RV10-Archive.digest.vol-jj

May 01, 2013 - May 23, 2013



Date: May 01, 2013
I used a VP/X Pro. Even if you don't use a Vertical Power unit, their planning tools can assist you with your load planning. They have both an online Configurator and an excel spreadsheet. Their units will speed up your electrical planning and implementation time. Sent from my iPad On May 1, 2013, at 12:35 PM, "Carlos Trigo" wrote: > > Hi there > > It's time to think about and design the electric system, so can you guys > please tell me which system did you use. > Did you follow one of Bob Nuckolls architecture systems? Which one? > > Yes, I know that I have to do the load analysis. > > Regards > Carlos > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: RV-10 Electric system
Date: May 01, 2013
I built two planes w/o using Vertical Power. If I ever build another I hope I don't make the same mistake a third time. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 9:35 AM Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Electric system Hi there It's time to think about and design the electric system, so can you guys please tell me which system did you use. Did you follow one of Bob Nuckolls architecture systems? Which one? Yes, I know that I have to do the load analysis. Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV-10 Electric system
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: May 01, 2013
I agree completely. While I am disappointed that VP has somewhat abandoned their focus on electrical systems for a period of time, their VP-X will save you a great deal of time and frustration in planning and wiring your plane. You will be glad you did it. It will also clean up your panel a great deal, because of the elimination of so many breakers and some switches. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 On May 1, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Bob Leffler wrote: > > I used a VP/X Pro. > > Even if you don't use a Vertical Power unit, their planning tools can assist you with your load planning. They have both an online Configurator and an excel spreadsheet. > > Their units will speed up your electrical planning and implementation time. > > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 1, 2013, at 12:35 PM, "Carlos Trigo" wrote: > >> >> Hi there >> >> It's time to think about and design the electric system, so can you guys >> please tell me which system did you use. >> Did you follow one of Bob Nuckolls architecture systems? Which one? >> >> Yes, I know that I have to do the load analysis. >> >> Regards >> Carlos >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 01, 2013
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: RV-10 Electric system
If there's one thing I don't regret when I bought my avionics and did my panel early, it was the VP-200. It's a shame it was discontinued. Guess that doesn't help you now, but... It was all Greek to me until I read Bob's Aeroelectric Connection book. Even with having the VP-200 there's a ton of useful information in there. Well worth it. -Sean #40303 (wrapping up FWF) On 5/1/13 12:43 PM, Robin Marks wrote: > > I built two planes w/o using Vertical Power. If I ever build another I hope I don't make the same mistake a third time. > > Robin > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 9:35 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Electric system > > > Hi there > > It's time to think about and design the electric system, so can you guys please tell me which system did you use. > Did you follow one of Bob Nuckolls architecture systems? Which one? > > Yes, I know that I have to do the load analysis. > > Regards > Carlos > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: RV-10 Electric system
Date: May 01, 2013
Agree with the VP disappointment! Carlos; when considering the wiring, consider the "initial" panel and overall layout. For example a Dynon Skyview will interface with the VP-X, not sure if Garmin will. Layout the landing light, nav light, basically the complete layout where everything will go, than consider the wiring required, If you go the VP-X route Verticalpower.com has a planning sheet for the VP-X, may help you regardless of what you decide to do. -----Original Message----- From: Jesse Saint Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:44 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Electric system I agree completely. While I am disappointed that VP has somewhat abandoned their focus on electrical systems for a period of time, their VP-X will save you a great deal of time and frustration in planning and wiring your plane. You will be glad you did it. It will also clean up your panel a great deal, because of the elimination of so many breakers and some switches. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 On May 1, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Bob Leffler wrote: > > I used a VP/X Pro. > > Even if you don't use a Vertical Power unit, their planning tools can > assist you with your load planning. They have both an online Configurator > and an excel spreadsheet. > > Their units will speed up your electrical planning and implementation > time. > > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 1, 2013, at 12:35 PM, "Carlos Trigo" wrote: > >> >> Hi there >> >> It's time to think about and design the electric system, so can you guys >> please tell me which system did you use. >> Did you follow one of Bob Nuckolls architecture systems? Which one? >> >> Yes, I know that I have to do the load analysis. >> >> Regards >> Carlos >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 01, 2013
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: RV-10 Electric system
At 11:12 AM 5/1/2013 Wednesday, you wrote: > >If there's one thing I don't regret when I bought my avionics and did my panel early, it was the VP-200. It's a shame it was discontinued. > >-Sean #40303 (wrapping up FWF) > >On 5/1/13 12:43 PM, Robin Marks wrote: >> >>I built two planes w/o using Vertical Power. If I ever build another I hope I don't make the same mistake a third time. >> >>Robin I couldn't agree more. I have a VP-200 system in the RV-8 and in the RV-6 and I couldn't imagine not flying with one. I've got well over 300 hours on the two systems without a single issue. The electrical automation that the VP-200 brings to the cockpit is outstanding. The simplification of wiring can't be understated. I am also very disappointed that Vertical Power hasn't stayed focused on what they are really good at - electronically controlled aircraft electrical systems. Hopefully VP will come out with something more akin to the 200 in the future. - Matt Dralle RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen" http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel Status: 172+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap... RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer" http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log Status: 150+ Hours Since Purchase - Upgrades Complete; Now In Full Flyer Mode ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 01, 2013
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: RV-10 Electric system
Not sure where the line is drawn between the electrical system (electrical power) and the avionics. I used Bob's Z-14 (Dual alts, dual batts, dual busses) which I understand to possibly be overkill but an overkill I've really enjoyed flying with. No modification to his design, just selection of components and load balancing. Used fuses for everything except for 2 req'd breakers for the regulators, 1 breaker for the AP (it's my emergency kill switch), and 1 breaker for the flaps because I thought it was a good idea. I found Van's electrical plan and kit to be a great starting point for wire routing and RV10 specific brackets and stuff. For avionics I used Approach Fast Stack's hub to handle the panel interconnections. If you decide to do your own panel, this is definitely a great way to go. I never broke into the VP stuff but it must be good at the stuff it does. Bill Watson On 5/1/2013 12:35 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Hi there > > It's time to think about and design the electric system, so can you guys > please tell me which system did you use. > Did you follow one of Bob Nuckolls architecture systems? Which one? > > Yes, I know that I have to do the load analysis. > > Regards > Carlos > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV-10 Electric system
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 01, 2013
I have one 5 Amp alt circuit breaker, main/e-bus/hot battery bus fuse blocks, a bunch of toggle switches, a wiring harness from Stein, a 925L bat, a 680 bat and one 60A alternator. Has worked flawlessly and love my setup. -------- Wayne G. SB 12/01/2009-12/01/2011 TT= 103 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399821#399821 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: RV-10 Electric system
Date: May 02, 2013
Guys Thank you all for your answers! Great group. Now, it's only brainstorming and work on the electric system ... Cheers Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carroll L. Verhage" <cv93436(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Cabin Door Locks
Date: May 03, 2013
Guys, You can use your extra matched keyed lock sent with the kit (just like the baggage door lock) and install it in the left cabin door. Drill a hole through the Lexan and mount the lock so the lock bar is aligned with one of the geared sliding bars of the latch assembly. This will prevent the geared sliding bar from moving forward when someone tries to open the door. If you need, I have the dimensions for placing the lock, etc. Please feel free to email me your mailing address and I'll send you a sketch. This works very well and looks professional. To lock the right hand cabin door, make a slide in the inside handle that slides a bar inside the handle to prevent someone from pushing the outside handle button to release the lock. You'll have to use a little ingenuity to make it work. Doc RV-10 41087 N123CV ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin Door Locks
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 03, 2013
For a slide inside the right door handle I just cut an L shaped piece of wood and sanded one arm to fit snugly. Because the wood has a small amount of give it won't fall out on its own. If you are young and thin the cheapest locks are to make two of these, lock both doors, and climb out the baggage door! -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399914#399914 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin Door Locks
From: Cooprv7 <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 03, 2013
I have actually consider this option, sort of. My thought was to make a wedge to lock the right door as suggested, and then another on a telescoping rod that could reach the left door from the baggage door. The problem is it's not a straight shot due to the back seat and if the wedge became disconnected it might make for an interesting entry into the airplane. Fun with experimentals! Marcus Sent from my iPad On May 3, 2013, at 16:55, "Bob Turner" wrote: For a slide inside the right door handle I just cut an L shaped piece of wood and sanded one arm to fit snugly. Because the wood has a small amount of give it won't fall out on its own. If you are young and thin the cheapest locks are to make two of these, lock both doors, and climb out the baggage door! -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399914#399914 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin Door Locks
