RV10-List Archive Browser

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-jc
November 19, 2012 - December 15, 2012

Myron, I'm not seeing them in my IPC. Most of the bolts that attach sump to the crankcase are 1/4" bolts, 20 tpi usually a Lycoming STD-(number) part. On 11/17/2012 5:49 PM, woxofswa wrote: > > On the front corners of the bottom of the oil pan are two threaded bolt holes. > > I've noticed that several have run some angle stock along the front edge using those holes. > > Can anyone report what the faster/thread size is for those holes? > > Thanks in advance. > > -------- > Myron Nelson > Mesa, AZ > Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. Finishing kit and FWF kit in progress. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388190#388190 > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2012
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Reminder
Dear Listers, A quick reminder that November is the annual Matronics List Fund Raiser. The Lists are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are covered solely through your Contributions during this time of the year. *Your* personal Contribution makes a difference and keeps all of the Matronics Email Lists and Forums completely ad-free. Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running for another great year! Use a credit card or your PayPal account here: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by sending a personal check to: Matronics / Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you in advance! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 19, 2012
Subject: Class Announcement: Composites for RV-10s
Bob, John, Bill, and others, Thanks so much for the recent kind words regarding our RV-10 Composite Class. I'm glad you guys took a lot away from it. That being the case, we should probably have another one. We need a minimum of 10 people. We have a cabin top to fit to its fuselage, but it's kinda far away. If you're within an easy day's drive of Watsonville, CA, we'd be happy to help get your fuselage and top here for the class. You get your top fitted for the cost of hauling it here and back. *Here's a general description*: This course will provide an overview of the composite parts and techniques used on Van's Aircraft RV-10 kits. We will focus on correct materials and processes, fitting the composite top and doors, cowl, spinner, fairings, and other composite parts. You will receive hands-on training to identify and use all necessary materials. Examples of completed and in-process assemblies will be available to view. *Who*: Dave Saylor and Tim Farrell. Dave: I started working with composite kitplanes in 1998. I'm an A&P/IA, and I have finished my personal RV-10 project, along with many other composite and aluminum projects. I received my BS in Aeronautics from San Jose State. Tim: I have spent most of my time working on Lancairs and teaching owners of kitplanes fiberglass and carbon fiber techniques and tricks, and is what I have always enjoyed most. *When*: February 23 and 24, 2013 (Saturday & Sunday) 8AM-4PM Saturday 8AM-3PM Sunday Where: AirCrafters, Watsonville Airport (KWVI), 140 Aviation Way, Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 www.AirCraftersLLC.com Class size is limited to 15 builders $425 payable by cash, check or credit card Please call or email to register, even if you have emailed expressing interest in the last few days. 50% deposit is required before February 1st, 2013. Balance due before class starts. The nearest major airport is San Jose International. It's a 45 minute drive to KWVI. The closest lodging is the Watsonville Comfort Inn: 831-728-2300. Be sure to ask for the pilot discount! Other lodging is available nearby. Aircraft parking is available at the class site. Please call if we can help with logistics. In the past we've offered co-builder discounts, which I'd be happy to extend again, but we still will need 10 full-fare types. So if you have someone who's a big part of the build that you'd like to bring along, please let us know. *Dave Saylor* *AirCrafters* KWVI Watsonville, CA 831-750-0284 CL ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fastener help
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 19, 2012
They are 1/4 -20. I got a couple from LyCon Mesa. I'm going to run angle stock across the front of the sump to anchor my a/c lines and totalizer, etc -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. Finishing kit and FWF kit in progress. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388346#388346 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Honda Recall
From: "rleffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Nov 19, 2012
While not totally RV-10 related, a fair number of folks that camp in the RV-10 HQ at Oshkosh have Honda 2000 generators. There is a recall. Here is a link for the details. http://powerequipment.honda.com/pdf/Recalls/eu2000i-recall-poster.pdf bob -------- Bob Leffler N410BL - Paint - 90% done, 90% to go stage RV-10 #40684 http://mykitlog.com/rleffler Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388359#388359 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 19, 2012
Subject: Re: Honda Recall
From: Bob Condrey <condreyb(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Bob, I'll check ours when we get back in town. Bob On Monday, November 19, 2012, rleffler wrote: > > > > While not totally RV-10 related, a fair number of folks that camp in the > RV-10 HQ at Oshkosh have Honda 2000 generators. There is a recall. Here > is a link for the details. > > http://powerequipment.honda.com/pdf/Recalls/eu2000i-recall-poster.pdf > > bob > > -------- > Bob Leffler > N410BL - Paint - 90% done, 90% to go stage > RV-10 #40684 > http://mykitlog.com/rleffler > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388359#388359 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Eric Ison <eric(at)maximmandm.com>
Date: Nov 19, 2012
Subject: RE: Class Announcement: Composites for RV-10s
RGF2ZSwNCg0KUGxlYXNlIGNvbnNpZGVyIG1lIHJlZ2lzdGVyZWQuDQoNClRoYW5rcw0KDQpFcmlj IElzb24NCg0KRnJvbTogRGF2ZSBTYXlsb3IgW21haWx0bzpkYXZlLnNheWxvci5haXJjcmFmdGVy c0BnbWFpbC5jb21dDQpTZW50OiBNb25kYXksIE5vdmVtYmVyIDE5LCAyMDEyIDEwOjAyIEFNDQpU bzogcnYxMC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20NClN1YmplY3Q6IENsYXNzIEFubm91bmNlbWVudDog Q29tcG9zaXRlcyBmb3IgUlYtMTBzDQoNCg0KQm9iLCBKb2huLCBCaWxsLCBhbmQgb3RoZXJzLA0K DQpUaGFua3Mgc28gbXVjaCBmb3IgdGhlIHJlY2VudCBraW5kIHdvcmRzIHJlZ2FyZGluZyBvdXIg UlYtMTAgQ29tcG9zaXRlIENsYXNzLiBJJ20gZ2xhZCB5b3UgZ3V5cyB0b29rIGEgbG90IGF3YXkg ZnJvbSBpdC4NCg0KVGhhdCBiZWluZyB0aGUgY2FzZSwgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIHByb2JhYmx5IGhhdmUg YW5vdGhlciBvbmUuIFdlIG5lZWQgYSBtaW5pbXVtIG9mIDEwIHBlb3BsZS4gV2UgaGF2ZSBhIGNh YmluIHRvcCB0byBmaXQgdG8gaXRzIGZ1c2VsYWdlLCBidXQgaXQncyBraW5kYSBmYXIgYXdheS4g SWYgeW91J3JlIHdpdGhpbiBhbiBlYXN5IGRheSdzIGRyaXZlIG9mIFdhdHNvbnZpbGxlLCBDQSwg d2UnZCBiZSBoYXBweSB0byBoZWxwIGdldCB5b3VyIGZ1c2VsYWdlIGFuZCB0b3AgaGVyZSBmb3Ig dGhlIGNsYXNzLiBZb3UgZ2V0IHlvdXIgdG9wIGZpdHRlZCBmb3IgdGhlIGNvc3Qgb2YgaGF1bGlu ZyBpdCBoZXJlIGFuZCBiYWNrLg0KDQpIZXJlJ3MgYSBnZW5lcmFsIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uOg0KDQpU aGlzIGNvdXJzZSB3aWxsIHByb3ZpZGUgYW4gb3ZlcnZpZXcgb2YgdGhlIGNvbXBvc2l0ZSBwYXJ0 cyBhbmQgdGVjaG5pcXVlcyB1c2VkIG9uIFZhbidzIEFpcmNyYWZ0IFJWLTEwIGtpdHMuIFdlIHdp bGwgZm9jdXMgb24gY29ycmVjdCBtYXRlcmlhbHMgYW5kIHByb2Nlc3NlcywgZml0dGluZyB0aGUg Y29tcG9zaXRlIHRvcCBhbmQgZG9vcnMsIGNvd2wsIHNwaW5uZXIsIGZhaXJpbmdzLCBhbmQgb3Ro ZXIgY29tcG9zaXRlIHBhcnRzLiBZb3Ugd2lsbCByZWNlaXZlIGhhbmRzLW9uIHRyYWluaW5nIHRv IGlkZW50aWZ5IGFuZCB1c2UgYWxsIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSBtYXRlcmlhbHMuIEV4YW1wbGVzIG9mIGNv bXBsZXRlZCBhbmQgaW4tcHJvY2VzcyBhc3NlbWJsaWVzIHdpbGwgYmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIHRvIHZp ZXcuDQoNCldobzogRGF2ZSBTYXlsb3IgYW5kIFRpbSBGYXJyZWxsLg0KDQpEYXZlOiBJIHN0YXJ0 ZWQgd29ya2luZyB3aXRoIGNvbXBvc2l0ZSBraXRwbGFuZXMgaW4gMTk5OC4gSSdtIGFuIEEmUC9J QSwgYW5kIEkgaGF2ZSBmaW5pc2hlZCBteSBwZXJzb25hbCBSVi0xMCBwcm9qZWN0LCBhbG9uZyB3 aXRoIG1hbnkgb3RoZXIgY29tcG9zaXRlIGFuZCBhbHVtaW51bSBwcm9qZWN0cy4gSSByZWNlaXZl ZCBteSBCUyBpbiBBZXJvbmF1dGljcyBmcm9tIFNhbiBKb3NlIFN0YXRlLg0KDQpUaW06IEkgaGF2 ZSBzcGVudCBtb3N0IG9mIG15IHRpbWUgd29ya2luZyBvbiBMYW5jYWlycyBhbmQgdGVhY2hpbmcg b3duZXJzIG9mIGtpdHBsYW5lcyBmaWJlcmdsYXNzIGFuZCBjYXJib24gZmliZXIgdGVjaG5pcXVl cyBhbmQgdHJpY2tzLCBhbmQgaXMgd2hhdCBJIGhhdmUgYWx3YXlzIGVuam95ZWQgbW9zdC4NCg0K V2hlbjogRmVicnVhcnkgMjMgYW5kIDI0LCAyMDEzIChTYXR1cmRheSAmIFN1bmRheSkNCg0KOEFN LTRQTSBTYXR1cmRheQ0KOEFNLTNQTSBTdW5kYXkNCldoZXJlOiBBaXJDcmFmdGVycywgV2F0c29u dmlsbGUgQWlycG9ydCAoS1dWSSksIDE0MCBBdmlhdGlvbiBXYXksIFdhdHNvbnZpbGxlLCBDQSA5 NTA3Ng0KDQo4MzEtNzIyLTkxNDE8dGVsOjgzMS03MjItOTE0MT4NCnd3dy5BaXJDcmFmdGVyc0xM Qy5jb208aHR0cDovL3d3dy5BaXJDcmFmdGVyc0xMQy5jb20+DQoNCkNsYXNzIHNpemUgaXMgbGlt aXRlZCB0byAxNSBidWlsZGVycw0KJDQyNSBwYXlhYmxlIGJ5IGNhc2gsIGNoZWNrIG9yIGNyZWRp dCBjYXJkDQpQbGVhc2UgY2FsbCBvciBlbWFpbCB0byByZWdpc3RlciwgZXZlbiBpZiB5b3UgaGF2 ZSBlbWFpbGVkIGV4cHJlc3NpbmcgaW50ZXJlc3QgaW4gdGhlIGxhc3QgZmV3IGRheXMuIDUwJSBk ZXBvc2l0IGlzIHJlcXVpcmVkIGJlZm9yZSBGZWJydWFyeSAxc3QsIDIwMTMuIEJhbGFuY2UgZHVl IGJlZm9yZSBjbGFzcyBzdGFydHMuDQoNClRoZSBuZWFyZXN0IG1ham9yIGFpcnBvcnQgaXMgU2Fu IEpvc2UgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbC4gSXQncyBhIDQ1IG1pbnV0ZSBkcml2ZSB0byBLV1ZJLg0KDQpU aGUgY2xvc2VzdCBsb2RnaW5nIGlzIHRoZSBXYXRzb252aWxsZSBDb21mb3J0IElubjogODMxLTcy OC0yMzAwPHRlbDo4MzEtNzI4LTIzMDA+LiBCZSBzdXJlIHRvIGFzayBmb3IgdGhlIHBpbG90IGRp c2NvdW50ISBPdGhlciBsb2RnaW5nIGlzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBuZWFyYnkuDQoNCkFpcmNyYWZ0IHBh cmtpbmcgaXMgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0IHRoZSBjbGFzcyBzaXRlLiBQbGVhc2UgY2FsbCBpZiB3ZSBj YW4gaGVscCB3aXRoIGxvZ2lzdGljcy4NCg0KSW4gdGhlIHBhc3Qgd2UndmUgb2ZmZXJlZCBjby1i dWlsZGVyIGRpc2NvdW50cywgd2hpY2ggSSdkIGJlIGhhcHB5IHRvIGV4dGVuZCBhZ2FpbiwgYnV0 IHdlIHN0aWxsIHdpbGwgbmVlZCAxMCBmdWxsLWZhcmUgdHlwZXMuICBTbyBpZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBz b21lb25lIHdobydzIGEgYmlnIHBhcnQgb2YgdGhlIGJ1aWxkIHRoYXQgeW91J2QgbGlrZSB0byBi cmluZyBhbG9uZywgcGxlYXNlIGxldCB1cyBrbm93Lg0KDQoNCkRhdmUgU2F5bG9yDQoNCkFpckNy YWZ0ZXJzDQpLV1ZJDQpXYXRzb252aWxsZSwgQ0ENCjgzMS03NTAtMDI4NDx0ZWw6ODMxLTc1MC0w Mjg0PiBDTA0K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Class Announcement: Composites for RV-10s
Date: Nov 20, 2012
Dave Please count me in for a place in the next Composites class. Carlos Trigo From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor Sent: segunda-feira, 19 de Novembro de 2012 18:02 Subject: RV10-List: Class Announcement: Composites for RV-10s Bob, John, Bill, and others, Thanks so much for the recent kind words regarding our RV-10 Composite Class. I'm glad you guys took a lot away from it. That being the case, we should probably have another one. We need a minimum of 10 people. We have a cabin top to fit to its fuselage, but it's kinda far away. If you're within an easy day's drive of Watsonville, CA, we'd be happy to help get your fuselage and top here for the class. You get your top fitted for the cost of hauling it here and back. Here's a general description: This course will provide an overview of the composite parts and techniques used on Van's Aircraft RV-10 kits. We will focus on correct materials and processes, fitting the composite top and doors, cowl, spinner, fairings, and other composite parts. You will receive hands-on training to identify and use all necessary materials. Examples of completed and in-process assemblies will be available to view. Who: Dave Saylor and Tim Farrell. Dave: I started working with composite kitplanes in 1998. I'm an A&P/IA, and I have finished my personal RV-10 project, along with many other composite and aluminum projects. I received my BS in Aeronautics from San Jose State. Tim: I have spent most of my time working on Lancairs and teaching owners of kitplanes fiberglass and carbon fiber techniques and tricks, and is what I have always enjoyed most. When: February 23 and 24, 2013 (Saturday & Sunday) 8AM-4PM Saturday 8AM-3PM Sunday Where: AirCrafters, Watsonville Airport (KWVI), 140 Aviation Way, Watsonville, CA 95076 831-722-9141 www.AirCraftersLLC.com Class size is limited to 15 builders $425 payable by cash, check or credit card Please call or email to register, even if you have emailed expressing interest in the last few days. 50% deposit is required before February 1st, 2013. Balance due before class starts. The nearest major airport is San Jose International. It's a 45 minute drive to KWVI. The closest lodging is the Watsonville Comfort Inn: 831-728-2300. Be sure to ask for the pilot discount! Other lodging is available nearby. Aircraft parking is available at the class site. Please call if we can help with logistics. In the past we've offered co-builder discounts, which I'd be happy to extend again, but we still will need 10 full-fare types. So if you have someone who's a big part of the build that you'd like to bring along, please let us know. Dave Saylor AirCrafters KWVI Watsonville, CA 831-750-0284 CL ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: OT: EAA Board
From: "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)Pacbell.net>
Date: Nov 19, 2012
Thanks for the great report. Very encouraging. Looks like the input of the members has been acknowledged. -------- See you OSH '13 Q/B - flying 3 yrs. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388386#388386 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Van tires special
Date: Nov 20, 2012
Not sure if everyone saw the deal on VAF =97=8F VansAircraftTIRES.com has a few RV-related specials going on... - 10% New Builder Special - 10% Main Tire Special - fmi: www.VansAircraftTires.com As many know I worked with Desser/Vans aircraft tires to create a custom fit windscreen. I did so because the windows that are sent from Vans require a whole lot of form fitting and trimming. The price is the same as Vans, maybe lower, and the quality far superior, also Vansaircraft tires, windows are minor tweaks or fit on arrival. I spent hours fitting and refitting my Vans windows, same for the front windscreen, and after all that I had a bulge on the windscreen copilot side that required serious work. The one I received from Desser was amazing and very nice quality. I also got the wingtip lenses- same plug n play deal except they use real acrylic versus the cheap lenses Vans sells. I gain nothing if you buy from Vans or Vansaircraft, but I owe it to myself to tell other builders when there is a better option out there and this is far superior. If you are coming up at the fuselage or final kit, skip these parts from your Vans order and get it from. Desser. Lastly, Vans buys their tires, the one you get, from desser, do yourself a favor just get the tires you want- retread, Goodyears, or other direct from Desser. Specially when they have the 10% tire special going on. Great guys at Desser/Vans aircraft tires, call them if you have any questions Pascal ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 21, 2012
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Some Nice Comments...
Dear Listers, I've been getting some very nice comments from Listers along with their List Support Contributions. I've shared a number of them below. Please read them over and see what your fellow Listers think of the Lists and Forums. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued upgrade and operation of these services. There are lots of sweet gifts available this year, so please browse the nice selection and pickup something fun with your qualifying Contribution! You may use a credit card or your PayPal account here: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or feel free to send a personal check to: Matronics / Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you in advance for your generous support! It is very much appreciated! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator -------------------- What Listers Are Saying About The Lists -------------------- I have been flying my Pietenpol for a month now and am enjoying the fruits of ten hard years of work. I seriously doubt it would ever have been finished but for the help, encouragement and friendships I've received and made through the Pietenpol list. Douwe B Outstanding service to the flying community. George A Matt, I look forward to support each others projects, Glenn B Great list!!! Thanks for all your efforts! Roger C Thank you for keeping up the lists. Without it i would never have completed my aircraft. Stan S Keep up the good work my friend. I don't think I could ever finish my Pietenpol Air Camper without the help I get from this List. Tom S Thank you for keeping these list alive. Lee V The List is invaluable!! Svein J Thanks for continuing to provide the list service! Earl S You have a really GREAT service. Thankyou so much I've been on for nearly 30 years and I still check-in every morning. John B I rely fully on the lists which govern my every decision. The flexibility provides the security I seek. Fergus K My RV 7 Finally flies... 7 years of Matronics.com certainly helped. Martin H Great service here, thanks! I am just getting back to a project I dropped for a few years, great to see your site and all the folks again! James C Thanks for the great site. Robert U The Rotax list is good and the AeroElectric list outstanding! Jay H Thank you for a great resource! Jack T Thanks for your great record of outstanding service to the homebuilding community! Larry W This service is invaluable. Michael W You're doing a great job Matt. Robert D Thanks for all your work, its a great asset to all. John F Thank you for your time & effort Matt! Ted W Matt, been a follower since 2005 on the -10 list, now starting an -8. Keep up the great work! John M Still my favorite place to hang out. William W I'm not a Piet builder, but this is the most informative and congenial list I've ever run across. Please forgive my lurking-I learn a LOT here! Ken M Many thanks for keeping this alive, keep pushing! Adrian C Thanks! Please keep r going! Rich Z Many thanks for your hard work. Robert C Thanks for the Lists! I probably need to subscribe to a few more... John M Been a quick 14 years. Think I subscribed to the Kolb List in 1998, when I got my first computer. Thanks for keeping everything running smoothly for all these years. John H Great resource - thank you. David M I don't post very much, but get the postings, a lot of really practical info. John N Great job Matt, thanks for all you do. Roger M Thanks for ANOTHER great year, Matt! True grassroots experimental aviation has been pushed aside in many ways. But the List represents the evolution of this great tradition of home-building. One man, the plans, the tools, and the List - that's all you need to build the dream! Robert B This message board is a real help to my project and creating friendships. John S Many thanks for your continuing excellent work. Mike G Thank you for your work Matt. Your lists have helped me a great deal during the construction of my plane. Hal B Nice List Van E These lists are priceless for builders. Ronald C Thanks for keeping me in touch with the Pulsar community. Otto S Thanks for keeping up this great warbird sight!! Yak Ron Thanks for providing all the lists for so many years. H H Thanks for all that you do. Your dedication is much appreciated! Warren H Best service on the internet! Owen B I have learned so much from the "list". Nick C Great Service You Are Providing! Giffen M Thanks so much for maintaining these great resources. Dave S I no longer fly due to age and health problems, but I still enjoy the reading from other pilots. Dallas S This is a wonderful site. Robert B Useful service over the last year - thanks. Om T -------------------- What Listers Are Saying About The Lists -------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?I'm_in_the_Fort_Worth_area_for_a_few_days_and_would_like_to_see?=
=?utf-8?Q?_any_10's_in_progress._I_just_started_fitting_the_cabin_top_and?= =?utf-8?Q?_ordered_my_finishing_kit._I_would_like_to_check_some_projects_?= =?utf-8?Q?out_on_Friday_the_23_of_November._Anybody_interested_let_me_kno?= =?utf-8?Q?w.?
From: "=?utf-8?Q?mrdubea(at)yahoo.com?=" <mrdubea(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 21, 2012
DQoNCg0KU2VudCBmcm9tIFdpbmRvd3MgTWFpbA= ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: I'm in the Fort Worth area for a few days and would like
to
From: "rleffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Nov 21, 2012
Tony, Your post got a little mangled. The message body ended up in the subject line for some reason. There are two flying RV-10s just NE of DFW and one SE of DFW. I'm sure that there are others that I'm not aware of. I can forward you the contact info for these folks offline if interested. You may want to consider taking some duel with Alex De Dominicis (rvtraining.com) while you're there. bob -------- Bob Leffler N410BL - Paint - 90% done, 90% to go stage RV-10 #40684 http://mykitlog.com/rleffler Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388544#388544 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce
Date: Nov 22, 2012
Saw that Aircraft Spruce sells the Rapco 66-112 brake pads. Cheapest I have seen anywhere. Appear to be in stock too! http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/lgpages/rapco_brklinig.php?clickkey =44485 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 500N vs. 600N door lift strut
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Nov 22, 2012
I just wanted to share my experience with the different door lift struts. I have the flush door handles installed as well as the center lock system and covered the inside of the door with fabric. The inside handle is the Aerosport door handle cover. I guess pictures say more than 1000 words. I bought the 2218LP by the way. Regards Michael -------- RV-10 builder (interior & finishing) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388614#388614 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/doorstruts_4_147.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/doorstruts_3_213.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/doorstruts_2_882.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/doorstruts_1_687.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fuel line mechanical fuel pump to fuel injection rooting
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Nov 22, 2012
Hi there I installed the original fuel line as they came but I am wondering if the line is too close to the muffler. Feedback is welcome. Regards Michael -------- RV-10 builder (interior & finishing) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388615#388615 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuelline_1_152.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuelline_2_221.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuelline_3_200.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 22, 2012
When I click on the above link I do not see the pads for the -10, except the Clevelands for $22 each. I know Desser tire is now showing them on its web site. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388616#388616 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce
Date: Nov 22, 2012
Strange, should show a page, one needs to go to "click to order" than you'll see a page with all the Rapco pads Try is this way- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/search/search.php?s=RA066-11200 it will take you to the page I referenced earlier the part number is RA66-112 @$9.50 -----Original Message----- From: Bob Turner Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:19 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce When I click on the above link I do not see the pads for the -10, except the Clevelands for $22 each. I know Desser tire is now showing them on its web site. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388616#388616 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Nov 22, 2012
When I went to that order page it wasn't in the list either but the others w ere. On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:35 PM, "Pascal" wrote: > Strange, should show a page, one needs to go to "click to order" > than you'll see a page with all the Rapco pads > Try is this way- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/search/search.php?s=RA066 -11200 > it will take you to the page I referenced earlier > the part number is RA66-112 @$9.50 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Turner > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:19 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce > > > When I click on the above link I do not see the pads for the -10, except t he Clevelands for $22 each. > > I know Desser tire is now showing them on its web site. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388616#388616 > > > > > > > > ============ > Lists This Month -- > (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!) Click on about provided www.aeroelectri c.com www.buildersbooks.com www.homebuilthelp.com http://www.matronics.com/c ontribution sp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ====== ======= RV10-List Email Forum - http://www.matronics.com/Navig ator?RV10-List ============= sp; - MATRONICS WE B FORUMS - ============ > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2012
From: Linn <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce
On 11/22/2012 3:52 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > When I went to that order page it wasn't in the list either but the > others were. Second line from the bottom???? 66-112??? Linn ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2012
From: Chris <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel line mechanical fuel pump to fuel injection rooting
I think if you look at your picture 200 you need a clamp on the hose to a clamp on the engine mount strut about where your hose tag is to help stabilize the hose and stand it off from the muffler. Also I think the hose on mine is a bit more to the inside of the sharp bend in the scat. I have RTV between the scat and the hose. -Chris N919AR ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Whisky <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net> Subject: RV10-List: Fuel line mechanical fuel pump to fuel injection rooting Hi there I installed the original fuel line as they came but I am wondering if the line is too close to the muffler. Feedback is welcome. Regards Michael -------- RV-10 builder (interior & finishing) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388615#388615 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuelline_1_152.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuelline_2_221.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuelline_3_200.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce
From: P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Date: Nov 22, 2012
What's funny is I don't see it on the iPad but it really is there. iPhone sees it @$9.50 Thanks linn for confirming Sent from my iPad On Nov 22, 2012, at 1:19 PM, "Linn" wrote: > > On 11/22/2012 3:52 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >> When I went to that order page it wasn't in the list either but the others were. > Second line from the bottom???? 66-112??? > Linn > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Nov 22, 2012
Wow, I have no excuse. This am I went there and didn't see them on my iPad. But now I went there on my phone and sure enough they are there. I am probably just losing it.... In fact, many people think that's true. ;) Tim On Nov 22, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Linn wrote: > > On 11/22/2012 3:52 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >> When I went to that order page it wasn't in the list either but the others were. > Second line from the bottom???? 66-112??? > Linn > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2012
From: Chris <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce
careful everyone... with all these hits to the weblink, Spruce is likely to raise the price. ;>) -Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce Wow, I have no excuse. This am I went there and didn't see them on my iPad. But now I went there on my phone and sure enough they are there. I am probably just losing it.... In fact, many people think that's true. ;) Tim On Nov 22, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Linn wrote: > > On 11/22/2012 3:52 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >> When I went to that order page it wasn't in the list either but the others were. > Second line from the bottom???? 66-112??? > Linn > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2012
Subject: Re: 500N vs. 600N door lift strut
From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com>
*Heat - Fuel - Oxygen*. Hope you have an advanced Fire Annunciation system beyond VANS. Most use the smoke as the fiberglass resin talks back. You could consider a Titanium heat shield and a reroute of the fuel as far away as practical. Let me know if you need the scrap piece for fabricating one (about 2.5 x 5 inches / 64 mm x 127mm and rolled about 45 degrees of arc) Have a Safe and enjoyable day as we all count our Thanksgiving here. John Cox On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Mike Whisky wrote: > > I just wanted to share my experience with the different door lift struts. > I have the flush door handles installed as well as the center lock system > and covered the inside of the door with fabric. The inside handle is the > Aerosport door handle cover. I guess pictures say more than 1000 words. > I bought the 2218LP by the way. > > Regards > Michael > > -------- > RV-10 builder (interior & finishing) > #511 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388614#388614 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/doorstruts_4_147.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/doorstruts_3_213.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/doorstruts_2_882.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/doorstruts_1_687.jpg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 22, 2012
Sure you have an excuse. It still does not show up on my iPad! -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388632#388632 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Nov 22, 2012
Figured it out. For some reason on the iPad the table gets cut off, but, you can touch and drag the table up and see the last couple lines. The iPhone just displays them all. So it's a screen formatting issue with the browser and page size. You're right, they are there and they look to be a good price. Now is the time to stock up! Tim On Nov 22, 2012, at 4:22 PM, P Reid wrote: > > What's funny is I don't see it on the iPad but it really is there. iPhone sees it @$9.50 > > Thanks linn for confirming > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 22, 2012, at 1:19 PM, "Linn" wrote: > >> >> On 11/22/2012 3:52 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >>> When I went to that order page it wasn't in the list either but the others were. >> Second line from the bottom???? 66-112??? >> Linn >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2012
Subject: Re: Rapco Brakes @ Aircraft Spuce
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 11/22/2012 4:37 PM, Chris wrote: > > careful everyone... with all these hits to the weblink, Spruce is likely to raise the price. ;>) > -Chris > Actually, the price might be more after Sunday, since they are running a special until 11/25 according to the email I got from them this morning. Discount code "THANKS12" on website orders only. -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2012
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: "Black Friday" For List Fund Raiser...?
