >>>> >>>> It took a significant amount of weight to balance the wheels (several 1/4oz weights on each wheel). From what I've read, others have had this same experience. >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/TireWts.JPG >>>> >>>> I also installed the planearound.com Wheel Fairing Bracket Spacers to stiffen up the wheel fairing attachment to the main gear. The planearound product is well made, fit fine, and really does stiffen up the wheel fairing bracket attachment. >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/PlaneAround1.JPG >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/PlaneAroundInstalled.JPG >>>> >>>> Results: No discernible change in landing roll out behavior. I still get about the same shudder on roll out. Perhaps the onset speed has been raised a small number of knots as a result of balancing and adding the brackets, but I'm not sure about that. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what else to try. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) >>>> RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold >>>> RV-10 N31TD -- 340 hrs >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Aug 19, 2012
Is the shimmy caused by only the main gear, or does the nose gear have the same issue? I recall seeing a video of the nose gear, but not the mains.. I also recall Geoff Combs telling me that he did not have this shudder until he attached the wheel pants. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381287#381287 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
From: "g.combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2012
Bill was correct about my gear shimmy. It showed up after wheel pants were installed. The wheel pants are really what cause it or should I say make it finally show up or make it worse. I video taped my gear and the wheel pants shake. I never had it until wheel pants were installed. I had over 60 hours on airplane before pants installed. Geoff Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2012, at 7:15 PM, "bill.peyton" wrote: > > Is the shimmy caused by only the main gear, or does the nose gear have the same issue? I recall seeing a video of the nose gear, but not the mains.. I also recall Geoff Combs telling me that he did not have this shudder until he attached the wheel pants. > > -------- > Bill > WA0SYV > Aviation Partners, LLC > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381287#381287 > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
From: David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2012
How many have NOT had any outside tire wear after 150 hours or so? I just flipped and re-balanced my tires and wheels after 166 hours. The outside of my tires were worn so I could not see the grooves. I had the shimmy but now it is only when I let the nose wheel touch after landing. So I just re-balanced the nose wheel and will test tomorrow. Dave leikam On Aug 19, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Chris wrote: > > And the RV-14 has main gear with rectangular cross section...they finally listened. > -Chris > N919AR > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 12:44 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Shudder/shimmy on landing > > --> > > I asked Robby Grove about aluminum legs for the -10. He said the cross section where they fit into the socket just doesn't provide enough area for aluminum. So it would be a fairly complex task to either modify the socket to accept a rectangular leg or create some kind of adapter to make the changeover outside of the socket. And leaving the biggest part of the leg in steel with the rest in some lighter material kind of defeats the purpose. > > I agree though, it seems like there must be something better. I'm just not sure I'd want to be the guinea pig if means a broken gear leg. > > Dave Saylor > 831-750-0284 CL > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Scott Schmidt wrote: >> --> >> >> Tim, I have done everything you have as well as realigned my gear to exactly 1.5 degrees of toe-in. I talked with Van and he recommended the wood on the gear. >> It is a design problem for sure. A round gear is not optimal but is cheap to manufacture. >> >> I think the real fix is a total redesign of the gear leg. What I would like to see is a titanium, composite or aluminum gear shaped in a rectangle like the Cirrus or RV-8 taildragger. >> I believe the Cirrus gear is composite. I think you could reduce the weight by 50% which would add around 50 lbs to the useful load and eliminate the shimmy. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Aug 19, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Tim Lewis wrote: >> >>> Sean, >>> >>> Thanks for relating your experience. It's encouraging to hear that worked. >>> >>> I remember doing something similar on my RV-6A gear legs 15 years ago as part of the per-plans construction. Although I gave the plans to the new owner when I sold the plane, I was able to find the relevant section in the preview plans. For anybody who is interested, here's a link to that portion of the RV-6 plans: >>> >>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/Wood%20Shimmy%20Damper.pdf >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> -- >>> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) >>> RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold >>> RV-10 N31TD -- 340 hrs >>> >>> Seano said the following on 8/18/2012 2:05 PM: >>>> >>>> Tim, >>>> >>>> I fiberglassed oak stiffeners on the back of my gear legs. They fit inside the fairing and are basically triangle shaped and milled to fit on the round tapered gear leg. They have really helped with the shimmy. Mine started around 30 kias. >>>> If I'm really light and by myself I feel a little shimmy but much less than ever before the stiffeners. If I have any passengers with me or cargo I have no shimmy at all with the stiffeners. Before it would shimmy in any configuration. >>>> You can try what I did an that was using strapping tape first to try then out. After it worked I prosealed the woo to the gear leg then glasses them in using a spiral technique with 3" glass tape. >>>> >>>> Good luck >>>> I might be delivering a CJ to Manassas at the end of the month. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Aug 18, 2012, at 11:35, Tim Lewis wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Like many RV-10s (apparently), mine shudders during the landing rollout. Mine starts when decelerating through 35-40 knots (or so) on landing. The speed range at which the shudder occurs is only a small number of knots - less than 5 knot range I think, so the shudder phase stops pretty quickly during deceleration. Hard braking may make the shudder more intense. >>>>> >>>>> Based on the successful experiences reported by Tim Olson and others, I bought the Marc Parnes DU42 wheel balancer (http://www.marcparnes.com/Ducati_Motorcycle_Wheel_Balancer.htm#DU42), and used that to balance all my wheels. The DU42 is very nice piece of equipment -- surprisingly sensitive. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.marcparnes.com/Ducati_Motorcycle_Wheel_Balancer.htm#DU42 >>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/ParnesOnStands.JPG >>>>> >>>>> It took a significant amount of weight to balance the wheels (several 1/4oz weights on each wheel). From what I've read, others have had this same experience. >>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/TireWts.JPG >>>>> >>>>> I also installed the planearound.com Wheel Fairing Bracket Spacers to stiffen up the wheel fairing attachment to the main gear. The planearound product is well made, fit fine, and really does stiffen up the wheel fairing bracket attachment. >>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/PlaneAround1.JPG >>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/PlaneAroundInstalled.JPG >>>>> >>>>> Results: No discernible change in landing roll out behavior. I still get about the same shudder on roll out. Perhaps the onset speed has been raised a small number of knots as a result of balancing and adding the brackets, but I'm not sure about that. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure what else to try. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) >>>>> RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold >>>>> RV-10 N31TD -- 340 hrs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Seano" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing/ brakes/tires and other stuff
I want to talk about
Date: Aug 19, 2012
I am changing mine out now to the dessers. I have 250 hours on the originals and they look pretty bad. My original pads are now close enough to the rivets so I'm changing those too. I was bummed out about my stem on my nose wheel so I bought the right rim from Matco and three new leakproof tubes with the proper valve stems. I'll see if my shimmy is still good with the stiffeners AND the new tires. Also started to get some brake drag on the left caliper. Noticed the slop on the pins and a little rubbing on the caliper from the edge of the rotor. Anyone else notice this? I may talk to Matco about aftermarket brake parts. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Leikam" <arplnplt(at)gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 9:15 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Shudder/shimmy on landing > > How many have NOT had any outside tire wear after 150 hours or so? I just > flipped and re-balanced my tires and wheels after 166 hours. The outside > of my tires were worn so I could not see the grooves. > I had the shimmy but now it is only when I let the nose wheel touch after > landing. So I just re-balanced the nose wheel and will test tomorrow. > > Dave leikam > > On Aug 19, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Chris wrote: > >> >> And the RV-14 has main gear with rectangular cross section...they finally >> listened. >> -Chris >> N919AR >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor >> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 12:44 PM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Shudder/shimmy on landing >> >> --> >> >> I asked Robby Grove about aluminum legs for the -10. He said the cross >> section where they fit into the socket just doesn't provide enough area >> for aluminum. So it would be a fairly complex task to either modify the >> socket to accept a rectangular leg or create some kind of adapter to make >> the changeover outside of the socket. And leaving the biggest part of >> the leg in steel with the rest in some lighter material kind of defeats >> the purpose. >> >> I agree though, it seems like there must be something better. I'm just >> not sure I'd want to be the guinea pig if means a broken gear leg. >> >> Dave Saylor >> 831-750-0284 CL >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Scott Schmidt >> wrote: >>> --> >>> >>> Tim, I have done everything you have as well as realigned my gear to >>> exactly 1.5 degrees of toe-in. I talked with Van and he recommended the >>> wood on the gear. >>> It is a design problem for sure. A round gear is not optimal but is >>> cheap to manufacture. >>> >>> I think the real fix is a total redesign of the gear leg. What I would >>> like to see is a titanium, composite or aluminum gear shaped in a >>> rectangle like the Cirrus or RV-8 taildragger. >>> I believe the Cirrus gear is composite. I think you could reduce the >>> weight by 50% which would add around 50 lbs to the useful load and >>> eliminate the shimmy. >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Aug 19, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Tim Lewis wrote: >>> >>>> Sean, >>>> >>>> Thanks for relating your experience. It's encouraging to hear that >>>> worked. >>>> >>>> I remember doing something similar on my RV-6A gear legs 15 years ago >>>> as part of the per-plans construction. Although I gave the plans to >>>> the new owner when I sold the plane, I was able to find the relevant >>>> section in the preview plans. For anybody who is interested, here's a >>>> link to that portion of the RV-6 plans: >>>> >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/Wood%20Shimmy%20Damper.pdf >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) >>>> RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold >>>> RV-10 N31TD -- 340 hrs >>>> >>>> Seano said the following on 8/18/2012 2:05 PM: >>>>> >>>>> Tim, >>>>> >>>>> I fiberglassed oak stiffeners on the back of my gear legs. They fit >>>>> inside the fairing and are basically triangle shaped and milled to fit >>>>> on the round tapered gear leg. They have really helped with the >>>>> shimmy. Mine started around 30 kias. >>>>> If I'm really light and by myself I feel a little shimmy but much less >>>>> than ever before the stiffeners. If I have any passengers with me or >>>>> cargo I have no shimmy at all with the stiffeners. Before it would >>>>> shimmy in any configuration. >>>>> You can try what I did an that was using strapping tape first to try >>>>> then out. After it worked I prosealed the woo to the gear leg then >>>>> glasses them in using a spiral technique with 3" glass tape. >>>>> >>>>> Good luck >>>>> I might be delivering a CJ to Manassas at the end of the month. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 18, 2012, at 11:35, Tim Lewis wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Like many RV-10s (apparently), mine shudders during the landing >>>>>> rollout. Mine starts when decelerating through 35-40 knots (or so) >>>>>> on landing. The speed range at which the shudder occurs is only a >>>>>> small number of knots - less than 5 knot range I think, so the >>>>>> shudder phase stops pretty quickly during deceleration. Hard braking >>>>>> may make the shudder more intense. >>>>>> >>>>>> Based on the successful experiences reported by Tim Olson and >>>>>> others, I bought the Marc Parnes DU42 wheel balancer >>>>>> (http://www.marcparnes.com/Ducati_Motorcycle_Wheel_Balancer.htm#DU42), >>>>>> and used that to balance all my wheels. The DU42 is very nice piece >>>>>> of equipment -- surprisingly sensitive. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.marcparnes.com/Ducati_Motorcycle_Wheel_Balancer.htm#DU42 >>>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/ParnesOnStands.JPG >>>>>> >>>>>> It took a significant amount of weight to balance the wheels (several >>>>>> 1/4oz weights on each wheel). From what I've read, others have had >>>>>> this same experience. >>>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/TireWts.JPG >>>>>> >>>>>> I also installed the planearound.com Wheel Fairing Bracket Spacers to >>>>>> stiffen up the wheel fairing attachment to the main gear. The >>>>>> planearound product is well made, fit fine, and really does stiffen >>>>>> up the wheel fairing bracket attachment. >>>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/PlaneAround1.JPG >>>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/PlaneAroundInstalled.JPG >>>>>> >>>>>> Results: No discernible change in landing roll out behavior. I >>>>>> still get about the same shudder on roll out. Perhaps the onset >>>>>> speed has been raised a small number of knots as a result of >>>>>> balancing and adding the brackets, but I'm not sure about that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure what else to try. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) >>>>>> RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold >>>>>> RV-10 N31TD -- 340 hrs >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2012
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing/ brakes/tires and other stuff
I want to talk about
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sean, You can correct the brake caliper problem, no need for new hardware. You can find some brake silicone lube at any National Aircraft Parts Assn store (aka NAPA0 or equivalent. Lube the pins(and nothing else). If you have 5606 fluid in your brake system and any seeped out at the caliper that can also cause it to stick, as well as being fire hazard. Good excuse to change the system over to the better high temperature fluid. Kelly On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Seano wrote: > Also started to get some brake drag on the left caliper. Noticed the slop > on the pins and a little rubbing on the caliper from the edge of the rotor. > Anyone else notice this? > I may talk to Matco about aftermarket brake parts. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Seano" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing/ brakes/tires and other stuff
I want to talk about
Date: Aug 20, 2012
Thanks Kelly, I've been using Royco 782 as the fluid with the Viton O-rings from the start. I will try the lube and install the new pads. Seems like a lubed them last inspection in January. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 5:19 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Shudder/shimmy on landing/ brakes/tires and other stuff I want to talk about > > Sean, > You can correct the brake caliper problem, no need for new hardware. > You can find some brake silicone lube at any National Aircraft Parts > Assn store (aka NAPA0 or equivalent. Lube the pins(and nothing else). > If you have 5606 fluid in your brake system and any seeped out at the > caliper that can also cause it to stick, as well as being fire hazard. > Good excuse to change the system over to the better high temperature > fluid. > Kelly > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Seano wrote: > >> Also started to get some brake drag on the left caliper. Noticed the >> slop >> on the pins and a little rubbing on the caliper from the edge of the >> rotor. >> Anyone else notice this? >> I may talk to Matco about aftermarket brake parts. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2012
I like to fly early. I taxied 90* to the morning sun and my nose wheel/pant started the fore-aft oscillation at 15-18 kts GS during phase 1. Since, I have flown with the family near gross wt and have very little shudder/shimmy. I flew up to a pancake breakfast with my 90 lb son/copilot Sat. I could feel an up and down motion from main gear. Hmmm...that's interesting. I know my Van's supplied tires are 5/16" out of round(no reason to balance an out of round tire), but never noticed it during first 25 hrs of testing. All I could think of was maybe I was riding more on the corners of the tires at low fuel/people loading and feeling scalloped tires. I have an entire set of Desser retreads/tubes to install at annual in November. Van's first flight test in the -10 noted a shimmy. They said it was a brake disc .002" off...they knew about this since day one. I believe we will always have problems with our round flexible, twistable gear legs, especially flying lightweight(which Sat was the first time in 50 hrs). So fly at gross and see if it makes a difference with yours. Note: I have reinforced/improved wheel pant mounting, matco nose wheel and orig unbalanced/out of round/crappy tires/tubes. At least they don't leak down! -------- Wayne Gillispie, A&P 05/93 PP 10/08 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD 382nd Flying. TT= 74 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381352#381352 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV-10 Battery
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2012
One reason I installed an aux PC680 beside my 925. It never happens at home. -------- Wayne Gillispie, A&P 05/93 PP 10/08 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD 382nd Flying. TT= 74 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381353#381353 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Main gear shudder revisited (retread tires)
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: Aug 20, 2012
My tires are being delivered today. How will i know which retreads i got? Alan Sent from my iPhone On Aug 20, 2012, at 10:49 AM, PReid wrote: > Pascal ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Main gear shudder revisited (retread tires)
From: PReid <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Date: Aug 20, 2012
The process is all the same regardless of the core used. The difference is in the original tire used to retread it. So if you look at the sidewall it will tell you what core they used for the retread. Some people just like having a certain tire, be it Michelin, Good Year, etc.. So I was just giving a heads up that one can ask for it and Desser will attempt to accommodate that request. Sales will tell you it's all the same however. On Aug 20, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > > My tires are being delivered today. > How will i know which retreads i got? > Alan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 20, 2012, at 10:49 AM, PReid wrote: > >> Pascal > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Main gear shudder revisited (retread tires)
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: Aug 20, 2012
Thanks. I"ll know for the next time I order. Alan Sent from my iPhone On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:04 PM, PReid wrote: > > The process is all the same regardless of the core used. The difference is in the original tire used to retread it. So if you look at the sidewall it will tell you what core they used for the retread. > Some people just like having a certain tire, be it Michelin, Good Year, etc.. So I was just giving a heads up that one can ask for it and Desser will attempt to accommodate that request. Sales will tell you it's all the same however. > > > > On Aug 20, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > >> >> My tires are being delivered today. >> How will i know which retreads i got? >> Alan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Aug 20, 2012, at 10:49 AM, PReid wrote: >> >>> Pascal >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Standley" <taildragon(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
Date: Aug 20, 2012
OK, lets summarize what people have said. There seem to be multiple "triggers" to cause the shudder/shimmy effect on landing. It could be mains and/or nose wheel: light toe in/out, brake disk "off", wheel pants "off", tires "off"...you can take your pick. The point is that the tapered main gear is too sensitive to a variety of "triggers". Lets make the tapered main gear less susceptible by changing the dynamic. Steve T at steve(at)aircraftspecialty.com has offered to make up stiffeners but needs to know would aluminum or wood work better? How long of a piece are we talking about? I, for one, would like to give this a shot. Roger "mine shudders, too" Standley ----- Original Message ----- From: rv10flyer<mailto:wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 7:26 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing > I like to fly early. I taxied 90* to the morning sun and my nose wheel/pant started the fore-aft oscillation at 15-18 kts GS during phase 1. Since, I have flown with the family near gross wt and have very little shudder/shimmy. I flew up to a pancake breakfast with my 90 lb son/copilot Sat. I could feel an up and down motion from main gear. Hmmm...that's interesting. I know my Van's supplied tires are 5/16" out of round(no reason to balance an out of round tire), but never noticed it during first 25 hrs of testing. All I could think of was maybe I was riding more on the corners of the tires at low fuel/people loading and feeling scalloped tires. I have an entire set of Desser retreads/tubes to install at annual in November. Van's first flight test in the -10 noted a shimmy. They said it was a brake disc .002" off...they knew about this since day one. I believe we will always have problems with our round flexible, twistable gear legs, especially flying lightweight(which Sat was the first time in 50 hrs). So fly at gross and see if it makes a difference with yours. Note: I have reinforced/improved wheel pant mounting, matco nose wheel and orig unbalanced/out of round/crappy tires/tubes. At least they don't leak down! -------- Wayne Gillispie, A&P 05/93 PP 10/08 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD 382nd Flying. TT= 74 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381352#381352 .matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381352#381352> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List igator?RV10-List> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
From: Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2012
Make it too stiff and it may transfer energy to places you don't want it. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 20, 2012, at 16:31, "Roger Standley" wrote: > OK, lets summarize what people have said. There seem to be multiple "trigg ers" to cause the shudder/shimmy effect on landing. It could be mains and/or nose wheel: light toe in/out, brake disk "off", wheel pants "off", tires "o ff"...you can take your pick. The point is that the tapered main gear is too sensitive to a variety of "triggers". Lets make the tapered main gear less susceptible by changing the dynamic. > > Steve T at steve(at)aircraftspecialty.com has offered to make up stiffeners b ut needs to know would aluminum or wood work better? How long of a piece ar e we talking about? > > I, for one, would like to give this a shot. > > Roger "mine shudders, too" Standley > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: rv10flyer > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 7:26 AM > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing > > > I like to fly early. I taxied 90* to the morning sun and my nose wheel/pan t started the fore-aft oscillation at 15-18 kts GS during phase 1. Since, I have flown with the family near gross wt and have very little shudder/sh immy. I flew up to a pancake breakfast with my 90 lb son/copilot Sat. I coul d feel an up and down motion from main gear. Hmmm...that's interesting. I kn ow my Van's supplied tires are 5/16" out of round(no reason to balance an ou t of round tire), but never noticed it during first 25 hrs of testing. All I could think of was maybe I was riding more on the corners of the tires at l ow fuel/people loading and feeling scalloped tires. I have an entire set of D esser retreads/tubes to install at annual in November. > Van's first flight test in the -10 noted a shimmy. They said it was a brak e disc .002" off...they knew about this since day one. > I believe we will always have problems with our round flexible, twistable g ear legs, especially flying lightweight(which Sat was the first time in 50 h rs). So fly at gross and see if it makes a difference with yours. Note: I ha ve reinforced/improved wheel pant mounting, matco nose wheel and orig unbala nced/out of round/crappy tires/tubes. At least they don't leak down! > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie, A&P 05/93 PP 10/08 > 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 > N715WD 382nd Flying. TT= 74 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381352#381352 > > > http://www.matronicp; via the Web title=http://forums.matronics.com/ h ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > _p; generous bsp; title=http://www.matronics. com/contribution href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.m atronics.com/c================ > > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Roger Standley <taildragon(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
Date: Aug 20, 2012
Seano=2C Agreed=2C what size did you use? Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing From: sean(at)braunandco.com Date: Mon=2C 20 Aug 2012 17:41:23 -0600 Make it too stiff and it may transfer energy to places you don't want it. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 20=2C 2012=2C at 16:31=2C "Roger Standley" wrot e: OK=2C lets summarize what people have said. There seem to be multiple "triggers" to cause the shudder/shimmy effect on landing. It could be mains and/or nose wheel: light toe in/out=2C brake disk "off"=2C wheel pants "off "=2C tires "off"...you can take your pick. The point is that the tapered main gear is too sensitive to a variety of "triggers". Lets make the tapered main gear less susceptible by changing the dynamic. Steve T at steve(at)aircraftspecialty.com has offered to make up stiffeners but needs to know would aluminum or wood work better? How long of a piece are we talking about? I=2C for one=2C would like to give this a shot. Roger "mine shudders=2C too" Standley ----- Original Message ----- From: rv10flyer To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday=2C August 20=2C 2012 7:26 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing I like to fly early. I taxied 90* to the morning sun and my nose wheel/pant started the fore-aft oscillation at 15-18 kts GS during phase 1. Since=2C I have flown with the family near gross wt and have very little shudder/shimmy. I flew up to a pancake breakfast with my 90 lb son/copilo t Sat. I could feel an up and down motion from main gear. Hmmm...that's interesting. I know my Van's supplied tires are 5/16" out of round(no rea son to balance an out of round tire)=2C but never noticed it during first 25 hrs of testing. All I could think of was maybe I was riding more on the corners of the tires at low fuel/people loading and feeling scalloped tires. I have an entire set of Desser retreads/tubes to install at annual in November. Van's first flight test in the -10 noted a shimmy. They said it was a brake disc .002" off...they knew about this since day one. I believe we will always have problems with our round flexible=2C twistable gear legs =2C especially flying lightweight(which Sat was the first time in 50 hrs). So fly at gross and see if it makes a difference with yours. Note: I have reinforced/improved wheel pant mounting=2C matco nose wheel and orig unbalanced/out of round/crappy tires/tubes. At least they don't leak down! -------- Wayne Gillispie=2C A&=3BP 05/93 PP 10/08 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD 382nd Flying. TT= 74 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381352#381352 http:// www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" href="http://www.matronics.com/Nav igator?RV10-List">http://www.matronicp=3B via the Web title=http://forums.matronics.com/ href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com _p=3B generous bsp=3B title=http://www.matronics.com/contribution href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ================ 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
From: "amekler" <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: Aug 20, 2012
will the RV-14 gear fit on the 10? the wing is the same. Alan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381430#381430 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2012
From: Tim Lewis <TimRVator(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
Attached is the email I got back from Van's on this topic. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: RV-10 gear leg shimmy Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:11:56 -0700 From: Sterling <support(at)vansaircraft.com> The wood stiffener is an option to address the main gear shimmy but more as a last resort. Another way you can help this problem is by simply adjusting the air pressure in your main wheels. This is most likely caused by people having to much pressure in your tires. Try adjusting pressure by two pounds at a time and testing. If this does not work to your satisfaction you will than want to try the wood stiffener method. Sterling -- Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold RV-10 N31TD -- 300 hrs Seano said the following on 8/18/2012 2:05 PM: > > Tim, > > I fiberglassed oak stiffeners on the back of my gear legs. They fit inside the fairing and are basically triangle shaped and milled to fit on the round tapered gear leg. They have really helped with the shimmy. Mine started around 30 kias. > If I'm really light and by myself I feel a little shimmy but much less than ever before the stiffeners. If I have any passengers with me or cargo I have no shimmy at all with the stiffeners. Before it would shimmy in any configuration. > You can try what I did an that was using strapping tape first to try then out. After it worked I prosealed the woo to the gear leg then glasses them in using a spiral technique with 3" glass tape. > > Good luck > I might be delivering a CJ to Manassas at the end of the month. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 18, 2012, at 11:35, Tim Lewis wrote: > >> >> Like many RV-10s (apparently), mine shudders during the landing rollout. Mine starts when decelerating through 35-40 knots (or so) on landing. The speed range at which the shudder occurs is only a small number of knots - less than 5 knot range I think, so the shudder phase stops pretty quickly during deceleration. Hard braking may make the shudder more intense. >> >> Based on the successful experiences reported by Tim Olson and others, I bought the Marc Parnes DU42 wheel balancer (http://www.marcparnes.com/Ducati_Motorcycle_Wheel_Balancer.htm#DU42), and used that to balance all my wheels. The DU42 is very nice piece of equipment -- surprisingly sensitive. >> >> http://www.marcparnes.com/Ducati_Motorcycle_Wheel_Balancer.htm#DU42 >> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/ParnesOnStands.JPG >> >> It took a significant amount of weight to balance the wheels (several 1/4oz weights on each wheel). From what I've read, others have had this same experience. >> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/TireWts.JPG >> >> I also installed the planearound.com Wheel Fairing Bracket Spacers to stiffen up the wheel fairing attachment to the main gear. The planearound product is well made, fit fine, and really does stiffen up the wheel fairing bracket attachment. >> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/PlaneAround1.JPG >> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/93114308/PlaneAroundInstalled.JPG >> >> Results: No discernible change in landing roll out behavior. I still get about the same shudder on roll out. Perhaps the onset speed has been raised a small number of knots as a result of balancing and adding the brackets, but I'm not sure about that. >> >> I'm not sure what else to try. >> >> Tim >> >> -- >> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) >> RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold >> RV-10 N31TD -- 340 hrs >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2012
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
Not sure about the gear, but the wing is NOT the same. The wing is a 10 wi ng, but it is 2 feet shorter. Aileron is the same, but the flaps are short er. I would imagine that the attach point for the gear is not only enginee red different, but would not adapt to the existing 10 mount point.=0ADon Mc Donald=0A- =0A=0A________________________________=0A From: amekler <amekl er(at)metrocast.net>=0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:40 PM=0ASubject: RV10-List: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing=0A =0A-- the RV-14 gear fit on the 10?=0Athe wing is the same.=0AAlan=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A Read this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php = ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing
From: Steve T <aircraftspecialty(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2012