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 03, 2013
I use a 1/4" wooden dowel. One piece about 2" long for copilot side and the other 36" for pilot side. Flatten one end with sander. With tow bar installed as my gust lock, seat forward to hold gust lock, lean seat back forward and install door lock by reaching over rear seat back. KISS. -------- Wayne G. SB 12/01/2009-12/01/2011 TT= 103 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399934#399934 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin Door Locks
From: "Greg McFarlane" <grbcmcfarlane(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 04, 2013
Hey Wayne, talkin about the KISS PRINCIPAL, how about doing a MR BEAN and just drill a hole through both doors to fit a piece of half inch water pipe, push one piece of pipe right through the cabin, then fit a PADLOCK on the pipe outside of each door! Pipe could double as a tow bar when not in use, and you wouldn't have to be POT BLACK champion to pot the wedge from the baggage compartment to unlock the door. Cheers from Western Auustralia. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399937#399937 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: wire covers
Date: May 04, 2013
Guys I know it is a small detail, but my manual has no indication about what to do to the small tab (you can see it in the attached picture) which comes in both the F-1042G- L & R wire covers to be installed in each side of the fuselage, near the instrument panel. Are those tabs to be bended up, and then make a hole and rivet them to the fuselage skins? Or are they to be bended down and just inserted between the skin and the longeron? Thanks Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 04, 2013
Subject: Re: wire covers
I think that just gets cut off. IIRC the screws are the only thing attaching the cover to the fuselage. You might want to think carefully about the forward vertical screw. It can be tricky to remove once the glareshield goes in. If it protrudes very high, it can get in the way of panel going in or coming out. An allen-type screw might be helpful there, or a flush screw. =8B Dave Saylor 831-750-0284 CL On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > Guys**** > > ** ** > > I know it is a small detail, but my manual has no indication about what t o > do to the small tab (you can see it in the attached picture) which comes in > both the F-1042G- L & R wire covers to be installed in each side of the > fuselage, near the instrument panel.**** > > ** ** > > Are those tabs to be bended up, and then make a hole and rivet them to th e > fuselage skins? **** > > Or are they to be bended down and just inserted between the skin and the > longeron?**** > > ** ** > > Thanks**** > > Carlos **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 05, 2013
From: Linn <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: pitot mast
I'm making my own pitot mount .... similar to the Gretz mount ..... and need to know how long to cut the mast. I know it's only $100 but I get to use the welder and the plasma cutter!!!;-) Linn ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 05, 2013
From: Tim Farrell <tim(at)AirCraftersLLC.com>
Subject: Re: pitot mast
SafeAir1's is only $54. The mast measures just a little under 5.25" (hard to tell exactly, because it is installed). Tim On 5/5/2013 9:22 AM, Linn wrote: > I'm making my own pitot mount .... similar to the Gretz mount ..... > and need to know how long to cut the mast. > I know it's only $100 but I get to use the welder and the plasma > cutter!!!;-) > Linn > * > > > * -- Tim Farrell - Aircrafters - Owner/Manager - (831) 722-9141 - www.aircraftersLLC.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sandra & Rick" <jrlark(at)bmts.com>
Subject: pitot mast
Date: May 05, 2013
Linn, Just measured mine, it's 4 3/16" from the top surface where the nut plates are attached to the bottom end Rick From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Sent: May-05-13 12:23 PM Subject: RV10-List: pitot mast I'm making my own pitot mount .... similar to the Gretz mount ..... and need to know how long to cut the mast. I know it's only $100 but I get to use the welder and the plasma cutter!!! ;-) Linn ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sandra & Rick" <jrlark(at)bmts.com>
Subject: pitot mast
Date: May 05, 2013
Oh and mine is the Gretz mount From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Sent: May-05-13 12:23 PM Subject: RV10-List: pitot mast I'm making my own pitot mount .... similar to the Gretz mount ..... and need to know how long to cut the mast. I know it's only $100 but I get to use the welder and the plasma cutter!!! ;-) Linn ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: pitot mast
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: May 06, 2013
"I know it's only $100 but I get to use the welder and the plasma cutter!!!;-)" How dare you scratch build something that can be bought!! :) -------- 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=400038#400038 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 06, 2013
Subject: Re: pitot mast
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Yeah, why should I do 10 layers of glass build up for the windshield, each hand sanded, when I can just buy and rivet a retainer strip instead? Oh, I forgot, I just love composite work and got an RV kit by mistake when I really wanted a Lancair................... On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:29 AM, jkreidler wrote: > jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com> > > "I know it's only $100 but I get to use the welder and the plasma > cutter!!!;-)" > > How dare you scratch build something that can be bought!! :) > > -------- > 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=400038#400038 > > -- - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV-10 Electric system
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: May 07, 2013
I, too, am in the early stages of planning an electrical system. Vertical Systems seems to get the kudos. Does anyone have experience with the Protec Bus Manager? I am unclear about whether this could be used along with the VP product. Not sure if there is overlap/compatibility. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400118#400118 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carroll L. Verhage" <cv93436(at)windstream.net>
Subject: RV10 Cabin Door Lock1.doc
Date: May 08, 2013
RV10 Cabin Door Locks Guys, To make a locking slide block for the right hand door, rivet (3) pieces of .063" aluminum =BD" wide and 1 =BD" long with one piece of .032" aluminum =BD" wide and 2 =BD" long so that the .032" aluminum layer projects 1" longer than the .063" pieces. ( Three .063" aluminum layers and one .032" layer should be the thickness of the inside of the door handle) Countersink the rivets on each side so the laminated layers are smooth. File the width of the laminated pieces down so it slides inside the door handle but leave it big enough on the protruding end that sticks out of the handle so the laminated aluminum bar will not slide completely into the handle. You should have a rectangular bar that slides into the handle with a larger crosspiece on one end (a T-shape). The .032" layer projects farther into the handle to make your slide mechanism. You can shorten the sliding bar, trim the T-part down, etc. to make it look neat and just long enough to slide over the push pin on the latch. Drill a # 30 hole in the center line of the handle about 1/8" beyond the inner tip of the rectangular part of the bar through just the inside thickness of the handle (not all the way through the handle). Match this hole with a hole in the protruding .032" projection in the handle with the bar slid into the handle over the push button. Then pull the bar back in the handle to allow the latch release pin to be pushed in and drill another hole in the .032" layer. This gives you a maximum and minimum reference of travel of the sliding bar. Slot the .032" layer between the two holes. Put a pop rivet through the handle, through the slot on the sliding bar and a #4 washer on the back side. Pull the pop rivet up to hold the slide but NOT TOO TIGHT so the bar won't slide. Cut the mandrel of the rivet off and push the head back through. Doc RV10 41087 N123CV ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carroll L. Verhage" <cv93436(at)windstream.net>
Subject: RV10 Cabin Door Locks.doc
Date: May 08, 2013
RV10 Cabin Door Locks Guys, To put the extra keyed lock in the Pilot's door, remove the upholstery from the inside of the door exposing the lock assembly. Drill a #40 bit pilot hole through the door 1 3/8" forward of the end of the lower geared bar of the door latch with the door latch closed ( gear bar slid back). This should place the keyed lock barrel so that when the bar on the keyed lock is turned it will line up with the geared latch bar and prevent the geared bar from moving forward. The keyed lock bar will have to be bent up (in an S-shape) about 3/16" to match the end of the geared bar. If things look good, cut a hole in the outside layer of Lexan the size of the keyed lock barrel using a step drill. Put the lock in this hole from time to time to make sure things clear and fit. Cut a slot into the front of the door latch recess (like the sliding bar in the back of the recess) so the key lock bar can turn into the recess and touch the door latch gear bar. Bend the key lock bar so it matches the gear bar. If it is a little short, you can weld a little on the end of the key bar. Enlarge the inner panel hole so the key lock's barrel nut and star washer can be threaded on. Make sure the key lock bar engages the latch's gear bar. Again, bend or lengthen if necessary. Make a piece of .032" aluminum about 1 =BD" square so it covers the inside Lexan hole but doesn't impede the latch assembly. Drill a #6 screw sized hole in the center of the .032" aluminum plate. This hole will let you put the #6 screw into the end of the lock to hold the key lock bar in place and support the lock in the door. Make sure everything aligns properly and works smoothly. Then drill 3/32" holes in the corners of the aluminum plate and inner layer of Lexan. Countersink the aluminum holes. Put (3) #6 spacer washers under the aluminum plate and over the end of the lock above the lock bar. Rivet the aluminum plate in place. Done. Doc RV10 41087 N123CV ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin Door Locks
From: "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net>
Date: May 08, 2013
Another way to make a lock for the right side door is to drill a 1/16" vertical hole through the push tab of the door handle. Buy a 1/16" stainless steel hairpin clip at HD; insert it through the hole. Done. Jim Berry RV-10 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400155#400155 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Cabin Door Locks
Date: May 08, 2013