Dear Listers, The number of List subscriptions are up by a fair amount this year, but support during this year's Fund Raiser is substantially behind last year, and there's only about a week left until the end of the Fund Raiser. I have always preferred a non-commercial List experience as many, many members have also expressed that they do as well. However, if the yearly fund raiser cannot generate sufficient funds to keep the bills paid, other sources of income might be required including some sort of advertising. Please don't let that happen! Your personal Contribution of $20 or $30 goes a long ways to keeping this operation a float. Please make sure your name is on this year's List of Contributors! The List Contribution site is secure, quick, and easy: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you in advance for your support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2012
Subject: GPS mounting
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
I am thinking about mounting my Garmin GA-35 antenna on top of the cabin cover just behind the rear door post area where the roof gets thinner. The antenna calls for a ground plane. (first gps ant I've seen wanting one). I'm guessing I will need both thin metal/tin foil, and a grounding wire if I do that. Just wondering what others have done. I likely will put my Dynon GPS ant under the cowl just forward of the firewall, and it doesn't need ground plane. Kelly 85% done, 90% to go ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: GPS mounting
Date: Nov 23, 2012
I mounted both the Garmin 650 and Dynon SkyView GPS antennas on top of the glare shield. Both work perfectly and is as easy an install as you will get. I did the same in the 8A (flying 10 years). Of interest, given a few minutes the SkyView GPS even locks in when the plane is inside a metal roof hangar with the metal door shut. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 10:04 AM Subject: RV10-List: GPS mounting I am thinking about mounting my Garmin GA-35 antenna on top of the cabin cover just behind the rear door post area where the roof gets thinner. The antenna calls for a ground plane. (first gps ant I've seen wanting one). I'm guessing I will need both thin metal/tin foil, and a grounding wire if I do that. Just wondering what others have done. I likely will put my Dynon GPS ant under the cowl just forward of the firewall, and it doesn't need ground plane. Kelly 85% done, 90% to go ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS mounting
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Date: Nov 23, 2012
I mounted all my GPS antennas, GDL39 module, and my XM antenna under the cow l in front of the firewall. Works awesome and probably save 8 knots of drag :-).... Well, at least I don't have to look at them.... -Mike Kraus Sent from my iPhone On Nov 23, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "Carl Froehlich" w rote: > I mounted both the Garmin 650 and Dynon SkyView GPS antennas on top of the glare shield. Both work perfectly and is as easy an install as you will ge t. I did the same in the 8A (flying 10 years). > > Of interest, given a few minutes the SkyView GPS even locks in when the pl ane is inside a metal roof hangar with the metal door shut. > > Carl > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 10:04 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: GPS mounting > > I am thinking about mounting my Garmin GA-35 antenna on top of the cabin c over just behind the rear door post area where the roof gets thinner. The an tenna calls for a ground plane. (first gps ant I've seen wanting one). I'm g uessing I will need both thin metal/tin foil, and a grounding wire if I do t hat. Just wondering what others have done. I likely will put my Dynon GPS an t under the cowl just forward of the firewall, and it doesn't need ground pl ane. > Kelly > 85% done, 90% to go > > www.aeroelectric.comhttp://www .matronics.com/c= -Matt Dralle, List - The RV10-List Email Forum utilities such as List Photoshare, and much much --> http://www.matronic================= > http://forums.matronics.com==== > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS mounting
From: Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Nov 23, 2012
I had to mount one for my gts800. I used a 10x18 sheet of aluminum epoxied a nd riveted to cabin top first layer then blended and covered with glass clot h. Can't tell it is there at all. Couldn't use the inside of cabin top becau se of thickness. When I was testing I used 300mph tape and it worked as a gr ound plane too. I used the same tape to connect the ground plane to ground b y wrapping it to the inside of the cabin top through the 1-1/2 inch coax hol e. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 23, 2012, at 8:03, Kelly McMullen wrote: > I am thinking about mounting my Garmin GA-35 antenna on top of the cabin c over just behind the rear door post area where the roof gets thinner. The an tenna calls for a ground plane. (first gps ant I've seen wanting one). I'm g uessing I will need both thin metal/tin foil, and a grounding wire if I do t hat. Just wondering what others have done. I likely will put my Dynon GPS an t under the cowl just forward of the firewall, and it doesn't need ground pl ane. > Kelly > 85% done, 90% to go > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jay Rowe <jfrjr(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: GPS mounting
Date: Nov 23, 2012
I am repainting my 10 (professionly this time) and would like to use metalli c paint. I have my nav and glide slope ants. in the wing tips, ADSB-IN and G RT gps under fiberglass access panels in front of the windshield, and ELT un der the epi. fairing. All the other ants. are mounted externally. I have had LOTS of different opinions about metallic paint over fiberglass interfering with antenna functioning. Does anyone have solid data or information? Tha nks, Jay Rowe 320 hours Sent from my iPhone On Nov 23, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Michael Kraus wrot e: > I mounted all my GPS antennas, GDL39 module, and my XM antenna under the c owl in front of the firewall. Works awesome and probably save 8 knots of dr ag :-).... Well, at least I don't have to look at them.... > -Mike Kraus > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 23, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: > >> I mounted both the Garmin 650 and Dynon SkyView GPS antennas on top of th e glare shield. Both work perfectly and is as easy an install as you will g et. I did the same in the 8A (flying 10 years). >> >> Of interest, given a few minutes the SkyView GPS even locks in when the p lane is inside a metal roof hangar with the metal door shut. >> >> Carl >> >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server @matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen >> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 10:04 AM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: RV10-List: GPS mounting >> >> I am thinking about mounting my Garmin GA-35 antenna on top of the cabin c over just behind the rear door post area where the roof gets thinner. The an tenna calls for a ground plane. (first gps ant I've seen wanting one). I'm g uessing I will need both thin metal/tin foil, and a grounding wire if I do t hat. Just wondering what others have done. I likely will put my Dynon GPS an t under the cowl just forward of the firewall, and it doesn't need ground pl ane. >> Kelly >> 85% done, 90% to go >> >> www.aeroelectric.comhttp://ww w.matronics.com/c= -Matt Dralle, List - The RV10-List Email Forum utilities such as List Photoshare, and much muc h --> http://www.matronic================ >> http://forums.matronics.com==== >> >> >> >> ========================= ========= >> ctric.com >> >www.buildersbooks.com >> uilthelp.com >> matronics.com/contribution >> ========================= ========= >> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ========================= ========= >> cs.com >> ========================= ========= >> > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Spinner Back Plate Hardware
On page 47-02 Step 4 it states that the spacers and hardware required to attach the spinner back plate to the prop are supplied with the propeller. I ordered my prop from Vans and did not receive any such hardware with the prop. I'll be calling Vans about this on Monday, but was wondering if anyone else had this situation? -Sean #40303 (engine mounted today) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS mounting
From: "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net>
Date: Nov 23, 2012
Jay, My Nav antennae are wingtip mounted. There is no discernible difference in performance now that they are painted with a very metallic PPG paint, compared to when they were unpainted. Jim Berry Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388746#388746 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Spinner Back Plate Hardware
Please disregard. I just realized that the hardware was attached to the prop hub. All this engine and prop stuff has me a bit jittery. First time I've done anything like either and the install manuals need to be read a few more times in order to decipher. :) On 11/23/12 12:40 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: > On page 47-02 Step 4 it states that the spacers and hardware required > to attach the spinner back plate to the prop are supplied with the > propeller. > > I ordered my prop from Vans and did not receive any such hardware with > the prop. I'll be calling Vans about this on Monday, but was > wondering if anyone else had this situation? > > -Sean #40303 (engine mounted today) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: GPS mounting
Date: Nov 23, 2012
The paint makes no difference. I have a homebrew wingtip VOR/GS antenna in the 10 and 8A, both metallic paint. They work well. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 12:40 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: GPS mounting I am repainting my 10 (professionly this time) and would like to use metallic paint. I have my nav and glide slope ants. in the wing tips, ADSB-IN and GRT gps under fiberglass access panels in front of the windshield, and ELT under the epi. fairing. All the other ants. are mounted externally. I have had LOTS of different opinions about metallic paint over fiberglass interfering with antenna functioning. Does anyone have solid data or information? Thanks, Jay Rowe 320 hours Sent from my iPhone On Nov 23, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Michael Kraus wrote: I mounted all my GPS antennas, GDL39 module, and my XM antenna under the cowl in front of the firewall. Works awesome and probably save 8 knots of drag :-).... Well, at least I don't have to look at them.... -Mike Kraus Sent from my iPhone On Nov 23, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: I mounted both the Garmin 650 and Dynon SkyView GPS antennas on top of the glare shield. Both work perfectly and is as easy an install as you will get. I did the same in the 8A (flying 10 years). Of interest, given a few minutes the SkyView GPS even locks in when the plane is inside a metal roof hangar with the metal door shut. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 10:04 AM Subject: RV10-List: GPS mounting I am thinking about mounting my Garmin GA-35 antenna on top of the cabin cover just behind the rear door post area where the roof gets thinner. The antenna calls for a ground plane. (first gps ant I've seen wanting one). I'm guessing I will need both thin metal/tin foil, and a grounding wire if I do that. Just wondering what others have done. I likely will put my Dynon GPS ant under the cowl just forward of the firewall, and it doesn't need ground plane. Kelly 85% done, 90% to go www.aeroelectric.comhttp://www.ma tronics.com/c= -Matt Dralle, List - The RV10-List Email Forum utilities such as List Photoshare, and much much --> http://www.matronic================ <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> ="" http://forums.matronics.com >==== ================================== ctric.com >www.buildersbooks.com uilthelp.com matronics.com/contribution ================================== ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ================================== cs.com ================================== ================================== ctric.com >www.buildersbooks.com uilthelp.com matronics.com/contribution ================================== ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ================================== cs.com ================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2012
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: GPS mounting
I can tell you that a friend with RV-7A put a Bob Archer nav antenna in one wingtip, along with marker antenna, and a BA com antenna in the other wingtip. They worked fine until he had the wingtips painted metallic silver to go with his polished alum airframe. The metallic paint reduced the reception and transmit range to about 10 miles of mediocre quality. He wound up putting a CI-122 on a wing access panel to restore com function to reasonable range. On 11/23/2012 10:40 AM, Jay Rowe wrote: > I am repainting my 10 (professionly this time) and would like to use > metallic paint. I have my nav and glide slope ants. in the wing tips, > ADSB-IN and GRT gps under fiberglass access panels in front of the > windshield, and ELT under the epi. fairing. All the other ants. are > mounted externally. I have had LOTS of different opinions about > metallic paint over fiberglass interfering with antenna functioning. > Does anyone have solid data or information? Thanks, Jay Rowe 320 hours > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 23, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Michael Kraus > wrote: > >> I mounted all my GPS antennas, GDL39 module, and my XM antenna under >> the cowl in front of the firewall. Works awesome and probably save 8 >> knots of drag :-).... Well, at least I don't have to look at them.... >> -Mike Kraus >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Nov 23, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "Carl Froehlich" >> > wrote: >> >>> I mounted both the Garmin 650 and Dynon SkyView GPS antennas on top >>> of the glare shield. Both work perfectly and is as easy an install >>> as you will get. I did the same in the 8A (flying 10 years). >>> >>> Of interest, given a few minutes the SkyView GPS even locks in when >>> the plane is inside a metal roof hangar with the metal door shut. >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >>> >>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kelly >>> McMullen >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 23, 2012 10:04 AM >>> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>> *Subject:* RV10-List: GPS mounting >>> >>> I am thinking about mounting my Garmin GA-35 antenna on top of the >>> cabin cover just behind the rear door post area where the roof gets >>> thinner. The antenna calls for a ground plane. (first gps ant I've >>> seen wanting one). I'm guessing I will need both thin metal/tin >>> foil, and a grounding wire if I do that. Just wondering what others >>> have done. I likely will put my Dynon GPS ant under the cowl just >>> forward of the firewall, and it doesn't need ground plane. >>> Kelly >>> 85% done, 90% to go >>> >>> * * >>> * *www.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com>www.homebuilthelp.com http://www.matronics.com/c= -Matt Dralle, List - The RV10-List Email Forum utilities such as List Photoshare, and much much -->http://www.matronic================= >>> http://forums.matronics.com >>> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>==== >>> * * >>> * >>> >>> ================================== >>> ctric.com <http://ctric.com> >>> >www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com> >>> uilthelp.com <http://uilthelp.com> >>> matronics.com/contribution <http://matronics.com/contribution> >>> ================================== >>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> >>> ================================== >>> cs.com <http://cs.com> >>> ================================== >>> >>> * >> * >> >> ================================== >> ctric.com >> >www.buildersbooks.com >> uilthelp.com >> matronics.com/contribution >> ================================== >> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ================================== >> cs.com >> ================================== >> >> * > * > > > * ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2012
Subject: Re: Spinner Back Plate Hardware
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Yes, kind of spooks folks that haven't dealt with a Hartzell prop before. Bolts are built in, get changed when prop is overhauled. More fun finding correct wrench or a crow's foot socket that works with those bolts. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > Please disregard. I just realized that the hardware was attached to the > prop hub. > > All this engine and prop stuff has me a bit jittery. First time I've done > anything like either and the install manuals need to be read a few more > times in order to decipher. :) > > > On 11/23/12 12:40 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: > >> On page 47-02 Step 4 it states that the spacers and hardware required to >> attach the spinner back plate to the prop are supplied with the propeller. >> >> I ordered my prop from Vans and did not receive any such hardware with >> the prop. I'll be calling Vans about this on Monday, but was wondering if >> anyone else had this situation? >> >> -Sean #40303 (engine mounted today) >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2012
Subject: Re: GPS mounting
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Any concerns about heat? Anyone actually measured temps between engine mount and firewall? Of course any engine fire could get real expensive in a hurry if it damaged those units. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Michael Kraus wrote: > I mounted all my GPS antennas, GDL39 module, and my XM antenna under the > cowl in front of the firewall. Works awesome and probably save 8 knots o f > drag :-).... Well, at least I don't have to look at them.... > -Mike Kraus > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 23, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "Carl Froehlich" > wrote: > > I mounted both the Garmin 650 and Dynon SkyView GPS antennas on top of th e > glare shield. Both work perfectly and is as easy an install as you will > get. I did the same in the 8A (flying 10 years).**** > > ** ** > > Of interest, given a few minutes the SkyView GPS even locks in when the > plane is inside a metal roof hangar with the metal door shut.**** > > ** ** > > Carl**** > > ** ** > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [ > mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] > *On Behalf Of *Kelly McMullen > *Sent:* Friday, November 23, 2012 10:04 AM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RV10-List: GPS mounting**** > > ** ** > > I am thinking about mounting my Garmin GA-35 antenna on top of the cabin > cover just behind the rear door post area where the roof gets thinner. Th e > antenna calls for a ground plane. (first gps ant I've seen wanting one). > I'm guessing I will need both thin metal/tin foil, and a grounding wire i f > I do that. Just wondering what others have done. I likely will put my Dyn on > GPS ant under the cowl just forward of the firewall, and it doesn't need > ground plane. > Kelly > 85% done, 90% to go**** > > * * > > * *www.aeroelectric.com****http://www.matronics.com/c= -Matt Dralle, L ist - The RV10-List Email Forum utilities such as List Photoshare, and much much --> http://www.matronic=========== ======**** <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>**** > > **http://forums.matronics.com** ist> > **=====**** > > * * > > ** > > * > > ======================== ===========ctric.com > >www.buildersbooks.comuilthelp.commatronics.com/contribution > ======================== > ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ======================== ===========cs.com > ======================== > * > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Spinner Back Plate Hardware
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 23, 2012
Make sure your engine is set up for a CS prop. It seems engines, even new ones ordered thru Vans, vary. Some have the plug inside the crankshaft that needs to be removed; some don't. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388758#388758 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS mounting
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 23, 2012
Jay and others: if the "metallic paint" actually conducts electricity (put an ohmeter on it) then it will affect the internal antenna's reception. However if the paint has tiny metallic flakes which are insulated from each other by the rest of the paint then the effect will be much smaller. Fiberglass top ground plane: There is no need to run a wire to the airframe. All of the currents in the ground plane should flow in and out of the coax ground shield. (The ground plane looks like a "mirror" to the vertical antenna, and acts in the same way). However, I would be concerned with a ground plane on the inside of the cabin and the antenna on the outside. They should be close to each other, close meaning in terms of wavelength. GPS is at 1.6 GHz which has a wavelength of 20 cm. I'd want the ground plane within 2 cm, minimum (3/4"), closer is better. How thick is the top? -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388759#388759 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2012
From: cloudvalley(at)comcast.net
Subject: test
Testing to see if this goes through.. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 23, 2012
Subject: Re: GPS mounting
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
I have yet to understand why a GPS antenna needs a ground plane, when those in handhelds, Ipads, etc work great without one. Given the size of the antenna one would expect a full dipole rather than a quarter wave. Dynon's antenna/receiver is smaller than the Garmin antenna and needs no ground plane. I would guess the area of the top I am looking at is around 1/3-1/2" thick, not the area around the doors that is probably 1.5" thick with the foam sandwich. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > Fiberglass top ground plane: There is no need to run a wire to the > airframe. All of the currents in the ground plane should flow in and out of > the coax ground shield. (The ground plane looks like a "mirror" to the > vertical antenna, and acts in the same way). However, I would be concerned > with a ground plane on the inside of the cabin and the antenna on the > outside. They should be close to each other, close meaning in terms of > wavelength. GPS is at 1.6 GHz which has a wavelength of 20 cm. I'd want the > ground plane within 2 cm, minimum (3/4"), closer is better. How thick is > the top? > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388759#388759 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Seano" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Subject: Re: GPS mounting
Date: Nov 23, 2012
For my GTS800 antenna the top is too thick to use a ground plane on the inside. It will not work, I tried this. When I installed this antenna I tried to follow Garmins recommendations for grounding. The GTS800 has an O-ring like many other GPS antennas and as you can read below it states to use the mounting screws, not the coax. This is for the GTS800 not the GPS. Below is part of the GTS800 instructions. Further down you can read Garmin's instructions for the G3X GPS/XM antenna concerning the ground plane. It states the mounting screws AND the coax. 2.3 Electrical Bonding Electrical equipment, supporting brackets, and racks should be electrically bonded to the aircraft's main structure. Refer to SAE ARP 1870 section 5 when surface preparation is required to achieve electrical bond. The electrical bond should achieve direct current (DC) resistance less than or equal to 2.5 milliohms to local structure to where the equipment is mounted. Compliance should be verified by inspection using a calibrated milliohm meter. An equivalent OEM procedure may also be substituted. There may be OEM-specific reasons for electrically isolating equipment or having a higher bond resistance. These reasons should be rationalized upon installation approval. In general, Garmin recommends that all GTS 8XX equipment be electrically bonded. The antenna ground plane and doubler plate must be electrically bonded to the antenna baseplate. The electrical bond must achieve direct current (DC) resistance less than or equal to 2.5 milliohms. For composite aircraft, the antenna baseplate must be electrically bonded to the common ground of other installed equipment for lightning purposes. This can be achieved through the antenna mounting screws. G3X GPS/XM Antenna 6.4.5 Antenna Grounding Plane Although no ground plane is required, the antennas typically perform better when a ground plane is used. The ground plane should be a conductive surface as large as practical, with a minimum diameter of 8 inches. To use an antenna in aircraft with fabric or composite skin, a ground plane is recommended. It is usually installed under the skin of the aircraft, below the antenna, and is made of either aluminum sheet or of wire mesh. 6.4.6 Antenna Grounding The antenna is grounded through the mounting hardware and the coax connection. The mounting hardware (washers and nuts) and doubler plate should make contact with an unpainted grounded surface ensuring proper antenna grounding. It is important to have good conductivity between the coaxial shield and the ground plane. The bottom of the antenna does not need to make contact with the ground plane (i.e. the surface may be painted). From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: GPS mounting > > Jay and others: if the "metallic paint" actually conducts electricity (put > an ohmeter on it) then it will affect the internal antenna's reception. > However if the paint has tiny metallic flakes which are insulated from > each other by the rest of the paint then the effect will be much smaller. > > Fiberglass top ground plane: There is no need to run a wire to the > airframe. All of the currents in the ground plane should flow in and out > of the coax ground shield. (The ground plane looks like a "mirror" to the > vertical antenna, and acts in the same way). However, I would be concerned > with a ground plane on the inside of the cabin and the antenna on the > outside. They should be close to each other, close meaning in terms of > wavelength. GPS is at 1.6 GHz which has a wavelength of 20 cm. I'd want > the ground plane within 2 cm, minimum (3/4"), closer is better. How thick > is the top? > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388759#388759 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS mounting
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 23, 2012
It may be that Garmin just wants the base of the antenna to be grounded, as o pposed to what we normally think of as a ground plane. That would of course be accomplished through the coax as someone pointed out. My sense has alway s been that the GPS antenna has the ground plane built in. I've mounted many to fiberglass in the past but not to the top of a 10. I don't think I'd hes itate. It's receive only so you can't really hurt anything, you just risk po or antenna performance. --Dave On Nov 23, 2012, at 17:46, Kelly McMullen wrote: > I have yet to understand why a GPS antenna needs a ground plane, when thos e in handhelds, Ipads, etc work great without one. Given the size of the ant enna one would expect a full dipole rather than a quarter wave. Dynon's ante nna/receiver is smaller than the Garmin antenna and needs no ground plane. > I would guess the area of the top I am looking at is around 1/3-1/2" thick , not the area around the doors that is probably 1.5" thick with the foam sa ndwich. > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Bob Turner wrote : >> >> >> Fiberglass top ground plane: There is no need to run a wire to the airfra me. All of the currents in the ground plane should flow in and out of the co ax ground shield. (The ground plane looks like a "mirror" to the vertical an tenna, and acts in the same way). However, I would be concerned with a groun d plane on the inside of the cabin and the antenna on the outside. They shou ld be close to each other, close meaning in terms of wavelength. GPS is at 1 .6 GHz which has a wavelength of 20 cm. I'd want the ground plane within 2 c m, minimum (3/4"), closer is better. How thick is the top? >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388759#388759 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com >> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com >> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com >> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> le, List Admin. >> ========== >> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ========== >> http://forums.matronics.com >> ========== > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel line mechanical fuel pump to fuel injection rooting
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 24, 2012
Clamp and secure it at least 1/2" away. The outside of heat muff runs much cooler than exhaust pipe plus there is alot of cooling air. -------- Wayne Gillispie 12/01/2011 TT= 95 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388785#388785 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: N410BL Update
Date: Nov 24, 2012
Picked up the fuselage from the painter this morning, then watched OSU beat Michigan. What a great way to spend a Saturday! I should have the wings back in a couple weeks, then final assembly begins! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N410BL Update
From: Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Nov 24, 2012
Looking great. Can't wait to see the finished product!!! Sent from my iPhone On Nov 24, 2012, at 13:57, "Bob Leffler" wrote: > Picked up the fuselage from the painter this morning, then watched OSU bea t Michigan. What a great way to spend a Saturday! I should have the wings b ack in a couple weeks, then final assembly begins! > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N410BL Update
From: "Ron B." <ronbelliveau(at)eastlink.ca>
Date: Nov 24, 2012
I bet we are getting excited now!! Looks great. Ron Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388809#388809 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel line mechanical fuel pump to fuel injection rooting
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Nov 24, 2012
Thanks Wayne Mike So not archive -------- RV-10 builder (interior & finishing) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388813#388813 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2012
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just A Few More Days To Make Your List Contribution...