Does anyone have their fairings off at the moment? If you do, and you have a free minute, please measure the diameter of the ge ar leg a few inches down from the fuselage. Then go 18" down the gear leg p ast the first point you measured and measure the next diameter there please. Those are the two measurements I'll need to make a prototype. Thanks Steve P.S. Most people I have talked to believe this should be made of wood. If a nyone has a differing opinion, let me know. P.P.S. right now I still can't promise I'll make this available, but since i t's an issue affecting a lot of folks I'll definitely give it a really good l ook. I just want to make sure that whatever I make is of good quality and w ill address the problem. Take care Steve P.S. you can email the measurements to steve(at)aircraftspecialty.com Sent from my iPhone On Aug 20, 2012, at 15:31, "Roger Standley" wrote: > OK, lets summarize what people have said. There seem to be multiple "trigg ers" to cause the shudder/shimmy effect on landing. It could be mains and/or nose wheel: light toe in/out, brake disk "off", wheel pants "off", tires "o ff"...you can take your pick. The point is that the tapered main gear is too sensitive to a variety of "triggers". Lets make the tapered main gear less susceptible by changing the dynamic. > > Steve T at steve(at)aircraftspecialty.com has offered to make up stiffeners b ut needs to know would aluminum or wood work better? How long of a piece ar e we talking about? > > I, for one, would like to give this a shot. > > Roger "mine shudders, too" Standley > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: rv10flyer > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 7:26 AM > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Shudder/shimmy on landing > > > I like to fly early. I taxied 90* to the morning sun and my nose wheel/pan t started the fore-aft oscillation at 15-18 kts GS during phase 1. Since, I have flown with the family near gross wt and have very little shudder/sh immy. I flew up to a pancake breakfast with my 90 lb son/copilot Sat. I coul d feel an up and down motion from main gear. Hmmm...that's interesting. I kn ow my Van's supplied tires are 5/16" out of round(no reason to balance an ou t of round tire), but never noticed it during first 25 hrs of testing. All I could think of was maybe I was riding more on the corners of the tires at l ow fuel/people loading and feeling scalloped tires. I have an entire set of D esser retreads/tubes to install at annual in November. > Van's first flight test in the -10 noted a shimmy. They said it was a brak e disc .002" off...they knew about this since day one. > I believe we will always have problems with our round flexible, twistable g ear legs, especially flying lightweight(which Sat was the first time in 50 h rs). So fly at gross and see if it makes a difference with yours. Note: I ha ve reinforced/improved wheel pant mounting, matco nose wheel and orig unbala nced/out of round/crappy tires/tubes. At least they don't leak down! > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie, A&P 05/93 PP 10/08 > 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 > N715WD 382nd Flying. TT= 74 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381352#381352 > > > http://www.matronicp; via the Web title=http://forums.matronics.com/ h ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > _p; generous bsp; title=http://www.matronics. com/contribution href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.m atronics.com/c================ > > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Gear leg stiffener update
From: Steve T <aircraftspecialty(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2012
Hey everyone.... I'm not one to turn down a project, but I just saw that a guy on VAF is selling stiffeners for the main gear. His email is woodmanrog(at)comcast.net. If he's already doing this, and if his stiffeners work, I don't want to develop a product and compete with the guy who came out with it first. Check with him and if that solution doesn't seem to work for the -10, I'm happy to help out. But if it does, that might be the best option. We are working on a bunch of neat things here, which I hope to start releasing toward the end of the year. Have a lot of testing to do! Take care, Steve Www.aircraftspecialty.com Www.kitplanehoses.com Www.kitplanemods.com Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Ken Krueger - Leaves Vans Aircraft
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2012
Got this on AVwebBiz: Ken Krueger, the chief engineer who guided Van's Aircraft in the design of many of its most popular models over the last 16 years, has taken an engineering post at Sierra Kilo. Boy, he has really made some significant contributions to Van's, I am sorry to see this but as usual wish Ken great success. -------- 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=381511#381511 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2012
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Ken Krueger - Leaves Vans Aircraft
Sad for us...he was a good guy. What's Sierra Kilo? Tim On 8/22/2012 8:28 AM, jkreidler wrote: > > > Got this on AVwebBiz: > > Ken Krueger, the chief engineer who guided Van's Aircraft in the > design of many of its most popular models over the last 16 years, has > taken an engineering post at Sierra Kilo. > > Boy, he has really made some significant contributions to Van's, I am > sorry to see this but as usual wish Ken great success. > > -------- Jason Kreidler 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI Tony > Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler N44YH - Flying - > #40617 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2012
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ken Krueger - Leaves Vans Aircraft
Sierra would be "Susan", Kilo would be "Ken"....- I hate to start a rumor , but could Jesse Saint be somehow envolved?=0ADon=0A=0A=0A________________ ________________=0AFrom: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@matroni cs.com =0ASent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:41 AM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List Tim Olson =0A=0ASad for us...he was a good guy.=0A=0AWhat's Sierra Kilo?=0ATim=0A=0A=0AOn 8/22/2012 8:28 AM, jkreidler wrote:=0A> --> RV10-List message posted by: "jkreidler"=0A> =0A>=0A> Got this on AVwebBiz:=0A>=0A> Ken Krueger, the chief engineer wh o guided Van's Aircraft in the=0A> design of many of its most popular model s over the last 16 years, has=0A> taken an engineering post at Sierra Kilo. =0A>=0A> Boy, he has really made some significant contributions to Van's, I am=0A> sorry to see this but as usual wish Ken great success.=0A>=0A> ---- ---- Jason Kreidler 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI Tony=0A> Kolar, K yle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler N44YH - Flying -=0A> #40617=0A>=0A> ============= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2012
Subject: Re: Ken Krueger - Leaves Vans Aircraft
From: bruce breckenridge <bbreckenridge(at)gmail.com>
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/whats_new/KenK.pdf On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:28 AM, jkreidler wrote: > jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com> > > Got this on AVwebBiz: > > Ken Krueger, the chief engineer who guided Van's Aircraft in the design of > many of its most popular models over the last 16 years, has taken an > engineering post at Sierra Kilo. > > Boy, he has really made some significant contributions to Van's, I am > sorry to see this but as usual wish Ken great success. > > -------- > 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=381511#381511 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ken Krueger - Leaves Vans Aircraft
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2012
Jesse Saint is in no way involved. 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 Aug 22, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Don McDonald wrote : > Sierra would be "Susan", Kilo would be "Ken".... I hate to start a rumor, but could Jesse Saint be somehow envolved? > Don > > From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:41 AM > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ken Krueger - Leaves Vans Aircraft > > > Sad for us...he was a good guy. > > What's Sierra Kilo? > Tim > > > On 8/22/2012 8:28 AM, jkreidler wrote: > > > > > > Got this on AVwebBiz: > > > > Ken Krueger, the chief engineer who guided Van's Aircraft in the > > design of many of its most popular models over the last 16 years, has > > taken an engineering post at Sierra Kilo. > > > > Boy, he has really made some significant contributions to Van's, I am > > sorry to see this but as usual wish Ken great success. > > > > -------- Jason Kreidler 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls, WI Tony > > Kolar, Kyle Hokel, Wayne Elser, Jason Kreidler Np; --> > > > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Parts for sale
From: "Bajajim" <Jim(at)JimVillani.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2012
Carl, Still have the oil cooler.. if so I will take it off your hands... Jim Jim(at)Sold702.com 702-379-5524 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381556#381556 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 24, 2012
Subject: New Vans site
OMG Vans remodeled their web site... First plane I was was 104CD! Dave Saylor 831-750-0284 CL ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New Vans site
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Aug 24, 2012
Yes. There are new URL (addresses) so old bookmarks to certain pages may no longer work. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381718#381718 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: BNC's in Birmingham
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Aug 24, 2012
I am in fairly desperate need of a few dual crimp BNC connectors in KPLR or KBHM over the weekend. Anybody in the area have some. Please call me, day or night, if you do or know someone who does. I can replace them next week. Thanks! 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: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 25, 2012
All, Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van's offering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438 <http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&browse=a irframe&product=canopy-covers> &browse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? Thanks, Carl 38.4 hours - final test period flight today if the weather cooperates ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com>
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Carl, I have been using the cover from Flightline Interiors for about three years now. It is lightweight, tough, and is holding up very nicely. David Maib RV-10 Transition Trainer 40559 On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: All, Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=92s offering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brows e=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listinghttp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? Thanks, Carl 38.4 hours ' final test period flight today if the weather cooperates ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com>
I have a Flight Line Interiors cover. Lightweight and quality construction. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Date: Aug 25, 2012
I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but it di dn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh. I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my RV-1 0. -Mike Kraus RV-10 Flying KitFox SS7 - building Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" w rote: > All, > > Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offeri ng http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brow se=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http: //www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 > > Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? > > Thanks, > Carl > 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coopera tes > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2012
You can get a 10% discount from Bruce's covers by using a code from the rvai rspace.com forum. I've been very happy with their products. Bob Sent from my iPad On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" w rote: > All, > > Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offeri ng http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brow se=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http: //www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 > > Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? > > Thanks, > Carl > 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coopera tes > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 25, 2012
I have a Flightline and I love it. I forgot it on a trip and borrowed the c leveland and that cover was miserable. I would definitely not get that one. You will like the Flightline one though, IMHO it's ideal. Tim On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" w rote: > All, > > Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offeri ng http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brow se=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http: //www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 > > Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? > > Thanks, > Carl > 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coopera tes > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 25, 2012
It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3X t he size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, but i f I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much spac e left for a huge cover. Tim On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus wrot e: > I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but it d idn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh. > > I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my RV -10. > > -Mike Kraus > RV-10 Flying > KitFox SS7 - building > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: > >> All, >> >> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offer ing http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&bro wse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http ://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 >> >> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? >> >> Thanks, >> Carl >> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather cooper ates >> >> >> >> ========================= ========= >> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ========================= ========= >> cs.com >> ========================= ========= >> matronics.com/contribution >> ========================= ========= >> > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <coop85(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Carl, I ordered the cover from Cleaveland Tool, it works great and has held up well over the past 6 years, including 6 months in full-time exposure while I was waiting for a hangar. It wads up nice and small and is very light, keeps the water off extremely well. Marcus 40286 On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: All, Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=92s offering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brows e=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listinghttp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? Thanks, Carl 38.4 hours ' final test period flight today if the weather cooperates style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: Don Mc Donald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should have s aid "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 traveling, t here's always plenty of room for the cover. Don McDonald Sent from my iPad On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3 X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, bu t if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much s pace left for a huge cover. > Tim > > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus wr ote: > >> I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but it didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh. >> >> I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my R V-10. >> >> -Mike Kraus >> RV-10 Flying >> KitFox SS7 - building >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offe ring http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&br owse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing htt p://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 >>> >>> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Carl >>> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coope rates >>> >>> >>> >>> ======================== >>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>> ======================== >>> cs.com >>> ======================== >>> matronics.com/contribution >>> ======================== >>> >> >> >> ========================= ========= >> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ========================= ========= >> cs.com >> ========================= ========= >> matronics.com/contribution >> ========================= ========= >> > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2012
I recommend Flightline's lightweight cover too. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:16, Don Mc Donald wrote: > Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should hav e said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 travelin g, there's always plenty of room for the cover. > Don McDonald > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > >> It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3 X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, bu t if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much s pace left for a huge cover. >> Tim >> >> >> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus w rote: >> >>> I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but i t didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh. >>> >>> I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my R V-10. >>> >>> -Mike Kraus >>> RV-10 Flying >>> KitFox SS7 - building >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s off ering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&b rowse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing ht tp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 >>>> >>>> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Carl >>>> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coop erates >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ========= >>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>>> ========= >>>> cs.com >>>> ========= >>>> matronics.com/contribution >>>> ========= >>>> >>> >>> >>> ========= >>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>> ========= >>> cs.com >>> ========= >>> matronics.com/contribution >>> ========= >>> >> >> >> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronhr ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ontribution >> > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Great feed from everyone =93 thanks. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Seano Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:26 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Travel canopy cover recommendations I recommend Flightline's lightweight cover too. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:16, Don Mc Donald wrote: Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should have said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 traveling, there's always plenty of room for the cover. Don McDonald Sent from my iPad On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson wrote: It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, but if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much space left for a huge cover. Tim On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus wrote: I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but it didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh. I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my RV-10. -Mike Kraus RV-10 Flying KitFox SS7 - building Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: All, Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438 <http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&bro wse=airframe&product=canopy-covers> &browse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? Thanks, Carl 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather cooperates ========= ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= cs.com ========= matronics.com/contribution ========= ========= ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= cs.com ========= matronics.com/contribution ========= href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronhr ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ontribution ========= ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= cs.com ========= matronics.com/contribution ========= ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Preid <Rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Agree! Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Seano wrote: > I recommend Flightline's lightweight cover too. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:16, Don Mc Donald wrote : > >> Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should ha ve said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 traveli ng, there's always plenty of room for the cover. >> Don McDonald >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson wrote: >> >>> It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, b ut if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much s pace left for a huge cover. >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus w rote: >>> >>>> I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but i t didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh. >>>> >>>> I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my RV-10. >>>> >>>> -Mike Kraus >>>> RV-10 Flying >>>> KitFox SS7 - building >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s of fering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438& browse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing h ttp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 >>>>> >>>>> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Carl >>>>> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coo perates >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ========= >>>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>>>> ========= >>>>> cs.com >>>>> ========= >>>>> matronics.com/contribution >>>>> ========= >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ========= >>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>>> ========= >>>> cs.com >>>> ========= >>>> matronics.com/contribution >>>> ========= >>>> >>> >>> >>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronh ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/ contribution >>> >> >> >> ========================= ========= >> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ========================= ========= >> cs.com >> ========================= ========= >> matronics.com/contribution >> ========================= ========= >> > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: Preid <Rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Yes, but my back always hurts after we put it on your plane!! The way to look at the difference is that Bruces covers are much more durabl e and good for someone who leaves their planes out a lot on trips. Don, you q ualify in this regard, but for someone who needs it for a couple a days at a time the lightweight from flight line is a great option, light and does an e xcellent job. There is also a lightweight version from Bruce's that is designed for a hang ar and is NOT water resistant or designed for outdoor use. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:16 AM, Don Mc Donald wrote : > Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should hav e said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 travelin g, there's always plenty of room for the cover. > Don McDonald > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > >> It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3 X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, bu t if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much s pace left for a huge cover. >> Tim >> >> >> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus w rote: >> >>> I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but i t didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh. >>> >>> I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my R V-10. >>> >>> -Mike Kraus >>> RV-10 Flying >>> KitFox SS7 - building >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s off ering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&b rowse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing ht tp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 >>>> >>>> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Carl >>>> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coop erates >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ========= >>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>>> ========= >>>> cs.com >>>> ========= >>>> matronics.com/contribution >>>> ========= >>>> >>> >>> >>> ========= >>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>> ========= >>> cs.com >>> ========= >>> matronics.com/contribution >>> ========= >>> >> >> >> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronhr ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ontribution >> > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Yep, I just never travel with 2. ;) Tim On Aug 25, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Don Mc Donald wrot e: > Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should hav e said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 travelin g, there's always plenty of room for the cover. > Don McDonald > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > >> It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3 X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, bu t if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much s pace left for a huge cover. >> Tim >> >> >> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus w rote: >> >>> I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but i t didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh. >>> >>> I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my R V-10. >>> >>> -Mike Kraus >>> RV-10 Flying >>> KitFox SS7 - building >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s off ering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&b rowse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing ht tp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 >>>> >>>> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Carl >>>> 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather coop erates >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ========= >>>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>>> ========= >>>> cs.com >>>> ========= >>>> matronics.com/contribution >>>> ========= >>>> >>> >>> >>> ========= >>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>> ========= >>> cs.com >>> ========= >>> matronics.com/contribution >>> ========= >>> >> >> >> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronhr ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ontribution >> > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 25, 2012
I also agree.I love my flightline cover. From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Preid Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 8:51 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Travel canopy cover recommendations Agree! Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Seano wrote: I recommend Flightline's lightweight cover too. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:16, Don Mc Donald wrote: Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should have said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 traveling, there's always plenty of room for the cover. Don McDonald Sent from my iPad On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson wrote: It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, but if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much space left for a huge cover. Tim On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus wrote: I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but it didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh. I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my RV-10. -Mike Kraus RV-10 Flying KitFox SS7 - building Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: All, Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=99s offering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438 <http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&bro wse=airframe&product=canopy-covers> &browse=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? Thanks, Carl 38.4 hours =93 final test period flight today if the weather cooperates ========= ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= cs.com ========= matronics.com/contribution ========= ========= ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= cs.com ========= matronics.com/contribution ========= href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronhr ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ontribution ========= ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= cs.com ========= matronics.com/contribution ========= ========= ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= cs.com ========= matronics.com/contribution ========= ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2012
We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years now. As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo injectors. We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think due to higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended climbs. So it is time to make some modifications to provide more margin. I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter of the James cowl. A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger inlet rings at no charge with apologies for having to install them. So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good baseline of our current condition so we started on a path to gather data. I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect this data during the whole turbo injector experiment. We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. We started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber above the engine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine (near the sump), third to the pressurized injector manifold (which is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static pressure system. Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then in cruise at 8000 PA and 4000 PA. The data listed respectively were: Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4" Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10" Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5" Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10" Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3" I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been redundant, but it is an experiment after all. So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to Static" reading. There was an article in the September 96 issue of Sport Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the bottom cowling is damming up the air causing lazy flow over the cylinders and oil cooler". So what does a significant pressure drop mean? We obviously do not have enough differential pressure over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 and was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is needed, but I want to attack the right end of the system. No point in opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. The good news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the end interpretation of where to go. By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo injector setup is more than doing its job! In fact I think it is safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the standard setup. Thanks in advance - 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=381787#381787 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2012