not only done, but works well too! -----Original Message----- From: Jim Berry Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 11:53 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Cabin Door Locks Another way to make a lock for the right side door is to drill a 1/16" vertical hole through the push tab of the door handle. Buy a 1/16" stainless steel hairpin clip at HD; insert it through the hole. Done. Jim Berry RV-10 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400155#400155 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geoff Combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com>
Subject: Re: Cabin Door Locks
Date: May 08, 2013
I never found a lock that I really liked so I just take my door handles off and put them in the baggage area. If they want in that bad they are going to break something anyways. (Stock door handles) Geoff Geoff Combs Aerosport Modeling and Design -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:36 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Cabin Door Locks not only done, but works well too! -----Original Message----- From: Jim Berry Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 11:53 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Cabin Door Locks Another way to make a lock for the right side door is to drill a 1/16" vertical hole through the push tab of the door handle. Buy a 1/16" stainless steel hairpin clip at HD; insert it through the hole. Done. Jim Berry RV-10 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400155#400155 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin Door Locks
From: Seano <sean(at)braunandco.com>
Date: May 08, 2013
I do the same thing Geoff mentioned. I did this in Mexico and Bahamas. Takes just as long to take them off as a lock would take. Sent from my iPhone On May 8, 2013, at 13:46, "Geoff Combs" wrote: > I never found a lock that I really liked so I just take my door handles off > and put them in the baggage area. > If they want in that bad they are going to break something anyways. > (Stock door handles) > > Geoff > > Geoff Combs > Aerosport Modeling and Design > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:36 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Cabin Door Locks > > > not only done, but works well too! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Berry > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 11:53 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Cabin Door Locks > > > Another way to make a lock for the right side door is to drill a 1/16" > vertical hole through the push tab of the door handle. Buy a 1/16" stainless > steel hairpin clip at HD; insert it through the hole. Done. > > Jim Berry > RV-10 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400155#400155 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin Door Locks
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 08, 2013
Easiest solution seen to date, thanks! Sent from my iPhone On May 8, 2013, at 3:46 PM, "Geoff Combs" wrote: > I never found a lock that I really liked so I just take my door handles off > and put them in the baggage area. > If they want in that bad they are going to break something anyways. > (Stock door handles) > > Geoff > > Geoff Combs > Aerosport Modeling and Design > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:36 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Cabin Door Locks > > > not only done, but works well too! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Berry > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 11:53 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Cabin Door Locks > > > Another way to make a lock for the right side door is to drill a 1/16" > vertical hole through the push tab of the door handle. Buy a 1/16" stainless > steel hairpin clip at HD; insert it through the hole. Done. > > Jim Berry > RV-10 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400155#400155 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin Door Locks
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 08, 2013
Great idea, I just might use this or the wedge idea for the right door and remove the outside handle on the left. Thanks for all of the creative ideas on this thread. Marcus Sent from my iPhone On May 8, 2013, at 3:36 PM, "Pascal" wrote: > > not only done, but works well too! > > -----Original Message----- From: Jim Berry > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 11:53 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Cabin Door Locks > > > Another way to make a lock for the right side door is to drill a 1/16" vertical hole through the push tab of the door handle. Buy a 1/16" stainless steel hairpin clip at HD; insert it through the hole. Done. > > Jim Berry > RV-10 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400155#400155 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2013
From: Rodger Todd <rj_todd(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Aero Composites
Guys, - I heard a rumour that Aero Composites (the propeller manufacturer) is no lo nger trading.- Can anyone please deny or confirm this?- If true this is very bad news. - Best wishes to all, - Rodger ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
Date: May 09, 2013
It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it currently falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and the back plate of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the backplate. My choice at this point seems to be to either live with it, increase the space from the back plate and push it back a bit or raise the nose of the cowl up a bit which should also push it back (or some combination of the three options). The space you see in the picture, at its widest, is 1/16" What say ye? Jeff Carpenter 40304 sitting at the 90/90 phase ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 09, 2013
Subject: Re: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
The paint's gonna fill a little more of that than you might think, especially where it kind of wraps around the edge. I'd be pretty happy with a fairly consistent 1/16 before paint. Dave Saylor 831-750-0284 CL On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: > It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it currently > falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and the back plate > of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the backplate. My > choice at this point seems to be to either live with it, increase the space > from the back plate and push it back a bit or raise the nose of the cowl up > a bit which should also push it back (or some combination of the three > options). The space you see in the picture, at its widest, is 1/16" > > What say ye? > > Jeff Carpenter > 40304 > > sitting at the 90/90 phase > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
Date: May 09, 2013
Like Dave mentioned, I think you're fine. Paint will make that 1/8' gap disappear. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: RV10-List: Overtrimmed Cowl Top It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it currently falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and the back plate of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the backplate. My choice at this point seems to be to either live with it, increase the space from the back plate and push it back a bit or raise the nose of the cowl up a bit which should also push it back (or some combination of the three options). The space you see in the picture, at its widest, is 1/16" What say ye? Jeff Carpenter 40304 sitting at the 90/90 phase ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2013
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
I made my cowl to fuse gap 1/16 all around. Not painted yet, but assume the paint will fill some of that. I made trimming mistakes on my cowl and easily fixed them using the methods outlines here: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=81595 -Sean #40303 On 5/9/13 2:22 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: > It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it currently falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and the back plate of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the backplate. My choice at this point seems to be to either live with it, increase the space from the back plate and push it back a bit or raise the nose of the cowl up a bit which should also push it back (or some combination of the three options). The space you see in the picture, at its widest, is 1/16" > > What say ye? > > Jeff Carpenter > 40304 > > sitting at the 90/90 phase > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geoff Combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com>
Subject: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
Date: May 09, 2013
Jeff you can rebuild that pretty easy with some epoxy and chopped glass. Take some thin aluminum strip .03 about 1" wide. Wax the aluminum 2 times Before putting on the cowl. Now slide it between the inside of the cowl and the Hinge. It should be a little tight just enough to hold in place. Then mix the 1/32" chopped glass with the epoxy. Make it like peanut butter or a little thicker. Then apply it. Let it cure overnight and sand it out. I did this on one side of my cowl that I felt the gap was to large. No problems Hope this helps Geoff Combs -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: RV10-List: Overtrimmed Cowl Top It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it currently falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and the back plate of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the backplate. My choice at this point seems to be to either live with it, increase the space from the back plate and push it back a bit or raise the nose of the cowl up a bit which should also push it back (or some combination of the three options). The space you see in the picture, at its widest, is 1/16" What say ye? Jeff Carpenter 40304 sitting at the 90/90 phase ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Date: May 09, 2013
Do I understand correctly, you are setting up for a 1/8" space between the cowl and spinner? If so, recommend at least 1/4" spinner to cowl gap. This will also solve your cowl to firewall gap issue. Remember that you also have leeway in the spacers you use to mount the spinner back plate to the prop. Assuming you are using a Hartzell prop, your minimum (if memory serves me) is just using the 1/4" spacer. You can add up to two 1/16" washers to this as well. I used the 1/4" spacer and one washer so that when all was done and painted I could move the spinner back plate 1/16" closer or further from the cowl. I ended up just leaving it as it was. Carl On May 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, "Bob Leffler" wrote: > > Like Dave mentioned, I think you're fine. Paint will make that 1/8' gap > disappear. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:23 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Overtrimmed Cowl Top > > It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it currently > falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and the back plate > of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the backplate. My choice > at this point seems to be to either live with it, increase the space from > the back plate and push it back a bit or raise the nose of the cowl up a bit > which should also push it back (or some combination of the three options). > The space you see in the picture, at its widest, is 1/16" > > What say ye? > > Jeff Carpenter > 40304 > > sitting at the 90/90 phase > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: May 10, 2013