There is less than a week left in this year's List Fund Raiser and only a few short days to grab one of the great Contribution Gifts available this year. Support is still significantly lagging behind last year at this point but hopefully it will pick up here towards the end. Please remember that it is solely the Contributions of List members that keeps the Lists up and running as there is no commercialism or advertising on the Matronics Lists and Forums. The List Contribution web site is secure, fast, and easy and you can use a credit card, Paypal, or a personal check: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 I want to thank everyone that has already made a generous contribution to support the Lists! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics EMail List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: N410BL Update
Date: Nov 25, 2012
Nice. Aren't we lucky? On Nov 24, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Bob Leffler wrote: > Picked up the fuselage from the painter this morning, then watched OSU beat Michigan. What a great way to spend a Saturday! I should have the wings back in a couple weeks, then final assembly begins! > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2012
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: N410BL Update
Looking good Bob.... bet your glad you were able to keep going!- Be looki ng for you in the sky soon.=0ADon McDonald=0AJust returned yesterday from a n 8 day trip to Calif in the "machine".=0A =0A=0A__________________________ ______=0A From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>=0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics. com; OhioValleyRVators(at)yahoogroups.com =0ASent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 2:57 PM=0ASubject: RV10-List: N410BL Update=0A =0A=0APicked up the fusela ge from the painter this morning, then watched OSU beat Michigan.- What a great way to spend a Saturday!- I should have the wings back in a couple weeks, then final assembly begins! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Les Kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Maximum Climb Angle
Date: Nov 25, 2012
Hi One of the things I need to do for my final inspection is ensure fuel flow with minimum fuel at the maximum climb angle. Can anyone tell me what the maximum pitch angle is in a climb? I will assume that the minimum fuel is whatever it takes to allow fuel to flow at that angle. Anyone have an idea of what that might be? Cheers Les #40643 - CGCWZ So close, oh so close... ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Maximum Climb Angle
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 25, 2012
Have a couple of people hold your tail down onto your tie down. That will get you close. I was getting 42 gph with a 15' hose connected to fuel line from servo inlet. Also if you like to slip instead of crab during xw landings, you will want to be on the downwind tank. It may or may not be the tank opposite the pattern direction. -------- Wayne Gillispie 12/01/2011 TT= 95 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388927#388927 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Maximum Climb Angle
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Nov 25, 2012
You could calculate based on VS & airspeed. At sea level low on fuel, max co uld be 2,000fpm at 110kias. You could calculate the angle based on that and d o your measurement. In coordinated flight, it doesn't matter which tank vers us which way you turn, but when I'm low I hold some rudder from the side tha t I am burning, but that doesn't affect your test. The benefit for you is th at the pickup is at the back of the tank, so you will burn much lower before sucking air than in level flight. Note, though, that you want to set minimu m fuel in a level situation to get an accurate reading of the fuel level. Wi th the tail on the ground you may get a couple of gallons after your gauge r eads empty. 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 Nov 25, 2012, at 11:23 AM, "Les Kearney" wrote: > Hi > > One of the things I need to do for my final inspection is ensure fuel flow with minimum fuel at the maximum climb angle. > > Can anyone tell me what the maximum pitch angle is in a climb? > > I will assume that the minimum fuel is whatever it takes to allow fuel to f low at that angle. Anyone have an idea of what that might be? > > > Cheers > > Les > > #40643 - CGCWZ > > So close, oh so close.. > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Maximum Climb Angle
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Nov 25, 2012
"Probably a bigger consideration would be which tank are you on when low on fuel in the pattern? Better be on the opposite tank as the pattern direction.... and that may not be the fullest tank. " This is an OWT. As long as you fly coordinated turns, it makes no difference. Uncoordinated - as in a cross wind landing - it might be best to have fuel from the higher tank. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388935#388935 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2012
Subject: Manifold Pressure 'excursions' Your feedback wanted
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
We just returned from a trip to Yosemite for Thanksgiving. On the return flight leaving Mariposa Airport, after pulling everything back to 25 Sq for climb, I had exited the pattern and established a climb @ 105 kts when I noticed that the MP was reading 30 " !. My 1st reaction was that I must not have pulled the throttle back, but when I pulled the throttle back to 25" the fuel flow dropped to 10 gph, and the engine noise softened considerably. I increased the throttle back to where the fuel flow should have been for climb out and watched the MP slowly drop back to 'normal'. All other gauges appeared to be reading what I would expect them to be. I monitored everything closely for the next 30 mins and everything looked and acted 'normal'. About 1:30 into the flight everything was stable @ 22" MP and 2350 RPM, and again the MP suddenly increased to 26". Again all other guages read normal, and no change in the sound of the engine. Once again the MP slowly decreased until it settled again @ 22". Does anybody have any similar experience or insight into what the root cause could be? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2012
Subject: Re: Manifold Pressure 'excursions' Your feedback wanted
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Deems, Sounds like you have a fitting coming loose or other intermittent leak. MP will go up to ambient if the seal is broken on MP line. Mariposa and Yosemite are great. We were there right after Labor Day. On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Deems Davis wrote: > We just returned from a trip to Yosemite for Thanksgiving. On the return > flight leaving Mariposa Airport, after pulling everything back to 25 Sq for > climb, I had exited the pattern and established a climb @ 105 kts when I > noticed that the MP was reading 30 " !. My 1st reaction was that I must not > have pulled the throttle back, but when I pulled the throttle back to 25" > the fuel flow dropped to 10 gph, and the engine noise softened > considerably. I increased the throttle back to where the fuel flow should > have been for climb out and watched the MP slowly drop back to 'normal'. > All other gauges appeared to be reading what I would expect them to be. I > monitored everything closely for the next 30 mins and everything looked and > acted 'normal'. > About 1:30 into the flight everything was stable @ 22" MP and 2350 RPM, > and again the MP suddenly increased to 26". Again all other guages read > normal, and no change in the sound of the engine. Once again the MP slowly > decreased until it settled again @ 22". > > Does anybody have any similar experience or insight into what the root > cause could be? > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Manifold Pressure 'excursions' Your feedback wanted
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 25, 2012
Deems, Could you have a leak in the sender line? Was the ambient pressure anywhere near 26" the second time? I would clean out and test the line to the MAP s ensor. See if you can catch anything that comes out--just to see. If it seem s perfectly clean then consider the sender. It doesn't sound at all like an a ctual indication. --Dave On Nov 25, 2012, at 15:56, Deems Davis wrote: > We just returned from a trip to Yosemite for Thanksgiving. On the return f light leaving Mariposa Airport, after pulling everything back to 25 Sq for c limb, I had exited the pattern and established a climb @ 105 kts when I noti ced that the MP was reading 30 " !. My 1st reaction was that I must not have pulled the throttle back, but when I pulled the throttle back to 25" the fu el flow dropped to 10 gph, and the engine noise softened considerably. I inc reased the throttle back to where the fuel flow should have been for climb o ut and watched the MP slowly drop back to 'normal'. All other gauges appeare d to be reading what I would expect them to be. I monitored everything close ly for the next 30 mins and everything looked and acted 'normal'. > About 1:30 into the flight everything was stable @ 22" MP and 2350 RPM, an d again the MP suddenly increased to 26". Again all other guages read normal , and no change in the sound of the engine. Once again the MP slowly decreas ed until it settled again @ 22". > > Does anybody have any similar experience or insight into what the root cau se could be? > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Maximum Climb Angle
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Nov 25, 2012
Les, Since the RV-10 is non-acrobatic, there is no need to know that number. Also, the only reason that would come into play is doing a hot-shot snap up into a break when you're almost out of gas - an opportunity to get a Darwin Award. (g) You mentioned: "On the other hand this is a very specific info requirement that I have to satisfy." If that info requirement is a limitation you want to put in your POH, I'd advise against it. John [quote="kearney"]Hi One of the things I need to do for my final inspection is ensure fuel flow with minimum fuel at the maximum climb angle. Can anyone tell me what the maximum pitch angle is in a climb? I will assume that the minimum fuel is whatever it takes to allow fuel to flow at that angle. Anyone have an idea of what that might be? Cheers Les #40643 - CGCWZ So close, oh so close.. > [b] -------- #40572 Phase One complete and flying. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388941#388941 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan(at)hispeed.ch>
Subject: Re: Maximum Climb Angle
Date: Nov 26, 2012
Les, The requirement is from FAR 23.955 paragraph (a). You are looking for the highest angle of the fuselage to horizontal, which gives the highest likelihood of uncovering the pickup tube and/or running into vapor lock issues. This is not the same as the maximum flight path angle the plane can climb at, which would be just over 10=B0 based on Jesse's numbers. IIRC airfoils for GA aircraft typically stall somewhere around 12-17=B0 incidence, but this depends a lot on aspect ratio and flap configuration. I can see two ways of getting the real number. First is to ask Vans. Second is to persuade one of our bold test pilots out there to measure the inclination angle of the tunnel cover at onset of stall in a climb. (Conveniently, there is an iPhone app for measuring angle;-) ). Good luck with either method! Tying the tail to the floor with the mains on the ground will give you just over 15=B0. You could always ask if your inspector would accept that. Cheers, Gordon On Nov 25, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > Hi > > One of the things I need to do for my final inspection is ensure fuel flow with minimum fuel at the maximum climb angle. > > Can anyone tell me what the maximum pitch angle is in a climb? > > I will assume that the minimum fuel is whatever it takes to allow fuel to flow at that angle. Anyone have an idea of what that might be? > > > Cheers > > Les > > #40643 - CGCWZ > > So close, oh so close=85.. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2012
Subject: Manifold Pressure Excursions
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Kelly & Dave Thanks for the insight, I'll have to pull the cowl, and check for leaks. That sounds like the likely scenario. Dave, it could easily be that when I noticed it the 2nd time that it had already spiked (to 29) and had dropped to 26 before I noticed it. thanks again for the insight. Deems ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2012
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Maximum Climb Angle
Gordon and Les, here in Switzerland that test is required to be done on 16 degrees angle of attack, but be aware there might be a 2nd critical angle on a decent where your tank might unport on a steep decent. Not so much a danger with the narrower tank of our 10 more of a wider tank like in my Glastar, or like on of our members found out on his Wheeler Express over Insbruck. Cheers Werner On 26.11.2012 09:07, Gordon Anderson wrote: > Les, > > The requirement is from FAR 23.955 paragraph (a). You are looking for > the highest angle of the fuselage to horizontal, which gives the highest > likelihood of uncovering the pickup tube and/or running into vapor lock > issues. This is not the same as the maximum flight path angle the plane > can climb at, which would be just over 10 based on Jesse's numbers. > > IIRC airfoils for GA aircraft typically stall somewhere around 12-17 > incidence, but this depends a lot on aspect ratio and flap > configuration. I can see two ways of getting the real number. First is > to ask Vans. Second is to persuade one of our bold test pilots out > there to measure the inclination angle of the tunnel cover at onset of > stall in a climb. (Conveniently, there is an iPhone app for measuring > angle;-) ). Good luck with either method! > > Tying the tail to the floor with the mains on the ground will give you > just over 15. You could always ask if your inspector would accept that. > > Cheers, > > Gordon > > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > >> Maximum Climb Angle >> >> Hi >> >> One of the things I need to do for my final inspection is ensure fuel >> flow with minimum fuel at the maximum climb angle. >> >> Can anyone tell me what the maximumpitch angle is in a climb? >> >> I will assume that theminimumfuel is whatever it takes to allow fuel >> to flow at that angle.Anyone have an idea of what that might be? >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> #40643 - CGCWZ >> >> Soclose, oh so close.. >> >> * >> >> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com >> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com >> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com >> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com >> >> * > > * > > > * > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Maximum Climb Angle
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 26, 2012
Minimum fuel for testing on the ground...I believe I may have had 8 oz. remaining when pump cavitated. Now flying I have had one tank with 5 and one with 7 remaining after 750 nm/4.5 hr flight. 5 gal per side is my personal minimum. I did not have to do the test for the FAA Insp, but more for my piece of mind. -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388954#388954 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Manifold Pressure Excursions
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Nov 26, 2012
With a leak at cruise altitude, you wouldn't read 29". It would be lower bec ause of altitude. 26" could have been the outside Pressure at your altitude. 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 Nov 26, 2012, at 7:26 AM, Deems Davis wrote: > Kelly & Dave > > Thanks for the insight, I'll have to pull the cowl, and check for leaks. T hat sounds like the likely scenario. Dave, it could easily be that when I no ticed it the 2nd time that it had already spiked (to 29) and had dropped to 2 6 before I noticed it. > thanks again for the insight. > > Deems > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Initial Brake Fluid Qty
Getting close to filling up the brake lines. Going to place an order and was wondering how much fluid it takes to initially fill the lines. Want to order enough for that and some spare. Thanks, -Sean #40303 (attaching all the engine doo dads) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Is there a DAR "standard"?
From: "hotwheels" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 26, 2012
I listened closely stories of DAR inspections where the focus was on mirror / flashlight and compliance with ADs/SBs. So in anticipation, I removed all the access panels and most of the interior to allow easy access to view and inspect. Then the DAR showed up and asked why my plane wasn't "flight ready". He wasn't interested in much past a close look at the engine. He also wanted me to start the engine and taxi and to demonstrate that the instrumentation is working. Has anyone read the latest Air & Space? They have a write up of the DAR process and it reads closer to the mirror / flashlight inspection rather than focus on paperwork. Is my experience unique? Have FAA DAR standards / focus changed due to recent NTSB reports perhaps? Regards, Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388964#388964 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2012
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
From: Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com>
The DAR that I use, wants to inspect the engine and flight controls. His request is to have completed a condition inspection and be "Ready for First flight". He want to have at least one hour of taxi time too. He will look at the engine closely for proper building practices along with moving all controls and checking for proper control gap clearances. Safety is his primary concern. It's only a hour or so to button up the aircraft for the first flight anyway. That's my experience. Jim C N312F - 400+ hours ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2012
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
That was my experience too. His main focus's were: 1) Flight controls free and correct? 2) All proper placarding? 3) Did the engine start and run well? 4) Did the engine and other instrumentation work properly with the engine on? 5) Did the engine compartment look good? Throttle and control linkages? No cable ties on engine mounts? That was the most of it. He just looked in general at the construction (he had also seen my website), and saw that it was well constructed in general, so he was most concerned with the things that would most easy take your life. I expected more, also, so had my panels all open and everything, but it wasn't really his goal, and although I appreciate a good inspection, I felt OK with how it went...especially since I had gotten prior EAA Tech counselor visits. I think if you get 3 of those, they feel much more comfortable on the DAR inspection also. Tim On 11/26/2012 9:41 AM, hotwheels wrote: > > > I listened closely stories of DAR inspections where the focus was on > mirror / flashlight and compliance with ADs/SBs. So in anticipation, > I removed all the access panels and most of the interior to allow > easy access to view and inspect. Then the DAR showed up and asked why > my plane wasn't "flight ready". He wasn't interested in much past a > close look at the engine. He also wanted me to start the engine and > taxi and to demonstrate that the instrumentation is working. Has > anyone read the latest Air & Space? They have a write up of the DAR > process and it reads closer to the mirror / flashlight inspection > rather than focus on paperwork. > > Is my experience unique? Have FAA DAR standards / focus changed due > to recent NTSB reports perhaps? > > Regards, Jay > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388964#388964 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2012
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
From: Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com>
One other comment. I would highly encourage any builder to have at least three other builders inspect their airplane just prior to the DAR inspection. Its amazing how many items can be found that way. There are just too many things that one can look at and never see anything wrong with. A different person will look and immediately see an issue. We all seem to have different views of "our work". Its way too easy to look at the same part repeatedly and just not see a problem. I know of several builders that have encouraged others to review the airplane and have found issues that needed to be addressed. It's the safe thing to do. Jim Combs ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Nov 26, 2012
Jay, It's not my intent to be critical, but sounds like a basic communication issue. I'm working with FSDO on my inspection and we've already had that conversation. After hearing stories about the variances in inspections, I point blank ask the inspector what was his expectations. He was very clear and articulate on his response. I suspect most DARs would be to. I'm curious as to what his response was. Did he sign off or did he make you pay for another trip after you reassemble everything? I'm fortunate in that I live in an area where the FSDO inspectors have a great relationship with the experimental community and do perform more thorough inspections although they aren't required to perform them. I'm in the camp that you can't have enough eyes review you work. Bob Sent from my iPhone On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:41 AM, "hotwheels" wrote: I listened closely stories of DAR inspections where the focus was on mirror / flashlight and compliance with ADs/SBs. So in anticipation, I removed all the access panels and most of the interior to allow easy access to view and inspect. Then the DAR showed up and asked why my plane wasn't "flight ready". He wasn't interested in much past a close look at the engine. He also wanted me to start the engine and taxi and to demonstrate that the instrumentation is working. Has anyone read the latest Air & Space? They have a write up of the DAR process and it reads closer to the mirror / flashlight inspection rather than focus on paperwork. Is my experience unique? Have FAA DAR standards / focus changed due to recent NTSB reports perhaps? Regards, Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388964#388964 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
Date: Nov 26, 2012
Jay; I have heard of your level of inspections. (Fortunately) my DAR, who happened to be the TC along the way, expected EVERY panel removed, he knew the plane very well as a result of serving as my Technical Counselor, yet still wanted to inspect everything. My inspection went over 2 hours, he looked at every wire harness, crawled into the tail to verify everything was secure etc. I KNEW my plane was ready but after that inspection there was no doubt on that first flight. Anyone who grabs a flashlight and says you're ready is basically doing a semi Annual inspection and a disservice to you- ask around and get a good DAR- one who built a RV preferably and knows what to look for in RV's. Must be me however, since I also spent 3-4 hours at my FSDO doing a dissertation on why I am qualified for a repairman's cert. There are some locally that had a quick DAR inspection, got a huge flyoff area and the FSDO asked to see a picture or two and if the person "certified" they built more than 51% and 15 minutes later they had the temp repairman's cert. It really is up to the individual DAR and your local FSDO how it will work out for you. Best of success -----Original Message----- From: hotwheels Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 7:41 AM Subject: RV10-List: Is there a DAR "standard"? I listened closely stories of DAR inspections where the focus was on mirror / flashlight and compliance with ADs/SBs. So in anticipation, I removed all the access panels and most of the interior to allow easy access to view and inspect. Then the DAR showed up and asked why my plane wasn't "flight ready". He wasn't interested in much past a close look at the engine. He also wanted me to start the engine and taxi and to demonstrate that the instrumentation is working. Has anyone read the latest Air & Space? They have a write up of the DAR process and it reads closer to the mirror / flashlight inspection rather than focus on paperwork. Is my experience unique? Have FAA DAR standards / focus changed due to recent NTSB reports perhaps? Regards, Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388964#388964 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Initial Brake Fluid Qty
Date: Nov 26, 2012
not much at all. I bought a small bottle from AS and still had 1/2 of the fluid left when I filled it all and one side that had an air pocket, twice. -----Original Message----- From: Sean Stephens Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 7:26 AM Subject: RV10-List: Initial Brake Fluid Qty Getting close to filling up the brake lines. Going to place an order and was wondering how much fluid it takes to initially fill the lines. Want to order enough for that and some spare. Thanks, -Sean #40303 (attaching all the engine doo dads) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2012
From: gnolin(at)sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: Initial Brake Fluid Qty
I filled my brakes a few months ago. It took about a quart, spills and all. RV10 soon AKA G. Hank Nolin, P.E. 832-640-6284 www.salestaxexemptions.com - "Science, freedom, beauty, adventure--aviation offers it all." Charles A. Lindbergh --- On Mon, 11/26/12, Sean Stephens wrote: From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> Subject: RV10-List: Initial Brake Fluid Qty Date: Monday, November 26, 2012, 9:26 AM Getting close to filling up the brake lines.- Going to place an order and was wondering how much fluid it takes to initially fill the lines.- Want to order enough for that and some spare. Thanks, -Sean #40303 (attaching all the engine doo dads) le, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
From: "hotwheels" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 26, 2012
No extra charge for the DAR return trip. Fortunately for me, I've been the lucky recipient of numerous EAA Tech Counselor visits and help from fellow builders, but it would have been nice to use a person that was more technically thorough. With regards to the communication between builder and DAR... It sounds like your mileage may vary, so it's important to keep asking questions to set equal expectations for the visit. Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388975#388975 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
Date: Nov 26, 2012
This will be of no help...but I worked with my DAR ahead of time. What he wanted to see was.. 1. Airplane ready to be signed off 2. Engine had been run 3. All access panels off...which in an -10 means the inside is all apart 4. I asked and he said it was ok that I had the doors off. His inspection was not very thorough, but I did have an A&P/IA there for the inspection. Somebody he knew. He took pictures of all the things he looked at... 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 hotwheels Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:30 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"? No extra charge for the DAR return trip. Fortunately for me, I've been the lucky recipient of numerous EAA Tech Counselor visits and help from fellow builders, but it would have been nice to use a person that was more technically thorough. With regards to the communication between builder and DAR... It sounds like your mileage may vary, so it's important to keep asking questions to set equal expectations for the visit. Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388975#388975 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2012
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Contributions Down By 23%...