From: speckter(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Now I am no expert on this stuff but this is how I read it.=C2- You have 2-3" of back pressure on the lower cowl.=C2- You need more exit area.=C2 - This should increase the differential between the plenum and the lower cowl but I don't think it will quite be enough to solve all the problems. =C2- So I would increase the exit first and be prepared to also change ou t the inlet rings after you get more data. Gary Specketer ----- Original Message ----- From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:58:50 AM Subject: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question m> We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years now. =C3 =82=C2-As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo injectors. We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think due to high er ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended climbs. =C3=82=C2-S o it is time to make some modifications to provide more margin. =C3=82=C2 -I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter of the James cowl. =C3=82=C2-A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger inlet rings at n o charge with apologies for having to install them. So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good baseline o f our current condition so we started on a path to gather data. =C3=82=C2 -I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect this data during the w hole turbo injector experiment. We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C3=82=C2-We started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber above the e ngine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine (near the sump), third t o the pressurized injector manifold (which is air plumbed from the intake a ir box), fourth to the static pressure system. Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then in cruise at 8000 PA =C3=82=C2-and 4000 PA.=C3=82=C2- The data listed respectively were: Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4" Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10" Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5" Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10" Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3" I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been redundan t, but it is an experiment after all. So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to Static" reading. =C3=82=C2-There was an article in the September 96 issue of Spor t Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the bottom cowling is damming up t he air causing lazy flow over the cylinders and oil cooler". =C3=82=C2-So what does a significant pressure drop mean? =C3=82=C2-We obviously do no t have enough differential pressure over the cylinders, I have found number s for the 320 and 360 and was told at one time that over 6" differential pr essure is needed, but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C3=82 =C2-No point in opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C3 =82=C2-The good news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the end interpretation of where to go. By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo injector setup is more than doing its job! =C3=82=C2-In fact I think it is safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the standard setup. Thanks in advance - 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=381787#381787 =========== =========== MS - =========== e - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin. =========== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is manifest in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering bent that your team does. but after talking to and seeing Alan Bickle's beautiful plane and his data I'm convinced the root of the problem is that the intake rings are undersized for the -540. I've done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/ louvers and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with no improvement. If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount of increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an inlet on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed @ #6, which should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with positive impact on #6 cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that it transitions smoothly aft without adding to the the lower cowl pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery for the next few weeks so I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the intake from fiberglass and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachment, then attach the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fiberglass for the oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is that you don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase the intake. Deems On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler wrote: > jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com> > > We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years now. > =C2 As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order to run th e > airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo injectors. > > We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think due to > higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended climbs. =C2 So it > is time to make some modifications to provide more margin. =C2 I found th at > there was a change to the inlet diameter of the James cowl. =C2 A quick > e-mail to Will and he sent out larger inlet rings at no charge with > apologies for having to install them. > > So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good baseline > of our current condition so we started on a path to gather data. =C2 I am > disappointed in myself that I didn't collect this data during the whole > turbo injector experiment. > > We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C2 We start ed > by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber above the engine, > second to the cowl chamber below the engine (near the sump), third to the > pressurized injector manifold (which is air plumbed from the intake air > box), fourth to the static pressure system. > > Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then in cruis e > at 8000 PA =C2 and 4000 PA.=C2 > > The data listed respectively were: > Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4" > Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10" > Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5" > Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10" > Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3" > > I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been > redundant, but it is an experiment after all. > > So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to Static " > reading. =C2 There was an article in the September 96 issue of Sport Avia tion > by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" where he says "A significa nt > pressure drop indicates that the bottom cowling is damming up the air > causing lazy flow over the cylinders and oil cooler". =C2 So what does a > significant pressure drop mean? =C2 We obviously do not have enough > differential pressure over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 32 0 > and 360 and was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is > needed, but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C2 No point in > opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C2 The good news is I > have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the end interpretatio n > of where to go. > > By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo injector > setup is more than doing its job! =C2 In fact I think it is safe to say t he > we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the standard setup. > > Thanks in advance - 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=381787#381787 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2012
From: speckter(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
I am convinced=C2- that those folks with piston cooling jets have higher oil temps than those without. Deems, I think that your approach would work.=C2- You might have to play with the intake duct routing if you plan on staying with the standard Van's mounting for the cooler.=C2- Keep us p osted. Good luck on your recovery. The lesson here is fly more walk less! Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deems Davis" <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 2:05:39 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is manifest =C2-in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering bent that your te am does. but after talking to and seeing Alan Bickle's beautiful plane and his data I'm convinced the root of the problem is that the intake rings are undersized for the -540. I've done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/ louvers and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, w ith no improvement. If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no a mount of increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an inlet on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed @ #6, which should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with positive impact on #6 cyl te mps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that it transitions smoothly aft with out adding to =C2-the the lower cowl pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery for the next few weeks so I can't work on it. I was going to fashi on the intake from fiberglass and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachment, then attach the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again som e fiberglass for the oil cooler exit duct. =C2-The nice thing about this approach is that you don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase the intake. Deems On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler < jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com > wrote: om > We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years now. =C3 =82=C2-As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo injectors. We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think due to high er ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended climbs. =C3=82=C2-S o it is time to make some modifications to provide more margin. =C3=82=C2 -I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter of the James cowl. =C3=82=C2-A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger inlet rings at n o charge with apologies for having to install them. So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good baseline o f our current condition so we started on a path to gather data. =C3=82=C2 -I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect this data during the w hole turbo injector experiment. We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C3=82=C2-We started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber above the e ngine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine (near the sump), third t o the pressurized injector manifold (which is air plumbed from the intake a ir box), fourth to the static pressure system. Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then in cruise at 8000 PA =C3=82=C2-and 4000 PA.=C3=82=C2- The data listed respectively were: Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4" Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10" Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5" Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10" Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3" I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been redundan t, but it is an experiment after all. So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to Static" reading. =C3=82=C2-There was an article in the September 96 issue of Spor t Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the bottom cowling is damming up t he air causing lazy flow over the cylinders and oil cooler". =C3=82=C2-So what does a significant pressure drop mean? =C3=82=C2-We obviously do no t have enough differential pressure over the cylinders, I have found number s for the 320 and 360 and was told at one time that over 6" differential pr essure is needed, but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C3=82 =C2-No point in opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C3 =82=C2-The good news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the end interpretation of where to go. By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo injector setup is more than doing its job! =C3=82=C2-In fact I think it is safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the standard setup. Thanks in advance - 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=381787#381787 =========== arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List =========== http://forums.matronics.com =========== le, List Admin. ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution =========== == ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Deems, I wonder if just going to a larger air intake and splitting it so that part of it goes to the air box and the other to the oil cooler. Not sure if that is practical with you Rod Bower ram air or not. Just a quick thought... Good feedback on the lower cowl mods not helping, 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=381803#381803 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2012
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Well Deems, a friend had oil temp problems with his RV-7A. He built a large NACA duct on the side of the cowling to feed the oil cooler. Doing that made his oil temp more speed dependent...fine in cruise but too high in climb and in the pattern. He went back to mounting it on the baffling behind #4 of his IO-360, but putting it as high as he could get it, and that seems to have mostly fixed the problem. External inlets are trickey, because many have low pressure. Mooney had oil coolers on lower face of their planes up until 1976, when they switched to putting it behind left rear cylinder. The older planes with it on the cowl suffer reverse flow in the climb and poor flow even in cruise because it is a low pressure area. Those with cooler behind the engine do fine. Getting bigger inlet will both raise pressure over the engine, it will get more flow over the cooler. On 8/25/2012 12:05 PM, Deems Davis wrote: > Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each > summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is > manifest in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering > bent that your team does. but after talking to and seeing Alan > Bickle's beautiful plane and his data I'm convinced the root of the > problem is that the intake rings are undersized for the -540. I've > done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/ louvers > and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with no improvement. > If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount of > increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been > playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the > basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an > inlet on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed > @ #6, which should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with > positive impact on #6 cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that > it transitions smoothly aft without adding to the the lower cowl > pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery for the next few weeks so > I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the intake from fiberglass > and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachment, then attach > the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fiberglass for the > oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is that you > don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase > the intake. > > Deems > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler > > wrote: > > > > > We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years > now. As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order > to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo > injectors. > > We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think > due to higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended > climbs. So it is time to make some modifications to provide more > margin. I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter of > the James cowl. A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger > inlet rings at no charge with apologies for having to install them. > > So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good > baseline of our current condition so we started on a path to > gather data. I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect > this data during the whole turbo injector experiment. > > We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. We > started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber > above the engine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine > (near the sump), third to the pressurized injector manifold (which > is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static > pressure system. > > Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then > in cruise at 8000 PA and 4000 PA. > > The data listed respectively were: > Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4" > Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10" > Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5" > Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10" > Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3" > > I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been > redundant, but it is an experiment after all. > > So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to > Static" reading. There was an article in the September 96 issue > of Sport Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" > where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the > bottom cowling is damming up the air causing lazy flow over the > cylinders and oil cooler". So what does a significant pressure > drop mean? We obviously do not have enough differential pressure > over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 and > was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is needed, > but I want to attack the right end of the system. No point in > opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. The good > news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the > end interpretation of where to go. > > By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo > injector setup is more than doing its job! In fact I think it is > safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the > standard setup. > > Thanks in advance - 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=381787#381787 > > > ========== > arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > le, List Admin. > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > * > > > * ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Gentleman, As you know I have a similar set up James cowl / Plenum / 2008 Oil Cooler / Turbo Nozzles / Barrett FFCI. The difference is we have a dedicated openin g on the lower cowl that feeds the 2008 oil cooler directly and gives me so mething like a DP of 14" across the oil cooler at speed. adding this was th e single most beneficial item that helped my overall cooling situation. No amount of outlet opening came close to the dedicated oil cooler line. That being said getting the cooler to work at near max efficiency is nice but it 's like getting a slightly larger bucket to put out a fire. You are better off trying to start with a smaller fire. You really need to address the cyl inder temps and that will assist with the oil temps NOT the other way aroun d. One more thing about adding more high velocity air through the oil cooler i s that tends to pressurize the lower cowl which I think is really working a gainst your goal of having pressure move from High (upper cowl) to Low (low er cowl). I am afraid that you will go to all that work and see little bene fit until you deal with the inlet opening. After nearly 350 hours and lots of nursing ROP flights in So. Cal summers I have decided to "shitcan" the whole set up and start over. I have HATED th e plenum for many reasons and found when I converted my 8A from Plenum to B affle system I lost nothing in terms of performance and gained simplicity a nd easy access to the top deck of the engine which to me is added safety. T he smart thing to do is revert to the Vans standard cowl since we have a fl eet that has no issues (thanks Van!). But since it's me.... I have decided to be one of the first to install the Showplanes cowl and start a whole new experiment. The difference is the Showplanes cowl has a great deal of rese arch & development behind it vs. the James Cowl which does not even mate up to the James Plenum. My bad for ever making that choice. This is a slightl y easier choice since their test bed aircraft is a Barrett FF Cold Inductio n just like mine. I will be going from 4 holes in the front of my cowl to t wo holes which should be a huge improvement aerodynamically. I plan to star t this project as soon as the 8A is out of paint around Mid-September. Hope fully I can report back before the new year. I am so familiar with my temp/ performance numbers it will be simple to notice a difference. Swapping out the cowl may seem extreme but the cost associated with all the R&D, fuel burn ROP especially during engine break in etc... I am sure is w ell over $10K to date and probably closer to $15K. Throw in the potential f or reduced TBO and who knows... I am looking for a permenate solution once and for all. Unfortunately I know retrofitting the Vans cowl is the smartes t option but I have never been accused of taking the easy road so why shoul d today be any different. For what it's worth I personally think the replacement inlet rings from Jam es are still too small especially for pilots in generally warmer climates. Robin From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:06 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is manifest in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering bent that your team do es. but after talking to and seeing Alan Bickle's beautiful plane and his d ata I'm convinced the root of the problem is that the intake rings are unde rsized for the -540. I've done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/ louvers and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with n o improvement. If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount of increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been play ing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an inlet on the under side of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed @ #6, which should incr ease the pressure for the upper cowl with positive impact on #6 cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that it transitions smoothly aft without a dding to the the lower cowl pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery f or the next few weeks so I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the int ake from fiberglass and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachmen t, then attach the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fibergla ss for the oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is tha t you don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase the intake. Deems On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler > wrote: m> We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years now. =C2 As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order to run the air plane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo injectors. We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think due to high er ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended climbs. =C2 So it is time to make some modifications to provide more margin. =C2 I found that th ere was a change to the inlet diameter of the James cowl. =C2 A quick e-mai l to Will and he sent out larger inlet rings at no charge with apologies fo r having to install them. So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good baseline o f our current condition so we started on a path to gather data. =C2 I am di sappointed in myself that I didn't collect this data during the whole turbo injector experiment. We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C2 We started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber above the engine, s econd to the cowl chamber below the engine (near the sump), third to the pr essurized injector manifold (which is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static pressure system. Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then in cruise at 8000 PA =C2 and 4000 PA.=C2 The data listed respectively were: Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4" Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10" Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5" Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10" Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3" I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been redundan t, but it is an experiment after all. So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to Static" reading. =C2 There was an article in the September 96 issue of Sport Aviati on by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" where he says "A signific ant pressure drop indicates that the bottom cowling is damming up the air c ausing lazy flow over the cylinders and oil cooler". =C2 So what does a sig nificant pressure drop mean? =C2 We obviously do not have enough differenti al pressure over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 an d was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is needed, but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C2 No point in opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C2 The good news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the end interpretation of where to go. By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo injector setup is more than doing its job! =C2 In fact I think it is safe to say the we'r e exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the standard setup. Thanks in advance - 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=381787#381787 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>
Subject: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Date: Aug 25, 2012
I too have the James Cowl and plenum (stock Van=92s IO-360 and Hartzell prop). At 39 hours now I'm satisfied with the engine temps. Here are the modifications I made: =B7 I was not thrilled with the Van=92s lower cowl louvers. I instead added a set of cowl louvers to the bottom of the cowl. Photo attached. While I was able to have acceptable (but on the high side) CHTs with the cowl without the louvers, I had to keep the speed up in the climb (~140 knots). A hot day run with the louvers (85 degrees ground air temp) have CHTs noticeably cooler ' peak temp on an aggressive 120 knot climb to 8500=92 was 426 degrees (dropping rapidly once passed 4000=92). In high speed cruise CHTs were between 365 and 390. I got these louvers from Avery Tools. I trimmed each side 1/8=94 and cut off the top two slots. This is a simple mod, and I will replace the louvers with blank plates for winter time. Flight data is scattered, but if anything the louvers may have a 1 knot or so speed penalty. =B7 I did not use the weird Van=92s angled oil cooler mount and my oil temps have been cooler than what I hear on RV-10s using the stock Van=92s cowl. I find it necessary to partially shut the oil cooler air butterfly valve to get the temps up to 190 or so. Photos attached on how I mounded my cooler. =B7 I used the Airflow 2006X oil cooler ' and recommend it. =B7 I really did not like the heat muffs blasting hot air at the engine mechanical fuel pump (i.e. cabin heat valves are shut). I mounted the cabin heat control valves on a piece of KoolMat http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php such that the KoolMat folded over the tops of the cabin heat valves and then tucked in between the valves and the forward gear mount (sorry, I could not find of photo but this is very simple). The result was on a hot day (no cabin heat) the heat muff discharge is directed down toward the cowl exit, not back at the engine. Still doing speed runs but I=92m measurably faster than Van=92s numbers. The James Cowl is not magical, it is simply an adjustment to the tradeoff between drag and cooling. I=92m happy on how it worked out for me. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:02 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question kellym(at)aviating.com> Well Deems, a friend had oil temp problems with his RV-7A. He built a large NACA duct on the side of the cowling to feed the oil cooler. Doing that made his oil temp more speed dependent...fine in cruise but too high in climb and in the pattern. He went back to mounting it on the baffling behind #4 of his IO-360, but putting it as high as he could get it, and that seems to have mostly fixed the problem. External inlets are trickey, because many have low pressure. Mooney had oil coolers on lower face of their planes up until 1976, when they switched to putting it behind left rear cylinder. The older planes with it on the cowl suffer reverse flow in the climb and poor flow even in cruise because it is a low pressure area. Those with cooler behind the engine do fine. Getting bigger inlet will both raise pressure over the engine, it will get more flow over the cooler. On 8/25/2012 12:05 PM, Deems Davis wrote: > Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each > summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is > manifest in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering > bent that your team does. but after talking to and seeing Alan > Bickle's beautiful plane and his data I'm convinced the root of the > problem is that the intake rings are undersized for the -540. I've > done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/ louvers > and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with no improvement. > If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount of > increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been > playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the > basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an > inlet on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed > @ #6, which should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with > positive impact on #6 cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that > it transitions smoothly aft without adding to the the lower cowl > pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery for the next few weeks so > I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the intake from fiberglass > and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachment, then attach > the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fiberglass for the > oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is that you > don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase > the intake. > > Deems > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler > < mailto:jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>> wrote: > > < mailto:jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>> > > We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years > now. =C2 As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order > to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo > injectors. > > We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think > due to higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended > climbs. =C2 So it is time to make some modifications to provide more > margin. =C2 I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter of > the James cowl. =C2 A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger > inlet rings at no charge with apologies for having to install them. > > So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good > baseline of our current condition so we started on a path to > gather data. =C2 I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect > this data during the whole turbo injector experiment. > > We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C2 We > started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber > above the engine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine > (near the sump), third to the pressurized injector manifold (which > is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static > pressure system. > > Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then > in cruise at 8000 PA =C2 and 4000 PA.=C2 > > The data listed respectively were: > Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4" > Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10" > Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5" > Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10" > Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3" > > I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been > redundant, but it is an experiment after all. > > So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to > Static" reading. =C2 There was an article in the September 96 issue > of Sport Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" > where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the > bottom cowling is damming up the air causing lazy flow over the > cylinders and oil cooler". =C2 So what does a significant pressure > drop mean? =C2 We obviously do not have enough differential pressure > over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 and > was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is needed, > but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C2 No point in > opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C2 The good > news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the > end interpretation of where to go. > > By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo > injector setup is more than doing its job! =C2 In fact I think it is > safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the > standard setup. > > Thanks in advance - 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=381787#381787> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787 > > > > > > > > ========== > arget="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > <http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > le, List Admin. > ="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > > > * > > > * ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com> www.avg.com List 7-Day http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Gary, so that is the thing I am having trouble getting my head around. In theory we would like to get to a negative pressure in the lower cowl to pull the air through. At first I thought that the lower outlet of the cowl that exits into a void would cause a vacuum. But then again any restriction to flow of the air out of the lower cowl should cause a slight rise in pressure in the lower cowl. I think even getting to zero is a fairly lofty goal as the flow will likely never be perfect. Now as you said anything above zero is directly opposing the flow from the upper cowl. To me even if the flow were zero it would mean that the differential pressure at best would be 2" higher, still borderline short of the 6" goal. All that said, I am still open since I am struggling to get my head around this. There is much published about what the differential pressure needs to be, there is very little I have found about what an acceptable value is for the pressure in the lower cowl. Robin, as they say that is the way the pickle squirts. I know all too well the investment of time and money you have in the James Cowl. The question comes back often "Would you go with the James cowl again?", I have to say that I really love the way it looks. I am really disappointed that it does not add to the speed of the airplane and that it is marginal at best for cooling the standard 260 HP engine. Anxious to hear your results on the next project. Just heard that Neil Armstrong has passed, I was not around in those days but still am touched by what was accomplished. I am saddened not only at his passing but also by the fact that we have pushed space exploration to the bottom of our list of priorities. At the same time other countries around the world are rallying around space like we did back then. Sorry for the off topic turn... 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=381814#381814 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Date: Aug 25, 2012