Jeff, You can also supplement what Geoff suggested using fibreglass tape, it works well, don't ask me how I found this out! Warm regards Patrick On 10/05/2013, at 6:19 AM, "Geoff Combs" wrote: > > Jeff you can rebuild that pretty easy with some epoxy and chopped glass. > Take some thin aluminum strip .03 about 1" wide. Wax the aluminum 2 times > Before putting on the cowl. Now slide it between the inside of the cowl and > the > Hinge. It should be a little tight just enough to hold in place. > Then mix the 1/32" chopped glass with the epoxy. Make it like peanut butter > or a little thicker. Then apply it. Let it cure overnight and sand it out. > I did this on one side of my cowl that I felt the gap was to large. No > problems > > Hope this helps > > > Geoff Combs > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:23 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Overtrimmed Cowl Top > > It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it currently > falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and the back plate > of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the backplate. My choice > at this point seems to be to either live with it, increase the space from > the back plate and push it back a bit or raise the nose of the cowl up a bit > which should also push it back (or some combination of the three options). > The space you see in the picture, at its widest, is 1/16" > > What say ye? > > Jeff Carpenter > 40304 > > sitting at the 90/90 phase > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Date: May 09, 2013
Sorry - I meant to say a spinner to cowl spacing of 3/16" to 1/8". I did 3/16" and it ended up a little tighter after prep and paint. Carl On May 9, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > Do I understand correctly, you are setting up for a 1/8" space between the cowl and spinner? If so, recommend at least 1/4" spinner to cowl gap. This will also solve your cowl to firewall gap issue. > > Remember that you also have leeway in the spacers you use to mount the spinner back plate to the prop. Assuming you are using a Hartzell prop, your minimum (if memory serves me) is just using the 1/4" spacer. You can add up to two 1/16" washers to this as well. I used the 1/4" spacer and one washer so that when all was done and painted I could move the spinner back plate 1/16" closer or further from the cowl. I ended up just leaving it as it was. > > Carl > > On May 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, "Bob Leffler" wrote: > >> >> Like Dave mentioned, I think you're fine. Paint will make that 1/8' gap >> disappear. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter >> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:23 PM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: RV10-List: Overtrimmed Cowl Top >> >> It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it currently >> falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and the back plate >> of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the backplate. My choice >> at this point seems to be to either live with it, increase the space from >> the back plate and push it back a bit or raise the nose of the cowl up a bit >> which should also push it back (or some combination of the three options). >> The space you see in the picture, at its widest, is 1/16" >> >> What say ye? >> >> Jeff Carpenter >> 40304 >> >> sitting at the 90/90 phase >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Date: May 09, 2013
I'm working with the 1/8" spacers Vans specifies On May 9, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > > Sorry - I meant to say a spinner to cowl spacing of 3/16" to 1/8". I did 3/16" and it ended up a little tighter after prep and paint. > > Carl > > On May 9, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > >> Do I understand correctly, you are setting up for a 1/8" space between the cowl and spinner? If so, recommend at least 1/4" spinner to cowl gap. This will also solve your cowl to firewall gap issue. >> >> Remember that you also have leeway in the spacers you use to mount the spinner back plate to the prop. Assuming you are using a Hartzell prop, your minimum (if memory serves me) is just using the 1/4" spacer. You can add up to two 1/16" washers to this as well. I used the 1/4" spacer and one washer so that when all was done and painted I could move the spinner back plate 1/16" closer or further from the cowl. I ended up just leaving it as it was. >> >> Carl >> >> On May 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, "Bob Leffler" wrote: >> >>> >>> Like Dave mentioned, I think you're fine. Paint will make that 1/8' gap >>> disappear. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter >>> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:23 PM >>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: RV10-List: Overtrimmed Cowl Top >>> >>> It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it currently >>> falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and the back plate >>> of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the backplate. My choice >>> at this point seems to be to either live with it, increase the space from >>> the back plate and push it back a bit or raise the nose of the cowl up a bit >>> which should also push it back (or some combination of the three options). >>> The space you see in the picture, at its widest, is 1/16" >>> >>> What say ye? >>> >>> Jeff Carpenter >>> 40304 >>> >>> sitting at the 90/90 phase >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: May 09, 2013
I did a 1/8" on the spinner, but I should have done a 1/4". I had to do quite a bit of work around the cowl due to not having enough clearance, Sent from my iPad On May 9, 2013, at 6:01 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: > > I'm working with the 1/8" spacers Vans specifies > > > On May 9, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > >> >> Sorry - I meant to say a spinner to cowl spacing of 3/16" to 1/8". I did 3/16" and it ended up a little tighter after prep and paint. >> >> Carl >> >> On May 9, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: >> >>> Do I understand correctly, you are setting up for a 1/8" space between the cowl and spinner? If so, recommend at least 1/4" spinner to cowl gap. This will also solve your cowl to firewall gap issue. >>> >>> Remember that you also have leeway in the spacers you use to mount the spinner back plate to the prop. Assuming you are using a Hartzell prop, your minimum (if memory serves me) is just using the 1/4" spacer. You can add up to two 1/16" washers to this as well. I used the 1/4" spacer and one washer so that when all was done and painted I could move the spinner back plate 1/16" closer or further from the cowl. I ended up just leaving it as it was. >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> On May 9, 2013, at 3:57 PM, "Bob Leffler" wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Like Dave mentioned, I think you're fine. Paint will make that 1/8' gap >>>> disappear. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:23 PM >>>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>>> Subject: RV10-List: Overtrimmed Cowl Top >>>> >>>> It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it currently >>>> falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and the back plate >>>> of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the backplate. My choice >>>> at this point seems to be to either live with it, increase the space from >>>> the back plate and push it back a bit or raise the nose of the cowl up a bit >>>> which should also push it back (or some combination of the three options). >>>> The space you see in the picture, at its widest, is 1/16" >>>> >>>> What say ye? >>>> >>>> Jeff Carpenter >>>> 40304 >>>> >>>> sitting at the 90/90 phase > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <lewgall(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
Date: May 09, 2013
Hey Jeff, I have said before that in real life the gap between the spinner and the cowl can be at least 1/4" (as others have said here). It keeps the spinner from getting into the cowl when the engine "shakes" on shut down, and makes it a bit easier to install the lower cowl without scraping its paint on the spinner. I can't see that a tighter tolerance on that gap between spinner and cowl helps anything anyway. I would have no second thoughts at all sliding the cowl back and sanding the high spots to make a tighter fit if your gap is 1/8 " or more at the firewall. If you are painting several coats (i.e. base coat/clear coat), 1/16 may be about right. If you want the "Swiss Watch" look and are doing 3 or less coats, maybe 1/32" gap. I don't know any pilots personally that are dissatisfied with their -10 if that gap is not perfect after flying more than 10 minutes ;-) 99/1 phase? Later, - Lew -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Carpenter Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:22 PM Subject: RV10-List: Overtrimmed Cowl Top It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it currently falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and the back plate of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the backplate. My choice at this point seems to be to either live with it, increase the space from the back plate and push it back a bit or raise the nose of the cowl up a bit which should also push it back (or some combination of the three options). The space you see in the picture, at its widest, is 1/16" What say ye? Jeff Carpenter 40304 sitting at the 90/90 phase ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2013
From: Linn <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
The wider the gap between the spinner and cowl, the more cooling air escapes through that crack. It can come from above the cylinders or below .... but that's a low pressure area and the air will find a way out. But all is not lost. You can use the foam pipe insulation, the size depending on the amount of space between the spinner backing plate and the front 'ring' of the cowl to seal that area. Just split the foam down the seam and glue it to the cowl 'ring'. The first time you start the engine the foam will become a 'clearance fit'. ;-) Linn On 5/9/2013 10:11 PM, lewgall(at)charter.net wrote: > > Hey Jeff, > > I have said before that in real life the gap between the spinner and > the cowl can be at least 1/4" (as others have said here). It keeps > the spinner from getting into the cowl when the engine "shakes" on > shut down, and makes it a bit easier to install the lower cowl without > scraping its paint on the spinner. I can't see that a tighter > tolerance on that gap between spinner and cowl helps anything anyway. > I would have no second thoughts at all sliding the cowl back and > sanding the high spots to make a tighter fit if your gap is 1/8 " or > more at the firewall. If you are painting several coats (i.e. base > coat/clear coat), 1/16 may be about right. If you want the "Swiss > Watch" look and are doing 3 or less coats, maybe 1/32" gap. I don't > know any pilots personally that are dissatisfied with their -10 if > that gap is not perfect after flying more than 10 minutes ;-) > 99/1 phase? > > Later, - Lew > > -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Carpenter > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:22 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Overtrimmed Cowl Top > > It looks like I've over-trimmed my cowl top... this is where it > currently falls with the 1/8" spacers between the face of the cowl and > the back plate of the spinner and the spinner centered visually on the > backplate. My choice at this point seems to be to either live with it, > increase the space from the back plate and push it back a bit or raise > the nose of the cowl up a bit which should also push it back (or some > combination of the three options). The space you see in the picture, > at its widest, is 1/16" > > What say ye? > > Jeff Carpenter > 40304 > > sitting at the 90/90 phase > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Overtrimmed Cowl Top