Dear Listers, As of today, Contributions to the Matronics List Fund Raiser are lagging behind last year at this time by roughly 23%. I have a Fund Raiser each year simply to cover my operating costs for the Lists. I *do not* accept any advertising income to support the Lists and rely solely on the Contributions of members to keep the expenses paid. I run all of my own servers and they are housed here locally, and the Internet connection is a commercial-grade, dual T1 connection with public address space. I also maintain a full backup system that does nightly backups of all List-related data so that in the event of a server crash, all of the Lists and the many years of List archive data could be restored onto a new server in a matter of hours. All of this costs a fair amount of money, not to mention a significant amount of my personal time. I have a Fund Raiser each year to cover these costs and I ask that members that feel they receive a benefit from my investments make a modest Contribution each year to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. If you enjoy the Lists, please make a Contribution today. I also offer some incentive gifts for larger Contribution levels. At the Contribution Web Site, you can use a credit card, Paypal, or personal check to show your support for the continuation of these services: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
Date: Nov 26, 2012
I've attached what my DAR gave me before he showed up. It was the checklist he would use. Regardless of what the DAR does, you can use this for your own reference and prep. -----Original Message----- From: Rene Felker Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:46 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"? This will be of no help...but I worked with my DAR ahead of time. What he wanted to see was.. 1. Airplane ready to be signed off 2. Engine had been run 3. All access panels off...which in an -10 means the inside is all apart 4. I asked and he said it was ok that I had the doors off. His inspection was not very thorough, but I did have an A&P/IA there for the inspection. Somebody he knew. He took pictures of all the things he looked at... 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 hotwheels Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:30 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"? No extra charge for the DAR return trip. Fortunately for me, I've been the lucky recipient of numerous EAA Tech Counselor visits and help from fellow builders, but it would have been nice to use a person that was more technically thorough. With regards to the communication between builder and DAR... It sounds like your mileage may vary, so it's important to keep asking questions to set equal expectations for the visit. Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388975#388975 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Nov 26, 2012
I have had and observed probably 10 DAR inspections and they are all different. In my experience, most of them focus on the paperwork. I have only seen one say that he can't sign off a plane that is not assembled, and that was because the plane had a leading edge landing light and the lens wasn't installed. The plane can't fly without the cowl installed, but I can't imagine he wanted to have that on. You can fly with the access panels inside the plane off, but not the panels outside. It seems like different DAR's have different pet peeves. Some want everything labeled on the panel. Some couldn't care less what is labeled. Some want to see the panel lit up and some don't. Some look into an inspection plate to see the rivets and some don't. Some are really picky about the engine and some just verify that it has a propeller attached. Some check controls to see if they are correct and hit the stops, some don't even look at them. I have had all of them say that they would like the engine to have run and the plane to have done a taxi test before the inspection, but have never had one ask to see the engine run. I guess it's pretty hard to fly without having the engine running. Most want to see some placard on the fuel tanks. Usually, as others have said, it was paperwork. Some just say, "well, it looks like a plane to me. Do you think it will fly? Let's fill out the paperwork." I have never ever had one ask about AD's or SB's. In short, YMWV. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:41 AM, hotwheels wrote: > > I listened closely stories of DAR inspections where the focus was on mirror / flashlight and compliance with ADs/SBs. So in anticipation, I removed all the access panels and most of the interior to allow easy access to view and inspect. Then the DAR showed up and asked why my plane wasn't "flight ready". He wasn't interested in much past a close look at the engine. He also wanted me to start the engine and taxi and to demonstrate that the instrumentation is working. Has anyone read the latest Air & Space? They have a write up of the DAR process and it reads closer to the mirror / flashlight inspection rather than focus on paperwork. > > Is my experience unique? Have FAA DAR standards / focus changed due to recent NTSB reports perhaps? > > Regards, > Jay > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=388964#388964 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2012
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
In retrospect, it is pretty clear to me that "it all depends". Talking to the DAR, it was pretty clear that his goal was to make one visit and to approve the project if at all possible. The focus on paperwork is an absolute prereq to achieving that goal. I'd definitely ask the DAR beforehand exactly what they'd like to see and how things should be set up. I had worked with a TC and did the final assembly in a maintenance hangar with an AP/AI working nearby. My guess is that the DAR asked around for some pre-assessment from the TC and/or mechanic. I'm sure no red flags were raised so the DAR was focused on successful approval. I had everything opened up and he was prepared with mirrors and lights. After an hour or so he seemed to conclude (correctly) that everything had been gone over in detail, by several different people, so he stopped trying to look at "everything" and instead focused on the paperwork and legalities. Getting the repairman cert at the FSDO was interesting. The inspector I scheduled with wasn't around and no one was expecting me. Knowing nothing about me or the plane, the inspector chatted me up while browsing the docs. It was very challenging because I couldn't figure out where the questions were coming from. At some point, he concluded that I did do the 51% and issued the certificate. In the end, I would just recommend talking to the DAR and/or FSDO person beforehand. Build some rapport if you can but at least find out what they want to see and do. In my estimation, if there's a single "standard", it's not in wide use. Go Jay!! Bill Watson On 11/26/2012 10:41 AM, hotwheels wrote: > > I listened closely stories of DAR inspections where the focus was on mirror / flashlight and compliance with ADs/SBs. So in anticipation, I removed all the access panels and most of the interior to allow easy access to view and inspect. Then the DAR showed up and asked why my plane wasn't "flight ready". He wasn't interested in much past a close look at the engine. He also wanted me to start the engine and taxi and to demonstrate that the instrumentation is working. Has anyone read the latest Air & Space? They have a write up of the DAR process and it reads closer to the mirror / flashlight inspection rather than focus on paperwork. > > Is my experience unique? Have FAA DAR standards / focus changed due to recent NTSB reports perhaps? > > Regards, > Jay > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Initial Brake Fluid Qty
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Nov 27, 2012
The small 4 oz bottle from Aircraft Spruce "should be enough"... depending on how much you spill. Also, you might need a little more in your pump/bleeder (whatever you use to pump it up from the bottom). Do you have a friend that already has a pump setup? If so, borrow his and replace what you use with the 4 oz bottle. Otherwise, get more and look for a pump system. John -------- #40572 Phase One complete and flying. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389110#389110 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Initial Brake Fluid Qty
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 27, 2012
10 oz. -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389111#389111 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Initial Brake Fluid Qty
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Nov 27, 2012
Actually, 10 oz might be right. Looking back, my container from Spruce was 16 oz, not 4 oz. John -------- #40572 Phase One complete and flying. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389112#389112 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2012
Subject: Re: Initial Brake Fluid Qty
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Figure a pint bottle as a minimum, to allow for spillage, and to have some to top off when the pads wear and more fluid is needed in the calipers. Think seriously about getting the high temp, fire resistant fluid. MIL-PRF-83282D available http://www.skygeek.com/royco-782-synthetic-fire-resistant-hydraulic-fluid.html and elsewhere, but I think 1 Qt is about the minimum you will find. On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 7:44 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > 10 oz. > > -------- > Wayne G. > 12/01/2011 > TT= 95 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389111#389111 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Initial Brake Fluid Qty
Thanks everyone. I ordered the quart of high temp from SkyGeek along with mineral oil and some dehydrator plugs. -Sean On 11/27/12 9:06 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > Figure a pint bottle as a minimum, to allow for spillage, and to have > some to top off when the pads wear and more fluid is needed in the > calipers. > Think seriously about getting the high temp, fire resistant fluid. > MIL-PRF-83282D > available > http://www.skygeek.com/royco-782-synthetic-fire-resistant-hydraulic-fluid.html > and elsewhere, but I think 1 Qt is about the minimum you will find. > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 7:44 AM, rv10flyer > wrote: > > > > > 10 oz. > > -------- > Wayne G. > 12/01/2011 > TT= 95 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389111#389111 > > > ========== > ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com > ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com > et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > le, List Admin. > ========== > arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Dirty Laundry
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Nov 27, 2012
I just wanted to share an issue that we discovered during our annual inspection. This is just a bit embarrassing since we seemed to have potentially solved some issues that we have been having since shortly after we first started flying our airplane (450 hours). But unless we are willing to share our embarrassing errors we will not save others from making the same mistake. As some may know we have struggled to run anything near LOP without the engine stumbling, we made many modifications to help this situation and made significant improvements, but were never comfortable with the way the engine ran LOP. We blamed this on the James Cowl and Plenum installation; I am not saying our discovery takes the cowl and plenum off the table as contributing factors to LOP issues. Lately, our CHT temps started rising, and we were unable to climb at altitude without getting the CHTs above 400. We also noticed a fuel smell on takeoff, I have searched high and low for the source of the fuel smell. Our engine has always idled a little rough; we were told and convinced that this was caused by the fuel vaporizing in the injector lines since we had a tight cowl and plenum. Then we gained a symptom that lead to discovering our problem. Lately our idle RPM rose to around 1050 this was the symptom that got me looking for intake leaks. There it was, four of our intake gaskets were obviously leaking. We could see the gaskets were out of place, so I pulled all of the intake tubes and found some amazing gasket placements. The picture below shows one of the gaskets, this is as it came off the engine. So after replacing the gaskets and performing the rest of the annual a test flight was in order. Wow, someone hung a brand new engine! Keep in mind we have only done one test flight, so the data is very limited but there was noticeable improvement. CHTs down, no fuel smell, pull the mixture and the engine just sort of looses power without any stumble at all, idle speed down to 650. Also of note, during full power static run-up our fuel flow went from 20.2 GPH to 23.5 GPH. I have a hard time believing that the engine was assembled with the gaskets out of place, I also have a hard time believing that the gaskets have not been leaking for some time, perhaps even very early on, and obviously getting worse. There it is our dirty laundry, hopefully this information is useful to others. 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=389123#389123 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/photo_2_707.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/photo_1_150.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Nov 27, 2012
Jason, Are you fuel injected or carburated? Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:38 AM, jkreidler wrote: > > I just wanted to share an issue that we discovered during our annual inspection. This is just a bit embarrassing since we seemed to have potentially solved some issues that we have been having since shortly after we first started flying our airplane (450 hours). But unless we are willing to share our embarrassing errors we will not save others from making the same mistake. > > As some may know we have struggled to run anything near LOP without the engine stumbling, we made many modifications to help this situation and made significant improvements, but were never comfortable with the way the engine ran LOP. We blamed this on the James Cowl and Plenum installation; I am not saying our discovery takes the cowl and plenum off the table as contributing factors to LOP issues. > > Lately, our CHT temps started rising, and we were unable to climb at altitude without getting the CHTs above 400. We also noticed a fuel smell on takeoff, I have searched high and low for the source of the fuel smell. Our engine has always idled a little rough; we were told and convinced that this was caused by the fuel vaporizing in the injector lines since we had a tight cowl and plenum. > > Then we gained a symptom that lead to discovering our problem. Lately our idle RPM rose to around 1050 this was the symptom that got me looking for intake leaks. There it was, four of our intake gaskets were obviously leaking. We could see the gaskets were out of place, so I pulled all of the intake tubes and found some amazing gasket placements. The picture below shows one of the gaskets, this is as it came off the engine. > > So after replacing the gaskets and performing the rest of the annual a test flight was in order. Wow, someone hung a brand new engine! Keep in mind we have only done one test flight, so the data is very limited but there was noticeable improvement. CHTs down, no fuel smell, pull the mixture and the engine just sort of looses power without any stumble at all, idle speed down to 650. Also of note, during full power static run-up our fuel flow went from 20.2 GPH to 23.5 GPH. > I have a hard time believing that the engine was assembled with the gaskets out of place, I also have a hard time believing that the gaskets have not been leaking for some time, perhaps even very early on, and obviously getting worse. > > There it is our dirty laundry, hopefully this information is useful to others. > > 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=389123#389123 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/photo_2_707.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/photo_1_150.jpg > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry
I just mounted the engine a few days ago. When reading up on some other points, I've read of so many issues with the intake gaskets that I will be pulling my intakes and checking them. I'll be applying a small bit of Hylomar Universal Blue on them during re-assembly after seeing so many issues with crumbling intake gaskets. -Sean #40303 (assembling engine baffling) On 11/27/12 10:38 AM, jkreidler wrote: > > I just wanted to share an issue that we discovered during our annual inspection. This is just a bit embarrassing since we seemed to have potentially solved some issues that we have been having since shortly after we first started flying our airplane (450 hours). But unless we are willing to share our embarrassing errors we will not save others from making the same mistake. > > As some may know we have struggled to run anything near LOP without the engine stumbling, we made many modifications to help this situation and made significant improvements, but were never comfortable with the way the engine ran LOP. We blamed this on the James Cowl and Plenum installation; I am not saying our discovery takes the cowl and plenum off the table as contributing factors to LOP issues. > > Lately, our CHT temps started rising, and we were unable to climb at altitude without getting the CHTs above 400. We also noticed a fuel smell on takeoff, I have searched high and low for the source of the fuel smell. Our engine has always idled a little rough; we were told and convinced that this was caused by the fuel vaporizing in the injector lines since we had a tight cowl and plenum. > > Then we gained a symptom that lead to discovering our problem. Lately our idle RPM rose to around 1050 this was the symptom that got me looking for intake leaks. There it was, four of our intake gaskets were obviously leaking. We could see the gaskets were out of place, so I pulled all of the intake tubes and found some amazing gasket placements. The picture below shows one of the gaskets, this is as it came off the engine. > > So after replacing the gaskets and performing the rest of the annual a test flight was in order. Wow, someone hung a brand new engine! Keep in mind we have only done one test flight, so the data is very limited but there was noticeable improvement. CHTs down, no fuel smell, pull the mixture and the engine just sort of looses power without any stumble at all, idle speed down to 650. Also of note, during full power static run-up our fuel flow went from 20.2 GPH to 23.5 GPH. > I have a hard time believing that the engine was assembled with the gaskets out of place, I also have a hard time believing that the gaskets have not been leaking for some time, perhaps even very early on, and obviously getting worse. > > There it is our dirty laundry, hopefully this information is useful to others. > > 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=389123#389123 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/photo_2_707.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/photo_1_150.jpg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roger Standley" <taildragon(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry
Date: Nov 27, 2012
Jason, maybe I missed it but was your engine new or rebuilt? ----- Original Message ----- From: Sean Stephens<mailto:sean(at)stephensville.com> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:02 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Dirty Laundry > I just mounted the engine a few days ago. When reading up on some other points, I've read of so many issues with the intake gaskets that I will be pulling my intakes and checking them. I'll be applying a small bit of Hylomar Universal Blue on them during re-assembly after seeing so many issues with crumbling intake gaskets. -Sean #40303 (assembling engine baffling) On 11/27/12 10:38 AM, jkreidler wrote: > > > I just wanted to share an issue that we discovered during our annual inspection. This is just a bit embarrassing since we seemed to have potentially solved some issues that we have been having since shortly after we first started flying our airplane (450 hours). But unless we are willing to share our =98embarrassing=99 errors we will not save others from making the same mistake. > > As some may know we have struggled to run anything near LOP without the engine =98stumbling=99, we made many modifications to help this situation and made significant improvements, but were never comfortable with the way the engine ran LOP. We blamed this on the James Cowl and Plenum installation; I am not saying our discovery takes the cowl and plenum off the table as contributing factors to LOP issues. > > Lately, our CHT temps started rising, and we were unable to climb at altitude without getting the CHT=99s above 400. We also noticed a fuel smell on takeoff, I have searched high and low for the source of the fuel smell. Our engine has always idled a little rough; we were told and convinced that this was caused by the fuel vaporizing in the injector lines since we had a tight cowl and plenum. > > Then we gained a symptom that lead to discovering our problem. Lately our idle RPM rose to around 1050 =93 this was the symptom that got me looking for intake leaks. There it was, four of our intake gaskets were obviously leaking. We could see the gaskets were out of place, so I pulled all of the intake tubes and found some amazing gasket placements. The picture below shows one of the gaskets, this is as it came off the engine. > > So after replacing the gaskets and performing the =98rest=99 of the annual a test flight was in order. Wow, someone hung a brand new engine! Keep in mind we have only done one test flight, so the data is very limited =93 but there was noticeable improvement. CHT=99s down, no fuel smell, pull the mixture and the engine just sort of looses power without any stumble at all, idle speed down to 650. Also of note, during full power static run-up our fuel flow went from 20.2 GPH to 23.5 GPH. > I have a hard time believing that the engine was assembled with the gaskets out of place, I also have a hard time believing that the gaskets have not been leaking for some time, perhaps even very early on, and obviously getting worse. > > There it is =93 our dirty laundry, hopefully this information is useful to others. > > 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=389123#389123 .matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389123#389123> > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/photo_2_707.jpg s.com//files/photo_2_707.jpg> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/photo_1_150.jpg s.com//files/photo_1_150.jpg> > > > > > > > www.aeroelectric.com<http://www.aeroelectric.com/> www.buildersbooks.com<http://www.buildersbooks.com/> www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List igator?RV10-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2012
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Coming in December!
Dear Listers, There's just a couple more days left in this year's List Fund Raiser and that means the List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: Nov 27, 2012
New - Lycoming - Thunderbolt IO-540-D4A5 260 HP (Std Compression) Airflow Performance Injection Dual Mags 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=389204#389204 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry
Date: Nov 27, 2012
I think you owe it to Lycoming/Thunderbolt to tell them there is a problem and your thoughts. They need to know this for their own feedback not as a criticism. Sure, my rebuilt had issues and Americas engine came through each and everytime for me sent me whatever I need to resolve "setting" breaking in issues. They were grateful for my feedback is the point and I think Thunderbolt will too. Nice job getting this resolved! -----Original Message----- From: jkreidler Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:55 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Dirty Laundry New - Lycoming - Thunderbolt IO-540-D4A5 260 HP (Std Compression) Airflow Performance Injection Dual Mags 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=389204#389204 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2012
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Keeping your note in mind, I looked at each intake port gasket externally on my new to me engine that arrived this afternoon. All looked good. On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:55 AM, jkreidler wrote: > jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com> > > New - Lycoming - Thunderbolt > IO-540-D4A5 > 260 HP (Std Compression) > Airflow Performance Injection > Dual Mags > > 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=389204#389204 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mesa and KFFZ
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Nov 27, 2012
I don't know anything about the field but we recently stayed nearby and really enjoyed the Boyce-Thompson State Park. It specializes in desert plants and is a great place for a walk/hike. It is located in the town of Superior, about 40 minutes east of the metromess. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389235#389235 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Manifold Pressure 'excursions' Your feedback wanted
From: "Eric_Kallio" <scout019(at)msn.com>
Date: Nov 28, 2012
Not to hijack Deems' thread here, but along the lines of MP indicating issues... When I turn on my boost pump the MP indications go up by 4 PSI. No other changes in engine indications (CHT, EGT, RPM). Anyone witnessed anything like this one before and have any thoughts on where to begin tracking this one down? Eric Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389244#389244 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
From: "Eric_Kallio" <scout019(at)msn.com>
Date: Nov 28, 2012
When I went through I had a very proactive DAR who wanted to make 3 visits. He charged me somewhere around $400 total and came out after I made contact with him to make first contact and talk with me about the process, look at the project, discuss what he was looking for, and he provided me with a packet of paperwork that would need to be completed before it was all said and done. On his second visit everything was opened up and he performed his flashlight and mirror inspection. He provided me with 3 lists of notes. One was a list of things that must be fixed before he would sign off (fortunately I had none). The second list were things that should be addressed no later than the next annual. Finally were just some notes. Eventually he came for a third visit where I had to start the engine and he verified the avionics and instruments came alive and that the engine and the nav/strobe/landing lights were functioning. It was a long process and he performed more than what he said was required of a DAR, but by the time I first flew the plane had been thoroughly looked over. Eric Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389246#389246 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2012
From: Linn <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Manifold Pressure 'excursions' Your feedback wanted
Scratching my head over this one. There should be no connection between MP and the boost pump ..... except maybe an electrical connection with the MP sensor if you have one. I find most electrical gremlins can be traced to poor grounds or ground loops. so check the ground for the boost pump. Linn On 11/28/2012 7:47 AM, Eric_Kallio wrote: > > Not to hijack Deems' thread here, but along the lines of MP indicating issues... When I turn on my boost pump the MP indications go up by 4 PSI. No other changes in engine indications (CHT, EGT, RPM). Anyone witnessed anything like this one before and have any thoughts on where to begin tracking this one down? > > Eric > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389244#389244 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2012
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just 3 Days Left - Please Make Your List Contribution Today!
There are only three days left until the end of this year's List Fund Raiser. Please take a minute to show your support as so many others have this year and make sure YOUR name is on the forthcoming List of Contributors! Its quick and easy using the secure web site with a credit card or PayPal: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by sending your personal check to: Matronics Lists c/o Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore, CA 94550 Thank you in advance for your support of these List services! Matt Dralle Matronics Email and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2012
From: Linn <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Is there a DAR "standard"?
When I built my Pitts S-1E in the late 70's my DAR was the Piper (Vero Beach is close by) inspector. He came up for the 'pre-cover' inspection which we had to do back then, and Looked at the log books I had laid out on a table. He looked across the hangar and said 'I only see one wing' ..... and I pointed out that the lower wings were behind the top wing. OK. Tail feathers over there ..... and signed the logbooks and left. Final inspection day the airplane was pulled out in front of the hangar, ready to fly and the books were on the table. He said 'looks nice', signed the logs and then we had this conversation: "You really didn't look it over very hard." "Don't need to. It looks like a Pitts and the rigging looks right ..... and it ought to fly OK." So the next day I flew the first flight with no squawks, landed and was pushing the Pitts back into the hangar when I noticed the jam nuts on the tail brace wires weren't tight .... far from it. And the landing/flying wires .... same thing. A lot of people had looked at the airplane and nobody noticed the loose jam nuts .... including me. Don't remember what he charged (if anything) but I would have welcomed a little closer inspection, just for my own peace of mind. Linn ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2012
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: ECI Pushrod Shroud Retainer
Not sure if others got this or not, but just one part to check out if you have used an ECI parts kit at all, or happen to have an ECI retainer clip from some maintenance. http://eci.aero/pdf/12-1.pdf Just one of those little things... Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: ECI Pushrod Shroud Retainer
Date: Nov 28, 2012
I called Eci, good folks! the stock was changed in July 2010. Basically if there was a problem one would know rather quickly in the form of a oil leak. I explained I had over 100 hours and he suggested that it was quite remote at this point to have an issue, which means I probably had the engine built with different retainer clips. If you have had the engine less than 2 years this should not apply to you. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Olson Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:36 PM Subject: RV10-List: ECI Pushrod Shroud Retainer Not sure if others got this or not, but just one part to check out if you have used an ECI parts kit at all, or happen to have an ECI retainer clip from some maintenance. http://eci.aero/pdf/12-1.pdf Just one of those little things... Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2012
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: ECI Pushrod Shroud Retainer
Some clarification please. Is this an aftermarket part that would not be found on a new stock Lycoming? Thanks as always, Bill On 11/28/2012 3:36 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Not sure if others got this or not, but just one part to > check out if you have used an ECI parts kit at all, or > happen to have an ECI retainer clip from some maintenance. > > http://eci.aero/pdf/12-1.pdf > > Just one of those little things... > Tim > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: ECI Pushrod Shroud Retainer
Date: Nov 28, 2012
Eci cylinders are an option that are put into experimental engines. Mattituck, Penn Aero, America's, etc may us them when they build an engine for a builder (overhauled, rebuilt).. Lycoming has their own cylinders so not an issue for stock Lycoming. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Watson Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 2:56 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: ECI Pushrod Shroud Retainer Some clarification please. Is this an aftermarket part that would not be found on a new stock Lycoming? Thanks as always, Bill On 11/28/2012 3:36 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Not sure if others got this or not, but just one part to > check out if you have used an ECI parts kit at all, or > happen to have an ECI retainer clip from some maintenance. > > http://eci.aero/pdf/12-1.pdf > > Just one of those little things... > Tim > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2012
From: Tim Lewis <TimRVator(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Maximum Climb Angle
Not the answer, but a data point: I see up to about 15 degrees pitch up (EFIS reference w.r.t. cruise pitch) at best rate of climb (takeoff). Best angle would be steeper. -- Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold RV-10 N31TD -- 350 hrs Les Kearney said the following on 11/25/2012 11:23 AM: > Maximum Climb Angle > > Hi > > One of the things I need to do for my final inspection is ensure fuel > flow with minimum fuel at the maximum climb angle. > > Can anyone tell me what the maximumpitch angle is in a climb? > > I will assume that theminimumfuel is whatever it takes to allow fuel > to flow at that angle.Anyone have an idea of what that might be? > > Cheers > > Les > > #40643 - CGCWZ > > Soclose, oh so close.. > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2012
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just Two Days Left! - Still Behind...
Dear Listers, There are just two more days left in this years List Fund Raiser. Over the last couple of weeks I have received some more really nice comments from members on what the Lists have meant to them. I have included a few more of them below. Please read over the comments and ponder on your own feelings about the Lists and the support and camaraderie you have found here. We are still behind last year in terms of the number of contributions. I really want to keep providing these services to the homebuilt community, but it take resources. Since there's no advertising budget or deep pockets to keep the operation a float, its solely your generosity during the Fund Raiser that keeps things going. Please make a Contribution today. If you've been putting off showing your support for the Lists, now is the time to do it! Make a contribution with a Credit Card or though PayPal at that Matronics Contribution web site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a check in the mail: Matronics / Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore, CA 94550 Thank you in advance for your support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ==================== A Few List Member Comments ===================== I have been flying my Pietenpol for a month now and am enjoying the fruits of ten hard years of work. I seriously doubt it would ever have been finished but for the help, encouragement and friendships I've received and made through the Pietenpol list. Douwe B Hey-Long time subscriber, zero-time contributor. Just a note of thanks. This is first time I have the resources to contribute. Thanks for carrying a lightweight for years and a special thanks for your time and effort. Billy R My 601 hd is flying with the help with the listers. Noel G A very useful facility. Graeme B ..great site! Robert C Great Pietenpol site! Don Y Not active but always interested in keeping up. Enjoy when I can. Richard R Dave and Tim from Aircrafters just want to reiterate our thanks for hosting the lists. Tim F. I don't have a lot to give at this time of year, but I hope my contribution helps none the less. I really enjoy the message board. Mark C Thanks to your continued work on maintaining these lists. Ralph C The lists and the various contributors have been a great help while I was building and also now that I'm flying. Albert G Very helpful tools for the homebuilder. Vaughn T We appreciate your great help! Richard H Many of our customers have expressed to us that you provide them with an invaluable service - and we agree! Bill B I Fly a Quicksilver GT400 but love to read what the Kolb boys have to say and it was on your list that I found out about the Yamaha product Ring Free,, now called engine med, that shit works.. no carbon in my rings or any to speak of with the use of the Yamaha product with a premix 503 with over 300 hrs of use.. thanks to your Kolb bulletin board. Robert B You are providing a valuable service that helps a lot of people through information sharing. When I built my Pietenpol over 40 years ago we were largely on our own, working without a resource like this list. Graham H Thanks for the opportunity to link us all, keep the good work! Peter B ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Maximum Climb Angle
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Nov 29, 2012
Why would anyone need this data point? Who in their right mind would do a maximum climb with ounces of fuel? A standard test is to ensure that the pump can deliver at a high angle of attack, not with "minimum fuel". These pumps don't cavitate from lack of head, they stop pumping when the suction line is uncovered. So all you need to do is check that the pump works (ie, delivers 24 gph or so) at a high angle. This is physically limited by how far you can tie the tail down (unless you dig a hole - not recommended). So just tie the tail down as far as it will go and don't worry what the angle may be. This test is worth doing. A separate test for minimum fuel (or measuring unusable fuel - same thing) is done in a level attitude. Also worth doing. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389503#389503 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2012
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser!