Oops ' I meant to say IO-540. From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:35 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question IO-360 or IO-540? Robin From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:23 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question I too have the James Cowl and plenum (stock Van=92s IO-540 and Hartzell prop). At 39 hours now I'm satisfied with the engine temps. Here are the modifications I made: =B7 I was not thrilled with the Van=92s lower cowl louvers. I instead added a set of cowl louvers to the bottom of the cowl. Photo attached. While I was able to have acceptable (but on the high side) CHTs with the cowl without the louvers, I had to keep the speed up in the climb (~140 knots). A hot day run with the louvers (85 degrees ground air temp) have CHTs noticeably cooler ' peak temp on an aggressive 120 knot climb to 8500=92 was 426 degrees (dropping rapidly once passed 4000=92). In high speed cruise CHTs were between 365 and 390. I got these louvers from Avery Tools. I trimmed each side 1/8=94 and cut off the top two slots. This is a simple mod, and I will replace the louvers with blank plates for winter time. Flight data is scattered, but if anything the louvers may have a 1 knot or so speed penalty. =B7 I did not use the weird Van=92s angled oil cooler mount and my oil temps have been cooler than what I hear on RV-10s using the stock Van=92s cowl. I find it necessary to partially shut the oil cooler air butterfly valve to get the temps up to 190 or so. Photos attached on how I mounded my cooler. =B7 I used the Airflow 2006X oil cooler ' and recommend it. =B7 I really did not like the heat muffs blasting hot air at the engine mechanical fuel pump (i.e. cabin heat valves are shut). I mounted the cabin heat control valves on a piece of KoolMat http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php such that the KoolMat folded over the tops of the cabin heat valves and then tucked in between the valves and the forward gear mount (sorry, I could not find of photo but this is very simple). The result was on a hot day (no cabin heat) the heat muff discharge is directed down toward the cowl exit, not back at the engine. Still doing speed runs but I=92m measurably faster than Van=92s numbers. The James Cowl is not magical, it is simply an adjustment to the tradeoff between drag and cooling. I=92m happy on how it worked out for me. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:02 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question kellym(at)aviating.com> Well Deems, a friend had oil temp problems with his RV-7A. He built a large NACA duct on the side of the cowling to feed the oil cooler. Doing that made his oil temp more speed dependent...fine in cruise but too high in climb and in the pattern. He went back to mounting it on the baffling behind #4 of his IO-360, but putting it as high as he could get it, and that seems to have mostly fixed the problem. External inlets are trickey, because many have low pressure. Mooney had oil coolers on lower face of their planes up until 1976, when they switched to putting it behind left rear cylinder. The older planes with it on the cowl suffer reverse flow in the climb and poor flow even in cruise because it is a low pressure area. Those with cooler behind the engine do fine. Getting bigger inlet will both raise pressure over the engine, it will get more flow over the cooler. On 8/25/2012 12:05 PM, Deems Davis wrote: > Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each > summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is > manifest in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering > bent that your team does. but after talking to and seeing Alan > Bickle's beautiful plane and his data I'm convinced the root of the > problem is that the intake rings are undersized for the -540. I've > done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/ louvers > and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with no improvement. > If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount of > increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been > playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the > basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an > inlet on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed > @ #6, which should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with > positive impact on #6 cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that > it transitions smoothly aft without adding to the the lower cowl > pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery for the next few weeks so > I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the intake from fiberglass > and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachment, then attach > the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fiberglass for the > oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is that you > don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase > the intake. > > Deems > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler > < mailto:jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>> wrote: > > < mailto:jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>> > > We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years > now. =C2 As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order > to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo > injectors. > > We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think > due to higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended > climbs. =C2 So it is time to make some modifications to provide more > margin. =C2 I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter of > the James cowl. =C2 A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger > inlet rings at no charge with apologies for having to install them. > > So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good > baseline of our current condition so we started on a path to > gather data. =C2 I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect > this data during the whole turbo injector experiment. > > We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C2 We > started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber > above the engine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine > (near the sump), third to the pressurized injector manifold (which > is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static > pressure system. > > Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then > in cruise at 8000 PA =C2 and 4000 PA.=C2 > > The data listed respectively were: > Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4" > Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10" > Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5" > Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10" > Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3" > > I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been > redundant, but it is an experiment after all. > > So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to > Static" reading. =C2 There was an article in the September 96 issue > of Sport Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" > where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the > bottom cowling is damming up the air causing lazy flow over the > cylinders and oil cooler". =C2 So what does a significant pressure > drop mean? =C2 We obviously do not have enough differential pressure > over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 and > was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is needed, > but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C2 No point in > opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C2 The good > news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the > end interpretation of where to go. > > By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo > injector setup is more than doing its job! =C2 In fact I think it is > safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the > standard setup. > > Thanks in advance - 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=381787#381787> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381787#381787 > > > > > > > > ========== > arget="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > <http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > le, List Admin. > ="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > > > * > > > * ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com> www.avg.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: HS angle of incidence
Date: Aug 25, 2012
All, Bad weather today so I'm stuck at 39.1 hours. Here are some test results you may find of interest. Attached photos are of the elevator horns at different CGs, with and without a .040" shim under the HS forward spar. While solo (most forward CG condition - 109") I noted a small elevator trailing edge down situation leading me to believe the HS angle of incidence was too low (too much downward force) as the elevator trailing edge down trim would be imparting an upward force. Also attached is a photo of the elevators with the CG at 114.5" (the most aft I would practically experience). I note that even with the shim I have a lot of up nose trim left in landing configuration when solo, the most forward CG condition. My take is the .040 shim helped with the HS rigging, but it may not be enough. I may replace the it with a .063" shim. What have others experienced? Carl ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Thane States" <thane2(at)comporium.net>
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Date: Aug 25, 2012
One thing I found after awhile running the James cowl and plenum was that in flight the plenum would pressurize and rise up in the front, and was even rubbing on the cowl. Once I realized what was happening, I made a bracket on the front of the plenum, and then safety wired the bracket to the case half on the front of engine. That has definately helped. In the hot Season I also, this year, put a plug behind the #6 cylinder where the pulloff for cabin heat is. I live here in the South so I only have the one supply and tee off for the heat. Just never needed more heat, works almost too good in our mild Winters. I hate to hear about all the heat issues, but I truely have no hi oil or cylinder temps. Coimming back today from KILM, 4500ft. 21" 2300 rpm, 10.5 gph LOP. Oil temp was 171, all CLY. barely over 315. OAT, of course was a cool 60F. Anyway good luck, I hope you find a solution. Thane RV-10 228Hrs. ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Froehlich To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:54 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question Oops - I meant to say IO-540. From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:35 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question IO-360 or IO-540? Robin From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:23 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question I too have the James Cowl and plenum (stock Van's IO-540 and Hartzell prop). At 39 hours now I'm satisfied with the engine temps. Here are the modifications I made: =B7 I was not thrilled with the Van's lower cowl louvers. I instead added a set of cowl louvers to the bottom of the cowl. Photo attached. While I was able to have acceptable (but on the high side) CHTs with the cowl without the louvers, I had to keep the speed up in the climb (~140 knots). A hot day run with the louvers (85 degrees ground air temp) have CHTs noticeably cooler - peak temp on an aggressive 120 knot climb to 8500' was 426 degrees (dropping rapidly once passed 4000'). In high speed cruise CHTs were between 365 and 390. I got these louvers from Avery Tools. I trimmed each side 1/8" and cut off the top two slots. This is a simple mod, and I will replace the louvers with blank plates for winter time. Flight data is scattered, but if anything the louvers may have a 1 knot or so speed penalty. =B7 I did not use the weird Van's angled oil cooler mount and my oil temps have been cooler than what I hear on RV-10s using the stock Van's cowl. I find it necessary to partially shut the oil cooler air butterfly valve to get the temps up to 190 or so. Photos attached on how I mounded my cooler. =B7 I used the Airflow 2006X oil cooler - and recommend it. =B7 I really did not like the heat muffs blasting hot air at the engine mechanical fuel pump (i.e. cabin heat valves are shut). I mounted the cabin heat control valves on a piece of KoolMat http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php such that the KoolMat folded over the tops of the cabin heat valves and then tucked in between the valves and the forward gear mount (sorry, I could not find of photo but this is very simple). The result was on a hot day (no cabin heat) the heat muff discharge is directed down toward the cowl exit, not back at the engine. Still doing speed runs but I'm measurably faster than Van's numbers. The James Cowl is not magical, it is simply an adjustment to the tradeoff between drag and cooling. I'm happy on how it worked out for me. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:02 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question Well Deems, a friend had oil temp problems with his RV-7A. He built a large NACA duct on the side of the cowling to feed the oil cooler. Doing that made his oil temp more speed dependent...fine in cruise but too high in climb and in the pattern. He went back to mounting it on the baffling behind #4 of his IO-360, but putting it as high as he could get it, and that seems to have mostly fixed the problem. External inlets are trickey, because many have low pressure. Mooney had oil coolers on lower face of their planes up until 1976, when they switched to putting it behind left rear cylinder. The older planes with it on the cowl suffer reverse flow in the climb and poor flow even in cruise because it is a low pressure area. Those with cooler behind the engine do fine. Getting bigger inlet will both raise pressure over the engine, it will get more flow over the cooler. On 8/25/2012 12:05 PM, Deems Davis wrote: > Jason, I have the same configuration as you do and living in AZ each > summer I go through the same drama of heat issues. For me it is > manifest in oil temp and cyl tem of #6. I don't have the engineering > bent that your team does. but after talking to and seeing Alan > Bickle's beautiful plane and his data I'm convinced the root of the > problem is that the intake rings are undersized for the -540. I've > done everything I could think of to increase the exit area w/ louvers > and trimming the aft portion of the lower cowl, with no improvement. > If the problem is that not enough air is coming in no amount of > increasing the outlet will happen. With all of that said I've been > playing with an idea in my head that I want o experiment with, the > basics of it is to take ram air into the oil cooler directly from an > inlet on the underside of the cowl. block off the oil cooler air feed > @ #6, which should increase the pressure for the upper cowl with > positive impact on #6 cyl temps). Duct the oil cooler exit air so that > it transitions smoothly aft without adding to the the lower cowl > pressure. I'm laid up following knee surgery for the next few weeks so > I can't work on it. I was going to fashion the intake from fiberglass > and use the gear leg slot cover/louver as the attachment, then attach > the the hose feeding the oil cooler, and again some fiberglass for the > oil cooler exit duct. The nice thing about this approach is that you > don't have to hack up the cowl/plenum to do it, and it DOES increase > the intake. > > Deems > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:58 AM, jkreidler > > wrote: > > > > > We have been flying with the James cowl and plenum for a few years > now. =C2 As some know we went through an extensive exercise in order > to run the airplane near lean which was solved by adding the turbo > injectors. > > We really never had much of a cooling issue, but lately I think > due to higher ambient temperatures we have had to limit extended > climbs. =C2 So it is time to make some modifications to provide more > margin. =C2 I found that there was a change to the inlet diameter of > the James cowl. =C2 A quick e-mail to Will and he sent out larger > inlet rings at no charge with apologies for having to install them. > > So now what - we didn't want to install the rings without a good > baseline of our current condition so we started on a path to > gather data. =C2 I am disappointed in myself that I didn't collect > this data during the whole turbo injector experiment. > > We got a manometer that measured from -10" to +10" of water. =C2 We > started by plumbing in four lines, first to the plenum chamber > above the engine, second to the cowl chamber below the engine > (near the sump), third to the pressurized injector manifold (which > is air plumbed from the intake air box), fourth to the static > pressure system. > > Last night we gathered some readings during climb at 105kts then > in cruise at 8000 PA =C2 and 4000 PA.=C2 > > The data listed respectively were: > Plenum to Cowl: 2.5", 4", 4" > Injectors to Cowl: 7", 9.5", 10" > Plenum to Static: 4.5", 6.5", 7.5" > Injectors to Static: 9", >10", >10" > Cowl to Static: 2", 3", 3" > > I know taking the values to the cowl and to static might have been > redundant, but it is an experiment after all. > > So now for my question, I am not sure what to make of the "Cowl to > Static" reading. =C2 There was an article in the September 96 issue > of Sport Aviation by Jimmy Tubs titled "Engine Cooling Problems" > where he says "A significant pressure drop indicates that the > bottom cowling is damming up the air causing lazy flow over the > cylinders and oil cooler". =C2 So what does a significant pressure > drop mean? =C2 We obviously do not have enough differential pressure > over the cylinders, I have found numbers for the 320 and 360 and > was told at one time that over 6" differential pressure is needed, > but I want to attack the right end of the system. =C2 No point in > opening up the inlet if the outlet may be to blame. =C2 The good > news is I have the data, the bad news is I am struggling with the > end interpretation of where to go. > > By the way, the data gather absolutely proves that the turbo > injector setup is more than doing its job! =C2 In fact I think it is > safe to say the we're exceeding the pressure on the nozzles of the > standard setup. > > Thanks in advance - 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=381787#381787 > > > > > > > > ========== > arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > le, List Admin. > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > > > * > > > * ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comht tp://www.matronics.com/contribution No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 08/25/12 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2012
Subject: Interior Window Transitions
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
I'm finishing off the inside of the doors and I'm looking to put a fillet around the interior window transition. I've been thinking about using 3M 4200 (or maybe even 5200) and creating a bead with my finger. And I've also been thinking about using an Acrylic Latex Caulk (like this) to lay down the fillet too. Before I use one of these, I want to feel pretty confident that I'm not going to cause crazing of the window and I don't have any spare pieces of glass laying around to test with. The best I can tell, the documentation doesn't directly call out usage on acrylic glass. Have any of you used these on your windows? And if not, what did you use to create a nice, consistent fillet all the way around the transition? Thanks, Phil ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Interior Window Transitions
From: "g.combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2012
Phil the lord urethane adhesive works really Good for this. You can paint it also. Geoff Sent from my iPhone On Aug 26, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > I'm finishing off the inside of the doors and I'm looking to put a fillet a round the interior window transition. > > I've been thinking about using 3M 4200 (or maybe even 5200) and creating a bead with my finger. And I've also been thinking about using an Acrylic La tex Caulk (like this) to lay down the fillet too. > > Before I use one of these, I want to feel pretty confident that I'm not go ing to cause crazing of the window and I don't have any spare pieces of glas s laying around to test with. The best I can tell, the documentation doesn' t directly call out usage on acrylic glass. > > Have any of you used these on your windows? And if not, what did you use t o create a nice, consistent fillet all the way around the transition? > > Thanks, > Phil > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Interior Window Transitions
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2012
Phil, I'd be reluctant to use a "caulk" type trim - might be hard to get off and it might make a real mess. Most folks use a fabric edge trim. If you need to fill in a gap between the window and the trim welt (like I did) they make lots of nice tiny "rope" trim in different colors - such as black. Contact cement is all you need. If you REALLY want to spruce it up, look up Pom Pom Fringe Trim... (g) John [Laughing] -------- #40572 Phase One complete and flying. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381878#381878 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 26, 2012
Flighline. Abby is fantastic. Dave Leikam On Aug 25, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Rene wrote: > I also agree=85=85.I love my flightline cover. > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Preid > Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 8:51 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Travel canopy cover recommendations > > Agree! > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Seano wrote: > > I recommend Flightline's lightweight cover too. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:16, Don Mc Donald wrote: > > Tim, although I almost always agree with you... but I think you should have said "when I travel with 4 in the plane".... because with only 2 traveling, there's always plenty of room for the cover. > Don McDonald > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > It's definitely not a "Travel" cover though....those things are at least 3X the size to pack and probably more than 3x the weight. They are nice, but if I had to travel with it, I'd never bring it....I never have that much space left for a huge cover. > Tim > > > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Michael Kraus wrote: > > I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but it didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh. > > I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my RV-10. > > -Mike Kraus > RV-10 Flying > KitFox SS7 - building > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: > > All, > > Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=92s offering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brows e=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listinghttp://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 > > Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? > > Thanks, > Carl > 38.4 hours ' final test period flight today if the weather cooperates > > > > ========= > ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========= > cs.com > ========= > matronics.com/contribution > ========= > > > > ========= > ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========= > cs.com > ========= > matronics.com/contribution > ========= > > > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronhre f="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co ntribution > > > > ======================== > ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ======================== > cs.com > ======================== > matronics.com/contribution > ======================== > > > > ======================== > ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ======================== > cs.com > ======================== > matronics.com/contribution > ======================== > > > > < - The RV10-List Email Forum Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > http://forums.matronics.com > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2012
Subject: Re: Interior Window Transitions
Proseal would work. It's paintable. Or just epoxy with micro. Dave Saylor 831-750-0284 CL On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > I'm finishing off the inside of the doors and I'm looking to put a fillet > around the interior window transition. > > I've been thinking about using 3M 4200 (or maybe even 5200) and creating a > bead with my finger. And I've also been thinking about using an Acrylic > Latex Caulk (like this) to lay down the fillet too. > > Before I use one of these, I want to feel pretty confident that I'm not > going to cause crazing of the window and I don't have any spare pieces of > glass laying around to test with. The best I can tell, the documentation > doesn't directly call out usage on acrylic glass. > > Have any of you used these on your windows? And if not, what did you use to > create a nice, consistent fillet all the way around the transition? > > Thanks, > Phil > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Interior Window Transitions
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2012
I used proseal with the help of a good buddy who is a proseal wizard. It looks great. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381889#381889 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 26, 2012
Does anyone know who makes sunshields for the RV-10? I had Kennon in my Mooney but they don't offer them for the 10. Alan N668G 157 hrs On Aug 25, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Michael Kraus wrote: > I have a Bruce's Custom Cover. I would not say it is the lightest, but it didn't let one drop of rain in the huge downpour at Oshkosh. > > I had a similar one on my RV-4 and liked it so much I bought one for my RV-10. > > -Mike Kraus > RV-10 Flying > KitFox SS7 - building > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 25, 2012, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: > >> All, >> >> Looking for a travel cover for the RV-10. I note the Van=92s offering http://vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1345898181-352-438&brows e=airframe&product=canopy-covers and the Cleaveland Tool listing http://www.cleavelandtool.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVCC10 >> >> Recommendations between these two or perhaps other choices? >> >> Thanks, >> Carl >> 38.4 hours ' final test period flight today if the weather cooperates >> >> >> >> ======================== >> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ======================== >> cs.com >> ======================== >> matronics.com/contribution >> ======================== >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "Barry" <blalmarz(at)embarqmail.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2012
I too have the SJ cowl and pleneum, and have had the same cooling problems. I now can climb and keep oil temps +/- 210F and CHT's under 400F when it's hot OAT. In cruise I run LOP -50F or ROP 150F and the oil is 195-205F and CHT 385-395F on #5 or #6; the rest of the CHT's are lower. These are the mods I have done in order: 1. Installed 4 louvers, 2 on bottom, 2 on side of cowl like a C-182 2. Cut the exit area of the cowl so it opened it up at the rear about 1 1/2" 3. Installed a new pleneum from Sam that is more wedge shaped ( higher in the rear) which gives more volume for incoming air 4. Installed the larger rings I have done speed checks with two other stock RV-10's at the same power settings and our speeds were pretty much the same. I plan on putting some air dams in front of #1&2 cyl to see if I can get #5&6 CHT's down a little My wife, Amy Laboda, did a write up in Kitplanes a while back on the process, so check those out. Give me a call if ya have any questions 239-567-2271. Blue Skys Barry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=381923#381923 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2012
Barry, thanks for the information. I have read your article, great write-up, thanks! I was wondering if the volume of the plenum could ever get too large? 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=381980#381980 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2012
Subject: ELT Antenna
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
I am looking at installing my ACK E-04 antenna under the tail intersection fiberglass fairing. I've read through a good discussion on the AeroElectric list and feel the trade-off of horizontal polarization, vs protection from impact and eliminating the drag is worth it. I know that Mooney got approval for similar antenna instal for a 406 antenna in fiberglass ventral fin. My question is if anyone has done this and gotten any grief from their DAR. My only concern is to fully meet the TSO on the ELT you are supposed to comply with the install instructions, that call for vertical mounting withing 30 degrees. Kelly 40866 forever finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Seano" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
Date: Aug 28, 2012
Kelly, I mounted mine horizontally under the tailcone fairing with no problems from the DAR. I later converted mine to 406 and accidentally set it off. The airforce called me within 5 minutes so I knew it worked well even in the hangar with the door closed. I wouldn't recommend testing it this way :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:42 AM Subject: RV10-List: ELT Antenna > > I am looking at installing my ACK E-04 antenna under the tail > intersection fiberglass fairing. I've read through a good discussion > on the AeroElectric list and feel the trade-off of horizontal > polarization, vs protection from impact and eliminating the drag is > worth it. I know that Mooney got approval for similar antenna instal > for a 406 antenna in fiberglass ventral fin. > My question is if anyone has done this and gotten any grief from their > DAR. My only concern is to fully meet the TSO on the ELT you are > supposed to comply with the install instructions, that call for > vertical mounting withing 30 degrees. > Kelly > 40866 > forever finishing > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: ELT Antenna
Date: Aug 28, 2012
That is how I did it. My DAR did not comment. After the crash, which way will the antenna be pointing? Rene' Felker N423CF 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:43 AM Subject: RV10-List: ELT Antenna I am looking at installing my ACK E-04 antenna under the tail intersection fiberglass fairing. I've read through a good discussion on the AeroElectric list and feel the trade-off of horizontal polarization, vs protection from impact and eliminating the drag is worth it. I know that Mooney got approval for similar antenna instal for a 406 antenna in fiberglass ventral fin. My question is if anyone has done this and gotten any grief from their DAR. My only concern is to fully meet the TSO on the ELT you are supposed to comply with the install instructions, that call for vertical mounting withing 30 degrees. Kelly 40866 forever finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2012
I've done it and haven't gotten any grief from a DAR. On Aug 28, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > I am looking at installing my ACK E-04 antenna under the tail > intersection fiberglass fairing. I've read through a good discussion > on the AeroElectric list and feel the trade-off of horizontal > polarization, vs protection from impact and eliminating the drag is > worth it. I know that Mooney got approval for similar antenna instal > for a 406 antenna in fiberglass ventral fin. > My question is if anyone has done this and gotten any grief from their > DAR. My only concern is to fully meet the TSO on the ELT you are > supposed to comply with the install instructions, that call for > vertical mounting withing 30 degrees. > Kelly > 40866 > forever finishing > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
From: Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2012
Ya. Plus in my checklist I state to make sure you crash within 30 degrees of vertical so they can find your body. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2012, at 12:48, "Rene Felker" wrote: > > That is how I did it. My DAR did not comment. > > After the crash, which way will the antenna be pointing? > > Rene' Felker > N423CF > 801-721-6080 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:43 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: ELT Antenna > > > I am looking at installing my ACK E-04 antenna under the tail intersection > fiberglass fairing. I've read through a good discussion on the AeroElectric > list and feel the trade-off of horizontal polarization, vs protection from > impact and eliminating the drag is worth it. I know that Mooney got > approval for similar antenna instal for a 406 antenna in fiberglass ventral > fin. > My question is if anyone has done this and gotten any grief from their DAR. > My only concern is to fully meet the TSO on the ELT you are supposed to > comply with the install instructions, that call for vertical mounting > withing 30 degrees. > Kelly > 40866 > forever finishing > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
From: Marcus Cooper <coop85(at)verizon.net>
Date: Aug 28, 2012
Kelly, That's exactly what I did and received no grief whatsoever from the DAR. Marcus On Aug 28, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: I am looking at installing my ACK E-04 antenna under the tail intersection fiberglass fairing. I've read through a good discussion on the AeroElectric list and feel the trade-off of horizontal polarization, vs protection from impact and eliminating the drag is worth it. I know that Mooney got approval for similar antenna instal for a 406 antenna in fiberglass ventral fin. My question is if anyone has done this and gotten any grief from their DAR. My only concern is to fully meet the TSO on the ELT you are supposed to comply with the install instructions, that call for vertical mounting withing 30 degrees. Kelly 40866 forever finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2012
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
I installed my 406 ELT on top of the tail cone, to ensure it has a good ground plane and view of the sky. I really regret it. It looks dumb and is draggy. By all accounts, they work great under the tail fairing, and for me flying most trips IFR and using a SPOT mitigates the risk even further. -Rob On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Seano wrote: > > Ya. Plus in my checklist I state to make sure you crash within 30 degrees > of vertical so they can find your body. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 28, 2012, at 12:48, "Rene Felker" wrote: > > > > > That is how I did it. My DAR did not comment. > > > > After the crash, which way will the antenna be pointing? > > > > Rene' Felker > > N423CF > > 801-721-6080 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly > McMullen > > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:43 AM > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: RV10-List: ELT Antenna > > > > > > I am looking at installing my ACK E-04 antenna under the tail > intersection > > fiberglass fairing. I've read through a good discussion on the > AeroElectric > > list and feel the trade-off of horizontal polarization, vs protection > from > > impact and eliminating the drag is worth it. I know that Mooney got > > approval for similar antenna instal for a 406 antenna in fiberglass > ventral > > fin. > > My question is if anyone has done this and gotten any grief from their > DAR. > > My only concern is to fully meet the TSO on the ELT you are supposed to > > comply with the install instructions, that call for vertical mounting > > withing 30 degrees. > > Kelly > > 40866 > > forever finishing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
Date: Aug 28, 2012
That is how I have the antenna mounted in both the 8A and the 10. The local FSDO did sign offs on both planes and did not mention the mount for either one. Carl On Aug 28, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > > I've done it and haven't gotten any grief from a DAR. > > On Aug 28, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > >> >> I am looking at installing my ACK E-04 antenna under the tail >> intersection fiberglass fairing. I've read through a good discussion >> on the AeroElectric list and feel the trade-off of horizontal >> polarization, vs protection from impact and eliminating the drag is >> worth it. I know that Mooney got approval for similar antenna instal >> for a 406 antenna in fiberglass ventral fin. >> My question is if anyone has done this and gotten any grief from their >> DAR. My only concern is to fully meet the TSO on the ELT you are >> supposed to comply with the install instructions, that call for >> vertical mounting withing 30 degrees. >> Kelly >> 40866 >> forever finishing >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2012
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com>
Use an IFR-4000-Opt 1 and see if the 406 emits the squitter discrete data from your concealed antenna. It will also allow you to determine how many Db loss the idea cost. We have the elt mounted with horizontal ground plane and 1/3 of the antennae concealed. It is a quarter wave for 121.5. Cosmetics goes out the window when you are inverted in the snow in February. The drag coefficient has always been a none issue. John On Aug 28, 2012 9:46 AM, "Kelly McMullen" wrote: > > I am looking at installing my ACK E-04 antenna under the tail > intersection fiberglass fairing. I've read through a good discussion > on the AeroElectric list and feel the trade-off of horizontal > polarization, vs protection from impact and eliminating the drag is > worth it. I know that Mooney got approval for similar antenna instal > for a 406 antenna in fiberglass ventral fin. > My question is if anyone has done this and gotten any grief from their > DAR. My only concern is to fully meet the TSO on the ELT you are > supposed to comply with the install instructions, that call for > vertical mounting withing 30 degrees. > Kelly > 40866 > forever finishing > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "Barry" <blalmarz(at)embarqmail.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2012