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 09, 2013
Leave 3/16"-1/4" gap. I built to 1/8" and it is too tight. -------- Wayne G. SB 12/01/2009-12/01/2011 TT= 103 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400238#400238 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aero Composites
From: "chazking" <airplane-lists(at)hotmail.com>
Date: May 10, 2013
Confirmed. AeroComposites sold their IP to MacCauley & the firm is consulting to MacCauley on their development of composite prop offerings. Whirlwind propellers uses Maccauley components & will provide "custom" support. http://www.whirlwindaviation.com/index.asp I had them (Bill) re-hub an AeroComposite prop (3300) & it's now installed on my 10. It's now "considered" a Whirlwind prop & is supported. Bill was very complementary of the blades. And, I picked-up 2 kts in pre & post speed tests. I was amazed so I ran the post speed test 15x. Chz Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400246#400246 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 10, 2013
From: Rodger Todd <rj_todd(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Aero Composites
Chaz, - Thanks very much for the info; looks like all is not lost! - Rodger --- On Fri, 10/5/13, chazking wrote: From: chazking <airplane-lists(at)hotmail.com> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Aero Composites Date: Friday, 10 May, 2013, 13:56 Confirmed. AeroComposites sold their IP to MacCauley & the firm is consulting to MacCa uley on their development of composite prop offerings. Whirlwind propellers uses Maccauley components & will provide "custom" supp ort. http://www.whirlwindaviation.com/index.asp I had them (Bill) re-hub an AeroComposite prop (3300) & it's now installed on my 10. It's now "considered" a Whirlwind prop & is supported. Bill was v ery complementary of the blades.- And, I picked-up 2 kts in pre & post sp eed tests. I was amazed so I ran the post speed test 15x. Ch=C3=A4z Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400246#400246 le, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Aero Composites
Date: May 10, 2013
Chaz, You picked up 2 knots over what prior prop? Thanks, Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chazking Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:56 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Aero Composites Confirmed. AeroComposites sold their IP to MacCauley & the firm is consulting to MacCauley on their development of composite prop offerings. Whirlwind propellers uses Maccauley components & will provide "custom" support. http://www.whirlwindaviation.com/index.asp I had them (Bill) re-hub an AeroComposite prop (3300) & it's now installed on my 10. It's now "considered" a Whirlwind prop & is supported. Bill was very complementary of the blades. And, I picked-up 2 kts in pre & post speed tests. I was amazed so I ran the post speed test 15x. Chz Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400246#400246 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aero Composites
From: "chazking" <airplane-lists(at)hotmail.com>
Date: May 10, 2013
Hartzell PROP C2YR-1BFP/F8068D - Std Vans for IO 540 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400310#400310 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aero Composites
From: "chazking" <airplane-lists(at)hotmail.com>
Date: May 10, 2013
More info: Two to Three blade... 2 blade - 52 # according to Hartzell tech support. 3 blade - 50# - AeroComposite web site. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400311#400311 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aero Composites
From: "chazking" <airplane-lists(at)hotmail.com>
Date: May 10, 2013
More info: Two to Three blade... 2 blade - 52 # according to Hartzell tech support. 3 blade - 50# - AeroComposite web site. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400312#400312 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Fresh Air Vents
Date: May 11, 2013
Guys The front seats fresh air vents which came in this kit are like this with the female part where the eye-ball valve will be mounted. But if I leave it like it is, this female part positon is not paralel with the instrument panel surface. Is this the way you installed it? Or did you cut that part and installed it flush with the panel surface? Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: May 11, 2013
Most folks will install an eyeball vent, such as those that Stein sells. Th en run a short piece of scat between the naca vent to the eyeball vent. Sent from my iPad On May 11, 2013, at 7:03 AM, "Carlos Trigo" wrote: > Guys > > The front seats fresh air vents which came in this kit are like this > > > > > with the female part where the eye-ball valve will be mounted. > But if I leave it like it is, this female part positon is not paralel with the instrument panel surface. > Is this the way you installed it? > Or did you cut that part and installed it flush with the panel surface? > > Regards > Carlos > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: May 11, 2013
I have mine installed at that angle and find that they work really well that way. Each one can pretty much be pointed anywhere in the cockpit. I bought the upgraded aluminum vents from Van's. http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1368273286-484-93&browse=heatvent&product=sv-6 They are very similar to the ones Stein sells. These are probably the most efficient air vents I have ever seen on a light airplane. They adjust easily and are capable of providing way more fresh air than you usually need, The aluminum vents from Vans do not leak in rain, either. I think they work really well when mounted as per the instructions. I don't have any good closeup photos, but here is one in my old "pre-GRT" panel. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400327#400327 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2013
From: davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
Date: May 11, 2013
I agree with Dave. I also just used the stock black nylon vents as I figured I'd rather spend the extra $300 on avgas. They work well. One day I'll probably breakdown and spring for the nice aluminum ones from Van's. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dmaib(at)me.com Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:11 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents I have mine installed at that angle and find that they work really well that way. Each one can pretty much be pointed anywhere in the cockpit. I bought the upgraded aluminum vents from Van's. http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1368273286-484-93&browse =heatvent&product=sv-6 They are very similar to the ones Stein sells. These are probably the most efficient air vents I have ever seen on a light airplane. They adjust easily and are capable of providing way more fresh air than you usually need, The aluminum vents from Vans do not leak in rain, either. I think they work really well when mounted as per the instructions. I don't have any good closeup photos, but here is one in my old "pre-GRT" panel. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400327#400327 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
Date: May 11, 2013
David Thanks for your answer, but I didn't get any photo you refer at the end of your post. By the way, since you installed the vent at that angle, how did you support it below the panel, did you make a bracket? Carlos -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dmaib(at)me.com Sent: sbado, 11 de Maio de 2013 13:11 Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents I have mine installed at that angle and find that they work really well that way. Each one can pretty much be pointed anywhere in the cockpit. I bought the upgraded aluminum vents from Van's. http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1368273286-484-93&browse =heatvent&product=sv-6 They are very similar to the ones Stein sells. These are probably the most efficient air vents I have ever seen on a light airplane. They adjust easily and are capable of providing way more fresh air than you usually need, The aluminum vents from Vans do not leak in rain, either. I think they work really well when mounted as per the instructions. I don't have any good closeup photos, but here is one in my old "pre-GRT" panel. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400327#400327 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
From: David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: May 11, 2013
Carlos, Mine are not supported below the panel and they are rock solid. I believe we used proseal to mount the vent scoop to the fuselage wall, but it has been so long now that I cannot say that for sure. Sorry about the photo. I did not attach it properly, but if you log on to the Matronics site you can see it on my post. David Maib On May 11, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: David Thanks for your answer, but I didn't get any photo you refer at the end of your post. By the way, since you installed the vent at that angle, how did you support it below the panel, did you make a bracket? Carlos -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dmaib(at)me.com Sent: sbado, 11 de Maio de 2013 13:11 Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents I have mine installed at that angle and find that they work really well that way. Each one can pretty much be pointed anywhere in the cockpit. I bought the upgraded aluminum vents from Van's. http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1368273286-484-93&browse =heatvent&product=sv-6 They are very similar to the ones Stein sells. These are probably the most efficient air vents I have ever seen on a light airplane. They adjust easily and are capable of providing way more fresh air than you usually need, The aluminum vents from Vans do not leak in rain, either. I think they work really well when mounted as per the instructions. I don't have any good closeup photos, but here is one in my old "pre-GRT" panel. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400327#400327 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Tapered Top Cowl Pins
Date: May 11, 2013