Dear Listers, Its November 30th and that always means a couple of things. Its my birthday again; number 49 actually! But it also means that its that last official day of the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser! If you been thinking about picking up one of those really nice incentive gifts now is the time to jump on it!! If you've been meaning to make a Contribution this month but have been putting it off for some reason, NOW is the time! I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want to be known as a person that supported the Lists! I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution this year in support of our Lists. It is your generosity that keeps this operation running and I don't ever forget it. The List Contribution Web Site is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making your Contribution right now: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you to all in advance! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
Any tips on getting the #5 and #6 rear baffles in place? I'm having trouble even getting them in place for a test fit. Should I remove the oil return lines on #5 and #6 to help? Thanks, -Sean #40303 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Date: Nov 30, 2012
I don't recall having to remove any lines, but I did have to do some funky bending to get it in place. It is not easy, but it should fit... Sent from my iPhone On Nov 30, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > Any tips on getting the #5 and #6 rear baffles in place? I'm having trouble even getting them in place for a test fit. > > Should I remove the oil return lines on #5 and #6 to help? > > Thanks, > > -Sean #40303 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2012
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
I just put mine on this morning. You have to wrestle #6 to get the inner portion past the cyl head and engine mount, then it drops right in. #5 was easy by comparison. No issue with oil lines. Aim the cutouts for the engine mounts right at the mount, and the curved portion angled a bit towards the rear. You will have to watch the oil return lines when you make the rods to tie the bottom of front and rear baffles together a bit later in the plans. On 11/30/2012 12:15 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > Any tips on getting the #5 and #6 rear baffles in place? I'm having > trouble even getting them in place for a test fit. > > Should I remove the oil return lines on #5 and #6 to help? > > Thanks, > > -Sean #40303 > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Nov 30, 2012
You have to hold your tongue in the right position while pushing. ;^) Actually, you've got to twist it a bit. It's hard to describe, but once you figure it out, you install and remove them pretty quick. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 30, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: Any tips on getting the #5 and #6 rear baffles in place? I'm having trouble even getting them in place for a test fit. Should I remove the oil return lines on #5 and #6 to help? Thanks, -Sean #40303 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2012
From: davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
Yeah. Massage them into position. No need to remove any lines. David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Kraus" <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:34:43 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips? I don't recall having to remove any lines, but I did have to do some funky bending to get it in place. It is not easy, but it should fit... Sent from my iPhone On Nov 30, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > Any tips on getting the #5 and #6 rear baffles in place? I'm having trouble even getting them in place for a test fit. > > Should I remove the oil return lines on #5 and #6 to help? > > Thanks, > > -Sean #40303 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
I can't get either to go in at all. Not sure why the plans say to assemble these before putting them on. It seems it would be easier before assembling the whole corner. They aren't even close to going in and I'm scratching my rod covers on #6. On 11/30/12 2:19 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > I just put mine on this morning. You have to wrestle #6 to get the > inner portion past the cyl head and engine mount, then it drops right > in. #5 was easy by comparison. No issue with oil lines. Aim the > cutouts for the engine mounts right at the mount, and the curved > portion angled a bit towards the rear. > You will have to watch the oil return lines when you make the rods to > tie the bottom of front and rear baffles together a bit later in the > plans. > > On 11/30/2012 12:15 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: >> >> Any tips on getting the #5 and #6 rear baffles in place? I'm having >> trouble even getting them in place for a test fit. >> >> Should I remove the oil return lines on #5 and #6 to help? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Sean #40303 >> >> >> >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
Ok, figured out #6. You need to take the oil cooler box off (un-cleco it) from the assembly in order to allow it to flex more. Now on to #5. Thanks all... -Sean On 11/30/12 3:03 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > I can't get either to go in at all. Not sure why the plans say to > assemble these before putting them on. It seems it would be easier > before assembling the whole corner. > > They aren't even close to going in and I'm scratching my rod covers on > #6. > > > On 11/30/12 2:19 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >> >> I just put mine on this morning. You have to wrestle #6 to get the >> inner portion past the cyl head and engine mount, then it drops right >> in. #5 was easy by comparison. No issue with oil lines. Aim the >> cutouts for the engine mounts right at the mount, and the curved >> portion angled a bit towards the rear. >> You will have to watch the oil return lines when you make the rods to >> tie the bottom of front and rear baffles together a bit later in the >> plans. >> >> On 11/30/2012 12:15 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: >>> >>> Any tips on getting the #5 and #6 rear baffles in place? I'm having >>> trouble even getting them in place for a test fit. >>> >>> Should I remove the oil return lines on #5 and #6 to help? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -Sean #40303 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
From: "mdaniell" <martin.daniell(at)bigpond.com>
Date: Nov 30, 2012
All of the above is true, however there was a post somewhere about a builder having difficulty with the oil cooler brace, I think it turned out to be the wrong part. If you're absolutely sure it won't fitthen maybe check you have the right part. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389634#389634 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
The oil cooler brace fits fine. You just can't have it clecoed on the baffle while you are trying to get the baffle in or the baffle doesn't flex enough. #5 is getting there, but my oil pressure valve (not sure what it's really called) is in the way and the brace at the bottom of the baffle hits the case a bit before getting into place. Going to have to mod that a bit. On 11/30/12 3:30 PM, mdaniell wrote: > > All of the above is true, however there was a post somewhere about a builder having difficulty with the oil cooler brace, I think it turned out to be the wrong part. If you're absolutely sure it won't fitthen maybe check you have the right part. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389634#389634 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
Date: Nov 30, 2012
I had to mod mine for #5 to fit around the case and oil pressure valve. 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 Sean Stephens Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:26 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips? The oil cooler brace fits fine. You just can't have it clecoed on the baffle while you are trying to get the baffle in or the baffle doesn't flex enough. #5 is getting there, but my oil pressure valve (not sure what it's really called) is in the way and the brace at the bottom of the baffle hits the case a bit before getting into place. Going to have to mod that a bit. On 11/30/12 3:30 PM, mdaniell wrote: > --> > > All of the above is true, however there was a post somewhere about a builder having difficulty with the oil cooler brace, I think it turned out to be the wrong part. If you're absolutely sure it won't fitthen maybe check you have the right part. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389634#389634 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Nov 30, 2012
I loosed the oil return line on number 5. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389650#389650 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2012
Subject: Re: Rear Baffle Positioning Tips?
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Yes, I had the wrong part, a rear baffle intended for the RV-7, not the 10, which was about 1/8" too short. I just mounted my baffles today. Yes, removing the oil cooler brace helps. Yes, it is a little tight with drain back tube on #5, but not hard to get that to fit. I found a little interference at crankcase is preventing my #5 from achieving correct position, so that screw holes at back of engine and brace line up. I think the plans should have called for assuring fit of all hardware before drilling the two holes for rear center brace. Oh well, just time and effort to make baffle fit the way it should. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:30 PM, mdaniell wrote: > > All of the above is true, however there was a post somewhere about a > builder having difficulty with the oil cooler brace, I think it turned out > to be the wrong part. If you're absolutely sure it won't fitthen maybe > check you have the right part. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389634#389634 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2012
Subject: Upper Fwd Fuselage Sec 31
From: Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com>
Hi All Currently working on the fwd fuse and I just noticed I have section 31Q plans, as well as a section 31. I scanned through both copies and can't find any differences. Even the revision numbers on both copies are mixed with all sorts of different dates. Does anyone know why I would have both? Thx, Rick #40956 Southampton, Ont ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper Fwd Fuselage Sec 31
From: "Ron B." <ronbelliveau(at)eastlink.ca>
Date: Dec 01, 2012
I do believe that 31Q was for the optional throttle quadrant mount.If you look at pn/F-1083 on page 31-9 you'll see that it's mounted different. I don't remember but it might also be a different part (I'm only looking at plan 31 as I don't have 31Q in front of me. Ron Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389672#389672 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Mag cooling tubes
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Dec 01, 2012
I'll be running Bendix 1200's primarily in AZ. I'm curious about the brain trust consensus about mag cooling tubes. My spam cans never had them. Are they air worth taking or is the air put to better use left in the containment area? What about the fuel pump? Thanks in advance. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. Finishing kit and FWF kit in progress. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389673#389673 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 01, 2012
Subject: Re: Mag cooling tubes
I think it helps to cool the part of the mag closest to the breaker cam. The little plastic follower that rides on the cam seems most sensitive to heat. Make sure you keep the tube up close the the magneto case so the cooler air doesn't get diluted before it reaches the mag. I don't cool my fuel pump but I don't have to deal with the OATs that you do. Dave Saylor 831-750-0284 CL On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 8:26 AM, woxofswa wrote: > > I'll be running Bendix 1200's primarily in AZ. I'm curious about the > brain trust consensus about mag cooling tubes. My spam cans never had them. > Are they air worth taking or is the air put to better use left in the > containment area? > What about the fuel pump? > Thanks in advance. > > -------- > Myron Nelson > Mesa, AZ > Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. Finishing > kit and FWF kit in progress. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389673#389673 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Mag cooling tubes
Date: Dec 01, 2012
I'm not using cooling tubes on the mags - I will however back fit a small tube if/when Brad at Emag ever gets the six cylinder electronic ignition done. On the fuel pump, no cooling tube but I had a lot of concern on the location of the cabin heat control valves. In the summertime all that really hot air coming off the heat muffs is dumped right toward the fuel pump. I put a piece of KoolMat http://www.aircraftspruce.com/search/search.php?s=KOOLMAT+INSULATION&x=0&y=0 between the firewall and the control valves (hole cut out where the value penetrates the firewall0 then draped the KoolMat over the top of the valves, tucking the end between the bottom of the valves and the nose gear mount. This redirects the dumped hot air down and away from the engine and fuel pump. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of woxofswa Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 11:26 AM Subject: RV10-List: Mag cooling tubes I'll be running Bendix 1200's primarily in AZ. I'm curious about the brain trust consensus about mag cooling tubes. My spam cans never had them. Are they air worth taking or is the air put to better use left in the containment area? What about the fuel pump? Thanks in advance. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. Finishing kit and FWF kit in progress. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389673#389673 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick & Vicki Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Baron Mobile Link System for sale
Date: Dec 01, 2012
Greetings: I have a complete Baron Weather Works system for sale. This system provides complete XM weather to your IPAD via a WIFI connection. Unlike ADSB this system provides near real time weather ON THE GROUND OR ANYWHERE IN THE US. I will also include the Dual portable GPS which provides accurate wireless GPS position to your IPAD. All cables and system components are included along with a triplex cigarette power adapter. All equipment is in like new condition. This is a $1,200 value. After having in flight weather I would not fly cross country trips again without it. Asking $500.00 or best offer. Dick Sipp ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Routing the Elevator Trim cables
Date: Dec 02, 2012
Gang I am finding it almost "impossible" to route the CT Q-43 teleflex cables from the Elevator Trim system through the Horizontal Stabilizer spars. Is there a secret I must know about this? Any hints are welcome Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2012
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Mag cooling tubes
I believe the Bendix 1200 uses a very different breaker cam follower arrangement than the Slicks the new engines come with. I don't know if there is anything in the Bendix that is particularly heat sensitive, but my Mooney has cooling blast tubes for the stock Bendix mags it came with 47 yrs ago. On 12/1/2012 11:26 AM, Dave Saylor wrote: > I think it helps to cool the part of the mag closest to the breaker > cam. The little plastic follower that rides on the cam seems most > sensitive to heat. Make sure you keep the tube up close the the > magneto case so the cooler air doesn't get diluted before it reaches > the mag. > > I don't cool my fuel pump but I don't have to deal with the OATs that > you do. > > Dave Saylor > 831-750-0284 CL > > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 8:26 AM, woxofswa > wrote: > > > > > I'll be running Bendix 1200's primarily in AZ. I'm curious about > the brain trust consensus about mag cooling tubes. My spam cans > never had them. > Are they air worth taking or is the air put to better use left in > the containment area? > What about the fuel pump? > Thanks in advance. > > -------- > Myron Nelson > Mesa, AZ > Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. > Finishing kit and FWF kit in progress. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389673#389673 > > > ========== > > target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com > ldersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com > " target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com > t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > ========== > " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > MS - > k">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > > > * > > > * ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Routing the Elevator Trim cables
Date: Dec 01, 2012
If I remember right.I used a shot fish tape.coat hanger.to make it happen... From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 5:22 PM Subject: RV10-List: Routing the Elevator Trim cables Gang I am finding it almost "impossible" to route the CT Q-43 teleflex cables from the Elevator Trim system through the Horizontal Stabilizer spars. Is there a secret I must know about this? Any hints are welcome Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Routing the Elevator Trim cables
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Dec 01, 2012
Run a piece of Pitot line or similar tubing throwing backwards, put threaded end into tube, push through as you get the HS in place. 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 Dec 1, 2012, at 7:22 PM, "Carlos Trigo" wrote: > Gang > > I am finding it almost =9Cimpossible=9D to route the CT Q-43 t eleflex cables from the Elevator Trim system through the Horizontal Stabiliz er spars. > Is there a secret I must know about this? > Any hints are welcome > > Regards > Carlos > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com>
Subject: Re: Routing the Elevator Trim cables
Date: Dec 01, 2012
Carlos, The first time I tried to route those cables I thought, =9C how is this possible?=9D fighting them all the way. So when I put them together after paint I attached a fish tape to the end of the cable and was able to pull them through the bushings and that elongated first hole without much difficulty at all. Being able to pull the cable through while pushing it from the other end was the secret for me. I though I was going to have to open up the oval hole, but did not with the help of a fish tape. Bob Newman N541RV flying, N361RV under construction...oops I did it again. From: Carlos Trigo Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 7:22 PM Subject: RV10-List: Routing the Elevator Trim cables Gang I am finding it almost =9Cimpossible=9D to route the CT Q-43 teleflex cables from the Elevator Trim system through the Horizontal Stabilizer spars. Is there a secret I must know about this? Any hints are welcome Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Routing the Elevator Trim cables
Date: Dec 01, 2012
I was not thrilled with having the cable ride in the oval hole without some kind of protection. I added a snap bushing to the cable, but as the snap bushing is at an angle to the aluminum edge of the oval hole I added epoxy to hold the bushing in place. This eliminated the issue of having the oval hole aluminum edge cut into the cable. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob-tcw Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 7:56 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Routing the Elevator Trim cables Carlos, The first time I tried to route those cables I thought, =9C how is this possible?=9D fighting them all the way. So when I put them together after paint I attached a fish tape to the end of the cable and was able to pull them through the bushings and that elongated first hole without much difficulty at all. Being able to pull the cable through while pushing it from the other end was the secret for me. I though I was going to have to open up the oval hole, but did not with the help of a fish tape. Bob Newman N541RV flying, N361RV under construction...oops I did it again. From: Carlos Trigo <mailto:trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 7:22 PM Subject: RV10-List: Routing the Elevator Trim cables Gang I am finding it almost =9Cimpossible=9D to route the CT Q-43 teleflex cables from the Elevator Trim system through the Horizontal Stabilizer spars. Is there a secret I must know about this? Any hints are welcome Regards Carlos href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c href= http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/N avigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Roxanne and Mike Lefever <roxianmike(at)msn.com>
Subject: Routing the Elevator Trim cables
Date: Dec 01, 2012
I wasn't as smart as all of the other sensible solutions I now see here. I think I lost about a pint of blood from my fingers the first time I put th em through there. From: trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt Subject: RV10-List: Routing the Elevator Trim cables Date: Sun=2C 2 Dec 2012 00:22:04 +0000 Gang I am finding it almost =93impossible=94 to route the CT Q-43 teleflex cables from the Elevator Trim system through the Horizontal Stabilizer spar s.Is there a secret I must know about this?Any hints are welcome RegardsCar los ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2012
From: Chris <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com>
Subject: Routing the Elevator Trim cables
I did this too but opened the oval a little more and added the Spring Fast edge protection to the oval. Fished cable through with aluminum tubing. -Chris N919AR ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Routing the Elevator Trim cables I was not thrilled with having the cable ride in the oval hole without some kind of protection. I added a snap bushing to the cable, but as the snap bushing is at an angle to the aluminum edge of the oval hole I added epoxy to hold the bushing in place. This eliminated the issue of having the oval hole aluminum edge cut into the cable. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-ser ver(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob-tcw Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 7:56 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Routing the Elevator Trim cables Carlos, The firs t time I tried to route those cables I thought, =9C how is this poss ible?=9D fighting them all the way. So when I put them together after paint I attached a fish tape to the end of the cable and was able to pull them through the bushings and that elongated first hole without much difficulty at all. Being able to pull the cable through while pushing it from the other end was the secret for me. I though I was going to have t o open up the oval hole, but did not with the help of a fish tape. Bob Newm anN541RV flying,N361RV under construction...oops I did it again. From:Carlo s TrigoSent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 7:22 PMTo:rv10-list(at)matronics.comC Subject: RV10-List: Routing the Elevator Trim cables Gang I am finding it a lmost =9Cimpossible=9D to route the CT Q-43 teleflex cables fro m the Elevator Trim system through the Horizontal Stabilizer spars.Is there a secret I must know about this?Any hints are welcome RegardsCarlos hre f="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.comhref="http://www.bu ildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.comhref="http://www.homebuilthelp.com" >www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http:/ /www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">h ttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://forums.matronics. com">http://forums.matronics.com www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.co mwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matro nics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Routing the Elevator Trim cables
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Dec 01, 2012
I remember it was hard. I think I found a pair of 12" hemostats useful. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389695#389695 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Routing the Elevator Trim cables
Date: Dec 02, 2012
Thanks to all who responded. Now I even know that you call =9Cfish tape=9D to those steel or nylon wire guides used by the electricians to run electric wires through the walls The plastic or aluminum tube solution also look promising. Now let=99s fight again with those cables Carlos From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob-tcw Sent: domingo, 2 de Dezembro de 2012 00:56 Subject: Re: RV10-List: Routing the Elevator Trim cables Carlos, The first time I tried to route those cables I thought, =9C how is this possible?=9D fighting them all the way. So when I put them together after paint I attached a fish tape to the end of the cable and was able to pull them through the bushings and that elongated first hole without much difficulty at all. Being able to pull the cable through while pushing it from the other end was the secret for me. I though I was going to have to open up the oval hole, but did not with the help of a fish tape. Bob Newman N541RV flying, N361RV under construction...oops I did it again. From: Carlos Trigo <mailto:trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 7:22 PM Subject: RV10-List: Routing the Elevator Trim cables Gang I am finding it almost =9Cimpossible=9D to route the CT Q-43 teleflex cables from the Elevator Trim system through the Horizontal Stabilizer spars. Is there a secret I must know about this? Any hints are welcome Regards Carlos href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c href= http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/N avigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Routing the Elevator Trim cables
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Date: Dec 02, 2012
I think others mentioned this, but I used a piece of Tygon tubing with an ID larger than the threaded end of the cable. I routed this backwards from th e rear spar of the HS forward. Then routed the cable fore-aft into this tub e. Then slowly pushed the cable and pulled the tube aft until the cable com es out. Literally takes less than 1 minute. -Mike Kraus RV-4 sold :-( RV-10 flying :-) Sent from my iPhone On Dec 1, 2012, at 7:22 PM, "Carlos Trigo" wrote: > Gang > > I am finding it almost =9Cimpossible=9D to route the CT Q-43 t eleflex cables from the Elevator Trim system through the Horizontal Stabiliz er spars. > Is there a secret I must know about this? > Any hints are welcome > > Regards > Carlos > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Adel Clamps
Date: Dec 02, 2012
In an effort to eliminate all remaining zip ties I intend to order addition al Adel clamps. Does anyone now the most appropriate sizes for clamps to fi t the RV-10 engine mount? http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/ms21919clamps.php?clickkey= 5220 Thanks, Robin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Adel Clamps
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Dec 02, 2012
I'm in the hangar working on finishing the fwf. A wdg-12 is the one you pro bably want for the smaller bars. The I tried a wdg-16 on the larger bars, b ut it appears to be one size too big. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 2, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Robin Marks wrote: In an effort to eliminate all remaining zip ties I intend to order additiona l Adel clamps. Does anyone now the most appropriate sizes for clamps to fit t he RV-10 engine mount? http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/ms21919clamps.php?clickkey=5 220 Thanks, Robin ========================== ======== ========================== ======== ========================== ======== ========================== ======== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2012
Subject: Re: Upper Fwd Fuselage Sec 31
From: Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com>
Ron, I finally got around to looking again, and you are right. Thx, Rick On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Ron B. wrote: > > I do believe that 31Q was for the optional throttle quadrant mount.If you > look at pn/F-1083 on page 31-9 you'll see that it's mounted different. I > don't remember but it might also be a different part (I'm only looking at > plan 31 as I don't have 31Q in front of me. > Ron > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389672#389672 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Adel Clamps
From: "hotwheels" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 03, 2012
Lots of -12s on the smaller tubes and -14s on the larger ones... I always seem to run out of -12s. Cheers, Jay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389741#389741 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2012
Subject: Re: RV10-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 12/02/12
From: Fred Williams <drfred1960(at)gmail.com>
Wdg 12 is correct for the engine mount bars. Order at least a dozen. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Judge <bjudge(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2012
Subject: Delayed tail cone attaching?
Greetings, I'm figuring out space for building an RV-10, translation is that my wife and I are passively shopping for a house. I'm wondering if you can delay attaching the tail cone until after you've completed the firewall forward, interior, windows, doors and just about everything else that takes forever to finish? Seems like you'd be able to build the RV-10 in a much smaller place if you didn't have to attach the tail cone until much later, like at the airport. Anyway, I'd love to hear some opinions on this. Thanks, Bill Judge N84WJ, RV-8, 843 hrs http://rv-8.blogspot.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 04, 2012
Subject: Re: Delayed tail cone attaching?
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
I don't think that would be a problem. The only issue that I can think of would be at the baggage bulkhead. I think you'd have to wait to do that until the tailcone is attached. On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Bill Judge wrote: > Seems like you'd be able to build the RV-10 in a much smaller place if you > didn't have to attach the tail cone until much later, like at the airport. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 04, 2012
Subject: Re: Delayed tail cone attaching?
From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com>
Longerons are integral to FWF and fuselage. John 40600 On Dec 4, 2012 3:02 PM, "Bill Judge" wrote: > Greetings, > I'm figuring out space for building an RV-10, translation is that my wife > and I are passively shopping for a house. > > I'm wondering if you can delay attaching the tail cone until after you've > completed the firewall forward, interior, windows, doors and just about > everything else that takes forever to finish? > > Seems like you'd be able to build the RV-10 in a much smaller place if you > didn't have to attach the tail cone until much later, like at the airport. > > Anyway, I'd love to hear some opinions on this. > > Thanks, > > Bill Judge > N84WJ, RV-8, 843 hrs > http://rv-8.blogspot.com/ > > * > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Delayed tail cone attaching?
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2012
You really need the tailbone attached to be able to do doors and other thing s. You could possibly attach the rear windows to the cabin top, but that's n ot a big job. The cabin top installation requires the tailbone to be attache d. On the firewall forward, you would really want the upper forward fuselage at a minimum, and I may worry about things being deformed in the back if I did n't have the tailcone on, as John mentioned. I have replaced a tailcone on a finished plane before, so it isn't physically impossible, but the tailcone h ad originally been on when the rest had been done. In short, it can probably be done, but it would introduce more risks than I w ould want. At the very least I would want to Cleco the tailcone on and insta ll the cabin top permanently before going to the fwf, and that would be abso lutely necessary, IMHO, before doing the doors. 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 Dec 4, 2012, at 6:09 PM, John Cox wrote: > Longerons are integral to FWF and fuselage. > > John 40600 > > On Dec 4, 2012 3:02 PM, "Bill Judge" wrote: >> Greetings, >> I'm figuring out space for building an RV-10, translation is that my wife and I are passively shopping for a house. >> >> I'm wondering if you can delay attaching the tail cone until after you've completed the firewall forward, interior, windows, doors and just about eve rything else that takes forever to finish? >> >> Seems like you'd be able to build the RV-10 in a much smaller place if yo u didn't have to attach the tail cone until much later, like at the airport. >> >> Anyway, I'd love to hear some opinions on this. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bill Judge >> N84WJ, RV-8, 843 hrs >> http://rv-8.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> >> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com >> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com >> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Delayed tail cone attaching?
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2012
I built 90% of my project in one half of a two car garage. You'll want to a ttach the tail cone, but you'll can leave the horizontal and vertical off un til the airport. The biggest issue is where to store the empennage parts w hile building the wings. I hung mine from the ceiling, but I have 14' ceil ings in the garage. I couldn't put on the engine mount on in my garage due to other things in the garage, but if your two car is empty, it shouldn't b e an issue. The fuselage and wings will take about the same amount of space. You won't be able to complete many tasks without the tail cone riveted to th e fuselage. Leaving it off wouldn't be my recommendation. Bob > On Dec 4, 2012 3:02 PM, "Bill Judge" wrote: >> Greetings, >> I'm figuring out space for building an RV-10, translation is that my wife and I are passively shopping for a house. >> >> I'm wondering if you can delay attaching the tail cone until after you've completed the firewall forward, interior, windows, doors and just about eve rything else that takes forever to finish? >> >> Seems like you'd be able to build the RV-10 in a much smaller place if yo u didn't have to attach the tail cone until much later, like at the airport. >> >> Anyway, I'd love to hear some opinions on this. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bill Judge >> N84WJ, RV-8, 843 hrs >> http://rv-8.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> >> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com >> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com >> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Judge <bjudge(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2012
Subject: Re: Delayed tail cone attaching?