Hi Jason; I think Sam's thinking for the larger volume plenum was to reduce the internal pressure and speed the air at the inlets to get good flow into the plenum. We were thinking with the lower volume plenum it could create back pressure and create a restriction for the inlet air and cause it to spill out around the rings. Sorry no real engineering data just trial and error. It has seemed to help and I'm sure there is a point where too much volume ie. lower pressure, is not optimal, but again no hard data. Good luck Barry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382027#382027 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: High altitude performance
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Aug 28, 2012
I have a guy asking me how an RV-10 would perform in Mexico at 5,000 ft msl on a 2,000 ft strip. Any opinions of how much weight it could operate with at this altitude on a short strip in a warm climate? Thanks. 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: "bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com>
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
Date: Aug 28, 2012
All of you that have not had an issue with your DAR inspection count yourself as lucky. My DAR had this issue of the ELT antenna being absolutely installed per the TSO for which the ELT was certified up front on his list of things that were deal breakers for him. This is the only antenna hole I had to drill through the top of my airplane, I was not pleased. The only good news for me was that he was upfront about the antenna issue and I had a month or so to prepare myself for drilling the hole. good luck with your elt install, your experience will vary with the DAR available to you! Bob Newman N541RV www.tcwtech.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Date: Aug 29, 2012
Based on research we did at the time our understanding of an "ideal" plenum shape would be an ever increasing volume as the air moves aft. To that effect we took the ill-performing James plenum and hacked the fiberglass off both upper sides above the cylinder heads. In place of the fiberglass we mated a metal plenum of ever increasing volume with the end result being a plenum with ~50% more volume (WAG). The net effect of this change was ZERO. Not really any discernible difference other than I now had a Franken-plenum. It was ugly but it was symmetrical and just about as clean to the airflow as the original plenum. I truly expected to see some difference good or bad. But no difference. This is the same plenum I fly today. Literally today. I am willing to place a few dollars that an even tighter plenum in this situation will NOT aid in cooling. In all cowl configurations some air to a significant amount of inlet air actually reverses itself and goes out the inlets. This is part of the dirtiness of the front end of your aircraft. Minimizing the amount backtracking out will help performance. The racers have extra small inlets for max speed but minimum engine lifespan. Striking a balance is the goal. Again the simplest answer is the standard vans cowl & baffle. My next attempt will be larger inlets (new cowl) and a baffle system. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:20 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question Hi Jason; I think Sam's thinking for the larger volume plenum was to reduce the internal pressure and speed the air at the inlets to get good flow into the plenum. We were thinking with the lower volume plenum it could create back pressure and create a restriction for the inlet air and cause it to spill out around the rings. Sorry no real engineering data just trial and error. It has seemed to help and I'm sure there is a point where too much volume i.e. lower pressure, is not optimal, but again no hard data. Good luck Barry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382027#382027 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
Date: Aug 28, 2012
DAR are basically FAA designated representatives. I had to spend 3 hours at a FSDO with 7 different FAA examiners drilling me for my repairman=99s certificate. Another builder got his after a 15 minute discussion with his FSDO and his explaining the pictures, difference is he went to a FSDO that understood experimental aircraft, I went to my FSDO in a area where they don=99t see too many experimentals so they don=99t understand the rules and requirements without studying the regs.. My point is my DAR has a RV has been a DAR for 21 years and knew the rules for =9Cexperimental=9D aircraft, he recommended I put the antenna where mine is, under the fiberglass fairing below the VS, he told me a whole lot because he knew what the rules were but he also knew what is was like to fly a RV. I wasn=99t lucky, I was fortunate. Get a Technical Councelor, get one that knows RV and who knows who the best DAR is for you. Having to drill a hole is ridiculous, I would have found another DAR if I was told this was my only option, if that 2nd opinion DAR told me to do it, than I would. I can=99t tell you how many =9Chighly educated=9D people told me I needed to do something, I tested the idea off of another builder who almost laughed at my questions, in the end he was right I didn=99t need to drill holes in places to do the job right. From: bob-tcw Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 5:52 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: ELT Antenna All of you that have not had an issue with your DAR inspection count yourself as lucky. My DAR had this issue of the ELT antenna being absolutely installed per the TSO for which the ELT was certified up front on his list of things that were deal breakers for him. This is the only antenna hole I had to drill through the top of my airplane, I was not pleased. The only good news for me was that he was upfront about the antenna issue and I had a month or so to prepare myself for drilling the hole. good luck with your elt install, your experience will vary with the DAR available to you! Bob Newman N541RV www.tcwtech.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Aug 28, 2012
Anyone mount their antenna to the baggage area bulkhead, with the antenna running just below the baggage area fiberglass ceiling? -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382041#382041 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2012
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
Doesn't it need to be vertically polarized (pointing up, not horizontal)? Mine is mounted on the back seat cross bar against the left side. I figured the cross bar provides some ground plane, as does the rest of the nearby sheet metal. Seems to work fine. Dave Saylor 831-750-0284 CL On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > Anyone mount their antenna to the baggage area bulkhead, with the antenna running just below the baggage area fiberglass ceiling? > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382041#382041 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: ELT antenna
Date: Aug 29, 2012
I mounted my 406 ELT antenna using the baggage bulkhead as the ground plane and actually embedded wire of the antenna in the canopy cover, (as well as the GPS antenna). My RV8 has the ELT antenna in the wing tip, mounted horizontally, and that passed the AirForce operational test as well, in a closed metal hangar. The vertical mounting that is recommended (not required by the aircraft manufacturer), is to optimize the low power (100mw)121.5 MHz signal for the SAR to home in on. The horizontal polarization optimizes the much stronger (5 watt) 406 MHz signals getting to the satellites. As the aircraft manufacture, I prioritized the ability to get a signal up to a satellite rather than to the ground searchers. I did also leave in the old 5 Watt, 121.5 MHz ELT as well for those guys to practice with. Any DAR without the understanding of this technology or the rights and responsibilities of the aircraft builder will be eliminated as contenders for my choice for certification. Chris Hukill RV10 on hold while RV8 gets yet another new panel with ADS-B and Synthetic Vision. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2012
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
Optimal is vertically polarized when needed. IMHO, if you crash and wind up in the same orientation as normal on the gear, you probably don't need the ELT. Otherwise, in any other crash position, you probably do need ELT, but I'm not smart enough to predict that position, much less which way that would make vertical. One of the experts on the AeroElectric list estimated that if you had horizontal orientation instead of vertical you would lose about 3 db of signal strength. I do like your idea as a potential location for the antenna that would be out of the way, and technically meet the install instructions for vertical orientation. Kelly On 8/29/2012 6:49 AM, Dave Saylor wrote: > > Doesn't it need to be vertically polarized (pointing up, not horizontal)? > > Mine is mounted on the back seat cross bar against the left side. I > figured the cross bar provides some ground plane, as does the rest of > the nearby sheet metal. Seems to work fine. > > Dave Saylor > 831-750-0284 CL > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> Anyone mount their antenna to the baggage area bulkhead, with the antenna running just below the baggage area fiberglass ceiling? >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382041#382041 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2012
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
Personally, I'd agree with this. The one thing that people tend to overlook though is that probably the MOST important thing is that you maintain the integrity of the antenna to ELT box connection. It won't matter much where the antenna is, if the antenna cable is ripped away from the ELT because it was mounted to some structure that tore away. So keeping the antenna mounted either to the same structure or to something very nearby or robust nearby would be best. Tim On 8/29/2012 9:19 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Optimal is vertically polarized when needed. IMHO, if you crash and > wind up in the same orientation as normal on the gear, you probably > don't need the ELT. Otherwise, in any other crash position, you probably > do need ELT, but I'm not smart enough to predict that position, much > less which way that would make vertical. One of the experts on the > AeroElectric list estimated that if you had horizontal orientation > instead of vertical you would lose about 3 db of signal strength. > I do like your idea as a potential location for the antenna that would > be out of the way, and technically meet the install instructions for > vertical orientation. > Kelly ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2012
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Very valid point Tim. I'm not sure that going through the baggage compartment bulkhead would meet that criteria. On the other hand, I don't want to mount the ELT all the way back in the tail cone where only a 10 year old could get in and change the battery, nor do I really want it in the cabin where a bag or pax could accidentally bump it. Kelly On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Personally, I'd agree with this. The one thing that people tend > to overlook though is that probably the MOST important thing > is that you maintain the integrity of the antenna to ELT box > connection. It won't matter much where the antenna is, if the > antenna cable is ripped away from the ELT because it was > mounted to some structure that tore away. So keeping the > antenna mounted either to the same structure or to something > very nearby or robust nearby would be best. > > Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: ELT antenna
Date: Aug 29, 2012
Chris, Perfect explanation using facts and data. The system of FSDOs and DARS provides opportunities for "I thinks" to become unfounded and undocumented requirements. On my FSDO RV-10 inspection, he h ad some understanding of multiple wavelength antenna radiation patterns so m y empennage mounted ELT antenna was not an issue. He did however have a har d requirement for a TSO certified wet compass. I pointed out to him the rea l requirement being "a magnetic heading reference" and since I have two ADHR S units I more than met the requirement. I knew this up front so I elected t o roll on it. I mounted the TSO wet compass from Vans - and got the sign of f. The upside is this is a real nice wet compass - that I carefully calibrated, connected it to the dimmer circuit, and will never use. Carl On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:15 AM, "Chris Hukill" wrote: > I mounted my 406 ELT antenna using the baggage bulkhead as the ground plan e and actually embedded wire of the antenna in the canopy cover, (as well as the GPS antenna). My RV8 has the ELT antenna in the wing tip, mounted horiz ontally, and that passed the AirForce operational test as well, in a closed m etal hangar. The vertical mounting that is recommended (not required by the a ircraft manufacturer), is to optimize the low power (100mw)121.5 MHz signal f or the SAR to home in on. The horizontal polarization optimizes the much str onger (5 watt) 406 MHz signals getting to the satellites. As the aircraft ma nufacture, I prioritized the ability to get a signal up to a satellite rathe r than to the ground searchers. I did also leave in the old 5 Watt, 121.5 MH z ELT as well for those guys to practice with. Any DAR without the understan ding of this technology or the rights and responsibilities of the aircraft b uilder will be eliminated as contenders for my choice for certification. > > Chris Hukill > RV10 on hold while RV8 gets yet another new panel with ADS-B and Synthetic Vision. > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2012
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
Not that I'd call this a "best" place by any means, but I put mine right above the elevator trim stuff, between the 2 trim cables, on top of that upper deck, under the vertical stab, with the antenna facing back next to it under the VS. For me, it was good for W&B, and it also makes it easy to replace the batteries (even though it's a 5 year thing now) because just pulling that fairing gives full access. Should be a beefy place on the structure and if I go in, the tail should go in last. :) Tim On 8/29/2012 9:49 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Very valid point Tim. I'm not sure that going through the baggage > compartment bulkhead would meet that criteria. On the other hand, I > don't want to mount the ELT all the way back in the tail cone where > only a 10 year old could get in and change the battery, nor do I > really want it in the cabin where a bag or pax could accidentally bump > it. > Kelly > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Tim Olson wrote: >> >> Personally, I'd agree with this. The one thing that people tend >> to overlook though is that probably the MOST important thing >> is that you maintain the integrity of the antenna to ELT box >> connection. It won't matter much where the antenna is, if the >> antenna cable is ripped away from the ELT because it was >> mounted to some structure that tore away. So keeping the >> antenna mounted either to the same structure or to something >> very nearby or robust nearby would be best. >> >> Tim > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: High altitude performance
From: "tysonr" <tysonr(at)tysonr.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2012
I'm not going to be the guy that says you can or can't take off in 2000' at 5000MSL, but having just returned from a month (40hrs) of flying in CO and surrounding states I can tell you a little about my experience. Flying a 280hp RV-10 with 170 lb pilot (me), a 190 lb co-pilot, and approx. 50 lbs baggage, we were off Leadville (9900 MSL, 14,000 DA !!) in significantly less than half of the 6400' runway. My suggestions in priority order are: if possible have a local expert co-pilot as I did, lean to max RPM at run up, be sure the engine is warmed up before take off, don't carry fuel (weight) you don't need (I typically filled to 30 gals), use short field TO technique (brakes, no reflex in flaps). I'm from Florida so the first few seconds seemed painfully slow, but after that the plane accelerated quickly. Also, make sure your air intake system is clear and clean. -------- Tyson Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382056#382056 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2012
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
Given all the carbuncles and antenna I have hanging off my '10, especially after adding the NavWorx ADSb box, I regretted not having installed my ELT antenna in the tail. Then I had an experience that not only removed the regret but in fact added another antenna to the slipstream. I'll share the experience FWIW.... My panel includes a G430w and an SL30. Based on previous experience, I knew my primary comm radio would be the SL30. The comm on the G430w would only be used occassionally for stuff like pre-startup clearances and as a backup for the primary. So for antennas I decided to connect the SL30 to a belly mounted bent whip and the G430 comm to a Bob Archer wingtip antenna. The units share a Bob Archer wingtip nav antenna. The G430's GPS antenna is mounted on top free and clear. A few other GPS and Wx antenna are mounted underneath the windshield. This all worked perfectly. I was convinced that the Bob Archer Comm would not perform optimally and that was true. It did not have the Tx or Rx range of the SL30 and it's belly whip but it performed well in it's intended role. I knew that normal operations would be GPS-centric so I was comfortable with possibly suboptimal performance from the navs. In fact, the setup appears to work quite well particularly in approach operations where I can find no deficiencies. At about 150 hours, I decided to take our longest trip to date from NC to AZ. It all went well until our arrival at KSDL when we flew under a line of storms and probably took an electrical hit of some sort. We lost more than 50% of our SL30's function (limited range, intermittent RX and lot's of static). I switched to the G430 for the rest of the arrival (it was just good enough). At least we made our destination but it was not lost on me that the failure occurred at maximum distance from home. I'm thinking at this point that while the G430/Bob Archer works, it is not the radio I can rely on for the return legs because of it's somewhat limited range. In other words, my backup turns out not to be a real backup. It was good enough to get into KSDL but not for the distances involved or for the IFR operations required to get home. With some help from a local RV10 builder, I was able to get behind the panel and swap antenna so that my belly mount was connected to the G430. That was not as simple as it sounds. It required ferrying the airplane across town and a 1.5 days of our trip to arrange. Moreover, isolating the fault (SL30 or PM9000EX or ?) was complicated by a second fault that occurred during the antenna swap, but that's another story. The bottom line was that I had installed and invested in dual comms where I considered 1 little more than a backup. But when I needed a backup, it effectively was not there for me. And it ended up costing more time and money than it should have. This experience changed my perspective a bit: I put a 2nd belly whip in for my comm2 because it has to perform as well as my comm1 when needed. I'm glad I did a TSO compliant ELT antenna installation and didn't opt for a more streamlined installation (though I'm not convinced that the tail fairing installation is any more or less likely to perform as needed, if needed). In any case, I'll probably haul that draggy whip for thousands of miles and never use it once, but... you know. I'm happy with my Bob Archer nav antenna because I know it will do what I need it to do. I'm glad I did a optimal GPS antenna install for the G430 rather than trying to elegantly hide it. I depend on it for 99.999% of my navigation. Anyway, thanks for letting me share. Bill "sitting underneath a Bob Archer comm antenna hung on my wall" Watson > > I am looking at installing my ACK E-04 antenna under the tail > intersection fiberglass fairing. I've read through a good discussion > on the AeroElectric list and feel the trade-off of horizontal > polarization, vs protection from impact and eliminating the drag is > worth it. I know that Mooney got approval for similar antenna instal > for a 406 antenna in fiberglass ventral fin. > My question is if anyone has done this and gotten any grief from their > DAR. My only concern is to fully meet the TSO on the ELT you are > supposed to comply with the install instructions, that call for > vertical mounting withing 30 degrees. > Kelly > 40866 > forever finishing > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RV 10 Builder want-a-be
From: Terry Moushon <tmoushon(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2012
RV 10 builders/flyers. First, let me thank you for all the documentation I have reviewed over the last few weeks. Well done! I started flying 30 years ago, but like many, stopped to raise a family. Now that I have recently retired, I am revisiting those things I set aside many, many years ago. I did my BFR in April (1978 Archer) and have flown about 40 hours since then just getting back into the saddle. I did sit in an RV 10 at Osh this year but did not get a chance for a demo ride. Living in Peoria Illinois makes it a factory visit for a demo ride pretty expensive.... money I would rather put into a plane. What I would like is rather simple. I would like to take a ride with a builder/pilot for a good demo...followed by good old fashioned conversation about the process....good and bad. I am very willing to offset your costs....but believe your input would be priceless. That said, a local contact would be great.... Driving several hundred miles to meet at an airport... No problem... I would love to avoid driving 2100 miles for a demo. Please give me a shout if you know someone who can help. Sincerely, RV Builder want-to-be Terry Moushon Tmoushon(at)gmail.com Peoria, Illinois ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Aug 29, 2012
My 406 manual said it needed a 24 in radius ground plane, if I remember correctly. As Tim said it should be located where it will remain intact and connected antenna to box. There are not a lot of options if you take the ground plane requirement seriously. My ELT is behind the baggage bulkhead and the antenna just behind it on the top of the tailbone. It sticks out, which I don't like, but at least it should work per the specs if ever needed. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382125#382125 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2012
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Just checked my ELT E-04 manual. What it really says is "IF the antenna is being mounted on a NON-CONDUCTIVE portion of the airframe, a SUPPLEMENTARY ground plane must be installed. The supplemental ground plane must have a minimum diamenter of 24", however 48" will provide maximum power at 121.5 MHz and is recommended. I don't know of anywhere you could get a 48" radius on an RV-10 except in the middle of a wing, but is a spurious discussion unless you mount the antenna on the fiberglass canopy without grounding to the metal airframe. On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:37 PM, nukeflyboy wrote: > > My 406 manual said it needed a 24 in radius ground plane, if I remember correctly. As Tim said it should be located where it will remain intact and connected antenna to box. There are not a lot of options if you take the ground plane requirement seriously. My ELT is behind the baggage bulkhead and the antenna just behind it on the top of the tailbone. It sticks out, which I don't like, but at least it should work per the specs if ever needed. > > -------- > Dave Moore > RV-6 flying > RV-10 QB - flying > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382125#382125 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: Tom Koelzer <40950(at)rv10.net>
Date: Aug 30, 2012
Robin, I have a very old, unused aero degree from 1977 so don't consider myself an expert on the subject but have some thoughts regarding your below discussion. I believe the larger volume plenum theory was to allow a reduction in air velocity due to larger cross section area inside the plenum thus increasing the static pressure as the flow decelerates. This should increase pressure across the cylinder cooling fins and help overall air flow through the cowl. However, the results would probably be no different if the air flow is choked at the cowl inlet (or outlet for that matter) due to too small of inlet area. This could account for your lack of change in results. So you might retry the larger plenum after you open the inlets and see what happens. No guarantees but worth a try since you already have the larger plenum built. The other area to check out would be exit area at the bottom cowl to ensure low exit pressure. Let us know how it works out. Tom 40950 wings slow build - seems like forever... On Aug 28, 2012, at 8:13 PM, Robin Marks wrote: > > Based on research we did at the time our understanding of an "ideal" plenum shape would be an ever increasing volume as the air moves aft. To that effect we took the ill-performing James plenum and hacked the fiberglass off both upper sides above the cylinder heads. In place of the fiberglass we mated a metal plenum of ever increasing volume with the end result being a plenum with ~50% more volume (WAG). The net effect of this change was ZERO. Not really any discernible difference other than I now had a Franken-plenum. It was ugly but it was symmetrical and just about as clean to the airflow as the original plenum. I truly expected to see some difference good or bad. But no difference. This is the same plenum I fly today. Literally today. > I am willing to place a few dollars that an even tighter plenum in this situation will NOT aid in cooling. > In all cowl configurations some air to a significant amount of inlet air actually reverses itself and goes out the inlets. This is part of the dirtiness of the front end of your aircraft. Minimizing the amount backtracking out will help performance. The racers have extra small inlets for max speed but minimum engine lifespan. Striking a balance is the goal. Again the simplest answer is the standard vans cowl & baffle. My next attempt will be larger inlets (new cowl) and a baffle system. > > Robin > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:20 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question > > > Hi Jason; I think Sam's thinking for the larger volume plenum was to reduce the internal pressure and speed the air at the inlets to get good flow into the plenum. We were thinking with the lower volume plenum it could create back pressure and create a restriction for the inlet air and cause it to spill out around the rings. Sorry no real engineering data just trial and error. It has seemed to help and I'm sure there is a point where too much volume i.e. lower pressure, is not optimal, but again no hard data. Good luck Barry > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV 10 Builder want-a-be
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2012
You are 2.0 from me at PMH. Gotta be someone closer. I can't think of anything I don't like about the plane. Flew 1.1 yesterday with a newly soloed pp...8.9 GPH, 142 KTAS, 2500 MSL. $87 worth of fun. Better than Disney. Been there, done that in May. Lots of good deals on kits and flying -10's on barnstormers. You can get one for what it cost to build now. Lindy award winner on there just today. If you have all the money now, that is an option. Back when I was looking in 2008, prices on all planes(and houses) were just too high for what you got. -------- Wayne Gillispie, A&P 05/93 PP 10/08 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD 382nd Flying. TT= 74 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382169#382169 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2012
Mine is on the right side of the rear seat cross brace. Out of the way. Did not need any more aft cg with pc680 aux bat already back there. Left slack in coax on each end. If we lose our coax connection, I would bet it won't matter then. The backup ant is strapped to the elt if someone miraculously survives. -------- Wayne Gillispie, A&P 05/93 PP 10/08 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD 382nd Flying. TT= 74 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382170#382170 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2012
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Your antenna or the ELT is located on the cross brace? I think the antenna there is a fine location, as long as it doesn't offend your SO/FO/CFO's sensibilities for interior "appearance". I may very well use that exact spot if DAR doesn't like horizontal under the tail fairing. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:45 PM, rv10flyer wrote: > > Mine is on the right side of the rear seat cross brace. Out of the way. Did not need any more aft cg with pc680 aux bat already back there. Left slack in coax on each end. If we lose our coax connection, I would bet it won't matter then. The backup ant is strapped to the elt if someone miraculously survives. > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie, A&P 05/93 PP 10/08 > 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 > N715WD 382nd Flying. TT= 74 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382170#382170 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: High altitude performance
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2012
I fly at 2700 gross weight all the time with my family out of a 5000' runway length at an elevation of 663'. I have 260 hp all standard items. In the summer I use approximately 1500'-1800' for both takeoff and landing safely. No, I would not do it unless light or in an emergency. -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382172#382172 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Plane-Power Alternator use
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2012
No way that I could as I am recharging a pc925, pc680 and powering an IFR panel pulling 50-55 Amps after start. -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382173#382173 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2012
Subject: Re: High altitude performance
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Hmm, Van's specs for sea level gross wt takeoff is 500 ft. Are you sure you need 3 times that? Landing 650' at gross. I know I am not that skilled at this time, but only have a bit more than an hour in a -10, so I don't know how hard it is to match Van's published numbers. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM, rv10flyer wrote: > > I fly at 2700 gross weight all the time with my family out of a 5000' runway length at an elevation of 663'. I have 260 hp all standard items. In the summer I use approximately 1500'-1800' for both takeoff and landing safely. No, I would not do it unless light or in an emergency. > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie > 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 > N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382172#382172 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2012
I have Abby's, carried it on a few long trips and have not used it yet. Hangared on one trip. When should I use it? I have been worried about trapping dirt beneath with wind and scratching plexi. I do have a few water leaks around door hinge screws that I need to seal up. Do most of you install it for security/sun fading/water leaks/cabin cooler?? -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382175#382175 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Interior Window Transitions
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2012
The thicker weld on 45 bonded windows and formed a good paintable fillet. Yes, my paint is cracking around exterior of rear windows especially. No worries as it is not a showplane. Me, my house and car have cracks too. -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382176#382176 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 30, 2012
I use mine all the time for sun/heat protection. It is really amazing to me how dark and cool the interior is with that cover on. I use it all week at OSH and most nights when traveling. Probably 25-30 days this year so far. As long as you aren't in a dust storm dirt isn't a big issue. I do clean my windows if possible before covering it up. Tim On Aug 30, 2012, at 10:19 PM, "rv10flyer" wrote: > > I have Abby's, carried it on a few long trips and have not used it yet. Hangared on one trip. When should I use it? I have been worried about trapping dirt beneath with wind and scratching plexi. I do have a few water leaks around door hinge screws that I need to seal up. Do most of you install it for security/sun fading/water leaks/cabin cooler?? > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie > 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 > N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382175#382175 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: High altitude performance
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2012
The only time that I have lifted off at 500' is solo, full fuel, oat=30-40F, Flaps= 3*. My first flight. Maybe a test pilot, using 18* flaps could get it off at full gross, but not with my family on board and not in my plane. Landing, I bet I could get it stopped if I drug it in at 1.2 X Vso, raised flaps upon touching down and burnt my brakes up. Not in my plane, with my family and with me buying tires/brakes/doing all the work. Just in case of an emergency...I do have 83282 hyd fluid from sky geek in mine. The speed numbers are very close for the avg pilot. Takeoff and landing distances not so much unless you are testing for numbers to go in the sales literature or flying magazine. Maybe other better family hauling pilots can do it. I would just have to make several trips if the runway is under 1500' and around SL-1000' msl. -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382178#382178 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2012
We may try it at Triple Tree Fly-In at SC00. Thank you for the info. -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382180#382180 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: High altitude performance
Date: Aug 31, 2012