Some follow up. Thank to Greg's post I completely eliminated the cowl rattle during idle and taxi. Removing the per plans .090, I replaced them with SS .120 pins that I tapered to .090 for the first 8" or so. This allowed the pins to make the radius bend on the cowl sides but fully lock up the top cowl hinge area. I found out tapering these stainless steel pins was not simple. After some trial and error I ended up putting the .120 pins in a drill press. With the drill press on low speed, I used a die grinder with a rotary metal file attachment to work the pin down. This was followed by some hand sanding - the pin still rotating by the drill press. Start with a pin longer than you need as you will cut off the end of the pin that was in the drill chuck. Some oil to lubricate the pin on first install and all is well. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg McFarlane Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:21 AM Subject: RV10-List: Tapered Top Cowl Pins --> Here is a quick easy way to allow the 120 top pins to be used to retain that nice fit and stop the cowl ballooning. Place a piece of hardwood about 10 inches long in a vice. Using a CUTTING disc on a 4inch grinder make a straight shallow cut the length of the wood then mark a line across the wood 7inches from one end. Cut the pins to length, hold one end in an electric drill and have an assistant operate the drill at about 1000rpm, hold the rotating pin with one hand on the wood groove and with the other hand a 4 inch grinder with a GRINDING disc. GENTLY and EVENLY apply the grinder to the first 6inches of the pin using the mark on the wood as a guide. Check the diameter as you go, when about 100 discard the assistant and using the drill yourself sand the pin smooth. Sand the end of the pin per plans to give a nice lead in.The pin needs only to be tapered for about 6inches and that allows it to enter and go around the curve in the hinge nicely and keeps everything nice and s! nug. Cheers from Western Australia Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392870#392870 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 11, 2013
I used the large eyeball vents from Stein attached directly to NACA vent using proseal for both like David. Stock panel. Works great. -------- Wayne G. SB 12/01/2009-12/01/2011 TT= 103 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400359#400359 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2013
From: davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
I'm not sure which David you are referring to but mine are the Steinair ven ts mounted to the stock RV-10 kit Naca's with the square flange. David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:50:10 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents David Thanks for your answer, but I didn't get any photo you refer at the end of your post. By the way, since you installed the vent at that angle, how did you support it below the panel, did you make a bracket? Carlos -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dmaib(at)me.com Sent: s=C3=A1bado, 11 de Maio de 2013 13:11 Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents I have mine installed at that angle and find that they work really well tha t way. Each one can pretty much be pointed anywhere in the cockpit. I bought the upgraded aluminum vents from Van's. http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1368273286-484-93&bro wse =heatvent&product=sv-6 They are very similar to the ones Stein sells. T hese are probably the most efficient air vents I have ever seen on a light airplane. They adjust easily and are capable of providing way more fresh ai r than you usually need, The aluminum vents from Vans do not leak in rain, either. I think they work really well when mounted as per the instructions. I don't have any good closeup photos, but here is one in my old "pre-GRT" panel. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400327#400327 =========== =========== =========== =========== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
Date: May 12, 2013
David Clifford Thanks for your answer as well.. Do you have a picture? Carlos From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net Sent: s=C3=A1bado, 11 de Maio de 2013 22:50 Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents I'm not sure which David you are referring to but mine are the Steinair vents mounted to the stock RV-10 kit Naca's with the square flange. David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI _____ From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:50:10 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents David Thanks for your answer, but I didn't get any photo you refer at the end of your post. By the way, since you installed the vent at that angle, how did you support it below the panel, did you make a bracket? Carlos -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dmaib(at)me.com Sent: s=C3=A1bado, 11 de Maio de 2013 13:11 Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents I have mine installed at that angle and find that they work really well that way. Each one can pretty much be pointed anywhere in the cockpit. I bought the upgraded aluminum vents from Van's. http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1368273286-484-93 <http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1368273286-484-93& browse> &browse =heatvent&product=sv-6 They are very similar to the ones Stein sells. These are probably the most efficient air vents I have ever seen on a light airplane. They adjust easily and are capable of providing way more fresh air than you usually need, The aluminum vents from Vans do not leak in rain, either. I think they work really well when mounted as per the instructions. I don't have any good closeup photos, but here is one in my old "pre-GRT" panel. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400327#400327 Date: May 12, 2013
From: davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
The pictures were attachments on my first reply to your post. David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:06:10 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents David Clifford Thanks for your answer as well.. Do you have a picture? Carlos From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net Sent: s=C3=A1bado, 11 de Maio de 2013 22:50 Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents I'm not sure which David you are referring to but mine are the Steinair ven ts mounted to the stock RV-10 kit Naca's with the square flange. David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos Trigo" < trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt > Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:50:10 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents David Thanks for your answer, but I didn't get any photo you refer at the end of your post. By the way, since you installed the vent at that angle, how did you support it below the panel, did you make a bracket? Carlos -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [ mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On Behalf Of dmaib(at)me.com Sent: s=C3=A1bado, 11 de Maio de 2013 13:11 Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents I have mine installed at that angle and find that they work really well tha t way. Each one can pretty much be pointed anywhere in the cockpit. I bought the upgraded aluminum vents from Van's. http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1368273286-484-93&bro wse =heatvent&product=sv-6 They are very similar to the ones Stein sells. T hese are probably the most efficient air vents I have ever seen on a light airplane. They adjust easily and are capable of providing way more fresh ai r than you usually need, The aluminum vents from Vans do not leak in rain, either. I think they work really well when mounted as per the instructions. I don't have any good closeup photos, but here is one in my old "pre-GRT" panel. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400327#400327 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ht ====================== == ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
Date: May 12, 2013
For some reason, your first reply came out blank, even when going online to the Matronics site. Will you please repeat your first post? Thanks Carlos From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net Sent: domingo, 12 de Maio de 2013 02:39 Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents The pictures were attachments on my first reply to your post. David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI _____ From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:06:10 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents David Clifford Thanks for your answer as well.. Do you have a picture? Carlos From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net Sent: s=C3=A1bado, 11 de Maio de 2013 22:50 Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents I'm not sure which David you are referring to but mine are the Steinair vents mounted to the stock RV-10 kit Naca's with the square flange. David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI _____ From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:50:10 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents David Thanks for your answer, but I didn't get any photo you refer at the end of your post. By the way, since you installed the vent at that angle, how did you support it below the panel, did you make a bracket? Carlos -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dmaib(at)me.com Sent: s=C3=A1bado, 11 de Maio de 2013 13:11 Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fresh Air Vents I have mine installed at that angle and find that they work really well that way. Each one can pretty much be pointed anywhere in the cockpit. I bought the upgraded aluminum vents from Van's. http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1368273286-484-93 <http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1368273286-484-93& browse> &browse =heatvent&product=sv-6 They are very similar to the ones Stein sells. These are probably the most efficient air vents I have ever seen on a light airplane. They adjust easily and are capable of providing way more fresh air than you usually need, The aluminum vents from Vans do not leak in rain, either. I think they work really well when mounted as per the instructions. I don't have any good closeup photos, but here is one in my old "pre-GRT" panel. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400327#400327 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: OT: Happy Mum day to all our folks...
From another list, re what homebuilders' wives and girl friends deal with................ Coincidentally, I was reading a 5 year old copy of Sport Pilot and had a somewhat amusing short article by a lady that married a pilot (and airplane homebuilder). Short version - blind date. He invites her over to his house to see the place (historic, etc.). Okay, he seems moderately normal... he shows her the home, looks okay, he seems nice. Then he says "Want to see the basement???" Now she is beginning to wonder "Uh, oh. Can my car be seen from the road? Did I tell anyone the address? Will the police ever find my body?" So they go down into the basement. Lots of tools and framework, but nothing obvious as instruments of torture. Just a strange "chemical" smell. Beginning to wonder if that's how he disposes of the bodies, she sniffs again. Seeing her do this, he reassures her... "Oh, don't mind the smell. It's just the dope!" "Sigh... where have all the good hetero NON_DRUGGIE men gone to?" So yes... to all the wives and mothers of pilots, they DO put up with a lot. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Greenley" <wgreenley(at)gmail.com>
Subject: OT: Happy Mum day to all our folks...