Thanks for the advice. So, if you were length constrained, it sounds like the best you could do would be to cleco the tailcone on, fit the cabin top, finish the doors and interior then pull the tail cone off to do the fire wall forward work. In that case all you're saving is the length from the firewall to the spinner, bottom line is that you need 20 feet at least. Wing and empannage storage isn't a problem, I've got a hangar for that, I just know that the longer you stay at the house the faster you get done. VR, Bill On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:01 AM, RV10-List Digest Server < rv10-list(at)matronics.com> wrote: > * > > ================================================= > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > ================================================= > > Today's complete RV10-List Digest can also be found in either of the > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the RV10-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML Version: > > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 12-12-04&Archive=RV10 > > Text Version: > > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 12-12-04&Archive=RV10 > > > =============================================== > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive > =============================================== > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > RV10-List Digest Archive > --- > Total Messages Posted Tue 12/04/12: 5 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Today's Message Index: > ---------------------- > > 1. 02:58 PM - Delayed tail cone attaching? (Bill Judge) > 2. 03:09 PM - Re: Delayed tail cone attaching? (Phillip Perry) > 3. 03:09 PM - Re: Delayed tail cone attaching? (John Cox) > 4. 03:57 PM - Re: Delayed tail cone attaching? (Jesse Saint) > 5. 06:10 PM - Re: Delayed tail cone attaching? (Bob Leffler) > > > ________________________________ Message 1 > _____________________________________ > > > From: Bill Judge <bjudge(at)gmail.com> > Subject: RV10-List: Delayed tail cone attaching? > > Greetings, > I'm figuring out space for building an RV-10, translation is that my wife > and I are passively shopping for a house. > > I'm wondering if you can delay attaching the tail cone until after you've > completed the firewall forward, interior, windows, doors and just about > everything else that takes forever to finish? > > Seems like you'd be able to build the RV-10 in a much smaller place if you > didn't have to attach the tail cone until much later, like at the airport. > > Anyway, I'd love to hear some opinions on this. > > Thanks, > > Bill Judge > N84WJ, RV-8, 843 hrs > http://rv-8.blogspot.com/ > > ________________________________ Message 2 > _____________________________________ > > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Delayed tail cone attaching? > From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> > > I don't think that would be a problem. The only issue that I can think of > would be at the baggage bulkhead. I think you'd have to wait to do that > until the tailcone is attached. > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Bill Judge wrote: > > > Seems like you'd be able to build the RV-10 in a much smaller place if > you > > didn't have to attach the tail cone until much later, like at the > airport. > > > > ________________________________ Message 3 > _____________________________________ > > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Delayed tail cone attaching? > From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com> > > Longerons are integral to FWF and fuselage. > > John 40600 > On Dec 4, 2012 3:02 PM, "Bill Judge" wrote: > > > Greetings, > > I'm figuring out space for building an RV-10, translation is that my wife > > and I are passively shopping for a house. > > > > I'm wondering if you can delay attaching the tail cone until after you've > > completed the firewall forward, interior, windows, doors and just about > > everything else that takes forever to finish? > > > > Seems like you'd be able to build the RV-10 in a much smaller place if > you > > didn't have to attach the tail cone until much later, like at the > airport. > > > > Anyway, I'd love to hear some opinions on this. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill Judge > > N84WJ, RV-8, 843 hrs > > http://rv-8.blogspot.com/ > > > > * > > > > * > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 4 > _____________________________________ > > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Delayed tail cone attaching? > From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> > > You really need the tailbone attached to be able to do doors and other > thing > s. You could possibly attach the rear windows to the cabin top, but that's > n > ot a big job. The cabin top installation requires the tailbone to be > attache > d. > > On the firewall forward, you would really want the upper forward fuselage > at > a minimum, and I may worry about things being deformed in the back if I > did > n't have the tailcone on, as John mentioned. I have replaced a tailcone on > a > finished plane before, so it isn't physically impossible, but the > tailcone h > ad originally been on when the rest had been done. > > In short, it can probably be done, but it would introduce more risks than > I w > ould want. At the very least I would want to Cleco the tailcone on and > insta > ll the cabin top permanently before going to the fwf, and that would be > abso > lutely necessary, IMHO, before doing the doors. > > 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 Dec 4, 2012, at 6:09 PM, John Cox wrote: > > > Longerons are integral to FWF and fuselage. > > > > John 40600 > > > > On Dec 4, 2012 3:02 PM, "Bill Judge" wrote: > >> Greetings, > >> I'm figuring out space for building an RV-10, translation is that my > wife > and I are passively shopping for a house. > >> > >> I'm wondering if you can delay attaching the tail cone until after > you've > completed the firewall forward, interior, windows, doors and just about > eve > rything else that takes forever to finish? > >> > >> Seems like you'd be able to build the RV-10 in a much smaller place if > yo > u didn't have to attach the tail cone until much later, like at the > airport. > > >> > >> Anyway, I'd love to hear some opinions on this. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Bill Judge > >> N84WJ, RV-8, 843 hrs > >> http://rv-8.blogspot.com/ > >> > >> > >> > >> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com > >> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com > >> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com > >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > >> tp://forums.matronics.com > >> > > > > > > > ========================= > ======== > ========================= > ======== > ========================= > ======== > ========================= > ======== > > > > ________________________________ Message 5 > _____________________________________ > > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Delayed tail cone attaching? > From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> > > > I built 90% of my project in one half of a two car garage. You'll want > to a > ttach the tail cone, but you'll can leave the horizontal and vertical off > un > til the airport. The biggest issue is where to store the empennage parts > w > hile building the wings. I hung mine from the ceiling, but I have 14' > ceil > ings in the garage. I couldn't put on the engine mount on in my garage > due > to other things in the garage, but if your two car is empty, it shouldn't > b > e an issue. > > The fuselage and wings will take about the same amount of space. > > You won't be able to complete many tasks without the tail cone riveted to > th > e fuselage. Leaving it off wouldn't be my recommendation. > > Bob > > > > On Dec 4, 2012 3:02 PM, "Bill Judge" wrote: > >> Greetings, > >> I'm figuring out space for building an RV-10, translation is that my > wife > and I are passively shopping for a house. > >> > >> I'm wondering if you can delay attaching the tail cone until after > you've > completed the firewall forward, interior, windows, doors and just about > eve > rything else that takes forever to finish? > >> > >> Seems like you'd be able to build the RV-10 in a much smaller place if > yo > u didn't have to attach the tail cone until much later, like at the > airport. > > >> > >> Anyway, I'd love to hear some opinions on this. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Bill Judge > >> N84WJ, RV-8, 843 hrs > >> http://rv-8.blogspot.com/ > >> > >> > >> > >> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com > >> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com > >> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com > >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > >> tp://forums.matronics.com > >> > > > > > > > ========================= > ======== > ========================= > ======== > ========================= > ======== > ========================= > ======== > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Delayed tail cone attaching?
From: "Phil White" <philwhite9(at)aol.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2012
Bill: I built my -10 in one half a modest 2 car garage, attached tail cone, and hung my Mazda engine (which with PSRU, is 6" longer than stock to prop flange), and I could close the garage door with 1/2" to spare. Not easy to pull out and re-park, but I did it several times, with jockeying. Also built a cradle that stored both wings leading edge down plus the horiz stab between, and it fit beside the fuse. All this to maintain marital peace by allowing wife's car to be in out of Chicago winters for several years. Better by far to build at home than drive to a hangar. Those late nite work session from 10:30 to 11:30 were very productive. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389902#389902 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2012
Subject: Glideslope Antennas
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
I haven't seen much discussion about the location for glideslope antennas and I'm going to need to make that decision sometime soon. What seems to be the standard choice for antenna type and placement? Also what type of results are you seeing? Thanks, Phil #40750 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
From: "Strasnuts" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2012
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comant157p.php and http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/coupler507.php?clickkey=11684 -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389905#389905 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2012
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
That sounds pretty easy. Maybe that's why I never heard any discussion about it. :) On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Strasnuts wrote: > > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comant157p.php > > and > > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/coupler507.php?clickkey=11684 > > -------- > 40936 > RV-10 SB N801VR Flying > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389905#389905 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2012
I used the Bob Archer VOR wingtip antenna and the splitter mentioned below. Works great. Marcus 40286 On Dec 5, 2012, at 11:43 AM, "Strasnuts" wrote: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comant157p.php and http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/coupler507.php?clickkey=11684 -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389905#389905 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Dec 05, 2012
As you are seeing, although it is possible to have a separate GS antenna (ever been in a Cessna with the bow tie antenna on the windscreen?) most people are using a VOR antenna with a splitter. If you have an SL30 it isn't even an option - it has a splitter built in for the GS, and the only input is for a VOR antenna. I too use the Archer wingtip antenna, and it works great. It may have a directionally-dependent slightly reduced range for VORs, but I have heard no complaints about it when used for the localizer or GS. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389913#389913 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Seano" <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
Date: Dec 05, 2012
There will be a bunch of combinations and personal opinions but just for reference I installed the Bob Archer in my wingtip for Nav 2 (SL30). My 430W is my NAV1 with the CI-157P on the vertical stab and it uses the diplexer. At 7000 feet I was averaging around 30-40 miles better reception on the cat whiskers than the Bob Archer. ----- Original Message ----- From: Phillip Perry To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:48 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Glideslope Antennas That sounds pretty easy. Maybe that's why I never heard any discussion about it. :) On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Strasnuts wrote: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comant157p.php and http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/coupler507.php?clickkey=1 1684 -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389905#389905 ========== ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution le, List Admin. ========== arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========== http://forums.matronics.com ========== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Dec 05, 2012
As the above post mentions, you will hear varying opinions on the Archer antenna. I think this is because it is somewhat installation dependent. However, I have not yet heard any negative comments about localizer or GS reception. My data point: I did not follow Archer's instructions to the letter. From 7000' I routinely receive useable VOR signals (SL30) from 80 miles away - essentially line of sight to the horizon - except when the VOR is 90 degrees to the right, and the antenna has to "look" thru the fuselage. Then range is perhaps 40 miles. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389919#389919 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
Date: Dec 05, 2012
Me too. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:00 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Glideslope Antennas I used the Bob Archer VOR wingtip antenna and the splitter mentioned below. Works great. Marcus 40286 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2012
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
From: Ed Kranz <ed.kranz(at)gmail.com>
This might be a stupid question, but if you are using a wingtip Bob Archer antenna for GS/LOC, would your position be offset by the 15' or so that the antenna is out from the centerline of the plane? Is this something that you can compensate for in the NAV radio? On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Robin Marks wrote: > > Me too. > > Robin > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:00 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Glideslope Antennas > > > I used the Bob Archer VOR wingtip antenna and the splitter mentioned > below. Works great. > > Marcus > 40286 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2012
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
No worries, Ed, all you do is fly 15' over to the left or right a little. :) You go try flying the approach to 15' lateral accuracy and let me know when you've got it perfected. :) (sorry, couldn't resist...especially since it was you) Tim No not archive, no way, no how. On 12/5/2012 1:38 PM, Ed Kranz wrote: > This might be a stupid question, but if you are using a wingtip Bob > Archer antenna for GS/LOC, would your position be offset by the 15' or > so that the antenna is out from the centerline of the plane? > > Is this something that you can compensate for in the NAV radio? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: New AntiSplat Prop Wrench For Sale
I received an AntiSplatAero 3/4 inch prop wrench (http://antisplataero.com/Prop_Wrench.html) as a gift and I already had one, so I'll sell an unused brand spankin' new one to the first lucky stiff that emails me off-list. $60 shipped to any of the lower 48. $69.99 + $5 shipping on their website, so this is $14.99 off if you were planning on getting one. -Sean #40303 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
Date: Dec 05, 2012
I have an Archer style antenna (we mad ours) in both wing tips so I can flip between the two to get perfectly centered. :-). I just got my 200 Hp IO-360 to run LOP and got 152 KTAS at 5.8 GPH with a little tail wind I was getting 32 MPG. Yahoo! Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:48 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Glideslope Antennas No worries, Ed, all you do is fly 15' over to the left or right a little. :) You go try flying the approach to 15' lateral accuracy and let me know when you've got it perfected. :) (sorry, couldn't resist...especially since it was you) Tim No not archive, no way, no how. On 12/5/2012 1:38 PM, Ed Kranz wrote: > This might be a stupid question, but if you are using a wingtip Bob > Archer antenna for GS/LOC, would your position be offset by the 15' or > so that the antenna is out from the centerline of the plane? > > Is this something that you can compensate for in the NAV radio? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Dec 05, 2012
Ed is correct. I put the antenna in the left wing tip so I am 15' to the right of the approach lights, making them easier to see out my (left) window!! -:) -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389926#389926 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New AntiSplat Prop Wrench For Sale
From: pilotdds <pilotdds(at)aol.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2012
i will take it if avaliable let me know how to pay -----Original Message----- From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 5, 2012 12:07 pm Subject: RV10-List: New AntiSplat Prop Wrench For Sale I received an AntiSplatAero 3/4 inch prop wrench (http://antisplataero.com/Prop_Wrench.html) as a gift and I already had one, so I'll sell an unused brand spankin' new one to the first lucky stiff that emails me off-list. $60 shipped to any of the lower 48. $69.99 + $5 shipping on their website, so this is $14.99 off if you were planning on getting one. -Sean #40303 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: New AntiSplat Prop Wrench For Sale
Date: Dec 06, 2012
HI Sean, I'll take it if you will send it to Australia. US Post International express postage works well for me and I can send you The money via Paypal. Cheers John MacCallum VH-DUU RV 10 # 41016 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Stephens Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2012 7:06 AM Subject: RV10-List: New AntiSplat Prop Wrench For Sale I received an AntiSplatAero 3/4 inch prop wrench (http://antisplataero.com/Prop_Wrench.html) as a gift and I already had one, so I'll sell an unused brand spankin' new one to the first lucky stiff that emails me off-list. $60 shipped to any of the lower 48. $69.99 + $5 shipping on their website, so this is $14.99 off if you were planning on getting one. -Sean #40303 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2012
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
From: Ed Kranz <ed.kranz(at)gmail.com>
Good point, Tim. I had a hard enough time keeping your plane in the HITS boxes! On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > No worries, Ed, all you do is fly 15' over to the left or right > a little. :) You go try flying the approach to 15' lateral > accuracy and let me know when you've got it perfected. :) > (sorry, couldn't resist...especially since it was you) > > Tim > No not archive, no way, no how. > > > On 12/5/2012 1:38 PM, Ed Kranz wrote: > >> This might be a stupid question, but if you are using a wingtip Bob >> Archer antenna for GS/LOC, would your position be offset by the 15' or >> so that the antenna is out from the centerline of the plane? >> >> Is this something that you can compensate for in the NAV radio? >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com>
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
Date: Dec 05, 2012
I used the Comant that others have noted and it is mounted under the horizontal stab on the bottom of the tailcone. I have a splitter installed so that I can use it for the VOR/ILS/GS on both my SL-30 and my 430W. Works great. I can receive vor's on the SL-30 at 90 to 100 nm and usually about 60 nm on the 430W. ILS and GS reception is excellent on both. David Maib 40559 Flying 600 hours. On Dec 5, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: I haven't seen much discussion about the location for glideslope antennas and I'm going to need to make that decision sometime soon. What seems to be the standard choice for antenna type and placement? Also what type of results are you seeing? Thanks, Phil #40750 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 05, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: New AntiSplat Prop Wrench For Sale
The prop wrench has been sold. -Sean On 12/5/12 2:05 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > I received an AntiSplatAero 3/4 inch prop wrench > (http://antisplataero.com/Prop_Wrench.html) as a gift and I already > had one, so I'll sell an unused brand spankin' new one to the first > lucky stiff that emails me off-list. > > $60 shipped to any of the lower 48. $69.99 + $5 shipping on their > website, so this is $14.99 off if you were planning on getting one. > > -Sean #40303 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Localized antenna offset
From: Paul Hahn <eagerlee(at)comcast.net>
Date: Dec 06, 2012
I make it a point to land on runways that are at least 15' wide so that if I break out of the clouds at 200' agl I can sidestep to the center without mu ch trouble This might be a stupid question, but if you are using a wingtip Bob Archer > antenna for GS/LOC, would your position be offset by the 15' or so that th e > antenna is out from the centerline of the plane? > > Is this something that you can compensate for in the NAV radio? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2012
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 12/05/2012 03:10 PM, Robin Marks wrote: > I have an Archer style antenna (we mad ours) in both wing tips so I can flip between the two to get perfectly centered. :-). Hi Robin, Where did you find the plans to make the wingtip NAV antenna? I am very interested in doing the same. Thanks, -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Archer type wingtip antennas
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Dec 06, 2012
The post of "Glide slope antenna" has drifted to this topic, so I am starting a new thread: I have Archer type antennas for both VOR/Loc/GS and #2 com, and in general am satisfied. I think this is due to: 1. Luck 2. I have low standards, or 3. I did not follow the directions exactly. In case it is #3, I thought I'd post what I did. I think the instructions were written for installation in a -7, where the smaller tip required that the antenna be close to the lights. The -10's tip is big enough that this can be avoided. I mounted my antennas at least 8" aft of the lights, aluminum foil heat shield, etc. I did NOT run the wiring for the lights along the antenna. Instead, I kept it inside the metal wing, ran it as far forward as I could, then thru the end wing rib directly to the lights. The VOR antenna is on the bottom of the wing tip, with the ground leg riveted under the wingtip attach platenuts. For the com antenna, I mounted the antenna so the leg where the feed line attaches - where most of the current flows - was at the thickest part of the wing. I riveted the ground side to the top of the tip, then bent the leg with the feed line down as much as I could, until the long arm of the antenna was against the bottom of the wing tip (where I hold it in place with a little fiberglass). This gives the maximum amount possible of vertical polarization. To be clear, the wingtip antenna is NOT as good as the vertical whip under the plane. But it works for me as #2. At 20 miles out tower described it as "5x4" (readability-strength) while the external whip was "5x5". As to the question of building your own: I won't post the exact Archer dimensions since I think it is copyrighted. But you can look up the general idea at the library, find a copy of the ARRL (Amateur Radio Relay League) book and look under "gamma match". Generally speaking you will need some equipment, like an SWR meter, to tune the antenna. If you decide to reverse engineer an Archer, note that the size, especially the thickness, of the built-in parallel plate capacitor, is important, as is getting the same dielectric constant for the material he uses (looks like Bakelite) between the plates. For the com, shorten the antenna by about 10% compared to the VOR antenna to account for the 10% higher frequencies. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389972#389972 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Dec 06, 2012
Due to thread drift I have started a new topic, "Archer antennas". Bob -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389973#389973 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2012
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
Turns out page 13-16 (Chapter 13, page 16) of the Aeroelectric Connection has an excellent diagram: https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/pub/pub.html -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Glideslope Antennas
Date: Dec 06, 2012
Ha! good for you. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:17 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Glideslope Antennas Turns out page 13-16 (Chapter 13, page 16) of the Aeroelectric Connection has an excellent diagram: https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/pub/pub.html -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Archer type wingtip antennas
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Dec 06, 2012
Bill, I understand. I think my #2 is good enough that if I had to use it it would not be an emergency, and I would complete the leg or flight. I would expect to hear ATC okay, while my transmissions might be weak. As to continuing on, I personally won't launch IFR unless everything in the panel is working, so that is not an issue for me. I like having one less thing under the plane which can poke my eye out. Also, I have had times on the ground when the tower could not hear me with the belly whip. Wingtip antenna always worked when that happened. Bob -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=389979#389979 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 07, 2012
From: millstees(at)ameritech.net
Subject: hi
http://megabiznews.com/friends/friends.links.php?xuk&ean&zmdx ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Delayed tail cone attaching?