I have ~700 hours in various RV's and I could not spot land & stop in 650' at gross. I don't even want to try. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:13 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: High altitude performance Hmm, Van's specs for sea level gross wt takeoff is 500 ft. Are you sure you need 3 times that? Landing 650' at gross. I know I am not that skilled at this time, but only have a bit more than an hour in a -10, so I don't know how hard it is to match Van's published numbers. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM, rv10flyer wrote: > --> > > I fly at 2700 gross weight all the time with my family out of a 5000' runway length at an elevation of 663'. I have 260 hp all standard items. In the summer I use approximately 1500'-1800' for both takeoff and landing safely. No, I would not do it unless light or in an emergency. > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie > 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 > N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382172#382172 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Tom, Your description is as I thought but I didn't want to get specific due to not owning an aero degree of any vintage. We also agree that the issue is and always was inlet area. I think I mentioned investigating exit area in my note. Still of minimal benefit w/o adequate inlet area. As discussed no need for a larger plenum in my future. Baffles and a replacement cowl are already ordered and waiting. Thanks, Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Koelzer Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:08 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question Robin, I have a very old, unused aero degree from 1977 so don't consider myself an expert on the subject but have some thoughts regarding your below discussion. I believe the larger volume plenum theory was to allow a reduction in air velocity due to larger cross section area inside the plenum thus increasing the static pressure as the flow decelerates. This should increase pressure across the cylinder cooling fins and help overall air flow through the cowl. However, the results would probably be no different if the air flow is choked at the cowl inlet (or outlet for that matter) due to too small of inlet area. This could account for your lack of change in results. So you might retry the larger plenum after you open the inlets and see what happens. No guarantees but worth a try since you already have the larger plenum built. The other area to check out would be exit area at the bottom cowl to ensure low exit pressure. Let us know how it works out. Tom 40950 wings slow build - seems like forever... On Aug 28, 2012, at 8:13 PM, Robin Marks wrote: > > Based on research we did at the time our understanding of an "ideal" plenum shape would be an ever increasing volume as the air moves aft. To that effect we took the ill-performing James plenum and hacked the fiberglass off both upper sides above the cylinder heads. In place of the fiberglass we mated a metal plenum of ever increasing volume with the end result being a plenum with ~50% more volume (WAG). The net effect of this change was ZERO. Not really any discernible difference other than I now had a Franken-plenum. It was ugly but it was symmetrical and just about as clean to the airflow as the original plenum. I truly expected to see some difference good or bad. But no difference. This is the same plenum I fly today. Literally today. > I am willing to place a few dollars that an even tighter plenum in this situation will NOT aid in cooling. > In all cowl configurations some air to a significant amount of inlet air actually reverses itself and goes out the inlets. This is part of the dirtiness of the front end of your aircraft. Minimizing the amount backtracking out will help performance. The racers have extra small inlets for max speed but minimum engine lifespan. Striking a balance is the goal. Again the simplest answer is the standard vans cowl & baffle. My next attempt will be larger inlets (new cowl) and a baffle system. > > Robin > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:20 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question > > > Hi Jason; I think Sam's thinking for the larger volume plenum was to > reduce the internal pressure and speed the air at the inlets to get > good flow into the plenum. We were thinking with the lower volume > plenum it could create back pressure and create a restriction for the > inlet air and cause it to spill out around the rings. Sorry no real > engineering data just trial and error. It has seemed to help and I'm > sure there is a point where too much volume i.e. lower pressure, is > not optimal, but again no hard data. Good luck Barry > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2012
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
I don't use one but I do use one of those aluminized sun guards that are used in autos. I'd recommend getting and using one before investing in a regular canopy cover or perhaps in lieu of using the one you have. When we landed in Phoenix early this summer, it felt like my interior started melting and things just started coming apart. I looked around the ramp and saw that practically every airplane, especially the jets, had one of those sun guards in the windshield. A quick trip to Autozone and I found a half dozen varieties from less than $5 to $25 or so. I picked a cheap one and it worked like a charm. Much better than expected. Yes, it only covers the windshield but that takes care of 80% of sun. The loose, sloppy fit means that it has little actual contact with the windshield so scratching is not a problem. It's super light, fan folds for storage, and it has a slot in the middle so it can hang on the rear view mirror. The same slot fits around our center post just fine. I works so well that even if I neglect to deploy it at tie down, I'll often put it up during pre-flight to cool things off and do my pre-flight stuff. On a sunny ramp, it's the last thing I stow before shutting the doors and starting the engine. I used regular canopy covers on my sailplanes years ago but they have a few problems. Scratching and dirt being one. That's real pain if you get high winds overnight and/or the hold downs are not properly in place and the cover flaps around for a few hours or days. Then you reto always disassemble and box it). Anyway, you should try one of these things. I don't have any water leaks so the only thing I'm looking for is sun protection. These things are cheap, very easy to use, super light and easy to stow. Blocking only most of the sun coming thru the windshield I've found is more than sufficient for casual parking. The canopy cover would be the thing to use if it's tied out all the time. Triple Tree fly-in! Didn't know they had one but wish I had. Great place and people there. I was there a few years ago for an RC event. Anyplace self-described as the "Augusta of Aviation" is worth a visit. Assuming it's there next year, I'll have to give it a try. Have fun Wayne! Bill "suggests getting cowl plugs too - it's amazing how much material a starling can fit under a RV10 cowling... and how hard it is to get it all out" Watson On 8/30/2012 11:19 PM, rv10flyer wrote: > > I have Abby's, carried it on a few long trips and have not used it yet. Hangared on one trip. When should I use it? I have been worried about trapping dirt beneath with wind and scratching plexi. I do have a few water leaks around door hinge screws that I need to seal up. Do most of you install it for security/sun fading/water leaks/cabin cooler?? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: High altitude performance
From: "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)Pacbell.net>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
I fly out of Truckee, CA at 5900 feet. Getting out very light meaning pilot only might not be a problem, but landing might be a bigger problem. With no wind or a cross wind your relative speed is a lot higher on landing. Sometimes I am shocked at the distance that it takes to slow down and make the turnoff. On a hot windy and turbulent day, you need to maintain a bit of extra speed ( I like 80 knots) down final. With these conditions you can easily eat up 2500 ft. -------- See you OSH '12 Q/B - flying 2 yrs. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382187#382187 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
See that's where my opinion differs. If you go with the aluminized stuff, you need to do your very best to minimize contact with the windows...and perhaps find the least real metallic ones you can. I went to Walmart and bought some good ones and cut to fit back for OSH a few years ago. Now, those are the ONLY real scratches I have on my windows...on the inside. I scratched my windows far far more by using sun shields than the canopy ever did....and scratches are harder to fix on the inside. So personally, I wouldn't go with this advice. But, if you're doing it real real carefully and using great materials and re-binding any cut edges to protect the window, then I'm sure it would be a good idea. I know mine made a significant decrease in heat cutting. The canopy cover, however, does an even better job for me. I don't know where Abby gets that white on black material but it's awesome stuff. Tim On Aug 31, 2012, at 1:21 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > > I don't use one but I do use one of those aluminized sun guards that are used in autos. I'd recommend getting and using one before investing in a regular canopy cover or perhaps in lieu of using the one you have. > > When we landed in Phoenix early this summer, it felt like my interior started melting and things just started coming apart. I looked around the ramp and saw that practically every airplane, especially the jets, had one of those sun guards in the windshield. A quick trip to Autozone and I found a half dozen varieties from less than $5 to $25 or so. I picked a cheap one and it worked like a charm. Much better than expected. > > Yes, it only covers the windshield but that takes care of 80% of sun. The loose, sloppy fit means that it has little actual contact with the windshield so scratching is not a problem. It's super light, fan folds for storage, and it has a slot in the middle so it can hang on the rear view mirror. The same slot fits around our center post just fine. > > I works so well that even if I neglect to deploy it at tie down, I'll often put it up during pre-flight to cool things off and do my pre-flight stuff. On a sunny ramp, it's the last thing I stow before shutting the doors and starting the engine. > > I used regular canopy covers on my sailplanes years ago but they have a few problems. Scratching and dirt being one. That's real pain if you get high winds overnight and/or the hold downs are not properly in place and the cover flaps around for a few hours or days. Then you reto always disassemble and box it). > > Anyway, you should try one of these things. I don't have any water leaks so the only thing I'm looking for is sun protection. These things are cheap, very easy to use, super light and easy to stow. Blocking only most of the sun coming thru the windshield I've found is more than sufficient for casual parking. The canopy cover would be the thing to use if it's tied out all the time. > > Triple Tree fly-in! Didn't know they had one but wish I had. Great place and people there. I was there a few years ago for an RC event. Anyplace self-described as the "Augusta of Aviation" is worth a visit. Assuming it's there next year, I'll have to give it a try. Have fun Wayne! > > Bill "suggests getting cowl plugs too - it's amazing how much material a starling can fit under a RV10 cowling... and how hard it is to get it all out" Watson > > > On 8/30/2012 11:19 PM, rv10flyer wrote: >> >> I have Abby's, carried it on a few long trips and have not used it yet. Hangared on one trip. When should I use it? I have been worried about trapping dirt beneath with wind and scratching plexi. I do have a few water leaks around door hinge screws that I need to seal up. Do most of you install it for security/sun fading/water leaks/cabin cooler?? >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: High altitude performance
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Same here most days. I've made it down short nicely a few times, but the one thing I would never count on is staying under 1000' for takeoff or landing. You may get to where you could do it regularly with some good flying but not at any altitude. I personally don't think I'd bother trying a landing at a strip that's less than 2000' with the family along....and never at 5000msl. Vans takeoff and landing Specs are probably some of the hardest ones to match, IMHO. Tim On Aug 31, 2012, at 12:30 AM, Robin Marks wrote: > > I have ~700 hours in various RV's and I could not spot land & stop in 650' at gross. I don't even want to try. > > Robin > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:13 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: High altitude performance > > > Hmm, Van's specs for sea level gross wt takeoff is 500 ft. Are you sure you need 3 times that? Landing 650' at gross. I know I am not that skilled at this time, but only have a bit more than an hour in a -10, so I don't know how hard it is to match Van's published numbers. > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM, rv10flyer wrote: >> --> >> >> I fly at 2700 gross weight all the time with my family out of a 5000' runway length at an elevation of 663'. I have 260 hp all standard items. In the summer I use approximately 1500'-1800' for both takeoff and landing safely. No, I would not do it unless light or in an emergency. >> >> -------- >> Wayne Gillispie >> 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 >> N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382172#382172 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
We use ours all the time and have not had any issues with scratching the plexi. It sat outside for 10 days in Asheville, NC last month during some very hot weather. I noticed a bit of sticky residue from the cover on my aft cabin top. It wiped right off with no problem. I am not sure if something from the cover came off because of the heat or if there was something on the airplane that I did not notice prior to installing the cover. The last time we went to Cedar Key, I put it on, even though we were only going to be there for a few hours. Combination of protection from the fierce FL sun and prying eyes, makes it worth the few minutes it takes to install. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382195#382195 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Custom made, fully cloth bound inside covers can be good, especially if you have to store an aircraft outside for an extended period in a very dusty climate. That is why the majority of aircraft parked on the ramp in Arizona have them. Most are custom made to fit factory built aircraft. On the other hand, for a trip, temporary outside storage, the external cover provides protection from both sun and rain. Whether you install it or not can be based on local forecast for the few days you are staying away from home. I had both varieties for my Mooney. After I replaced the windows with new(to eliminate 40 yrs of scratches and cloudiness) I pitched the inside covers. I plan on an external cover for the RV for travel, and hangar at Aridzona home base. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > See that's where my opinion differs. If you go with the aluminized stuff, you need to do your very best to minimize contact with the windows...and perhaps find the least real metallic ones you can. I went to Walmart and bought some good ones and cut to fit back for OSH a few years ago. Now, those are the ONLY real scratches I have on my windows...on the inside. I scratched my windows far far more by using sun shields than the canopy ever did....and scratches are harder to fix on the inside. > > So personally, I wouldn't go with this advice. But, if you're doing it real real carefully and using great materials and re-binding any cut edges to protect the window, then I'm sure it would be a good idea. I know mine made a significant decrease in heat cutting. The canopy cover, however, does an even better job for me. I don't know where Abby gets that white on black material but it's awesome stuff. > Tim > > > On Aug 31, 2012, at 1:21 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > >> >> I don't use one but I do use one of those aluminized sun guards that are used in autos. I'd recommend getting and using one before investing in a regular canopy cover or perhaps in lieu of using the one you have. >> >> When we landed in Phoenix early this summer, it felt like my interior started melting and things just started coming apart. I looked around the ramp and saw that practically every airplane, especially the jets, had one of those sun guards in the windshield. A quick trip to Autozone and I found a half dozen varieties from less than $5 to $25 or so. I picked a cheap one and it worked like a charm. Much better than expected. >> >> Yes, it only covers the windshield but that takes care of 80% of sun. The loose, sloppy fit means that it has little actual contact with the windshield so scratching is not a problem. It's super light, fan folds for storage, and it has a slot in the middle so it can hang on the rear view mirror. The same slot fits around our center post just fine. >> >> I works so well that even if I neglect to deploy it at tie down, I'll often put it up during pre-flight to cool things off and do my pre-flight stuff. On a sunny ramp, it's the last thing I stow before shutting the doors and starting the engine. >> >> I used regular canopy covers on my sailplanes years ago but they have a few problems. Scratching and dirt being one. That's real pain if you get high winds overnight and/or the hold downs are not properly in place and the cover flaps around for a few hours or days. Then you reto always disassemble and box it). >> >> Anyway, you should try one of these things. I don't have any water leaks so the only thing I'm looking for is sun protection. These things are cheap, very easy to use, super light and easy to stow. Blocking only most of the sun coming thru the windshield I've found is more than sufficient for casual parking. The canopy cover would be the thing to use if it's tied out all the time. >> >> Triple Tree fly-in! Didn't know they had one but wish I had. Great place and people there. I was there a few years ago for an RC event. Anyplace self-described as the "Augusta of Aviation" is worth a visit. Assuming it's there next year, I'll have to give it a try. Have fun Wayne! >> >> Bill "suggests getting cowl plugs too - it's amazing how much material a starling can fit under a RV10 cowling... and how hard it is to get it all out" Watson >> >> >> On 8/30/2012 11:19 PM, rv10flyer wrote: >>> >>> I have Abby's, carried it on a few long trips and have not used it yet. Hangared on one trip. When should I use it? I have been worried about trapping dirt beneath with wind and scratching plexi. I do have a few water leaks around door hinge screws that I need to seal up. Do most of you install it for security/sun fading/water leaks/cabin cooler?? >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
I have been researching this whole topic in depth over the last week or so. There is one site in particular with some really good information, check out www.n91cz.com specifically his articles on cooling and his link to interesting technical reports NASA CR 3405. I have also been getting some advice from the guys over on the other forum. www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=79454 While we are in the process of gathering the necessary data through actual pressure measurements, I think it is premature to assume the cowl inlet is too small. Here is what I have learned so far, this may be obvious to others but it took me time to pick it up (I may have eaten paint chips as a kid). Dynamic pressure is generated as we push the airplane through the air, to the tune of around 6.5 H2O @ 100 knots, 14.6 H2O @ 150 knots, 25.9 H2O @ 200 knots. We can covert airspeed to pressure and vice versa, think of it this way, the tank of your air compressor contains pressure, when you open a blow nozzle you convert that pressure into airspeed. So we have a fixed pressure available depending on our airspeed, no more, no less. So depending on your speed we will need to convert some of that dynamic pressure into differential pressure between the upper and lower deck of the engine in order to keep things cool duh that part is easy. So the other day we took some measurements and I had asked the group what it all means. In our example we were seeing pressure in our plenum of 6.5 at ~150 knots wow that means we are only converting 6.5 of the available dynamic pressure of 14.6 into pressure in the upper cowl. Now given that our lower cowl pressure was 3 it means that we only have 3.5 of differential pressure available to cool the engine, about half of what we should have. It also means that if we get the lower cowl pressure all the way down to zero, by lets say, I dont know, completely removing it, we still would only have marginal differential pressure cooling air available. So our top side is terrible at converting the 150 knot air stream into usable dynamic pressure, now lets look at the lower cowl. Remember that we have low dynamic pressure in the lower cowl and we do not have very far to go in order to improve it, so adding cowl flaps and louvers will not get us where we need to be, no matter what until we fix the top side the changing the bottom will yield marginal results at best. One more key point to think about in the lower cowl, when that air exits the lower cowl we will need to get it back up to speed. If it is at zero dynamic pressure it means it is standing still, meaning we will have to accelerate it back up to 150 knots, and that is cooling drag. Look at it this way if the air came into the top cowl at 150 knots (14.6) and left the cowl at 150 knots (14.6) we would have zero cooling drag, but since it comes in at 150 knots and does some work in the middle and exits at a lower airspeed we have cooling drag. What we really want to have happen is for the air to come in and do the absolute bare minimum amount of work required to cool things down and then exit. Ideally we want the upper deck pressure to equal the dynamic pressure available due to airspeed, and the lower cowl pressure to equal that value minus the difference in pressure require to cool the engine for a given condition. Great, so what the heck does all that really mean, where am I going to focus my effort? First things first, before doing anything drastic it is important to collect the pressure data. To install all of the instrumentation and do a test run took about three hours, that is nothing! Per the articles on the web site I referenced above I want to start by looking at the area just behind the cooling inlets (diffusers). Turns out if the shape directly behind the inlet rings is wrong the pressure generated will build a dam that prevents any more air from getting in, this is called external pressure recovery and requires a much larger inlet. What I want to happen is for the air to come into the inlet and the inlet to be shaped aerodynamically like a venturi so the air expands directly behind the inlet. This means a very smooth transition so the air doesnt stall create turbulence and dam up, which is called internal pressure recovery. Once we get beyond that point the shape doesnt really matter. Dont ask me what all of that looks like yet, I am still trying to figure that out and the guys took the airplane to Yellowstone over Labor Day. But for now I am putting on hold the idea of cutting in bigger inlet rings. When / if we get the upper plenum pressure to where it needs to be I may look at cowl flaps to throttle the exit depending on flight conditions like airspeed and power settings. The purpose of the cowl flaps at that point should be to close off the opening rather than enlarge it in order to reduce cooling drag. On another note for those of you with baffles, the NASA article used a Piper Aztec (Lycoming 540s) as a test bed. There data showed that in that installation the baffles leaked by 38% of the cooling air. That is a huge amount of cooling drag, so like Tim and others have said spend some time and seal up your baffles to the engine. Even if you dont have cooling problems you are still giving away power and speed by having leaks. I think there is hope. I will let you know what comes of all of this but it will be a while. Sorry for the long post - 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=382197#382197 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
Date: Aug 31, 2012
I was concerned about scratching plexi as well. At the beginning I left a towel over the front windscreen, but it became apparent that that is not needed if I assure the plexi was cleaned first. I used mine in SC, GA in June and the plane was kept quite cool. To answer your "security/sun fading/water leaks/cabin cooler??" Yes! anytime I am somewhere with 104f heat (NM mid day) I use it for 1 hour or more of sitting. It has made a oven a comfortable cabin. -----Original Message----- From: rv10flyer Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations I have Abby's, carried it on a few long trips and have not used it yet. Hangared on one trip. When should I use it? I have been worried about trapping dirt beneath with wind and scratching plexi. I do have a few water leaks around door hinge screws that I need to seal up. Do most of you install it for security/sun fading/water leaks/cabin cooler?? -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382175#382175 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: High altitude performance
Date: Aug 31, 2012
I dropped the plane in at stall right on the numbers and used the brakes to slow down. Did it once during the 40 hour flyoff, no intention to do it again, but it can be done. I can not state if it is actually 650ft but it was the first turnoff at the airport, which I think is less than 700feet. The bottom line is that is Vans marketing numbers, hard to duplicate unless one is an expert that practices doing it many more times than I do. -----Original Message----- From: Robin Marks Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:30 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: High altitude performance I have ~700 hours in various RV's and I could not spot land & stop in 650' at gross. I don't even want to try. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:13 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: High altitude performance Hmm, Van's specs for sea level gross wt takeoff is 500 ft. Are you sure you need 3 times that? Landing 650' at gross. I know I am not that skilled at this time, but only have a bit more than an hour in a -10, so I don't know how hard it is to match Van's published numbers. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM, rv10flyer wrote: > --> > > I fly at 2700 gross weight all the time with my family out of a 5000' > runway length at an elevation of 663'. I have 260 hp all standard items. > In the summer I use approximately 1500'-1800' for both takeoff and landing > safely. No, I would not do it unless light or in an emergency. > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie > 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 > N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382172#382172 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2012
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
I've been following this but may have missed it; did anyone supply pressure numbers for the stock cowl setup to facilitate comparision? Bill On 8/31/2012 8:44 AM, jkreidler wrote: > In our example we were seeing pressure in our plenum of 6.5 at ~150 knots wow that means we are only converting 6.5 of the available dynamic pressure of 14.6 into pressure in the upper cowl. Now given that our lower cowl pr! > essure was 3 it means that we only have 3.5 of differential pressure available to cool the engine, about half of what we should have. It also means that if we get the lower cowl pressure all the way down to zero, by lets say, I dont know, completely removing it, we still would only have marginal differential pressure cooling air available. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Not that I know of, if someone wants to do a run let me know and we can talk about the equipment. 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=382204#382204 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2012
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
i'm going to have to take a more critical look at what I'm doing. I didn't do any customization and my windshield doesn't 'fit' closely at all. I just stick it in there. The rear window aren't covered at all. The edges are covered but will be checking later today. Thanks Bill On 8/31/2012 7:55 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > See that's where my opinion differs. If you go with the aluminized stuff, you need to do your very best to minimize contact with the windows...and perhaps find the least real metallic ones you can. I went to Walmart and bought some good ones and cut to fit back for OSH a few years ago. Now, those are the ONLY real scratches I have on my windows...on the inside. I scratched my windows far far more by using sun shields than the canopy ever did....and scratches are harder to fix on the inside. > > So personally, I wouldn't go with this advice. But, if you're doing it real real carefully and using great materials and re-binding any cut edges to protect the window, then I'm sure it would be a good idea. I know mine made a significant decrease in heat cutting. The canopy cover, however, does an even better job for me. I don't know where Abby gets that white on black material but it's awesome stuff. > Tim > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
You guys are great as always when helping a new(2008) pilot out. I have worked on airplanes/helicopters since I was 17. There are many things you just don't learn as an A&P or even in flight training. Bill "and others using mylar reflective heat shield" Watson. I did forget to mention that I used that at Osh this year and it seemed to keep the inside much cooler. I kept it away from windshield as much as possible. I think I will try to keep my glareshield area blown clean with shop air and keep it on the aft side of cabin brace like at Osh. I had read about the interaction it can have with plexi. Side Note: Going to Triple Tree SC00 Sep 6,7 & 8th mit family. Hopefully cooler camping than Osh. Now that was a miserable five days. Would love to see you guys down there. Nice smooth grass- 7000' X 400'. I believe I can leave my pants on for our -10's first grass landing???? -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382206#382206 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: High altitude performance
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
It appears then that most of us loaded at gross would take our precious family/friends into a 2000' paved strip at any of the lower elevations( -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382207#382207 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Jason, Just a comment on leaky baffles vs. a sealed plenum and my real world experience. On my RV-8A we have a James Cowl plus a homemade metal plenum. We worked very hard at sealing the plenum as well as we could prior to first flight. Because it's the 4 cylinder vs. the 6 cylinder the inlet rings and outlet area were appropriate or should I say functional for the application. All temps (Oil, Cyl, EGT) were excellent and speed was notably faster than Van's posted numbers probably because I am running a BA and a new 200 Hp IO-360. So fast I could not break in the engine FWF down low. I then decided to replace the plenum with a baffle system. To test the set up prior to finalizing everything we flew the plane w/o any RTV sealing. There were gaps where my inlet ramps transitioned to the baffle and narrow but long gaps where the lower baffle edge metal transitions to the engine case fore and aft. The only seal that was actually correct was out top rubber seal to the inside of the upper cowl. To my surprise I have the exact same speed numbers and there were no noticeable differences in any temps. I continued to fly in this configuration for another 20 hours with basically perfect numbers. I have a hard time getting over the joy of looking at my EMS and seeing numbers that dont scare me like on the -10. The plane will be out of paint in the next 2 weeks (surrrre!) and it will be the first time I fly it with a completely sealed baffle system. Not sure what to say as I was expecting to see some issues with an unsealed baffle system but that was not the case. Maybe I will see some improvement once we are sealed up but I am just as likely to attribute any difference to a freshly painted & polished plane that has been re-rigged since all the control surfaces have been removed & replaced than I am to attributing any change to the sealed baffles. Just one (4 cylinder) data point. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jkreidler Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:45 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question --> I have been researching this whole topic in depth over the last week or so. There is one site in particular with some really good information, check out www.n91cz.com specifically his articles on cooling and his link to interesting technical reports NASA CR 3405. I have also been getting some advice from the guys over on the other forum. www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=79454 While we are in the process of gathering the necessary data through actual pressure measurements, I think it is premature to assume the cowl inlet is too small. Here is what I have learned so far, this may be obvious to others but it took me time to pick it up (I may have eaten paint chips as a kid). Dynamic pressure is generated as we push the airplane through the air, to the tune of around 6.5 H2O @ 100 knots, 14.6 H2O @ 150 knots, 25.9 H2O @ 200 knots. We can covert airspeed to pressure and vice versa, think of it this way, the tank of your air compressor contains pressure, when you open a blow nozzle you convert that pressure into airspeed. So we have a fixed pressure available depending on our airspeed, no more, no less. So depending on your speed we will need to convert some of that dynamic pressure into differential pressure between the upper and lower deck of the engine in order to keep things cool duh that part is easy. So the other day we took some measurements and I had asked the group what it all means. In our example we were seeing pressure in our plenum of 6.5 at ~150 knots wow that means we are only converting 6.5 of the available dynamic pressure of 14.6 into pressure in the upper cowl. Now given that our lower cowl pr! essure was 3 it means that we only have 3.5 of differential pressure available to cool the engine, about half of what we should have. It also means that if we get the lower cowl pressure all the way down to zero, by lets say, I dont know, completely removing it, we still would only have marginal differential pressure cooling air available. So our top side is terrible at converting the 150 knot air stream into usable dynamic pressure, now lets look at the lower cowl. Remember that we have low dynamic pressure in the lower cowl and we do not have very far to go in order to improve it, so adding cowl flaps and louvers will not get us where we need to be, no matter what until we fix the top side the changing the bottom will yield marginal results at best. One more key point to think about in the lower cowl, when that air exits the lower cowl we will need to get it back up to speed. If it is at zero dynamic pressure it means it is standing still, meaning we will have to accelerate it back up to 150 knots, and that is cooling drag. Look at it this way if the air came into the top cowl at 150 knots (14.6) and left the cowl at 150 knots (14.6) we would have zero cooling drag, but since it comes in at 150 knots and does some work in the middle and exits at a lower airspeed we have cooling drag. What we re! ally want to have happen is for the air to come in and do the absolute bare minimum amount of work required to cool things down and then exit. Ideally we want the upper deck pressure to equal the dynamic pressure available due to airspeed, and the lower cowl pressure to equal that value minus the difference in pressure require to cool the engine for a given condition. Great, so what the heck does all that really mean, where am I going to focus my effort? First things first, before doing anything drastic it is important to collect the pressure data. To install all of the instrumentation and do a test run took about three hours, that is nothing! Per the articles on the web site I referenced above I want to start by looking at the area just behind the cooling inlets (diffusers). Turns out if the shape directly behind the inlet rings is wrong the pressure generated will build a dam that prevents any more air from getting in, this is called external pressure recovery and requires a much larger inlet. What I want to happen is for the air to come into the inlet and the inlet to be shaped aerodynamically like a venturi so the air expands directly behind the inlet. This means a very smooth transition so the air doesnt stall create turbulence and dam up, which is called internal pressure recovery. Once we get beyond that point the s! hape doesnt really matter. Dont ask me what all of that looks like yet, I am still trying to figure that out and the guys took the airplane to Yellowstone over Labor Day. But for now I am putting on hold the idea of cutting in bigger inlet rings. When / if we get the upper plenum pressure to where it needs to be I may look at cowl flaps to throttle the exit depending on flight conditions like airspeed and power settings. The purpose of the cowl flaps at that point should be to close off the opening rather than enlarge it in order to reduce cooling drag. On another note for those of you with baffles, the NASA article used a Piper Aztec (Lycoming 540s) as a test bed. There data showed that in that installation the baffles leaked by 38% of the cooling air. That is a huge amount of cooling drag, so like Tim and others have said spend some time and seal up your baffles to the engine. Even if you dont have cooling problems you are still giving away power and speed by having leaks. I think there is hope. I will let you know what comes of all of this but it will be a while. Sorry for the long post - 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=382197#382197 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: High altitude performance