Date: May 12, 2013
What's the date on the issue, sounds like something fun to give my wife? Bill Greenley RV-10 Under Construction Dowagiac, MI -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:11 PM Subject: RV10-List: OT: Happy Mum day to all our folks... From another list, re what homebuilders' wives and girl friends deal with................ Coincidentally, I was reading a 5 year old copy of Sport Pilot and had a somewhat amusing short article by a lady that married a pilot (and airplane homebuilder). Short version - blind date. He invites her over to his house to see the place (historic, etc.). Okay, he seems moderately normal... he shows her the home, looks okay, he seems nice. Then he says "Want to see the basement???" Now she is beginning to wonder "Uh, oh. Can my car be seen from the road? Did I tell anyone the address? Will the police ever find my body?" So they go down into the basement. Lots of tools and framework, but nothing obvious as instruments of torture. Just a strange "chemical" smell. Beginning to wonder if that's how he disposes of the bodies, she sniffs again. Seeing her do this, he reassures her... "Oh, don't mind the smell. It's just the dope!" "Sigh... where have all the good hetero NON_DRUGGIE men gone to?" So yes... to all the wives and mothers of pilots, they DO put up with a lot. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2013
Subject: Re: OT: Happy Mum day to all our folks...
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
I'm trying to get you a date, as I just copied the info from another mail list. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:07 PM, William Greenley wrote: > > What's the date on the issue, sounds like something fun to give my wife? > Bill Greenley > RV-10 Under Construction > Dowagiac, MI > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:11 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: OT: Happy Mum day to all our folks... > > > From another list, re what homebuilders' wives and girl friends deal > with................ > Coincidentally, I was reading a 5 year old copy of Sport Pilot and had a > somewhat amusing short article by a lady that married a pilot (and airplane > homebuilder). Short version - blind date. He invites her over to his house > to see the place (historic, etc.). Okay, he seems moderately normal... he > shows her the home, looks okay, he seems nice. > Then he says "Want to see the basement???" Now she is beginning to wonder > "Uh, oh. Can my car be seen from the road? Did I tell anyone the address? > Will the police ever find my body?" So they go down into the basement. Lots > of tools and framework, but nothing obvious as instruments of torture. Just > a strange "chemical" smell. Beginning to wonder if that's how he disposes > of > the bodies, she sniffs again. Seeing her do this, he reassures her... "Oh, > don't mind the smell. It's just the dope!" "Sigh... where have all the good > hetero NON_DRUGGIE men gone to?" So yes... to all the wives and mothers of > pilots, they DO put up with a lot. > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > -- - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Andy and Jen Johnson" <noconwud(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Difference in diameters between engine mount ears and dynafocal
Date: May 12, 2013
All, My engine mount ears have an inner diameter of ~2", while my dynafocal mounts have outer diameters of ~1.375". I've attached a pic to illustrate. I have an older narrow deck that I just had rebuilt...is it possible I need to get engine mount ears with a smaller inner diameter? Has anyone else seen this problem before? Thanks. Andy Johnson Getting ready to mount the engine. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2013
Subject: Re: Difference in diameters between engine mount ears and dynafocal
From: Bob Condrey <condreyb(at)gmail.com>
Yes, you need part number 70456 ears - they bolt on. Bob On Sunday, May 12, 2013, Andy and Jen Johnson wrote: > All, > > My engine mount ears have an inner diameter of ~2", while my dynafocal > mounts have outer diameters of ~1.375". I've attached a pic to illustrate. > I have an older narrow deck that I just had rebuilt...is it possible I need > to get engine mount ears with a smaller inner diameter? > > Has anyone else seen this problem before? > > Thanks. > > Andy Johnson > Getting ready to mount the engine. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Happy Mum day to all our folks...
If memory serves, it was something like October or November of 2008. Pretty nice little piece. jmk -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: RV10-List: OT: Happy Mum day to all our folks... Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 17:32:44 -0700 From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> I'm trying to get you a date, as I just copied the info from another mail list. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:07 PM, William Greenley > wrote: > What's the date on the issue, sounds like something fun to give my wife? Bill Greenley RV-10 Under Construction Dowagiac, MI -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:11 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: OT: Happy Mum day to all our folks... > From another list, re what homebuilders' wives and girl friends deal with................ Coincidentally, I was reading a 5 year old copy of Sport Pilot and had a somewhat amusing short article by a lady that married a pilot (and airplane homebuilder). Short version - blind date. He invites her over to his house to see the place (historic, etc.). Okay, he seems moderately normal... he shows her the home, looks okay, he seems nice. Then he says "Want to see the basement???" Now she is beginning to wonder "Uh, oh. Can my car be seen from the road? Did I tell anyone the address? Will the police ever find my body?" So they go down into the basement. Lots of tools and framework, but nothing obvious as instruments of torture. Just a strange "chemical" smell. Beginning to wonder if that's how he disposes of the bodies, she sniffs again. Seeing her do this, he reassures her... "Oh, don't mind the smell. It's just the dope!" "Sigh... where have all the good hetero NON_DRUGGIE men gone to?" So yes... to all the wives and mothers of pilots, they DO put up with a lot. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> ========== arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========== http://forums.matronics.com ========== le, List Admin. ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ========== -- - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm * * ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Balancing the fuel injectors
Date: May 13, 2013
All, It took a couple of iterations but I have been able to balance the fuel injectors to where the cylinders peak within 0.1 to 0.2 gph. With the stock engine (XIO-540 from Van's) the spread from first to peak to last to peak was 0.7 to 1.0 gph. I also now note the absence of any engine roughness even when well below LOP. The Dynon SkyView data log function provided unbiased information on the fuel flow when each cylinder peaked. I also looked over a series of data runs (as in the each cross country) to make sure the information was repeatable. The standard injector nozzle for this engine is 0.028". This is my final nozzle set up for each cylinder: #1: .028 #2: .029 #3: .027 #4: .027 #5: .029 #6: .0275 Note this is for my specific engine - your results will most likely be different. Don at Airflow Performance provided valuable information on this effort as well as the nozzles themselves. His nozzles fit both Bendix or Precision fuel injection system. Carl ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2013
From: davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Difference in diameters between engine mount ears and
dynafocal You need the smaller ones. A.E.R.O. http://www.aeroinstock.com/ carries them and they are really nice machined mounts. I fooled around and bought a used set of lycoming ears off ebay that were really worn so I bit the bullet and purchased new ones. David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy and Jen Johnson" <noconwud(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:05:21 PM Subject: RV10-List: Difference in diameters between engine mount ears and dynafocal All, My engine mount ears have an inner diameter of ~2", while my dynafocal mounts have outer diameters of ~1.375". I've attached a pic to illustrate. I have an older narrow deck that I just had rebuilt...is it possible I need to get engine mount ears with a smaller inner diameter? Has anyone else seen this problem before? Thanks. Andy Johnson Getting ready to mount the engine. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Balancing the fuel injectors
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: May 13, 2013
Good to hear. I also am working with Don after having no luck with GAMI. My engine is. TMX IO 540 Stock is 0.025 Alan Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2013, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" w rote: > All, > > It took a couple of iterations but I have been able to balance the fuel in jectors to where the cylinders peak within 0.1 to 0.2 gph. With the stock e ngine (XIO-540 from Van's) the spread from first to peak to last to peak was 0.7 to 1.0 gph. I also now note the absence of any engine roughness even w hen well below LOP. > > The Dynon SkyView data log function provided unbiased information on the f uel flow when each cylinder peaked. I also looked over a series of data run s (as in the each cross country) to make sure the information was repeatable . The standard injector nozzle for this engine is 0.028". This is my final nozzle set up for each cylinder: > #1: .028 > #2: .029 > #3: .027 > #4: .027 > #5: .029 > #6: .0275 > > Note this is for my specific engine - your results will most likely be dif ferent. > > Don at Airflow Performance provided valuable information on this effort as well as the nozzles themselves. His nozzles fit both Bendix or Precision f uel injection system. > > Carl > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Re: Balancing the fuel injectors
Date: May 13, 2013
I have done this a number of times. In my talks with the guys at Airflow Performance, they said stock injectors are .028", but they recommended, for our application, to get a set of .026" nozzles before running the tests then go up and down from there, but I have done it both ways. It is a very easy and inexpensive way to do exactly what GAMI does, basically, except you aren't changing the injectors themselves, but rather just the $25 nozzles. Great product and great way to get LOP operations and a smooth running engine. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 On May 13, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > Good to hear. I also am working with Don after having no luck with GAMI. > My engine is. TMX IO 540 > Stock is 0.025 > Alan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 13, 2013, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: > >> All, >> >> It took a couple of iterations but I have been able to balance the fuel injectors to where the cylinders peak within 0.1 to 0.2 gph. With the stock engine (XIO-540 from Van's) the spread from first to peak to last to peak was 0.7 to 1.0 gph. I also now note the absence of any engine roughness even when well below LOP. >> >> The Dynon SkyView data log function provided unbiased information on the fuel flow when each cylinder peaked. I also looked over a series of data runs (as in the each cross country) to make sure the information was repeatable. The standard injector nozzle for this engine is 0.028". This is my final nozzle set up for each cylinder: >> #1: .028 >> #2: .029 >> #3: .027 >> #4: .027 >> #5: .029 >> #6: .0275 >> >> Note this is for my specific engine - your results will most likely be different. >> >> Don at Airflow Performance provided valuable information on this effort as well as the nozzles themselves. His nozzles fit both Bendix or Precision fuel injection system. >> >> Carl >> >> >> >> ======================== >> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ======================== >> cs.com >> ======================== >> matronics.com/contribution >> ======================== >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Balancing the fuel injectors