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 07, 2012
Follow the plans. There are many structural reasons why aircraft are assembled in a certain order. You'll need a minimum of 23' X23' inside garage wall dimensions without a center support post to have room to work with engine/prop on and HS/VS off. I spent the last 100 hrs with final assembly at the airport. Good luck with the house search and -10 build. If you can find a house with the electrical panel in the garage...all the better. Nice for air compressor, heating or a/c and lighting. -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390031#390031 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Grass runway operation
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Dec 07, 2012
Hi, For those who are flying in and out of grass runways could you please share ground roll for T/O and landing distance at gross weight. Vans states on there website 500ft/650ft but I guess that's on paved runways. Has anyone experience how terra grid (50% coverage) of grass runway influences T/O distance. Thanks Michael -------- RV-10 builder (interior & finishing) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390034#390034 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grass runway operation
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 07, 2012
While I don't know the answer to your question, I suspect it is not significantly different given the impressive T/O performance (landing should be the same or better since we don't brake too hard). The biggest consideration operating on grass is the close tolerance between wheel pant and wheel, you might want to do a search of the archives if nobody has any direct comments. Marcus 40286 On Dec 7, 2012, at 4:28 PM, "Mike Whisky" wrote: Hi, For those who are flying in and out of grass runways could you please share ground roll for T/O and landing distance at gross weight. Vans states on there website 500ft/650ft but I guess that's on paved runways. Has anyone experience how terra grid (50% coverage) of grass runway influences T/O distance. Thanks Michael -------- RV-10 builder (interior & finishing) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390034#390034 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Grass runway operation
Date: Dec 07, 2012
Landing on grass is not always same or better. Grass can hold moisture and power braking NOT suggested. Vans posted landing distance includes liberal use of brakes. Robin Marcus Cooper wrote: While I don't know the answer to your question, I suspect it is not significantly different given the impressive T/O performance (landing should be the same or better since we don't brake too hard). The biggest consideration operating on grass is the close tolerance between wheel pant and wheel, you might want to do a search of the archives if nobody has any direct comments. Marcus 40286 On Dec 7, 2012, at 4:28 PM, "Mike Whisky" wrote: Hi, For those who are flying in and out of grass runways could you please share ground roll for T/O and landing distance at gross weight. Vans states on there website 500ft/650ft but I guess that's on paved runways. Has anyone experience how terra grid (50% coverage) of grass runway influences T/O distance. Thanks Michael -------- RV-10 builder (interior & finishing) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390034#390034 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grass runway operation
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Date: Dec 07, 2012
I fly off of grass almost exclusively. While I have never measured actual take off distance at max gross, I can tell you it is significantly reduced when you take off with half flaps. -Mike Kraus RV-10 flying >100 hours Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2012, at 4:28 PM, "Mike Whisky" wrote: > > Hi, > For those who are flying in and out of grass runways could you please share ground roll for T/O and landing distance at gross weight. > Vans states on there website 500ft/650ft but I guess that's on paved runways. > > Has anyone experience how terra grid (50% coverage) of grass runway influences T/O distance. > > Thanks > Michael > > -------- > RV-10 builder (interior & finishing) > #511 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390034#390034 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grass runway operation
From: "Ron B." <ronbelliveau(at)eastlink.ca>
Date: Dec 07, 2012
My strip is 2200' and I'm off in less than half at gross. If it's soft and wet I will use half. Ron Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390040#390040 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grass runway operation
From: Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Dec 07, 2012
Ron, what is your elevation? Thanks Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2012, at 16:30, "Ron B." wrote: > > My strip is 2200' and I'm off in less than half at gross. If it's soft and wet I will use half. > Ron > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390040#390040 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grass runway operation
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 07, 2012
The only time I get off on pavement in 500' is solo, full fuel and below 50F at 663' MSL. At gross with the family and 3* flap setting during the hot humid summer we are off around 2,000'. Winter maybe 1,000'. On wet, soggy grass at Triple Tree, SC this summer departing uphill rwy 3, at gross with 18* flaps we were off in 2,000. I usually land at 4* glideslope, 70 kias at gross, touchdown 100-200' past the numbers, don't touch the brakes, roll out 2,000' before turning off at midfield. I raise the nose and let it fly off when it is ready, usually about 65 kts at gross. I hardly use brakes on any landing, even if I have to taxi 500' farther back to the ramp. -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390051#390051 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grass runway operation
From: "Ron B." <ronbelliveau(at)eastlink.ca>
Date: Dec 08, 2012
Sean, I'm at 100'. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390081#390081 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 10, 2012
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 2012 List of Contributors
Dear Listers, The 2012 Matronics Email List and Forum Fund Raiser officially ended about a week ago and its time that I publish this year's List of Contributors. It is the people on this list that directly make the Email Lists and Forums possible! Their generous Contributions keep the servers and Internet connection up and running! You can still show your support this year and pick up a great gift at the same time. The Contribution Web Site is fast, easy, and secure: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 I also want to thank Bob, Jon, and Andy for their generous support through the supply of great gifts this year!! These guys have some excellent products and I encourage you to visit their respective web sites: Bob Nucklolls - AeroElectric - http://www.aeroelectric.com Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - http://www.homebuilthelp.com Andy Gold - The Builder's Bookstore - http://www.buildersbooks.com And finally, I'm proud to present The 2012 Fund Raiser List of Contributors: http://www.matronics.com/loc/2012.html Thanks again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: PCU5000-X
Date: Dec 10, 2012
For those of you with the PCU5000-X and the YIO-540-D4A5, who routed cables per the vans FF instructions, what counter lever rotation and what clocking angle did you specify (if you got it right)? Jeff Carpenter 40304 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: PCU5000-X
Date: Dec 10, 2012
I=99ll look tomorrow and take a picture. Pascal From: Jeff Carpenter Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:16 PM Subject: RV10-List: PCU5000-X For those of you with the PCU5000-X and the YIO-540-D4A5, who routed cables per the vans FF instructions, what counter lever rotation and what clocking angle did you specify (if you got it right)? Jeff Carpenter 40304 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: PCU5000-X
Date: Dec 10, 2012
I found a photo taken during baffle fabrication (I made mine as I'm using a plenum). Don't know how much different, if any this will be if you use the Van's baffle kit. Please look beyond the temporary hardware in the photo. The listed Van's mixture and governor cables were the correct length (I am not using a quadrant), but the Van's recommended throttle cable was too short. I got the 50.5" throttle cable that Van's list for the RV-7 and it worked fine. Carl RV-10 (60 hours) RV-8A (700 hours) From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:17 PM Subject: RV10-List: PCU5000-X For those of you with the PCU5000-X and the YIO-540-D4A5, who routed cables per the vans FF instructions, what counter lever rotation and what clocking angle did you specify (if you got it right)? Jeff Carpenter 40304 D======================== ========= D======================== ========= D======================== ========= D======================== ========= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 10, 2012
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: PCU5000-X
For those that chose the PCU5000, do you feel it is worth the extra several hundred over an MT or Hartzell governor? I'm finding so far that I can get the MT prop with MT governor as a package at significantly better price than if I have by PCU5000 separate from the prop. What features do you consider significantly better with the PCU5000? Kelly On 12/10/2012 7:51 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > > I found a photo taken during baffle fabrication (I made mine as Im > using a plenum). Dont know how much different, if any this will be if > you use the Vans baffle kit. Please look beyond the temporary > hardware in the photo. > > The listed Vans mixture and governor cables were the correct length > (I am not using a quadrant), but the Vans recommended throttle cable > was too short. I got the 50.5 throttle cable that Vans list for the > RV-7 and it worked fine. > > Carl > > RV-10 (60 hours) > > RV-8A (700 hours) > > *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jeff > Carpenter > *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2012 9:17 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RV10-List: PCU5000-X > > For those of you with the PCU5000-X and the YIO-540-D4A5, who routed > cables per the vans FF instructions, what counter lever rotation and > what clocking angle did you specify (if you got it right)? > > Jeff Carpenter > > 40304 > > * * > * * > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > *www.aeroelectric.com* > *www.buildersbooks.com* > *www.homebuilthelp.com* > ** > ** > ** > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > *http://forums.matronics.com* > ** > ** > * * ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PCU5000-X
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 11, 2012
I noticed that nut in the pic and had to go back and reread. I have the Hartzell 2 blade BA with the MT gov from Van's and all is well after 95.2 hours. -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390286#390286 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carroll L. Verhage" <cv93436(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Landing Gear Vibration
Date: Dec 11, 2012
Landing gear vibration is caused by the main gear not tracking parallel to the axis of the aircraft. Mine tracked 4 and 1/2 inches toed in on the R and 1 and 1/2 inches on the L for 13 feet of travel. The tires had to slip side ways 50 feet for every 1300 teet of run way travel!! the R tire was noticably more worn than the L. You can check this by sighting along the brake disc and marking a point in front of the plane in line with the disc. Chalk lines on the floor parallel to the axis of the plane. Correct the alignment by oblonging the holes in the gear mounting bracket, turning the gear leg in or out and making shims out of a 3/8 inch washer to make the holes round again and replacing the gear bolts. No more vibration! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Landing Gear Vibration
From: Kevin Belue <kdbelue(at)charter.net>
Date: Dec 11, 2012
Which holes are you making oblong? Kevin Belue Sent from my iPhone On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:51 AM, "Carroll L. Verhage" w rote: > Landing gear vibration is caused by the main gear not tracking parallel to the axis of the aircraft. Mine tracked 4 and 1/2 inches toed in on the R an d 1 and 1/2 inches on the L for 13 feet of travel. The tires had to slip si de ways 50 feet for every 1300 teet of run way travel!! the R tire was noti cably more worn than the L. You can check this by sighting along the brake d isc and marking a point in front of the plane in line with the disc. Chalk l ines on the floor parallel to the axis of the plane. Correct the alignment b y oblonging the holes in the gear mounting bracket, turning the gear leg in o r out and making shims out of a 3/8 inch washer to make the holes round agai n and replacing the gear bolts. No more vibration! > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: PCU5000-X
Date: Dec 11, 2012
I bought the PCU5000-X for the RV-8A several years ago. At the time many RV builders were reporting surge/hunting problems with the then Van's recommend MT governor, and very positive reports were being circulated on the PCU unit. There was a group buy on VAF for the PCU5000-X so I went that route. Final cost to me was a few dollars below Van's listed price for the MT unit. My very positive experience with the PCU unit on the RV-8A drove the decision to use it on the RV-10. Luck was with me as there was another group buy going on VAF so again I got it for a few dollars below the Van's list price for the Hartzell and MT units. I read that MT has taken action to address the earlier performance issues, but I cannot go beyond my very limited study. For that matter all my information on the MT unit is second hand so consider it in that light. Perhaps you can organize another PCU5000-X group buy. Everyone RV builder planning on a CS prop should have an interest. Carl On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > For those that chose the PCU5000, do you feel it is worth the extra several hundred over an MT or Hartzell governor? I'm finding so far that I can get the MT prop with MT governor as a package at significantly better price than if I have by PCU5000 separate from the prop. > What features do you consider significantly better with the PCU5000? > Kelly > On 12/10/2012 7:51 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: >> >> I found a photo taken during baffle fabrication (I made mine as Im using a plenum). Dont know how much different, if any this will be if you use the Vans baffle kit. Please look beyond the temporary hardware in the photo. >> >> The listed Vans mixture and governor cables were the correct length (I am not using a quadrant), but the Vans recommended throttle cable was too short. I got the 50.5 throttle cable that Vans list for the RV-7 and it worked fine. >> >> Carl >> >> RV-10 (60 hours) >> >> RV-8A (700 hours) >> >> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Carpenter >> *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2012 9:17 PM >> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> *Subject:* RV10-List: PCU5000-X >> >> For those of you with the PCU5000-X and the YIO-540-D4A5, who routed cables per the vans FF instructions, what counter lever rotation and what clocking angle did you specify (if you got it right)? >> >> Jeff Carpenter >> >> 40304 >> >> * * >> * * >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> *www.aeroelectric.com* >> *www.buildersbooks.com* >> *www.homebuilthelp.com* >> ** >> ** >> ** >> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> *http://forums.matronics.com* >> ** >> ** >> * * > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: PCU5000-X
Date: Dec 11, 2012
Same feedback as Carl. During the time my TC advised going the PCU route versus the MT route. Been working very nicely for me. I do recall I paid about $180 more for my governor however. -----Original Message----- From: Carl Froehlich Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 7:33 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: PCU5000-X I bought the PCU5000-X for the RV-8A several years ago. At the time many RV builders were reporting surge/hunting problems with the then Van's recommend MT governor, and very positive reports were being circulated on the PCU unit. There was a group buy on VAF for the PCU5000-X so I went that route. Final cost to me was a few dollars below Van's listed price for the MT unit. My very positive experience with the PCU unit on the RV-8A drove the decision to use it on the RV-10. Luck was with me as there was another group buy going on VAF so again I got it for a few dollars below the Van's list price for the Hartzell and MT units. I read that MT has taken action to address the earlier performance issues, but I cannot go beyond my very limited study. For that matter all my information on the MT unit is second hand so consider it in that light. Perhaps you can organize another PCU5000-X group buy. Everyone RV builder planning on a CS prop should have an interest. Carl On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > For those that chose the PCU5000, do you feel it is worth the extra > several hundred over an MT or Hartzell governor? I'm finding so far that I > can get the MT prop with MT governor as a package at significantly better > price than if I have by PCU5000 separate from the prop. > What features do you consider significantly better with the PCU5000? > Kelly > On 12/10/2012 7:51 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: >> >> I found a photo taken during baffle fabrication (I made mine as Im using >> a plenum). Dont know how much different, if any this will be if you use >> the Vans baffle kit. Please look beyond the temporary hardware in the >> photo. >> >> The listed Vans mixture and governor cables were the correct length (I >> am not using a quadrant), but the Vans recommended throttle cable was >> too short. I got the 50.5 throttle cable that Vans list for the RV-7 >> and it worked fine. >> >> Carl >> >> RV-10 (60 hours) >> >> RV-8A (700 hours) >> >> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jeff >> Carpenter >> *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2012 9:17 PM >> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> *Subject:* RV10-List: PCU5000-X >> >> For those of you with the PCU5000-X and the YIO-540-D4A5, who routed >> cables per the vans FF instructions, what counter lever rotation and what >> clocking angle did you specify (if you got it right)? >> >> Jeff Carpenter >> >> 40304 >> >> * * >> * * >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> *www.aeroelectric.com* >> *www.buildersbooks.com* >> *www.homebuilthelp.com* >> ** >> ** >> ** >> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> *http://forums.matronics.com* >> ** >> ** >> * * > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grass runway operation
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Dec 11, 2012
Great, thank you all. Now getting to the art of sanding for the paintshop ;.) Mike -------- RV-10 builder (interior & finishing) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390297#390297 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Re: PCU5000-X
Date: Dec 11, 2012
I've spent some time the last couple of days trying to fill out the Specification Sheet to order the PCU5000-X (thus the questions that started this thread), only to find out that it's no longer necessary. They now have a chart at this link PCU5000 Propeller Control Unit Governor by Aero Technologies, Inc. that will get you most of the way to what you want to order. They also have a nice tech named Danny @ 530-221-0923 who's happy to help with any questions you might have. If you have purchased the YIO-540-D4A5 from Vans along with the Hartzell Blended Airfoil HC-C2YR-18FP/F80680/SM8, then you need to buy the P-520-029/A-947 version of the PCU5000-X. The specific clocking is something you will set at installation by removing the safety wire, loosening (but not removing) the six screws, adjusting and resetting the screws to 20 inch/lbs torque and replacing the safety wire. When you've got it all right, Danny suggest marking the ring and the body with a punch so it can be repositioned accurately after an overhaul. Along the way during this adventure, I sent an e-mail to Lycoming. The response is copied below, just because it helped me understand things a bit better and others might find it useful. Jeff Carpenter 40304 Firewall Forward! "Hi Jeff, Geoff has asked me to help with your inquiries. Here are a couple points that should help: The YIO-540-D4A5 is mechanically identical to the certified IO-540-D4A5, so all parts manual and all related service information is the same. For the governor drive on a 6 cylinder Lycoming, the only two option are for the older narrow deck versions, which were made in the =9150s and =9260 and the current Wide Deck ( aka Wide Cylinder Flange). All new new Lycoming 6 cylinders models are =93Wide Deck=94. The governor drive turns clockwise as seen when facing the drive pad ( normal view from the outside of the engine). The drive ratio is .947-1 for all 6 cylinder Wide Deck models. No =91clocking angle=92 is needed for the governor drive itself, this would relate to the position of the control arm. The control arm orientation is , of course, driven by the specifics of the aircraft prop control system. You don=92t mention, but if you are selecting from the governor and prop options offered by Van=92s Aircraft, these details are already addressed in the Van=92s installations kits. As far as prop itself, other than being matched to the engine as far as performance and vibration characteristics (as the Van=92s supplied choices are) the major difference is Standard or Aerobatic. A Standard prop in a single engine aircraft will go to low pitch ( high RPM or take off position) is oil pressure to the prop is lost. This could be due to a governor issue or major oil leak. An Aerobatic prop would be counterweighted to allow the prop to go to high pitch (low RPM) if oil pressure is lost, especially during acro maneuvers. This is to help prevent an engine/prop overspeed during acro. The governor needs to be specific to either Standard or Aerobatic( counterweighted) prop types. I hope this helps, Brian Costello Lycoming Engines Field Service Engineer Seattle WA, USA 360-403-9867" On Dec 10, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: > For those of you with the PCU5000-X and the YIO-540-D4A5, who routed cables per the vans FF instructions, what counter lever rotation and what clocking angle did you specify (if you got it right)? > > Jeff Carpenter > 40304 > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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: PCU5000-X
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Dec 11, 2012
Data point: I have the Hartzel governor, Hartzel prop, XIO-540D4A5. No issues. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390306#390306 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: MT Prop(s)
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Dec 11, 2012
I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different than other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I remember correctly. Any others want to share their thoughts? Jesse Saint 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk(at)mac.com>
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
Date: Dec 11, 2012
I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it. Sent from my iPad On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > > I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different than other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I remember correctly. > > Any others want to share their thoughts? > > Jesse Saint > 352-427- > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > Sent from my iPad > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: MT Prop(s)
Date: Dec 12, 2012
To my knowledge you are the only person that has swapped out different props on the same -10. Just the data point we needed. Wish we had exact numbers but going with BA (~350) FPM and + 5 Knots seems reasonable. I am not sure I would give up the cruise speed for the climb rate personally. Plus I like the cost savings and the easy of lower cowl removal. Thanks Robert. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert Brunkenhoefer Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:10 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s) --> I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it. Sent from my iPad On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > > I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different than other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I remember correctly. > > Any others want to share their thoughts? > > Jesse Saint > 352-427- > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > Sent from my iPad > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan(at)hispeed.ch>
Date: Dec 12, 2012
Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off distance? In theory that should also be better with the MT. Gordon Anderson 41014 Switzerland On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: > > I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > >> >> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different than other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I remember correctly. >> >> Any others want to share their thoughts? >> >> Jesse Saint >> 352-427- >> jesse(at)saintaviation.com >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PCU5000-X
From: Bob-TCW <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2012
I also used the pcu5000 on my -10. It has worked perfectly without any rpm. adjustments. One thing that confused me for a while during installation was the instructions for adjusting the position of the control arm. The loosen the 6 screws and move the outer ring just didn't compute. For the longest time I thought you had to rotate the ring to one of six positions as defined by the screw pattern. What I was missing was that the outer ring was so nicely machined that I didn't realize that with the screws loose, the ring allowed a sliding motion between the body and the control arm. This Allows complete freedom in setting the control arm position Bob N541RV flying Sent from asmy iPhone On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:53 AM, "Pascal" wrote: > > Same feedback as Carl. During the time my TC advised going the PCU route versus the MT route. Been working very nicely for me. I do recall I paid about $180 more for my governor however. > -----Original Message----- From: Carl Froehlich > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 7:33 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: PCU5000-X > > > I bought the PCU5000-X for the RV-8A several years ago. At the time many RV builders were reporting surge/hunting problems with the then Van's recommend MT governor, and very positive reports were being circulated on the PCU unit. There was a group buy on VAF for the PCU5000-X so I went that route. Final cost to me was a few dollars below Van's listed price for the MT unit. > > My very positive experience with the PCU unit on the RV-8A drove the decision to use it on the RV-10. Luck was with me as there was another group buy going on VAF so again I got it for a few dollars below the Van's list price for the Hartzell and MT units. > > I read that MT has taken action to address the earlier performance issues, but I cannot go beyond my very limited study. For that matter all my information on the MT unit is second hand so consider it in that light. > > Perhaps you can organize another PCU5000-X group buy. Everyone RV builder planning on a CS prop should have an interest. > > Carl > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > >> >> For those that chose the PCU5000, do you feel it is worth the extra several hundred over an MT or Hartzell governor? I'm finding so far that I can get the MT prop with MT governor as a package at significantly better price than if I have by PCU5000 separate from the prop. >> What features do you consider significantly better with the PCU5000? >> Kelly >> On 12/10/2012 7:51 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: >>> >>> I found a photo taken during baffle fabrication (I made mine as Im using a plenum). Dont know how much different, if any this will be if you use the Vans baffle kit. Please look beyond the temporary hardware in the photo. >>> >>> The listed Vans mixture and governor cables were the correct length (I am not using a quadrant), but the Vans recommended throttle cable was too short. I got the 50.5 throttle cable that Vans list for the RV-7 and it worked fine. >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> RV-10 (60 hours) >>> >>> RV-8A (700 hours) >>> >>> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Carpenter >>> *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2012 9:17 PM >>> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>> *Subject:* RV10-List: PCU5000-X >>> >>> For those of you with the PCU5000-X and the YIO-540-D4A5, who routed cables per the vans FF instructions, what counter lever rotation and what clocking angle did you specify (if you got it right)? >>> >>> Jeff Carpenter >>> >>> 40304 >>> >>> * * >>> * * >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> *www.aeroelectric.com* >>> *www.buildersbooks.com* >>> *www.homebuilthelp.com* >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> *http://forums.matronics.com* >>> ** >>> ** >>> * * >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
From: Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk(at)mac.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2012
Take off distance at RUIDOSO is slightly longer and rate of climb is noticeably less. Robert SRR 6800ft Sent from my iPad On Dec 12, 2012, at 2:41 AM, Gordon Anderson wrote: > > Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off distance? In theory that should also be better with the MT. > > Gordon Anderson > 41014 Switzerland > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: > >> >> I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: >> >>> >>> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different than other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I remember correctly. >>> >>> Any others want to share their thoughts? >>> >>> Jesse Saint >>> 352-427- >>> jesse(at)saintaviation.com >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carroll L. Verhage" <cv93436(at)windstream.net>
Subject: RV main gear vibration
Date: Dec 12, 2012
Kevin, The holes that need to be oblonged are the holes in the gear mounting bracket (those that were drilled 7.9 mm on the building instructions). You will have to remove the seat(s), the R side panel and the seat mounting bracket. Jack the wheel up untill it is just touching the floor before removing the landing gear bolt. Have some one turn the landing gear leg while You run the drill bit through the landing gear and bracket mounting hole. This will oblong the bracket holes but not the gear leg. Stop twisting the landing gear leg when the wheel is tracking properly. The oblongation will be as little as a few thousandths to pehapes 1/16th inch. Make a shim to make the bracket hole round and replace the bolt. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2012
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
Here's my 3 cents....- A USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced his 2 blade hartzel with a 3 blade MT.- He said climb rate a little bette r, and lost about 3-5 knots-at top speed (not cruise).- That was the- info that convinced me to buy an MT.- I was not concerned with anything b ut being smooth.- I've riden in quite a few 10's and so far none have had as low of vibration levels.- Just lay your hand on the glare shield.- Although I've got some extra hp, I have not had another 10 (7 so far) that was as fast.--With the extra hp and the 3 blade, I can run the rpm all the way down to 2,000 without any problem.... and usually-cruise around 2 ,100.... and at that rpm can consistently run below 10 gph.-=0A=0A=0AFrom : Gordon Anderson =0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com =0ASen t: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:41 AM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop( h>=0A=0AGreat information Robert.- Did you also notice a difference in ta ke-off distance?- In theory that should also be better with the MT.=0A=0A Gordon Anderson=0A41014 Switzerland=0A=0AOn Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Rober enhoefer =0A> =0A> I- switched out my MT for the 2bl aded vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration on throttle b ack. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings and approaches . I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it.=0A> =0A> Sent from my iPad=0A> =0A> On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint =0A>> =0A>> I saw an RV-10 the other day wi th an MT prop that looked different than other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference. The owner claimed t hat this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, whi ch I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners have experienced i n cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side compari son on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what others "thi nk" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with Rob H ickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat bl ades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I re member correctly.=0A>> =0A>> Any others want to share their thoughts?=0A>> =0A>> Jesse Saint=0A>> 352-427- =0A>> jesse(at)saintaviation.com=0A>> =0A>> Se ====================== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
From: Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk(at)mac.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2012
I can confirm what Don says about smoothness, quietness, and low rpm performance. Robert Sent from my iPad On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Don McDonald wrote: > Here's my 3 cents.... A USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced his 2 blade hartzel with a 3 blade MT. He said climb rate a little better, and lost about 3-5 knots at top speed (not cruise). That was the info that convinced me to buy an MT. I was not concerned with anything but being smooth. I've riden in quite a few 10's and so far none have had as low of vibration levels. Just lay your hand on the glare shield. Although I've got some extra hp, I have not had another 10 (7 so far) that was as fast. With the extra hp and the 3 blade, I can run the rpm all the way down to 2,000 without any problem.... and usually cruise around 2,100.... and at that rpm can consistently run below 10 gph. > > From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan(at)hispeed.ch> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:41 AM > Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s) > > > Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off distance? In theory that should also be better with the MT. > > Gordon Anderson > 41014 Switzerland > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: > > > > > I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > > > >> > >> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different than other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I remember correctly. > >> > >> Any others want to share their thoughts? > >> > >> Jesse Saint > >> 352-427- > >> jesse(at)saintaviation.com > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> > >> ; * The Builder's Bookstore http://wwnbsp; p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target=_blank>http://www.matro======== > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Date: Dec 12, 2012
Me too, and I like the extra ground clearance as I fly exclusively off of a g rass strip. I can say I don't like removing the lower cowl though... With the nose gear and that extra blade.... It's a tight fit. Other than that, I love the prop !! -Mike Kraus RV-4 sold :-( RV-10 flying :-) KitFox SS7 Radial building :-) On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wro te: > I can confirm what Don says about smoothness, quietness, and low rpm perfo rmance. Robert > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Don McDonald wro te: > >> Here's my 3 cents.... A USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced h is 2 blade hartzel with a 3 blade MT. He said climb rate a little better, a nd lost about 3-5 knots at top speed (not cruise). That was the info that c onvinced me to buy an MT. I was not concerned with anything but being smoot h. I've riden in quite a few 10's and so far none have had as low of vibrat ion levels. Just lay your hand on the glare shield. Although I've got some extra hp, I have not had another 10 (7 so far) that was as fast. With the e xtra hp and the 3 blade, I can run the rpm all the way down to 2,000 without any problem.... and usually cruise around 2,100.... and at that rpm can con sistently run below 10 gph. >> >> From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan(at)hispeed.ch> >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:41 AM >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s) >> >> >> Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off d istance? In theory that should also be better with the MT. >> >> Gordon Anderson >> 41014 Switzerland >> >> On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: >> com> >> > >> > I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estim ate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and h ad a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is sti ll in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are lookin g for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500 hours and loving it. >> > >> > Sent from my iPad >> > >> > On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint wrot e: >> > >> >> >> >> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different tha n other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know t he difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the H artzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other M T prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-b lade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the othe r to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would l ike to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with different pr opellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartz ell with the really fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I remember correctly. >> >> >> >> Any others want to share their thoughts? >> >> >> >> Jesse Saint >> >> 352-427- >> >> jesse(at)saintaviation.com >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> >> >> >> ; * The Builder's Bookstore http://wwnbsp; p://www. matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target=_blank>http://www.matro=== ===== >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========================= ========= >> " face="courier new,courier">www.aeroelectric.com >> >www.buildersbooks.com >> uilthelp.com >> matronics.com/contribution >> ========================= ========= >> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ========================= ========= >> cs.com >> ========================= ========= >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