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Pascal, I actually do think I could hit those numbers but again I don't want to. Especially with PAX. In general my PAX think I am a good & safe pilot. If I were to try bare minimums I suspect there would be 3 PAX that would then think differently afterwards. Easy on the equipment is my goal. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:23 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: High altitude performance I dropped the plane in at stall right on the numbers and used the brakes to slow down. Did it once during the 40 hour flyoff, no intention to do it again, but it can be done. I can not state if it is actually 650ft but it was the first turnoff at the airport, which I think is less than 700feet. The bottom line is that is Vans marketing numbers, hard to duplicate unless one is an expert that practices doing it many more times than I do. -----Original Message----- From: Robin Marks Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:30 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: High altitude performance I have ~700 hours in various RV's and I could not spot land & stop in 650' at gross. I don't even want to try. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:13 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: High altitude performance Hmm, Van's specs for sea level gross wt takeoff is 500 ft. Are you sure you need 3 times that? Landing 650' at gross. I know I am not that skilled at this time, but only have a bit more than an hour in a -10, so I don't know how hard it is to match Van's published numbers. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM, rv10flyer wrote: > --> > > I fly at 2700 gross weight all the time with my family out of a 5000' > runway length at an elevation of 663'. I have 260 hp all standard items. > In the summer I use approximately 1500'-1800' for both takeoff and landing > safely. No, I would not do it unless light or in an emergency. > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie > 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 > N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382172#382172 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
After reading all of this, I sure am glad I went with stock. On a 90-100F day I can exceed 400F cht's if I climb out at less than 100 kias to 5000'. Oil temps peak around 205F. I usually climb at 115-120 kias to keep it all cooler. Good luck with your testing as you will probably help several. -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382210#382210 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Yup, thanks Robin - and keep in mind the NASA report was looking at a factory install job. We all know that the factory install jobs do not pay as much attention to the little details like sealing the baffling to the engine. I would say all speed gains from your paint can be attributed to the paint and not sealing the baffles. $10k paint job, $3 tube of RTV - the paint without question will make it faster! Enjoy, I am glad at least one of your birds isn't suffering from the heat issue. -------- 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=382213#382213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: High altitude performance
Date: Aug 31, 2012
I would say that it can be done at higher altitudes as well, as long as it is practiced and not a random landing. -----Original Message----- From: rv10flyer Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:24 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: High altitude performance It appears then that most of us loaded at gross would take our precious family/friends into a 2000' paved strip at any of the lower elevations( -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382207#382207 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Wayne, that seems boring! Why just build it stock and know it will work when you can add all of these gizmo's to make it 'better'. I have got to say that I was a bit disappointed when we first started flying; we had added enough $1000 upgrades that promised 3 and 10 knots that I was sure we would have the first RV-10 doing better than 300 knots! Shoot, all of that and we can just keep up with you 'standard' guys. But that chrome spinner and round inlets really make it look good, crap - maybe they meant they meant the James Cowl would make it LOOK 10 knots faster! There is a ton to be said for building it standard, I can never fault anyone for going that way. But, since I lack the basic ingredients of a life and am cursed with the mind and personality of an engineer I sometimes actually enjoy solving these sorts of problems. -------- 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=382216#382216 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Triple Tree Fly-In 9/6-9/9/12 at SC00.
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
http://www.tripletreeaerodrome.com/triple-tree-fly-in.php Watch for TFR nearby. We are heading down Fri AM. We are looking forward to evening meals Fri and Sat. The wife and daughter are heading up to Greenville Sat at 9 AM with the ladies group. Going to fish with my 9 yo son in the lake. No fishing license required for catch and release on site. About 1.7 in the -10 from Portsmouth Ohio. See you guys there. -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382220#382220 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Differential Pressure Test - Results Question
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Our plenum is held on with (9) 1/4 turn fasteners. It takes us about 30 seconds to remove. 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=382224#382224 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Triple Tree Fly-In 9/6-9/9/12 at SC00.
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Look us up. White over red no frills RV-10. Small, made for four skinny people/cold wx tent and two kids(12 & 9) that may or may not have the rv grin. Can't miss us. -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382226#382226 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Weather on landing
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Imagine being a passenger on this flight. I think with the weather showing what it did I would hold. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3RxIXLhrYM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mythical, Magical, Travelling Nose Gear Incert Tool
From: "Lew Gallagher" <lewgall(at)charter.net>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Michael, I just heard from Chris in NV, and the kit is headed your way with a new pack of inserts he has added. Later, - Lew Do not achive -------- non-pilot crazy about building NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549 Fly off completed ! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382238#382238 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Weather on landing
From: Bill Watson <mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
I'm thinking that passengers saw a lot less than we did. Very cool. Sent from my iPad On Aug 31, 2012, at 4:41 PM, "Pascal" wrote: > Imagine being a passenger on this flight. I think with the weather showing what it did I would hold. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3RxIXLhrYM > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Weather on landing
Date: Sep 01, 2012
UmVhbGx5IGRpZG4ndCBzZWVtIHRoYXQgYmFkIG9uY2Ugb24gYXBwcm9hY2guIEdvb2QgdG8ga25v dywgSSB0aGluayBJIHdpbGwgaWdub3JlIFJFRCBvbiB0aGUgV1ggZGlzcGxheXMgZ29pbmcgZm9y d2FyZC4NCg0KUm9iaW4NCkRvIE5vdCBBcmNoaXZlDQoNCkZyb206IG93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1z ZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbSBbbWFpbHRvOm93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9u aWNzLmNvbV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIEJpbGwgV2F0c29uDQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIEF1Z3VzdCAz MSwgMjAxMiA1OjU1IFBNDQpUbzogcnYxMC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJl OiBSVjEwLUxpc3Q6IFJlOiBXZWF0aGVyIG9uIGxhbmRpbmcNCg0KSSdtIHRoaW5raW5nIHRoYXQg cGFzc2VuZ2VycyBzYXcgYSBsb3QgbGVzcyB0aGFuIHdlIGRpZC4gIFZlcnkgY29vbC4NCg0KU2Vu dCBmcm9tIG15IGlQYWQNCg0KT24gQXVnIDMxLCAyMDEyLCBhdCA0OjQxIFBNLCAiUGFzY2FsIiA8 cnYxMGZseWVyQHZlcml6b24ubmV0PG1haWx0bzpydjEwZmx5ZXJAdmVyaXpvbi5uZXQ+PiB3cm90 ZToNCkltYWdpbmUgYmVpbmcgYSBwYXNzZW5nZXIgb24gdGhpcyBmbGlnaHQuIEkgdGhpbmsgd2l0 aCB0aGUgd2VhdGhlciBzaG93aW5nIHdoYXQgaXQgZGlkIEkgd291bGQgaG9sZC4NCmh0dHA6Ly93 d3cueW91dHViZS5jb20vd2F0Y2g/dj0tM1J4SVhMaHJZTQ0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoN Cl8tPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEDQoNCl8tPTNEICAgICAgICAgIC0gVGhlIFJWMTAtTGlzdCBFbWFpbCBGb3J1 bSAtDQoNCl8tPTNEIFVzZSB0aGUgTWF0cm9uaWNzIExpc3QgRmVhdHVyZXMgTmF2aWdhdG9yIHRv IGJyb3dzZQ0KDQpfLT0zRCB0aGUgbWFueSBMaXN0IHV0aWxpdGllcyBzdWNoIGFzIExpc3QgVW4v U3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uLA0KDQpfLT0zRCBBcmNoaXZlIFNlYXJjaCAmIERvd25sb2FkLCA3LURheSBC cm93c2UsIENoYXQsIEZBUSwNCg0KXy09M0QgUGhvdG9zaGFyZSwgYW5kIG11Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3Jl Og0KDQpfLT0zRA0KDQpfLT0zRCAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vTmF2aWdh dG9yP1JWMTAtTGlzdDwzRCUyMmh0dHA6L3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9SVjEw LUxpc3QlMjI+DQoNCl8tPTNEDQoNCl8tPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEDQoNCl8tPTNEICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg LSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZPUlVNUyAtDQoNCl8tPTNEIFNhbWUgZ3JlYXQgY29udGVudCBhbHNv IGF2YWlsYWJsZSB2aWEgdGhlIFdlYiBGb3J1bXMhDQoNCl8tPTNEDQoNCl8tPTNEICAgLS0+IGh0 dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbTwzRCUyMmh0dHA6L2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29t JTIyPg0KDQpfLT0zRA0KDQpfLT0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRA0KDQpfLT0zRCAgICAgICAgICAgICAtIExpc3Qg Q29udHJpYnV0aW9uIFdlYiBTaXRlIC0NCg0KXy09M0QgIFRoYW5rIHlvdSBmb3IgeW91ciBnZW5l cm91cyBzdXBwb3J0IQ0KDQpfLT0zRCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIC1NYXR0 IERyYWxsZSwgTGlzdCBBZG1pbi4NCg0KXy09M0QgICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3Mu Y29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbjwzRCUyMmh0dHA6L3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlv biUyMj4NCg0KXy09M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0QNCg0KDQo ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Roxanne and Mike Lefever <roxianmike(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Weather on landing
Date: Aug 31, 2012
DQpJIHRydXN0IHlvdSdyZSBqb2tpbmcuICBUaGUgZ3V5IHRoYXQgZGlkIHRoaXMgaGFzIG5vIGV4 cGVyaWVuY2Ugd2l0aCBtaWNyb2J1cnN0IG9yIGp1c3QgYW4gaWRpb3QgdGFraW5nIG1hbnkgcGVv cGxlJ3MgbGl2ZXMgaW4gaGlzIGhhbmRzLiAgSG9wZWZ1bGx5IGhlIHdpbGwgZG8gdGhpcyBhZ2Fp biBzb29uIHNvbG8gYW5kIHRoZSBmbHlpbmcgcHVibGljIHdpbGwgYmUgc2F2ZWQuDQogRnJvbTog cm9iaW5AUGFpbnRUaGVXZWIuY29tDQpUbzogcnYxMC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20NClN1Ympl Y3Q6IFJFOiBSVjEwLUxpc3Q6IFJlOiBXZWF0aGVyIG9uIGxhbmRpbmcNCkRhdGU6IFNhdCwgMSBT ZXAgMjAxMiAwMTowNjoyOSArMDAwMA0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KUmVhbGx5IGRpZG4ndCBz ZWVtIHRoYXQgYmFkIG9uY2Ugb24gYXBwcm9hY2guIEdvb2QgdG8ga25vdywgSSB0aGluayBJIHdp bGwgaWdub3JlIFJFRCBvbiB0aGUgV1ggZGlzcGxheXMgZ29pbmcgZm9yd2FyZC4NCiANClJvYmlu DQpEbyBOb3QgQXJjaGl2ZQ0KIA0KDQoNCkZyb206IG93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0 cm9uaWNzLmNvbSBbbWFpbHRvOm93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbV0N Ck9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBCaWxsIFdhdHNvbg0KDQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIEF1Z3VzdCAzMSwgMjAx MiA1OjU1IFBNDQoNClRvOiBydjEwLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTog UlYxMC1MaXN0OiBSZTogV2VhdGhlciBvbiBsYW5kaW5nDQoNCg0KIA0KDQpJJ20gdGhpbmtpbmcg dGhhdCBwYXNzZW5nZXJzIHNhdyBhIGxvdCBsZXNzIHRoYW4gd2UgZGlkLiAgVmVyeSBjb29sLg0K DQoNCg0KU2VudCBmcm9tIG15IGlQYWQNCg0KDQoNCg0KT24gQXVnIDMxLCAyMDEyLCBhdCA0OjQx IFBNLCAiUGFzY2FsIiA8cnYxMGZseWVyQHZlcml6b24ubmV0PiB3cm90ZToNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoN Cg0KSW1hZ2luZSBiZWluZyBhIHBhc3NlbmdlciBvbiB0aGlzIGZsaWdodC4gSSB0aGluayB3aXRo IHRoZSB3ZWF0aGVyIHNob3dpbmcgd2hhdCBpdCBkaWQgSSB3b3VsZCBob2xkLg0KDQoNCg0KDQpo dHRwOi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9LTNSeElYTGhyWU0NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0K IA0KIA0KIA0KDQoNCiANCiANCl8tPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEDQpfLT0zRCAgICAgICAgICAtIFRoZSBSVjEw LUxpc3QgRW1haWwgRm9ydW0gLQ0KXy09M0QgVXNlIHRoZSBNYXRyb25pY3MgTGlzdCBGZWF0dXJl cyBOYXZpZ2F0b3IgdG8gYnJvd3NlDQpfLT0zRCB0aGUgbWFueSBMaXN0IHV0aWxpdGllcyBzdWNo IGFzIExpc3QgVW4vU3Vic2NyaXB0aW9uLA0KXy09M0QgQXJjaGl2ZSBTZWFyY2ggJiBEb3dubG9h ZCwgNy1EYXkgQnJvd3NlLCBDaGF0LCBGQVEsDQpfLT0zRCBQaG90b3NoYXJlLCBhbmQgbXVjaCBt dWNoIG1vcmU6DQpfLT0zRA0KXy09M0QgICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05h dmlnYXRvcj9SVjEwLUxpc3QNCl8tPTNEDQpfLT0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRA0KXy09M0QgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAtIE1BVFJPTklDUyBXRUIgRk9SVU1TIC0NCl8tPTNEIFNhbWUgZ3JlYXQgY29udGVudCBhbHNv IGF2YWlsYWJsZSB2aWEgdGhlIFdlYiBGb3J1bXMhDQpfLT0zRA0KXy09M0QgICAtLT4gaHR0cDov L2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQpfLT0zRA0KXy09M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0QNCl8tPTNEICAgICAgICAg ICAgIC0gTGlzdCBDb250cmlidXRpb24gV2ViIFNpdGUgLQ0KXy09M0QgIFRoYW5rIHlvdSBmb3Ig eW91ciBnZW5lcm91cyBzdXBwb3J0IQ0KXy09M0QgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAtTWF0dCBEcmFsbGUsIExpc3QgQWRtaW4uDQpfLT0zRCAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJv bmljcy5jb20vY29udHJpYnV0aW9uDQpfLT0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRA0KIA0KDQoNCg0KKe+/ve+/vd+ie2zv v70377+9cu+/vWjvv71NNO+/vU0facec77+977+977+9eu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vS7vv70n77+9Thfv v71XXQvvv73vv71E77+977+977+9Fu+/ve+/vUse77+9F++/vWrvv73vv70nLC4rLRXmrbrvv73v v70177+94oGraO+/ve+/vRvvv73vv70seu+/vV7vv73vv73vv70uKy3vv73Ype+/vdie77+9y5zv v73vv70L77+977+9VO+/ve+/vW7vv70r77+977+9Yu+/vXArchjvv715J++/ve+/ve+/vUPvv70J 5aGnew0K77+977+977+977+9LHgoWu+/vVAQPhot77+977+9Wu+/ve+/vXZr77+977+9a++/ve+/ vWoree+/vWt577+9be+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vQwmau+/ve+/vScscu+/ve+/vTXvv73igato77+9FXXQ uO+/ve+/vRtt77+977+977+977+9Ce+/ve+/ve+/vSfvv73vv70c77+9b++/vWrvv73vv71q77+9 K0VddC4rLe+/ve+/vU0T77+9ICTvv70QEU5FQxJJ77+977+977+977+977+977+977+9J++/ve+/ ve+/vWpbKGrvv73vv73vv73vv73vv71677+977+977+9F++/vXnvv71o77+977+9ahrvv71+G23v v73vv73fou+/ve+/ve+/vWbvv73vv73vv73vv71y77+9KO+/vRtt77+977+936Lvv73vv73vv71m 77+977+977+977+9cu+/vSjvv73vv73vv73vv73vv71C77+9e2vvv73vv73vv73vv73vv73vv715 77+977+977+977+977+9anky77+977+977+9Ki7vv70H77+9eu+/vS7vv73Lqe+/ve+/ve+/vTHv v71tDu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vR3vv70p2obvv73vv73vv73vv71p77+977+9MO+/vWbvv73v v73vv73vv71y77+9KO+/ve+/vSjvv73vv73vv71u77+9Yu+/vXht77+977+977+977+9DCZq77+9 77+9Jyxy77+977+9cu+/ve+/vSbvv70qJ++/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vSfvv73vv71re++/ve+/vXcv 77+9aSAJCSAJICAgCQkgIA= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2012
Subject: Re: Weather on landing
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
VG8gZm9sbG93IG9uLCBteSBvdGhlciB0aG91Z2h0IHdhcyBoaXMgZmxpZ2h0IHBhdGggZm9yIGEg Z28tYXJvdW5kLiAgU2hvdWxkCmhlIGdldCBoaXQgd2l0aCBzaGVlciBvciB0dXJidWxlbmNlIG9y IGFueXRoaW5nIGVsc2UsIGhlIG9ubHkgaGFkIG9uZSB3YXkKdG8gZ28gYW5kIHRoYXQgd2FzIGlu dG8gdGhlIHRlZXRoIG9mIHRoZSBzdG9ybSBmb3IgaGlzIG1pc3NlZCBhcHByb2FjaC4gIEhlCmhh ZCB0byBob3BlIG5vdGhpbmcgd2FzIGdvaW5nIHRvIGdldCBoaW0gc28gaGUgY291bGQgbWFrZSB0 aGF0IGxhbmRpbmcgd29yawpvbiB0aGUgZmlyc3QgdHJ5LgoKSXQgd291bGQgYmUgbmljZSB0byBr bm93IGhvdyBoZSB3YXMgZG9pbmcgb24gZnVlbCBzbyB3ZSBrbmV3IHdoYXQgaGlzIHJlYWwKb3B0 aW9ucyB3ZXJlLiAgSXQncyBwb3NzaWJsZSB0aGF0IGhlIGRpZG4ndCBoYXZlIHRoZSBmdWVsIHRv IGhvbGQgYW5kIHdhaXQKZm9yIGl0IHRvIG1vdmUgb2ZmIG9yIHRvIGZseSB0byBhIHJlbW90ZSBh aXJwb3J0IGluIGEgY291bnRyeSB3aGVyZQphaXJwb3J0cyBhcmUgbW9yZSBzcGFyc2UgdGhhbiB0 aGV5IGFyZSBoZXJlLgoKUGhpbAoKCgpPbiBGcmksIEF1ZyAzMSwgMjAxMiBhdCA5OjI5IFBNLCBS b3hhbm5lIGFuZCBNaWtlIExlZmV2ZXIgPApyb3hpYW5taWtlQG1zbi5jb20+IHdyb3RlOgoKPiAg SSB0cnVzdCB5b3UncmUgam9raW5nLiAgVGhlIGd1eSB0aGF0IGRpZCB0aGlzIGhhcyBubyBleHBl cmllbmNlIHdpdGgKPiBtaWNyb2J1cnN0IG9yIGp1c3QgYW4gaWRpb3QgdGFraW5nIG1hbnkgcGVv cGxlJ3MgbGl2ZXMgaW4gaGlzIGhhbmRzLgo+IEhvcGVmdWxseSBoZSB3aWxsIGRvIHRoaXMgYWdh aW4gc29vbiBzb2xvIGFuZCB0aGUgZmx5aW5nIHB1YmxpYyB3aWxsIGJlCj4gc2F2ZWQuCj4KPiAt LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KPiBGcm9tOiByb2JpbkBQYWludFRoZVdlYi5j b20KPiBUbzogcnYxMC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogUlYxMC1MaXN0 OiBSZTogV2VhdGhlciBvbiBsYW5kaW5nCj4gRGF0ZTogU2F0LCAxIFNlcCAyMDEyIDAxOjA2OjI5 ICswMDAwCj4KPiAgUmVhbGx5IGRpZG4ndCBzZWVtIHRoYXQgYmFkIG9uY2Ugb24gYXBwcm9hY2gu IEdvb2QgdG8ga25vdywgSSB0aGluayBJCj4gd2lsbCBpZ25vcmUgUkVEIG9uIHRoZSBXWCBkaXNw bGF5cyBnb2luZyBmb3J3YXJkLgo+Cj4KPgo+IFJvYmluCj4KPiBEbyBOb3QgQXJjaGl2ZQo+Cj4K Pgo+ICpGcm9tOiogb3duZXItcnYxMC1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIFttYWlsdG86 Cj4gb3duZXItcnYxMC1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tXSAqT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mICpC aWxsIFdhdHNvbgo+ICpTZW50OiogRnJpZGF5LCBBdWd1c3QgMzEsIDIwMTIgNTo1NSBQTQo+ICpU bzoqIHJ2MTAtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tCj4gKlN1YmplY3Q6KiBSZTogUlYxMC1MaXN0OiBS ZTogV2VhdGhlciBvbiBsYW5kaW5nCj4KPgo+Cj4gSSdtIHRoaW5raW5nIHRoYXQgcGFzc2VuZ2Vy cyBzYXcgYSBsb3QgbGVzcyB0aGFuIHdlIGRpZC4gIFZlcnkgY29vbC4KPgo+IFNlbnQgZnJvbSBt eSBpUGFkCj4KPgo+IE9uIEF1ZyAzMSwgMjAxMiwgYXQgNDo0MSBQTSwgIlBhc2NhbCIgPHJ2MTBm bHllckB2ZXJpem9uLm5ldD4gd3JvdGU6Cj4KPiAgICBJbWFnaW5lIGJlaW5nIGEgcGFzc2VuZ2Vy IG9uIHRoaXMgZmxpZ2h0LiBJIHRoaW5rIHdpdGggdGhlIHdlYXRoZXIKPiBzaG93aW5nIHdoYXQg aXQgZGlkIEkgd291bGQgaG9sZC4KPgo+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cueW91dHViZS5jb20vd2F0Y2g/dj0t M1J4SVhMaHJZTQo+Cj4gKiAqCj4KPiAqICoKPgo+ICogKgo+Cj4gICogKgo+Cj4gKiAqCj4KPiAq Xy09M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0QqCj4KPiAqXy09M0QgICAgICAgICAgLSBUaGUgUlYxMC1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZv cnVtIC0qCj4KPiAqXy09M0QgVXNlIHRoZSBNYXRyb25pY3MgTGlzdCBGZWF0dXJlcyBOYXZpZ2F0 b3IgdG8gYnJvd3NlKgo+Cj4gKl8tPTNEIHRoZSBtYW55IExpc3QgdXRpbGl0aWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMg TGlzdCBVbi9TdWJzY3JpcHRpb24sKgo+Cj4gKl8tPTNEIEFyY2hpdmUgU2VhcmNoICYgRG93bmxv YWQsIDctRGF5IEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLCoKPgo+ICpfLT0zRCBQaG90b3NoYXJlLCBhbmQg bXVjaCBtdWNoIG1vcmU6Kgo+Cj4gKl8tPTNEKgo+Cj4gKl8tPTNEICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu bWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9OYXZpZ2F0b3I/UlYxMC1MaXN0IDxodHRwOi8vM0QlMjJodHRwJTNhL3d3 dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9SVjEwLUxpc3QlMjI+Kgo+Cj4gKl8tPTNEKgo+Cj4g Kl8tPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEKgo+Cj4gKl8tPTNEICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZP UlVNUyAtKgo+Cj4gKl8tPTNEIFNhbWUgZ3JlYXQgY29udGVudCBhbHNvIGF2YWlsYWJsZSB2aWEg dGhlIFdlYiBGb3J1bXMhKgo+Cj4gKl8tPTNEKgo+Cj4gKl8tPTNEICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly9mb3J1 bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbSA8aHR0cDovLzNEJTIyaHR0cCUzYS9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNv bSUyMj4qCj4KPiAqXy09M0QqCj4KPiAqXy09M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0QqCj4KPiAqXy09M0QgICAgICAgICAg ICAgLSBMaXN0IENvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiBXZWIgU2l0ZSAtKgo+Cj4gKl8tPTNEICBUaGFuayB5b3Ug Zm9yIHlvdXIgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3VwcG9ydCEqCj4KPiAqXy09M0QgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAtTWF0dCBEcmFsbGUsIExpc3QgQWRtaW4uKgo+Cj4gKl8tPTNEICAgLS0+IGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9jb250cmlidXRpb24gPGh0dHA6Ly8zRCUyMmh0dHAlM2Ev d3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vY29udHJpYnV0aW9uJTIyPioKPgo+ICpfLT0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRCoKPgo+ ICogKgo+Cj4gICnvv73vv73fonts77+9N++/vXLvv71o77+9TTTvv71NIGnHnO+/ve+/ve+/vXrv v73vv73vv73vv70u77+9J++/vU4g77+9V10g77+977+9RO+/ve+/ve+/vSDvv73vv71LIO+/vSDv v71q77+977+9JywuKy0g5q2677+977+9Ne+/veKBq2jvv73vv70KPiDvv73vv70seu+/vV7vv73v v73vv70uKy3vv73Ype+/vdie77+9y5zvv73vv70g77+977+9VO+/ve+/vW7vv70r77+977+9Yu+/ vXArciDvv715J++/ve+/ve+/vUPvv70g5aGneyDvv73vv73vv73vv70seCha77+9UCA+Cj4gLe+/ ve+/vVrvv73vv712a++/ve+/vWvvv73vv71qK3nvv71ree+/vW3vv73vv73vv73vv70gJmrvv73v v70nLHLvv73vv70177+94oGraO+/vSB10Ljvv73vv70gbe+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vSDvv73vv73vv70n 77+977+9Cj4g77+9b++/vWrvv73vv71q77+9K0VddC4rLe+/ve+/vU0g77+9ICTvv70gTkVDIEnv v73vv73vv73vv73vv73vv73vv70n77+977+977+9alsoau+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vXrvv73vv73v v70g77+9ee+/vWjvv73vv71qIO+/vX4KPiBt77+977+936Lvv73vv73vv71m77+977+977+977+9 cu+/vSjvv70gbe+/ve+/vd+i77+977+977+9Zu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vXLvv70o77+977+977+977+9 77+9Qu+/vXtr77+977+977+977+977+977+9ee+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vWp5Mu+/ve+/ve+/vSou 77+9IO+/vXrvv70u77+9y6nvv73vv73vv70x77+9bQo+IO+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vSDvv70p 2obvv73vv73vv73vv71p77+977+9MO+/vWbvv73vv73vv73vv71y77+9KO+/ve+/vSjvv73vv73v v71u77+9Yu+/vXht77+977+977+977+9ICZq77+977+9Jyxy77+977+9cu+/ve+/vSbvv70qJ++/ ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vSfvv73vv71re++/ve+/vXcv77+9aQo+Cg= ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Weather on landing
Date: Sep 01, 2012
WWVzIGtpZGRpbmcgb2YgY291cnNlLiBJIHdhcyBob3BpbmcgdGhlIGFic3VyZGl0eSBvZiBteSBj b21tZW50IHdvdWxkIGNvbWUgdGhyb3VnaC4NCkkgbG92ZSBoYXZpbmcgV1ggaW4gdGhlIGNvY2tw aXQgYW5kIGdpdmUgYW55dGhpbmcgUkVEIGdyZWF0IHJlc3BlY3QgJiBhIHdpZGUgYmlydGguIEkg cmVhbGx5IGRvbuKAmXQgZXZlciBjb21lIGNsb3NlIHRvIHRoYXQgdHlwZSBvZiBXWC4gSnVzdCBi ZWluZyBwcmFjdGljYWwgYmVjYXVzZSBteSB3aWZlIGhhcyBubyBpZGVhIHdoZXJlIEkgYnVyaWVk IGFsbCB0aGUgY2FzaCBpbiB0aGUgYmFjayB5YXJkLg0KDQpSb2Jpbg0KUExFQVNFIERvIE5vdCBB cmNoaXZlDQoNCg0KDQoNCkZyb206IG93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNv bSBbbWFpbHRvOm93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbV0gT24gQmVoYWxm IE9mIFJveGFubmUgYW5kIE1pa2UgTGVmZXZlcg0KU2VudDogRnJpZGF5LCBBdWd1c3QgMzEsIDIw MTIgNzozMCBQTQ0KVG86IHJ2MTAtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogUlYx MC1MaXN0OiBSZTogV2VhdGhlciBvbiBsYW5kaW5nDQoNCkkgdHJ1c3QgeW91J3JlIGpva2luZy4g IFRoZSBndXkgdGhhdCBkaWQgdGhpcyBoYXMgbm8gZXhwZXJpZW5jZSB3aXRoIG1pY3JvYnVyc3Qg b3IganVzdCBhbiBpZGlvdCB0YWtpbmcgbWFueSBwZW9wbGUncyBsaXZlcyBpbiBoaXMgaGFuZHMu ICBIb3BlZnVsbHkgaGUgd2lsbCBkbyB0aGlzIGFnYWluIHNvb24gc29sbyBhbmQgdGhlIGZseWlu ZyBwdWJsaWMgd2lsbCBiZSBzYXZlZC4NCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X18NCkZyb206IHJvYmluQFBhaW50VGhlV2ViLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86cm9iaW5AUGFpbnRUaGVXZWIu Y29tPg0KVG86IHJ2MTAtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tPG1haWx0bzpydjEwLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9u aWNzLmNvbT4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJFOiBSVjEwLUxpc3Q6IFJlOiBXZWF0aGVyIG9uIGxhbmRpbmcN CkRhdGU6IFNhdCwgMSBTZXAgMjAxMiAwMTowNjoyOSArMDAwMA0KUmVhbGx5IGRpZG4ndCBzZWVt IHRoYXQgYmFkIG9uY2Ugb24gYXBwcm9hY2guIEdvb2QgdG8ga25vdywgSSB0aGluayBJIHdpbGwg aWdub3JlIFJFRCBvbiB0aGUgV1ggZGlzcGxheXMgZ29pbmcgZm9yd2FyZC4NCg0KUm9iaW4NCkRv IE5vdCBBcmNoaXZlDQoNCkZyb206IG93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNv bTxtYWlsdG86b3duZXItcnYxMC1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tPiBbbWFpbHRvOm93 bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbV08bWFpbHRvOlttYWlsdG86b3duZXIt cnYxMC1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tXT4gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIEJpbGwgV2F0c29u DQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIEF1Z3VzdCAzMSwgMjAxMiA1OjU1IFBNDQpUbzogcnYxMC1saXN0QG1h dHJvbmljcy5jb208bWFpbHRvOnJ2MTAtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tPg0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6 IFJWMTAtTGlzdDogUmU6IFdlYXRoZXIgb24gbGFuZGluZw0KDQpJJ20gdGhpbmtpbmcgdGhhdCBw YXNzZW5nZXJzIHNhdyBhIGxvdCBsZXNzIHRoYW4gd2UgZGlkLiAgVmVyeSBjb29sLg0KDQpTZW50 IGZyb20gbXkgaVBhZA0KDQpPbiBBdWcgMzEsIDIwMTIsIGF0IDQ6NDEgUE0sICJQYXNjYWwiIDxy djEwZmx5ZXJAdmVyaXpvbi5uZXQ8bWFpbHRvOnJ2MTBmbHllckB2ZXJpem9uLm5ldD4+IHdyb3Rl Og0KSW1hZ2luZSBiZWluZyBhIHBhc3NlbmdlciBvbiB0aGlzIGZsaWdodC4gSSB0aGluayB3aXRo IHRoZSB3ZWF0aGVyIHNob3dpbmcgd2hhdCBpdCBkaWQgSSB3b3VsZCBob2xkLg0KaHR0cDovL3d3 dy55b3V0dWJlLmNvbS93YXRjaD92PS0zUnhJWExocllNDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0K Xy09M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0QNCg0KXy09M0QgICAgICAgICAgLSBUaGUgUlYxMC1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVt IC0NCg0KXy09M0QgVXNlIHRoZSBNYXRyb25pY3MgTGlzdCBGZWF0dXJlcyBOYXZpZ2F0b3IgdG8g YnJvd3NlDQoNCl8tPTNEIHRoZSBtYW55IExpc3QgdXRpbGl0aWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgTGlzdCBVbi9T dWJzY3JpcHRpb24sDQoNCl8tPTNEIEFyY2hpdmUgU2VhcmNoICYgRG93bmxvYWQsIDctRGF5IEJy b3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLA0KDQpfLT0zRCBQaG90b3NoYXJlLCBhbmQgbXVjaCBtdWNoIG1vcmU6 DQoNCl8tPTNEDQoNCl8tPTNEICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9OYXZpZ2F0 b3I/UlYxMC1MaXN0PGh0dHA6Ly8zRCUyMmh0dHAlM2Evd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vTmF2aWdh dG9yP1JWMTAtTGlzdCUyMj4NCg0KXy09M0QNCg0KXy09M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9 M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0Q9M0QNCg0KXy09M0QgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAtIE1BVFJPTklDUyBXRUIgRk9SVU1TIC0NCg0KXy09M0QgU2FtZSBncmVhdCBjb250 ZW50IGFsc28gYXZhaWxhYmxlIHZpYSB0aGUgV2ViIEZvcnVtcyENCg0KXy09M0QNCg0KXy09M0Qg ICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tPGh0dHA6Ly8zRCUyMmh0dHAlM2EvZm9y dW1zLm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20lMjI+DQoNCl8tPTNEDQoNCl8tPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNE PTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEPTNEDQoNCl8tPTNEICAg ICAgICAgICAgIC0gTGlzdCBDb250cmlidXRpb24gV2ViIFNpdGUgLQ0KDQpfLT0zRCAgVGhhbmsg eW91IGZvciB5b3VyIGdlbmVyb3VzIHN1cHBvcnQhDQoNCl8tPTNEICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWluLg0KDQpfLT0zRCAgIC0tPiBodHRw Oi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vY29udHJpYnV0aW9uPGh0dHA6Ly8zRCUyMmh0dHAlM2Evd3d3 Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vY29udHJpYnV0aW9uJTIyPg0KDQpfLT0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0z RD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRD0zRA0KDQoNCinvv73v v73fonts77+9N++/vXLvv71o77+9TTTvv71Nwq1px5zvv73vv73vv71677+977+977+977+9Lu+/ vSfvv71O77+9V10NCu+/ve+/vUTvv73vv73vv73vv73vv71L4oCR77+977+9au+/ve+/vScsList Featuu+/ve+/vTXvv73igato77+977+977+977+9LHrvv71e77+977+977+9List77+92KXvv73Y nu+/vcuc77+977+9DQrvv73vv71U77+977+9bu+/vSvvv73vv71i77+9cCty77+9eSfvv73vv73v v71D77+9IOWhp3sg77+977+977+977+9LHgoWu+/vVA+Le+/ve+/vVrvv73vv712a++/ve+/vWvv v73vv71qK3nvv71ree+/vW3vv73vv73vv73vv70NCiZq77+977+9Jyxy77+977+9Ne+/veKBq2jv v70VddC477+977+9be+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vSDvv73vv73vv70n77+977+9HO+/vW/vv71q77+977+9 au+/vStFXXQuKy3vv73vv71NE++/vSAk77+9EU5FQxJJ77+977+977+977+977+977+977+9J++/ ve+/ve+/vWpbKGrvv73vv73vv73vv73vv71677+977+977+977+9ee+/vWjvv73vv71q77+9fm3v v73vv73fou+/ve+/ve+/vWbvv73vv73vv73vv71y77+9KO+/vW3vv73vv73fou+/ve+/ve+/vWbv v73vv73vv73vv71y77+9KO+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vULvv717a++/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vXnv v73vv73vv73vv73vv71qeTLvv73vv73vv70qLu+/ve+/vXrvv70u77+9y6nvv73vv73vv70x77+9 bQ0K77+977+977+977+977+977+977+9KdqG77+977+977+977+9ae+/ve+/vTDvv71m77+977+9 77+977+9cu+/vSjvv73vv70o77+977+977+9bu+/vWLvv714be+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vQ0KJmrvv73v v70nLHLvv73vv71y77+977+9Ju+/vSon77+977+977+977+977+9J++/ve+/vWt777+977+9dy/v v71pDQpree+/ve+/ve+/vSLvv73tnKJaK++/vU0077+9R++/vXHvv70o77+977+977+977+9d++/ vXLvv73vv73vv73vv73The+/vVXvv71C77+977+9JmopRe+/ve+/ve+/vVLHre+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ vSfvv73vv70NCu+/ve+/vUV577+9bu+/ve+/vSBq77+977+9au+/vSvvv73vv73vv70NCuKAke+/ ve+/vWp877+977+977+9bu+/vSli77+9J++/ve+/ve+/vSFq77+977+977+9J++/vSvvv73vv73v v73vv73YqO+/vSDchivvv71J77+9cu+/ve+/vXloae+/ve+/vWsga++/vQ0K4oCRIO+/vRTvv73v v71o77+977+9ee+/vd2a77+9Ie+/ve+/vSHvv73vv73vv71q77+9fm3vv73vv73vv73vv70g77+9 77+977+9J++/ve+/vRzvv71v77+9au+/ve+/vWrvv70rRV10List77+977+9ae+/ve+/vTDvv71m 77+977+977+977+9cu+/vSjvv73vv71a77+9KO+/ve+/ve+/vVddDQrvv73vv71/aO+/vRNE77+9 SCAl77+9U++/vVDEkmpn77+977+977+9cu+/ve+/vXp7Wu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vWnvv71e77+9 Ju+/ve+/ve+/vWxaK++/vWvvv73vv73vv73vv73vv71p77+977+977+96ayZ77+9a++/vXjvv73v v73vv70m77+977+9ae+/ve+/ve+/vemsme+/vWvvv71477+977+977+9Ju+/ve+/ve+/vdCo77+9 77+977+9bu+/vWLvv71177+9bSjvv715OFrvv71M77+977+977+9K8qL77+977+977+93q7vv73v v73vv73vv71p77+977+9TGrvv71D77+977+9ZXjvv73vv73vv71m77+9du+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ vX/vv70NCjDvv73vv71r77+9eO+/ve+/ve+/vSbvv73vv70n77+977+977+977+92Kjvv71t77+9 77+977+977+9IO+/ve+/ve+/vSfvv73vv70c77+9b9yie2vvv73vv73vv73vv73vv73vv71r77+9 77+9fu+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/ve+/vW3vv70NCg= ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com>
Subject: Re: Weather on landing
Date: Sep 01, 2012
I have a local pilot flying a 310 who routinely flies in any weather. About a month ago I saw him takeoff around midnight at the beginning of a bad thunderstorm. I was busy working on the plane in the hangar. I couldn't believe my eyes as I watched him take off. There was a lightning strike in the area every 5 to 10 seconds as he was taking off and got very heavy rain within a couple minutes of his takeoff. I watched him make a 180 deg turn after takeoff and saw lightning strike right where he was. I ended up getting some wind damage to my house from that storm about 4 miles from the airport. Apparently he has been doing this for a very long time. Don't know how he does it or if he has any special equipment on board. Maybe he is just lucky. When I saw him at the airport the next morning he said the storm was all bark and no bite. Niko On Aug 31, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > I'm thinking that passengers saw a lot less than we did. Very cool. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 31, 2012, at 4:41 PM, "Pascal" wrote: > >> Imagine being a passenger on this flight. I think with the weather showing what it did I would hold. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3RxIXLhrYM >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Weather on landing
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 31, 2012
I guess the 310 driver likes that adrenaline rush. Not for me. -------- Wayne Gillispie 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382263#382263 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel canopy cover recommendations
From: Bill Watson <mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Sep 01, 2012
I wish we could go but we are committed elsewhere this year. TT was a great place 5 years ago when I first went down there and I can barely recognize it in current pics. Don't even think about removing pants or anything. This is the nicest grass runway you or I may ever see. Think putting green (at least before all that traffic gets on it). When I went in there with my Maule, I was the only full scale aircraft in sight but I watched heavy RC models with 1" wheels operate off of there. I see they have a new mower they are showing off... It's probably worth checking it out. There's a lot of mechanical talent and restless energy floating around there. I'm thinking that rain and moisture is a big factor in grass field ops. I'll bet that they have some sort of fancy drainage/irrigation system in place there. Or maybe it's just graded perfectly... Or both. Enjoy! Bill Sent from my iPad On Aug 31, 2012, at 10:56 AM, "rv10flyer" wrote: > > You guys are great as always when helping a new(2008) pilot out. I have worked on airplanes/helicopters since I was 17. There are many things you just don't learn as an A&P or even in flight training. > > Bill "and others using mylar reflective heat shield" Watson. I did forget to mention that I used that at Osh this year and it seemed to keep the inside much cooler. I kept it away from windshield as much as possible. I think I will try to keep my glareshield area blown clean with shop air and keep it on the aft side of cabin brace like at Osh. I had read about the interaction it can have with plexi. > > Side Note: Going to Triple Tree SC00 Sep 6,7 & 8th mit family. Hopefully cooler camping than Osh. Now that was a miserable five days. Would love to see you guys down there. Nice smooth grass- 7000' X 400'. I believe I can leave my pants on for our -10's first grass landing???? > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie > 40983SB 12/1/2009-12/1/2011 > N715WD TT= 76.9 and loving it! > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382206#382206 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Weather on landing
From: "mmayfield" <mmayfield(at)ozemail.com.au>
Date: Sep 01, 2012
OK, as an airline pilot I now know not to fly Mexicana. Looking at the radar picture, the visual picture out the front, and the reported 800m vis (exactly on the minima for a Cat 1 ILS) I don't know anyone in my airline who would've continued that approach. I plan on reaching retirement and not getting killed on the way & taking 150 people with me. For the sake of scooting off and doing a couple of holding patterns until the storm passed through, that was a stupid risk. And that 310 driver mentioned above is unlikely to survive til retirement either! -------- Mike Your political opinions are noted. And ignored. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382281#382281 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Brake Pads?
From: "Ron B." <ronbelliveau(at)eastlink.ca>
Date: Sep 03, 2012
I don't see the RV-10 pads listed on Desser's site. Am I missing them or are they no longer available. Thanks Ron Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382345#382345 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Brake Pads?
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Sep 03, 2012
Ron, as posted also on VAF, Rapco is apparently no longer making them. I emailed Desser a few months ago and they did not have any, and did not know if or when they ever would. But, the Rapco pads for the 10 were still twice as expensive as the pads for any other RV, just a few dollars less than the Clevelands ($19 per pad from Chief, with no rivets included). -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382348#382348 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com>
Subject: Re: Brake Pads?
Date: Sep 03, 2012
You are not missing anything. I called them to order the Rapco pads and got the following story when I then called Rapco. They are going to have the brake pads, hopefully in the next few weeks. They made an initial set for PMA qualification testing, but haven't made any since as they await the FAA approval. The initial build were the ones that some folks were able to buy, but now are out of stock. They told me the testing was complete and they were awaiting the paperwork, so perhaps they will actually be available soon. Also, they led me to believe the price would be coming down to about $12 per lining. Bob Newman N541RV -----Original Message----- From: Ron B. Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 6:55 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Brake Pads? I don't see the RV-10 pads listed on Desser's site. Am I missing them or are they no longer available. Thanks Ron Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382345#382345 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Brake Pads?
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 03, 2012
When someone hears they are available again, please post. I am only at 76.9 hrs, but I like keeping spares on hand of oil filter/oil/tires/tubes/pads/start & master contactors/fuel selector valve/prop oring/caliper oring. I have all but pads and caliper oring in case someone gets in a bind and is near S. Ohio. -------- Wayne Gillispie Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382350#382350 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 03, 2012
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Brake Pads?
What kind of life are folks experiencing with their brake pads? I would hope at least 300 hours, perhaps more. On 9/3/2012 6:16 PM, rv10flyer wrote: > > When someone hears they are available again, please post. > > I am only at 76.9 hrs, but I like keeping spares on hand of oil filter/oil/tires/tubes/pads/start & master contactors/fuel selector valve/prop oring/caliper oring. I have all but pads and caliper oring in case someone gets in a bind and is near S. Ohio. > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382350#382350 > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Seano" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Subject: Re: Brake Pads?
Date: Sep 03, 2012
Of course we all think we are good on our brakes but I "believe" I have been pretty easy on mine. I have been mostly landing on long runways and not needing to get on them. When I finally replaced mine they were literally 1/128 from the rivets. I looked at them around 190 flight hours and thought I had some room for more flights when I probably should have replaced them. Mine started to grab so I cleaned them up replaced the O-ring and liners at 247 hours. As you recall Kelly, you replied to my question about replacing the parts but all I needed to do was replace the liners, O-rings and bleed them. I used that lube you recommended and so far they have worked great. I think when the puck was close to the end of its travel it was causing the assembly to wedge against the rotor causing it to rub and stick. So I would say around 200 flight hours the liners should be replaced. I guess it would be more accurate to look at cycles but I haven't calculated that yet. On another note we all have heard from Vans that lower pressure was better for vibration. I filled my tires up to 50psi and they work really good this way. I built the gear leg stiffeners out of wood and glassed them in. It really resolved the vibration except for days I was extremely light. When I was really light I still felt a little vibration on my right gear leg. Now I have 50 PSI in the tires and absolutely no vibration. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym(at)aviating.com> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 8:06 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Brake Pads? > > What kind of life are folks experiencing with their brake pads? I would > hope at least 300 hours, perhaps more. > > On 9/3/2012 6:16 PM, rv10flyer wrote: >> >> When someone hears they are available again, please post. >> >> I am only at 76.9 hrs, but I like keeping spares on hand of oil >> filter/oil/tires/tubes/pads/start & master contactors/fuel selector >> valve/prop oring/caliper oring. I have all but pads and caliper oring in >> case someone gets in a bind and is near S. Ohio. >> >> -------- >> Wayne Gillispie >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382350#382350 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Brake Pads?
Date: Sep 04, 2012
I run a little higher psi too and have no shimmy with no stiffeners. I usually fly solo but rarely land with less than half tanks. I have a feeling that most -10 pilots will go through their first set of pads a lot faster than subsequent sets due to knowing your craft better. Drive that plane with your heels on the floor as much as you can. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Seano Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 7:31 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Brake Pads? Of course we all think we are good on our brakes but I "believe" I have been pretty easy on mine. I have been mostly landing on long runways and not needing to get on them. When I finally replaced mine they were literally 1/128 from the rivets. I looked at them around 190 flight hours and thought I had some room for more flights when I probably should have replaced them. Mine started to grab so I cleaned them up replaced the O-ring and liners at 247 hours. As you recall Kelly, you replied to my question about replacing the parts but all I needed to do was replace the liners, O-rings and bleed them. I used that lube you recommended and so far they have worked great. I think when the puck was close to the end of its travel it was causing the assembly to wedge against the rotor causing it to rub and stick. So I would say around 200 flight hours the liners should be replaced. I guess it would be more accurate to look at cycles but I haven't calculated that yet. On another note we all have heard from Vans that lower pressure was better for vibration. I filled my tires up to 50psi and they work really good this way. I built the gear leg stiffeners out of wood and glassed them in. It really resolved the vibration except for days I was extremely light. When I was really light I still felt a little vibration on my right gear leg. Now I have 50 PSI in the tires and absolutely no vibration. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym(at)aviating.com> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 8:06 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Brake Pads? > > What kind of life are folks experiencing with their brake pads? I would > hope at least 300 hours, perhaps more. > > On 9/3/2012 6:16 PM, rv10flyer wrote: >> >> When someone hears they are available again, please post. >> >> I am only at 76.9 hrs, but I like keeping spares on hand of oil >> filter/oil/tires/tubes/pads/start & master contactors/fuel selector >> valve/prop oring/caliper oring. I have all but pads and caliper oring in >> case someone gets in a bind and is near S. Ohio. >> >> -------- >> Wayne Gillispie >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382350#382350 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Brake Pads?
Date: Sep 04, 2012
My contact is out this week but I'll follow-up next week and see if I can get a status on the pads. I thought he told me he was getting a new supply after OSH, maybe he sold off that stock already, which is surprising considering how many he was getting. Supposedly the "old" stock was far more durable than the new ones Rapco is working on getting certified or something. A few months back Rapco mentioned that the new ones would be out by SnF, than it was OSH. Hopefully I'll be able to get a more official response on options by next week. -----Original Message----- From: rv10flyer Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 6:16 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Brake Pads? When someone hears they are available again, please post. I am only at 76.9 hrs, but I like keeping spares on hand of oil filter/oil/tires/tubes/pads/start & master contactors/fuel selector valve/prop oring/caliper oring. I have all but pads and caliper oring in case someone gets in a bind and is near S. Ohio. -------- Wayne Gillispie Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382350#382350 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michael Sausen <michael(at)sausen.net>
Subject: Re: Mythical, Magical, Travelling Nose Gear Incert Tool
Date: Sep 04, 2012
Thanks, then we have a bunch because I have a pkg of inserts too! Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lew Gallagher Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:18 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Mythical, Magical, Travelling Nose Gear Incert Tool Michael, I just heard from Chris in NV, and the kit is headed your way with a new pack of inserts he has added. Later, - Lew Do not achive -------- non-pilot crazy about building NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549 Fly off completed ! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382238#382238 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 04, 2012
Subject: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
From: Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com>
Hey Kelley McMullen I believe that you had a definite opinion on the Matco nose wheel verse the Beringer. Do you know what Dresser tire and tube combination the Matco wheel needs? Regards, Rick #40956 Southampton, Ont ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 04, 2012
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
I got what Tim Olsen recommended on his web site. "The PROPER Wheel is the NW511.25. Yes, that is right...they sell you the WRONG wheel, on purpose, to save them headaches. You can just order the WHLNW511.25 from Matco and skip the other one in your kit...and buy the Matco Axle at the same time, because the standard Van's axle is going to cause you headaches in the long run too. Then, skip the tube that comes with the kit too....get your tubes for all tires from Desser Tire. What you want for the front is the 500-5 "Leakguard" Butyl Tube with the TR-67 Valve <http://www.desser.com/store/products/500%252d5-%22LEAKGUARD%22-BUTYL-TUBE--%28TR%252d67-VALVE%29.html>. So with your new nosewheel, new leakguard tube, and new axle, your nosewheel will be complete and give you hundreds of hours of trouble free service. Now for the mains... Personally, especially after switching to the Desser Leakguard tube for the mains (15/600-6 size), I haven't had interference issues on the mains. However, I've heard from a couple builders who have...the valve cap comes dangerously close to the cotter pin on the nut used to hold the wheel on. Although I've only used the Van's tube, and the Desser Leakguard tubes, I think the clearance was better with the Leakguards. But, there is a better way. What you want is the Desser 15/600-6 "Leakguard" Butyl Tube with the "New Easy Valve" <http://www.desser.com/store/products/15%7B47%7D600%252d6-%22LEAKGUARD%22-BUTYL-TUBE-%28NEW-EASY-FLATE-VALVE%29.html>. Once you switch to the Leakguards, you'll be adding air far less often, and the "New Easy Valve" will eliminate any possibility of interference issues for you. So skip the tubes on your kit order also. Personally, I've also found that the Desser 15/600-6 "High Performance Retreads" <http://www.desser.com/store/products/15%7B47%7D600%252d6-6-PLY-HIGH-PERFORMANCE-RETREAD-AIRCRAFT-TIRE.html> gave better tire life at a low cost, too, so if it were me building again, I'd skip ordering ALL the tires and tubes from Van's, and just order all of them from Desser. The nose tire is the "500-5 6-Ply Aero Classic Vintage" <http://www.desser.com/store/products/500%252d5-6-PLY-AERO-CLASSIC-VINTAGE-AIRCRAFT-TIRE.html> tire. Then you'll get all 3 tubes, and 3 tires, from Desser <http://www.desser.com>, and the nose axle and wheel from Matco <http://www.matcomfg.com/>. The only thing to get from Van's is the Cleveland main wheels themselves." So credit Tim with doing the research. The only thing I did different is to get both main and nose tires as retreads. On 9/4/2012 8:35 PM, Rick Lark wrote: > Hey Kelley McMullen > I believe that you had a definite opinion on the Matco nose wheel > verse the Beringer. Do you know what Dresser tire and tube > combination the Matco wheel needs? > Regards, > Rick > #40956 > Southampton, Ont > * > > > * ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
Date: Sep 04, 2012
same as the stock tire! From: Rick Lark Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:35 PM Subject: RV10-List: Matco nose wheel tire and tube Hey Kelley McMullen I believe that you had a definite opinion on the Matco nose wheel verse the Beringer. Do you know what Dresser tire and tube combination the Matco wheel needs? Regards, Rick #40956 Southampton, Ont ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 04, 2012
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Yeah, I mis-read the question. Vans supplies the correct tire, wrong tube, if you buy from them. Along with the wrong wheel. Follow Tim's recommendations, get the wheel and axle from Matco, tires and tubes from Desser. While I haven't done the wheel pants yet, mine is sitting on the wheels and tires, and Tim's recommendations on tubes are right on to avoid issues with valve stems. On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Pascal wrote: > same as the stock tire! > > *From:* Rick Lark > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:35 PM > *To:* rv10-list > *Subject:* RV10-List: Matco nose wheel tire and tube > > Hey Kelley McMullen > > I believe that you had a definite opinion on the Matco nose wheel verse > the Beringer. Do you know what Dresser tire and tube combination the Matco > wheel needs? > > Regards, > > Rick > #40956 > Southampton, Ont > > * > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c* > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 05, 2012
I originally ordered Van's wheels, tires, tubes. Here is what I found out after going through it all and now flying for 76.9 hrs. The Leak stop tubes from Van's hold air just fine. Aired up once in 9 months. Van's main tube stems clear just fine. I ordered the new improved main tubes from Desser and they will clear even better once installed. Van's nose tube valve stem is supposed to exit in center of wheel at splitline. The orig wheel had one half notched out for valve stem. I ordered the "recommended" part# which had the other half notched. Yes, it provided more nose fork-stem clearance but the rigid valve stem needed to exit in the center at splitline. So, my recommendation is to just modify the orig Van's wheel half to provide stem clearance and save your money and Matco's time. Van's tires are 1/4"-3/8" out of round. Don't even attempt to static balance an out of round tire. If you have had vibrations in a car after the tire shop said they balanced your tires then that was probably the reason. Your aircraft tires rotate twice the rpm and with 3/8" run out is part of the reason some of us have gear vibration problems. When I am heavy, I have much reduced or no resonance. So, I would recommend not purchasing Van's supplied main tires or main tubes. Also purchase Matco Axle. -------- Wayne Gillispie Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382433#382433 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 05, 2012
From: "egodfrey(at)ameritech.net" <egodfrey(at)ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
Rick, Thanks for the reply. I see that Kelly replied to you and that was great information. I have my finishing kit and am working on the doors & cabin top. It is all of the fun that they say it is. Ed 40717 On 9/4/2012 10:35 PM, Rick Lark wrote: > Hey Kelley McMullen > I believe that you had a definite opinion on the Matco nose wheel > verse the Beringer. Do you know what Dresser tire and tube > combination the Matco wheel needs? > Regards, > Rick > #40956 > Southampton, Ont > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 05, 2012
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
If you make the choices before ordering, there is no difference in cost. Matco charges the same for both what Van's sells and the correct Matco wheel for the tire size. The wheel Van's supplies is intended for a different size tire. The Matco axle gets rid of the issue of having nose axle torque being critical and potential for axle/spacers galling the nose fork. Valve stem clearance is just an extra bonus. On 9/5/2012 5:02 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > I originally ordered Van's wheels, tires, tubes. Here is what I found out after going through it all and now flying for 76.9 hrs. > > The Leak stop tubes from Van's hold air just fine. Aired up once in 9 months. > > Van's main tube stems clear just fine. I ordered the new improved main tubes from Desser and they will clear even better once installed. > > Van's nose tube valve stem is supposed to exit in center of wheel at splitline. The orig wheel had one half notched out for valve stem. I ordered the "recommended" part# which had the other half notched. Yes, it provided more nose fork-stem clearance but the rigid valve stem needed to exit in the center at splitline. So, my recommendation is to just modify the orig Van's wheel half to provide stem clearance and save your money and Matco's time. > > Van's tires are 1/4"-3/8" out of round. Don't even attempt to static balance an out of round tire. If you have had vibrations in a car after the tire shop said they balanced your tires then that was probably the reason. Your aircraft tires rotate twice the rpm and with 3/8" run out is part of the reason some of us have gear vibration problems. When I am heavy, I have much reduced or no resonance. > > So, I would recommend not purchasing Van's supplied main tires or main tubes. Also purchase Matco Axle. > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382433#382433 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 05, 2012
I had Van's supplied nose wheel and the one many recommended on here and vaf. The only difference was which half had the machined slot for the brass valve stem. The valve stem on the tube exits from the centerline, not off to the side. Either wheel part# needs to be modified. If you order from Matco, I would think they will charge shipping. So, the reason I recommend modifying the one that comes in the kit. -------- Wayne Gillispie Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382446#382446 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 05, 2012
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
Well it has been some time since I mounted my nose wheel, tube and tire, but no modification at all was needed(but my memory isn't what it used to be). I vaguely recall I had to do a couple looksees to figure out how the tube stem needed to be inserted. I did get both the recommended Matco wheel and the tube Tim recommended. Went together just as designed, and is holding air just fine 7-8 months later. Kelly On 9/5/2012 8:05 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > I had Van's supplied nose wheel and the one many recommended on here and vaf. The only difference was which half had the machined slot for the brass valve stem. The valve stem on the tube exits from the centerline, not off to the side. Either wheel part# needs to be modified. If you order from Matco, I would think they will charge shipping. So, the reason I recommend modifying the one that comes in the kit. > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382446#382446 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 05, 2012
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
From: Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com>
Right on Wayne, Les Kearny also recommended doing that. I saved his reply and will re-think/re-look at my decision. Regards, Rick On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > I had Van's supplied nose wheel and the one many recommended on here and > vaf. The only difference was which half had the machined slot for the brass > valve stem. The valve stem on the tube exits from the centerline, not off > to the side. Either wheel part# needs to be modified. If you order from > Matco, I would think they will charge shipping. So, the reason I recommend > modifying the one that comes in the kit. > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382446#382446 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 05, 2012
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
From: Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com>
Thx Wayne I appreciate your opinion. Nothing better than first hand experience. Rick On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:02 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > I originally ordered Van's wheels, tires, tubes. Here is what I found out > after going through it all and now flying for 76.9 hrs. > > The Leak stop tubes from Van's hold air just fine. Aired up once in 9 > months. > > Van's main tube stems clear just fine. I ordered the new improved main > tubes from Desser and they will clear even better once installed. > > Van's nose tube valve stem is supposed to exit in center of wheel at > splitline. The orig wheel had one half notched out for valve stem. I > ordered the "recommended" part# which had the other half notched. Yes, it > provided more nose fork-stem clearance but the rigid valve stem needed to > exit in the center at splitline. So, my recommendation is to just modify > the orig Van's wheel half to provide stem clearance and save your money and > Matco's time. > > Van's tires are 1/4"-3/8" out of round. Don't even attempt to static > balance an out of round tire. If you have had vibrations in a car after the > tire shop said they balanced your tires then that was probably the reason. > Your aircraft tires rotate twice the rpm and with 3/8" run out is part of > the reason some of us have gear vibration problems. When I am heavy, I have > much reduced or no resonance. > > So, I would recommend not purchasing Van's supplied main tires or main > tubes. Also purchase Matco Axle. > > -------- > Wayne Gillispie > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382433#382433 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 05, 2012
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
You do need the Matco axle. The Van's axle has shown problems that cause nose fork wear. If you are ordering from them anyway, why not get the right wheel, that needs NO modification and costs the same as what Van's supplies:? On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Rick Lark wrote: > Right on Wayne, Les Kearny also recommended doing that. I saved his reply > and will re-think/re-look at my decision. > > Regards, Rick > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > >> >> I had Van's supplied nose wheel and the one many recommended on here and >> vaf. The only difference was which half had the machined slot for the brass >> valve stem. The valve stem on the tube exits from the centerline, not off >> to the side. Either wheel part# needs to be modified. If you order from >> Matco, I would think they will charge shipping. So, the reason I recommend >> modifying the one that comes in the kit. >> >> -------- >> Wayne Gillispie >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382446#382446 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ========== >> http://forums.matronics.com >> ========== >> le, List Admin. >> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> ========== >> >> >> >> > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sep 06, 2012
Rick, The Matco Axle is need to allow you to properly set the bearing pre-load and to keep the bearings from spinning against the axle. With the Matco axle you adjust the bearing tension independently of the axle bolt. I believe someone else also has a solution out there which replaces the spacers that Vans supplies with ones that will properly contact the inside race of the wheel bearing to allow pre-load of the bearing. The reports have been that using all the stock Vans supplied parts will eventually allow the bearing to spin around the axle and wear out the axle and the spacers. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382493#382493 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 06, 2012
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Matco nose wheel tire and tube
Yes, that's an important point, you do need the Matco axle no matter what. To say it another way and reinforce Wayne's experience, I have the Matco axle but all the wheels and tires are stock from Vans. After 1 year of flying, it all works fine. No interference of stems or anything (but things are close). They hold air better than whatever I had on my Maule. So IF you already have the stock wheels and tires, it works fine, but the Matco axle fixes a problem that seems to be unavoidable otherwise. Bill On 9/6/2012 12:28 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > You do need the Matco axle. The Van's axle has shown problems that > cause nose fork wear. If you are ordering from them anyway, why not > get the right wheel, that needs NO modification and costs the same as > Release Date: 09/05/12 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Inlet Ring Size
Date: Sep 06, 2012
To continue our discussion of inlet ring size relative to engine cooling wh en I was last home I photographed the SJ inlet rings with the rings designe d by Alan in Watsonville. Alan has had success in cooling by increasing the opening to his James cowl. I will not speak further about Alan's set up be cause I really don't know the details other than he does beautiful fibergla ss work. My point is look at how substantially different the two rings are in size. Yes I know, I need to clean the bugs off my nose. Robin [Description: C:\Users\Robin\Desktop\IMG_20120901_111636.jpg] [Description: C:\Users\Robin\Desktop\IMG_20120901_111701.jpg] [Description: C:\Users\Robin\Desktop\IMG_20120901_111622.jpg][Description: C:\Users\Robin\Desktop\Abby Flight\Abby Flight to LA 9-2012.jpg] ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com>
Subject: Inlet Ring Size
Date: Sep 06, 2012
Robin, Two things. 1) That larger ring looks at least as big if not more than the stock van's cowl J. 2) I'm wondering if you may be experiencing inlet drag/interference that is causing a blockage to the inlet flows. The slick/successful James Cowl's have seen always seem to have more of a venturi style inlet shape that gradually narrows then opens back up. -Ben From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:41 PM Subject: RV10-List: Inlet Ring Size To continue our discussion of inlet ring size relative to engine cooling when I was last home I photographed the SJ inlet rings with the rings designed by Alan in Watsonville. Alan has had success in cooling by increasing the opening to his James cowl. I will not speak further about Alan's set up because I really don't know the details other than he does beautiful fiberglass work. My point is look at how substantially different the two rings are in size. Yes I know, I need to clean the bugs off my nose. Robin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Inlet Ring Size
Date: Sep 06, 2012
I do not know about #1 but I suspect the rings are a bit larger than the Va ns standard cowl. As far as #2 I have a James cowl on my 8A and they do not have the same issues as the -10 cowl. I don't think I would call the 4 cyl inder James cowl "venturi" style as they really don't gradually narrow and the transition back is a function of how the builder chooses to make that t ransition. With so many variations on the 4 cylinder world and few problems I tend to lean towards overall size opening being the limiting factor. Robin From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Westfall Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:14 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Inlet Ring Size Robin, Two things... 1) That larger ring looks at least as big if not more than the stock van's cowl :). 2) I'm wondering if you may be experiencing inlet drag/interference that is causing a blockage to the inlet flows. The slick/successful James Cowl's have seen always seem to have more of a venturi style inlet shape that grad ually narrows then opens back up. -Ben From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma tronics.com> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:41 PM Subject: RV10-List: Inlet Ring Size To continue our discussion of inlet ring size relative to engine cooling wh en I was last home I photographed the SJ inlet rings with the rings designe d by Alan in Watsonville. Alan has had success in cooling by increasing the opening to his James cowl. I will not speak further about Alan's set up be cause I really don't know the details other than he does beautiful fibergla ss work. My point is look at how substantially different the two rings are in size. Yes I know, I need to clean the bugs off my nose. Robin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Inlet Ring Size
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Sep 07, 2012
Robin - thanks for posting. Those things look giant! I would think your entering the zone of external pressure recovery. I know you are absolutely sick of this whole cooling thing and just want to move on and get it solved. Before you do that is there any chance we could get you to take some before and after pressure measurements in your cowl? I know I am asking a lot of a guy who is as frustrated as you are. By the way, as Ben said the interior shape of the inlet is really critical on internal pressure recovery type systems (small inlets) like the James Cowl & Plenum. I am of the unverified opinion right now that the interior shape of the James cowl inlet is the problem. Putting together the test plan and data right now to verify that. Check out: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=12633 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=382580#382580 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 07, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Button For Exterior Door Handle C-1007
Anyone fab a button, cover, whatever that fits over the C-1007 that is depressed to rotate the exterior door handle? Seems odd that there's nothing that covers the hole and it may be uncomfortable to press it. -Sean #40303 (finishing cabin top interior) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Inlet Ring Size
Date: Sep 07, 2012

August 19, 2012 - September 07, 2012

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-ix