Date: Dec 12, 2012
The =9Cgeneral=9D rule is that a 2 blade is about 2-3kts faster in cruise but a 3 blade is much more smooth. Deems can comment on this, as I believe he has a Aerocomposite, but if marketing is correct they have a prop that is faster than Don=99s and 2 bladed aircraft http://www.aerocomposites.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_i d=D84B9F8D-5004-D739-A5A07B7031786BA9 Propeller tests conducted have involved aircraft with cruise speeds ranging from 200 to 350-mph. In many flight tests, pilots reported increases in cruise speed ranging from 5 mph to 10 mph. In one test, it was reported that the two propellers tested had about the same cruise speeds but that the AeroComposites propeller resulted in better aircraft acceleration, especially at the higher power settings. Cruise speed improvements reported are attributable to the thin, low drag AeroComposites blade designs where the blade design is biased toward cruise rather than takeoff/climb performance. In all tests conducted, quieter operation, fast speed control response, and smooth operation (little to no vibration) were reported. Increases in climb rates have been reported in a number of applications on the order of 300 feet/minute. Significant weight savings were also realized in installations where AeroComposites propellers were replacing aluminum propellers (savings ranged from 17 to more than 25 lbs). If memory serves me, they are more expensive than the MT From: Don McDonald Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:41 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s) Here's my 3 cents.... A USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced his 2 blade hartzel with a 3 blade MT. He said climb rate a little better, and lost about 3-5 knots at top speed (not cruise). That was the info that convinced me to buy an MT. I was not concerned with anything but being smooth. I've riden in quite a few 10's and so far none have had as low of vibration levels. Just lay your hand on the glare shield. Although I've got some extra hp, I have not had another 10 (7 so far) that was as fast. With the extra hp and the 3 blade, I can run the rpm all the way down to 2,000 without any problem.... and usually cruise around 2,100.... and at that rpm can consistently run below 10 gph. From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan(at)hispeed.ch> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:41 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s) Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off distance? In theory that should also be better with the MT. Gordon Anderson 41014 Switzerland On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: > > I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida and had a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is still in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards, Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > >> >> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different than other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what other MT prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I would like to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat blades, and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I remember correctly. >> >> Any others want to share their thoughts? >> >> Jesse Saint >> 352-427- >> jesse(at)saintaviation.com >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> ; * The Builder's Bookstore http://wwnbsp; p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target=_blank>http://www.matro======== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2012
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
I'm off the ground before an unloaded Maule. And faster than a speeding bullet. In an airborne drag race, I consistently 'walk-away' from All RV10's with either a 2 bld Hartzell or 3bld MT . (the burn-outs are exhilerating!!, but waiting for the christmas tree lights is still a bit problemmatic). Deems On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Pascal wrote: > The =93general=94 rule is that a 2 blade is about 2-3kts faster in crui se > but a 3 blade is much more smooth. > Deems can comment on this, as I believe he has a Aerocomposite, but if > marketing is correct they have a prop that is faster than Don=92s and 2 > bladed aircraft > http://www.aerocomposites.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_i d=D84B9F8D-5004-D739-A5A07B7031786BA9 > Propeller tests conducted have involved aircraft with cruise speeds > ranging from 200 to 350-mph. In many flight tests, pilots reported > increases in cruise speed ranging from 5 mph to 10 mph. In one test, it > was reported that the two propellers tested had about the same cruise > speeds but that the AeroComposites propeller resulted in better aircraft > acceleration, especially at the higher power settings. Cruise speed > improvements reported are attributable to the thin, low drag AeroComposit es > blade designs where the blade design is biased toward cruise rather than > takeoff/climb performance. In all tests conducted, quieter operation, fas t > speed control response, and smooth operation (little to no vibration) wer e > reported. Increases in climb rates have been reported in a number of > applications on the order of 300 feet/minute. Significant weight savings > were also realized in installations where AeroComposites propellers were > replacing aluminum propellers (savings ranged from 17 to more than 25 lbs ). > > > If memory serves me, they are more expensive than the MT > > > *From:* Don McDonald > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:41 AM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s) > > Here's my 3 cents.... A USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced > his 2 blade hartzel with a 3 blade MT. He said climb rate a little bette r, > and lost about 3-5 knots at top speed (not cruise). That was the info th at > convinced me to buy an MT. I was not concerned with anything but being > smooth. I've riden in quite a few 10's and so far none have had as low o f > vibration levels. Just lay your hand on the glare shield. Although I've > got some extra hp, I have not had another 10 (7 so far) that was as fast. With > the extra hp and the 3 blade, I can run the rpm all the way down to 2,000 > without any problem.... and usually cruise around 2,100.... and at that r pm > can consistently run below 10 gph. > > *From:* Gordon Anderson > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:41 AM > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s) > > > Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off > distance? In theory that should also be better with the MT. > > Gordon Anderson > 41014 Switzerland > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: > > robertbrunk(at)mac.com> > > > > I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged > by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I > estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably > greater rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapte d > to it on first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in > Florida and had a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for > sale. It is still in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards, > Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Jesse Saint > wrote: > > > >> > >> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different tha n > other MT's that I have seen on the -10, but still a 3-blade. I don't know > the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as t he > Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop, which I doubt, but wanted to know what oth er > MT prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell > 2-blade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install th e > other to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way, I > would like to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with > different propellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS, who has th e > 3-blade Hartzell with the really fat blades, and he said he thought he wa s > losing about 7 knots in cruise, if I remember correctly. > >> > >> Any others want to share their thoughts? > >> > >> Jesse Saint > >> 352-427- > >> jesse(at)saintaviation.com > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> > >> ; * The Builder's Bookstore http://wwnbsp; > p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" > target=_blank>http://www.matro======== > > > <http://www.homebuilthelp.com/> > > * > > href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com > href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com > href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics. com/Navigator?RV10-List > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > * > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: MT Prop(s)
Date: Dec 12, 2012
another nice thing about the MT is that it is about 22 pounds lighter (I fo rget the exact difference) than the two blade metal prop. That makes a lot of difference since the -10 tends to be really nose heavy. From: rv10flyer(at)live.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s) Date: Wed=2C 12 Dec 2012 08:18:43 -0800 The =93general=94 rule is that a 2 blade is about 2-3kts faster in cruise b ut a 3 blade is much more smooth. Deems can comment on this=2C as I believe he has a Aerocomposite=2C but if marketing is correct they have a prop that is faster than Don=92s and 2 bla ded aircraft http://www.aerocomposites.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage &page_id=D84B9F8D-5004-D739-A5A07B7031786BA9 Propeller tests conducted have involved aircraft with cruise speeds ranging from 200 to 350-mph. In many flight tests=2C pilots r eported increases in cruise speed ranging from 5 mph to 10 mph. In one test=2C it was reported that the two propellers tested had about the same cruise speeds but that the AeroComposites propeller resulted in better airc raft acceleration=2C especially at the higher power settings. Cruise speed improvements reported are attributable to the thin=2C low drag AeroComposit es blade designs where the blade design is biased toward cruise rather than takeoff/climb performance. In all tests conducted=2C quieter operation=2C f ast speed control response=2C and smooth operation (little to no vibration) were repo rted. Increases in climb rates have been reported in a number of applications on the order of 300 feet/minute. Significant weight savings were also realized in installations where AeroComposites propellers were replacing aluminum prope llers (savings ranged from 17 to more than 25 lbs). If memory serves me=2C they are more expensive than the MT From: Don McDonald Sent: Wednesday=2C December 12=2C 2012 7:41 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s) Here's my 3 cents.... A USAF U2 pilot with a F1 Rocket (IO540) replaced his 2 blade hartzel with a 3 blade MT. He said climb rate a little better=2C and lost about 3-5 knots a t top speed (not cruise). That was the info that convinced me to buy an MT. I was not concerned with anything but being smooth. I've riden in quite a few 10's and so far none have had as low of vibration levels. Just lay your hand on the glare shield. Although I've got some extra hp=2C I have not had another 10 (7 so far) that was as fast. With the extra hp and the 3 blade=2C I can run the rpm all the way down to 2=2C000 without any problem.... and usually cruise around 2=2C100.... and at that rpm can consistently run below 10 gph. From: Gordon Anderson rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday=2C December 12=2C 2012 12:41 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT Prop(s) Great information Robert. Did you also notice a difference in take-off distance? In theory that should also be better with the MT. Gordon Anderson 41014 Switzerland On Dec 12=2C 2012=2C at 5:10 AM=2C Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: Brunkenhoefer > > I switched out my MT for the 2bladed vans sells when my MT got damaged by fod during taxiing. Rate of climb is noticeably less(300-500fpm) I estimate. Also I am now 5 kts faster than before. The MT has a noticeably greater rate of deceleration on throttle back. Actually had to get adapted to it on first few landings and approaches. I sent the MT to Factory in Florida a nd had a complete overhaul done. It is back in CRP and it is for sale. It is s till in its shipping crate. I can be reached at 361-533-2383 if you are looking for a like new MT at a less than new price. Regards=2C Robert N661G KCRP 500hours and loving it. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 11=2C 2012=2C at 8:07 PM=2C Jesse Saint wrote: > >> >> I saw an RV-10 the other day with an MT prop that looked different than other MT's that I have seen on the -10=2C but still a 3-blade. I don't know the difference. The owner claimed that this model of prop is as fast as the Hartzell Blended Airfoil prop=2C which I doubt=2C but wanted to know what o ther MT prop owners have experienced in cruise performance versus the Hartzell 2-bl ade. Has anybody ever done the test to remove one prop and install the other to do a side-by-side comparison on the same airframe? Either way=2C I would like to hear what others "think" they are gaining or losing with different propellers. I flew with Rob Hickman at what was AFS=2C who has the 3-blade Hartzell with the r eally fat blades=2C and he said he thought he was losing about 7 knots in cruise =2C if I remember correctly. >> >> Any others want to share their thoughts? >> >> Jesse Saint >> 352-427- >> jesse(at)saintaviation.com >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> =3B * The Builder's Bookstore http://wwnbsp=3B p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target=_blank>http://www.matro======== href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chr ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.co m/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2012
From: Kevin Belue <kdbelue(at)charter.net>
Subject: RV main gear vibration
I thought that's what you were talking about - thanks for clarifying! On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Carroll L. Verhage wrote: Kevin, The holes that need to be oblonged are the holes in the gear mounting bracket (those that were drilled 7.9 mm on the building instructions). You will have to remove the seat(s), the R side panel and the seat mounting bracket. Jack the wheel up untill it is just touching the floor before removing the landing gear bolt. Have some one turn the landing gear leg while You run the drill bit through the landing gear and bracket mounting hole. This will oblong the bracket holes but not the gear leg. Stop twisting the landing gear leg when the wheel is tracking properly. The oblongation will be as little as a few thousandths to pehapes 1/16th inch. Make a shim to make the bracket hole round and replace the bolt. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com>
Subject: RV main gear vibration
Date: Dec 12, 2012
How does one go about making a shim? It just seems the shim we=99re talking about would be nearly impossible to make correctly or am I not envisioning something properly. The way I picture this in my head the shims would likely be a tiny moon shaped sliver installed on the non-oblonged side of the hole (the side that the drill bit did not widen) between the nut head and bolt within the gear leg housing hole? Would the shims have to be the same thickness as the gear leg housing? I imagine you could cut/grind on a washer to make this or am I missing something? Does the curvature of the gear leg housing have to be matched? Ben Westfall On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Carroll L. Verhage wrote: Kevin, The holes that need to be oblonged are the holes in the gear mounting bracket (those that were drilled 7.9 mm on the building instructions). You will have to remove the seat(s), the R side panel and the seat mounting bracket. Jack the wheel up untill it is just touching the floor before removing the landing gear bolt. Have some one turn the landing gear leg while You run the drill bit through the landing gear and bracket mounting hole. This will oblong the bracket holes but not the gear leg. Stop twisting the landing gear leg when the wheel is tracking properly. The oblongation will be as little as a few thousandths to pehapes 1/16th inch. Make a shim to make the bracket hole round and replace the bolt. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carroll L. Verhage" <cv93436(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Main gear vibration
Date: Dec 12, 2012
Lew, I think it is easier to oblong the thin walled mounting bracket tube than drill out the bracket and leg. This is some hard steel and I would be afraid of weakening the landing leg by drilling it's hole bigger. The gear fixation bolt is 3/8 inch. A 3/8 inch washer has the right inside curvature. You will have grind the eliptical moon shape on the out side of the washer. It will be small, perhapes only 1/32 to 1/16 inch thick by 3/8 inch. None-the-less, You need to take up the space in the oblong hole so the gear leg can not rotate in the mounting bracket tube. The gear leg is 2 inches thick and will not oblong as easily as the thin wall of the tube while turning the 7.9mm bit in the bracket and leg while twisting the leg. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan(at)hispeed.ch>
Subject: Re: Main gear vibration
Date: Dec 12, 2012
Hope this isn't a late night dumb question, but here goes. Since most of my landings are somewhat unstraight anyway, I am wondering why an unequal toe-in on left and right gears would matter? Presumeably the aircraft will just track in the direction giving equal side forces from the wheels (plus or minus crosswinds) which would be a degree or two off fuselage centerline. Is the critical issue causing vibration perhaps the total toe-in, rather than the inequality? Having been instructed by the plans to drum up a peculiarly (under)sized drill-bit to ensure there is minimal bolt clearance, it seems questionable to enlarge the holes in any way which might introduce (more) slop in the system (which already exists with the 7.9mm hole). Just my 2 centimes. Gordon Anderson 41014 Switzerland On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:55 PM, Carroll L. Verhage wrote: > Lew, I think it is easier to oblong the thin walled mounting bracket tube than drill out the bracket and leg. This is some hard steel and I would be afraid of weakening the landing leg by drilling it's hole bigger. The gear fixation bolt is 3/8 inch. A 3/8 inch washer has the right inside curvature. You will have grind the eliptical moon shape on the out side of the washer. It will be small, perhapes only 1/32 to 1/16 inch thick by 3/8 inch. None-the-less, You need to take up the space in the oblong hole so the gear leg can not rotate in the mounting bracket tube. The gear leg is 2 inches thick and will not oblong as easily as the thin wall of the tube while turning the 7.9mm bit in the bracket and leg while twisting the leg. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Main gear vibration
From: Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2012
I agree Gordon, but over time when 90% of your taxiing is straight ahead I b elieve you would wear one tire quicker than the other. As far as the shimmy g oes I believe toe in or out doesn't make much difference. It would get worse when braking causing the wheel to track out when there is brake pressure. T his didn't happen in my case. Vans told me a larger bolt holding the gear would work fine. Personally I wo uldn't oval the weldment. I aligned mine for tire wear and hoping it would h elp the shimmy that others have had. Not sure if it helped for shimmy becaus e it hadn't flown before I aligned mine. I do know the gear stiffeners fixed my shimmy. My .02 Sent from my iPhone On Dec 12, 2012, at 16:22, Gordon Anderson wrote: > Hope this isn't a late night dumb question, but here goes. Since most of m y landings are somewhat unstraight anyway, I am wondering why an unequal toe -in on left and right gears would matter? Presumeably the aircraft will jus t track in the direction giving equal side forces from the wheels (plus or m inus crosswinds) which would be a degree or two off fuselage centerline. Is the critical issue causing vibration perhaps the total toe-in, rather than t he inequality? > > Having been instructed by the plans to drum up a peculiarly (under)sized d rill-bit to ensure there is minimal bolt clearance, it seems questionable to enlarge the holes in any way which might introduce (more) slop in the syste m (which already exists with the 7.9mm hole). > > Just my 2 centimes. > > Gordon Anderson > 41014 Switzerland > > > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:55 PM, Carroll L. Verhage wrote: > >> Lew, I think it is easier to oblong the thin walled mounting bracket tub e than drill out the bracket and leg. This is some hard steel and I would b e afraid of weakening the landing leg by drilling it's hole bigger. The gear fixation bolt is 3/8 inch. A 3/8 inch washer has the right inside curvatur e. You will have grind the eliptical moon shape on the out side of the wash er. It will be small, perhapes only 1/32 to 1/16 inch thick by 3/8 inch. N one-the-less, You need to take up the space in the oblong hole so the gear l eg can not rotate in the mounting bracket tube. The gear leg is 2 inches th ick and will not oblong as easily as the thin wall of the tube while turning the 7.9mm bit in the bracket and leg while twisting the leg. >> >> >> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com >> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com >> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com >> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ontribution >> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >> > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2012
If you want to fly at gross weight all the time like I do and have an aux pc680 battery/wiring/contactor in back, then the heavier Hartzell 2 blade is much better. Same if you want air conditioning, which I don't have. -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390386#390386 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carroll L. Verhage" <cv93436(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Main Gear Vibration
Date: Dec 13, 2012
Gordon, Since the vibration occurs at about 40 knots taxi speed, my theory is that the tires are skipping sideways at that speed. I have balanced my tires 2 times, checked the swivel tension of the nose gear, etc. as noted in Van's Airforce forums. This did not help the vibration. Aligning the wheel travel stopped the vibration. As I mentioned earlier, my total toe in with both wheels was 6 inches in 13 feet. That means the tires had to slide 50 feet sideways in 1300 feet of travel! My RV10 is noticeably easier to push on pavement now. If nothing else, parallel tracking should help your tire wear. There is no play of the gear leg in the original 7.9 mm. hole. Consequently, you must shim the hole to prevent the leg gear from twisting in the gear mounting bracket. I suppose you could weld the bracket hole partially shut and redrill it to 7.9 mm. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2012
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
I've said it before, but I'll repeat it now... The RV-10 is slightly nose heavy, but it is NOT something that a builder should attempt to solve when building. It's nose heavy by design, and keeping the plane as close to FWD CG limits as possible with a lone pilot will help you maximize your load carrying capacity based on CG, and give your plane better stall/spin recovery traits. It's a safety thing. You do have the leeway to reduce prop weights if you want a different prop, or add a bigger battery or aux battery if you want to do things like that, but do not do those types of things for the purpose of making it less nose heavy...it is NOT too nose heavy...it is just safely nose heavy. The people that I know that have A/C in at least some cases, have also paid the penalty of having reduced load capacity because of the CG. If you build it with a metal prop and standard PC680, you'll probably have a hard time getting it OUT of aft CG without trying hard. So, just build the plane, and don't look at the nose-heavy characteristic as something to "solve", but allow it to give you some leeway in the options you choose to install. The FWD CG is a gift. Tim On 12/13/2012 8:36 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > > If you want to fly at gross weight all the time like I do and have an > aux pc680 battery/wiring/contactor in back, then the heavier Hartzell > 2 blade is much better. Same if you want air conditioning, which I > don't have. > > -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2012
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
The 2 blade may help your W&B, CG, but the 3 blade will help you get off the ground and climb better, as well as helping useful load. On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:36 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > If you want to fly at gross weight all the time like I do and have an aux > pc680 battery/wiring/contactor in back, then the heavier Hartzell 2 blade > is much better. Same if you want air conditioning, which I don't have. > > -------- > Wayne G. > 12/01/2011 > TT= 95 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390386#390386 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2012
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Good points. Vans did put W&B where they felt it would perform best. Not to mention that IF you feel the need for a second battery(or third) you can mount it on the firewall to avoid moving c.g. too far to rear. For me, the PC680 doesn't have enough storage capacity, while it might be fine for cranking. So, planning on RG-25XC that is pretty much what Van's designed for. Don't feel like doing the 2nd bus, 2nd alternator, 2nd battery complexity, but that is why we do OBAM experimental, to make our own choices, hopefully "informed" choices. Kelly On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > I've said it before, but I'll repeat it now... > The RV-10 is slightly nose heavy, but it is NOT something > that a builder should attempt to solve when building. > It's nose heavy by design, and keeping the plane > as close to FWD CG limits as possible with a lone pilot > will help you maximize your load carrying capacity based > on CG, and give your plane better stall/spin recovery > traits. It's a safety thing. You do have the leeway > to reduce prop weights if you want a different prop, or > add a bigger battery or aux battery if you want to do > things like that, but do not do those types of things > for the purpose of making it less nose heavy...it is > NOT too nose heavy...it is just safely nose heavy. > The people that I know that have A/C in at least > some cases, have also paid the penalty of having reduced > load capacity because of the CG. If you build it > with a metal prop and standard PC680, you'll probably > have a hard time getting it OUT of aft CG without > trying hard. So, just build the plane, and don't look > at the nose-heavy characteristic as something to "solve", > but allow it to give you some leeway in the options > you choose to install. The FWD CG is a gift. > Tim > > > On 12/13/2012 8:36 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > >> >> >> If you want to fly at gross weight all the time like I do and have an >> aux pc680 battery/wiring/contactor in back, then the heavier Hartzell >> 2 blade is much better. Same if you want air conditioning, which I >> don't have. >> >> -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95 >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2012
I have the 680 aux battery beside the 925 main battery. It reduces the amount of baggage to 75 lbs with family and size of rear passengers, but I like having an hour plus of energy to run the entire IFR panel and the option to start the engine. If I had it to do over I would probably put it on the firewall. Combine that with the lighter weight 3 blade prop. It is good for new builders to see these different points of view and options. Either way, it is a great plane for a couple or a family. -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390396#390396 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2012
I agree completely! Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 On Dec 13, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > I've said it before, but I'll repeat it now... > The RV-10 is slightly nose heavy, but it is NOT something > that a builder should attempt to solve when building. > It's nose heavy by design, and keeping the plane > as close to FWD CG limits as possible with a lone pilot > will help you maximize your load carrying capacity based > on CG, and give your plane better stall/spin recovery > traits. It's a safety thing. You do have the leeway > to reduce prop weights if you want a different prop, or > add a bigger battery or aux battery if you want to do > things like that, but do not do those types of things > for the purpose of making it less nose heavy...it is > NOT too nose heavy...it is just safely nose heavy. > The people that I know that have A/C in at least > some cases, have also paid the penalty of having reduced > load capacity because of the CG. If you build it > with a metal prop and standard PC680, you'll probably > have a hard time getting it OUT of aft CG without > trying hard. So, just build the plane, and don't look > at the nose-heavy characteristic as something to "solve", > but allow it to give you some leeway in the options > you choose to install. The FWD CG is a gift. > Tim > > > > On 12/13/2012 8:36 AM, rv10flyer wrote: >> >> >> If you want to fly at gross weight all the time like I do and have an >> aux pc680 battery/wiring/contactor in back, then the heavier Hartzell >> 2 blade is much better. Same if you want air conditioning, which I >> don't have. >> >> -------- Wayne G. 12/01/2011 TT= 95 >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2012
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: MT Prop(s)
Exactly. I used the PC925 for longer run-time if the alternator failed, and it gives a little better cranking capacity too. But at least to do that, I didn't have to panic about the CG issues. A lightweight prop isn't a bad thing at all. Just don't focus on the nose-heavy concept and decide you want: * Lightweight Prop * PC925 Battery * An additional aft aux battery * A/C * fixed mounted aft bulkhead O2 system Heck, if you made those choices all together at the same time, you'd probably have a pretty miserable RV-10 from a loading perspective. On 12/13/2012 9:02 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > Good points. Vans did put W&B where they felt it would perform best. > Not to mention that IF you feel the need for a second battery(or third) > you can mount it on the firewall to avoid moving c.g. too far to rear. > For me, the PC680 doesn't have enough storage capacity, while it might > be fine for cranking. So, planning on RG-25XC that is pretty much what > Van's designed for. Don't feel like doing the 2nd bus, 2nd alternator, > 2nd battery complexity, but that is why we do OBAM experimental, to make > our own choices, hopefully "informed" choices. > Kelly > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Mounting Aerosport panel
From: "rvdave" <davidbf(at)centurytel.net>
Date: Dec 14, 2012
Just received my symmetrical CF panel & trying to figure out how to mount it to the existing framework. I have a quick build fuselage with the forward top skin and instrument ribs put together as an assembly, the lower F1003b brace riveted in which I'm assuming I need to remove and not use. Question is clearances at the forward edge of CF panel and CF panel sub brace and top skin. As it is the CF sits proud all the way around the sub brace. Am I suppose to remove material at top, sides and forward to allow 1) CF panel to fit flat against sub brace? 2)room for glare shield material? 3) CF panel to sit as far forward as possible? As it sits right now the panel will cover about half of the grab holes of top skin not leaving enough room to fit fingers in. Anyone with photos of similar phase of install or insight that could help? -------- Dave Ford RV6 flying RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390457#390457 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2012
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Mounting Aerosport panel
I just dealt with this last month. IMHO, the easy way is to slot the holes that the subframe mounts to the cowl deck structure by about 1/8". A Dremel rotary file is probably the quickest, if not easiest to control. The other option is a whole lot of nasty sanding down the CF. Kelly On 12/14/2012 1:11 PM, rvdave wrote: > > Just received my symmetrical CF panel & trying to figure out how to mount it to the existing framework. I have a quick build fuselage with the forward top skin and instrument ribs put together as an assembly, the lower F1003b brace riveted in which I'm assuming I need to remove and not use. Question is clearances at the forward edge of CF panel and CF panel sub brace and top skin. As it is the CF sits proud all the way around the sub brace. Am I suppose to remove material at top, sides and forward to allow 1) CF panel to fit flat against sub brace? 2)room for glare shield material? 3) CF panel to sit as far forward as possible? > As it sits right now the panel will cover about half of the grab holes of top skin not leaving enough room to fit fingers in. > Anyone with photos of similar phase of install or insight that could help? > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 flying > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390457#390457 > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mounting Aerosport panel
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Dec 14, 2012
I installed the non-sym standard panel. Here is a photo looking up and showing the attachment of the new substructure from Aerosport. If you haven't already, download the installation instructions. The standard Vans panel is completely replaced when you install the Aerosport panel. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390469#390469 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1957_179.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_1957_192.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mounting Aerosport panel
From: "rvdave" <davidbf(at)centurytel.net>
Date: Dec 15, 2012
Ok, sounds like a good idea to enlarge the holes to make more space around the CF panel to glare shield . I have the instructions for the panel but am not quite understanding how the depth or forward edges of panel support frame should fit to CF panel. Should frame sit "into" or "behind" CF panel? The drawing shows taking material off of support frame at the outboard edges. If it sits into the panel, the CF sits an eighth to three sixteenths proud of the frame. -------- Dave Ford RV6 flying RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390480#390480 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2012
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Cowl Hinge Pins
Anyone know a source for the stainless hinge pins besides Vans? I don't understand why they don't provide enough for the side hinges between the top and bottom cowl. Page 47-8 says they are available from the accessories catalog. I'd think they are more than just accessories. I understand that they weld on a retainer for these "accessories", but one would think that it would be supplied in the kit. -Sean #40303 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2012
Subject: Re: Mounting Aerosport panel
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
The support panel screws up tight to the back of the CF panel. The support panel has to sit about 1/8" low to allow room for the CF inside the upper cowl deck. I can get you some photos tomorrow when I go to hangar. On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:19 AM, rvdave wrote: > > Ok, sounds like a good idea to enlarge the holes to make more space around > the CF panel to glare shield . I have the instructions for the panel but > am not quite understanding how the depth or forward edges of panel support > frame should fit to CF panel. Should frame sit "into" or "behind" CF panel? > The drawing shows taking material off of support frame at the outboard > edges. If it sits into the panel, the CF sits an eighth to three sixteenths > proud of the frame. > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 flying > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390480#390480 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Cowl Hinge Pins
Date: Dec 15, 2012
Sean, I purchased hinge pin material from ACS - this may be the right number but you need to check: MS20253-P2-7200 HINGE PIN SS 03-49000. I see no advantage to stainless steel over the standard steel pins. I got (2) 6' lengths as I install the cowl side pins from inside the cockpit. The pins run through a piece of 1/4" aluminum tubing on the cabin side of the firewall that acts as a conduit. I took a 3/16" round head rivet and drilled a 1/16" hole through the center, then countersunk the shank end, cut off the head, and JB welded the rivet into one end of the 1/4" tubing (countersunk part to the inside so the pin is directed into the 1/16" hole). A 3/16" hole is drilled into the firewall such that the rivet shank pokes through 1/4" or so, in a spot such that the pin is directed into the first eyelet on the cowl. This is really a lot simpler than it sounds. The end result is with a few AN fittings you have lockable side pins that don't poke through the front of

November 19, 2012 - December 15, 2012

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-jc