Date: May 13, 2013
At $27 per nozzle from Airflow Performance - also a lot less expensive route than GAMI. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan Mekler MD Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 9:16 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Balancing the fuel injectors Good to hear. I also am working with Don after having no luck with GAMI. My engine is. TMX IO 540 Stock is 0.025 Alan Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2013, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: All, It took a couple of iterations but I have been able to balance the fuel injectors to where the cylinders peak within 0.1 to 0.2 gph. With the stock engine (XIO-540 from Van's) the spread from first to peak to last to peak was 0.7 to 1.0 gph. I also now note the absence of any engine roughness even when well below LOP. The Dynon SkyView data log function provided unbiased information on the fuel flow when each cylinder peaked. I also looked over a series of data runs (as in the each cross country) to make sure the information was repeatable. The standard injector nozzle for this engine is 0.028". This is my final nozzle set up for each cylinder: #1: .028 #2: .029 #3: .027 #4: .027 #5: .029 #6: .0275 Note this is for my specific engine - your results will most likely be different. Don at Airflow Performance provided valuable information on this effort as well as the nozzles themselves. His nozzles fit both Bendix or Precision fuel injection system. Carl ================================== ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ================================== cs.com ================================== matronics.com/contribution ================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Difference in diameters between engine mount ears and
dynafocal
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Date: May 13, 2013
Or post on the Rocket list. They use the larger mounts. Years ago I found s omeone to swap mounts. Saved us both s lot of money. -Mike Kraus RV-4 sold :-( RV-10 flying :-) KitFox SS7 Radial building :-) On May 13, 2013, at 8:47 AM, davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net wrote: > You need the smaller ones. A.E.R.O. http://www.aeroinstock.com/ carri es them and they are really nice machined mounts. I fooled around and bough t a used set of lycoming ears off ebay that were really worn so I bit the bu llet and purchased new ones. > > David Clifford > > RV-10 Builder > Howell, MI > > From: "Andy and Jen Johnson" <noconwud(at)earthlink.net> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:05:21 PM > Subject: RV10-List: Difference in diameters between engine mount ears and d ynafocal > > All, > > My engine mount ears have an inner diameter of ~2", while my dynafocal > mounts have outer diameters of ~1.375". I've attached a pic to illustrate . > I have an older narrow deck that I just had rebuilt...is it possible I nee d > to get engine mount ears with a smaller inner diameter? > > Has anyone else seen this problem before? > > Thanks. > > Andy Johnson > Getting ready to mount the engine. > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Balancing the fuel injectors
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Date: May 13, 2013
I received a new set of GAMI injectors with an engine I purchased in parts. Once I started flying (years later), GAMI set me up with the flow test set- up and swapped out 4 of my injectors with no questions asked. I had great s ervice from them, even though I was not the original buyer. Just a data point... -Mike Kraus RV-4 sold :-( RV-10 flying :-) KitFox SS7 Radial building :-) On May 13, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > Good to hear. I also am working with Don after having no luck with GAMI. > My engine is. TMX IO 540 > Stock is 0.025 > Alan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 13, 2013, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: > >> All, >> >> It took a couple of iterations but I have been able to balance the fuel i njectors to where the cylinders peak within 0.1 to 0.2 gph. With the stock e ngine (XIO-540 from Van's) the spread from first to peak to last to peak was 0.7 to 1.0 gph. I also now note the absence of any engine roughness even w hen well below LOP. >> >> The Dynon SkyView data log function provided unbiased information on the f uel flow when each cylinder peaked. I also looked over a series of data run s (as in the each cross country) to make sure the information was repeatable . The standard injector nozzle for this engine is 0.028". This is my final nozzle set up for each cylinder: >> #1: .028 >> #2: .029 >> #3: .027 >> #4: .027 >> #5: .029 >> #6: .0275 >> >> Note this is for my specific engine - your results will most likely be di fferent. >> >> Don at Airflow Performance provided valuable information on this effort a s well as the nozzles themselves. His nozzles fit both Bendix or Precision f uel injection system. >> >> Carl >> >> >> >> ========================= ========= >> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ========================= ========= >> cs.com >> ========================= ========= >> matronics.com/contribution >> ========================= ========= >> > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Balancing the fuel injectors
Date: May 13, 2013
It may be less expensive than GAMI (happy) but it still can be expensive an d time consuming. Between 2 airplanes (10 cylinders) I have a collection of 12 extra restrictors and I still don't have the right mix to balance my -1 0. I think it would be a cool thing to have an RV-List collection of injectors that we send around to builders. Pay for what you use and/or restock so we all don't end up with so many extra restrictors. If I ever build & order another engine I will request to start with 0.026 a s I have a bunch of 0.028's I may never use. Robin From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 6:58 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Balancing the fuel injectors At $27 per nozzle from Airflow Performance - also a lot less expensive rout e than GAMI. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma tronics.com> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ala n Mekler MD Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 9:16 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Balancing the fuel injectors Good to hear. I also am working with Don after having no luck with GAMI. My engine is. TMX IO 540 Stock is 0.025 Alan Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2013, at 8:47 AM, "Carl Froehlich" > wrote: All, It took a couple of iterations but I have been able to balance the fuel inj ectors to where the cylinders peak within 0.1 to 0.2 gph. With the stock e ngine (XIO-540 from Van's) the spread from first to peak to last to peak wa s 0.7 to 1.0 gph. I also now note the absence of any engine roughness even when well below LOP. The Dynon SkyView data log function provided unbiased information on the fu el flow when each cylinder peaked. I also looked over a series of data run s (as in the each cross country) to make sure the information was repeatabl e. The standard injector nozzle for this engine is 0.028". This is my fin al nozzle set up for each cylinder: #1: .028 #2: .029 #3: .027 #4: .027 #5: .029 #6: .0275 Note this is for my specific engine - your results will most likely be diff erent. Don at Airflow Performance provided valuable information on this effort as well as the nozzles themselves. His nozzles fit both Bendix or Precision f uel injection system. Carl ========= ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= cs.com ========= matronics.com/contribution ========= http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Balancing the fuel injectors
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 13, 2013
Don at AF told me that he liked to go a little smaller to start because at the low cruise fuel flows I was shooting for ( -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400528#400528 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Balancing the fuel injectors
Date: May 13, 2013
I think the other reason to start at 0.026 is that 0.026 still exceeds max fuel flow required (most applications) and gives the owner room to move up and down size wise. Sizes above 0.028 were more rare and I think at one point special order while restrictor sizes above & below 0.026 are stock items. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:34 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Balancing the fuel injectors Don at AF told me that he liked to go a little smaller to start because at the low cruise fuel flows I was shooting for ( -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400528#400528 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Balancing the fuel injectors
Date: May 13, 2013
Don did recommend I start at 0.026" if I establish cruise below 12gph as the primary driver. As this was an iterative process however, I got this recommendation after I first installed a couple of .029" nozzles to fix two cylinders peaking way early. After that got me a lot closer, I did the two .027" injectors on the cylinders peaking late (I had them left over from doing this on my 8A) and then put in a .0275" as the final change. This is now so close that one small tweak on the mixture knob has all cylinders peaking at the same time - in other words I can't really measure the difference between the cylinders. I don't think I'll mess with success. If starting from scratch, I'd install .026" in the two or three cylinders peaking late, then go from there. I don't think I would go smaller than .026". Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 1:48 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Balancing the fuel injectors I think the other reason to start at 0.026 is that 0.026 still exceeds max fuel flow required (most applications) and gives the owner room to move up and down size wise. Sizes above 0.028 were more rare and I think at one point special order while restrictor sizes above & below 0.026 are stock items. Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:34 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Balancing the fuel injectors Don at AF told me that he liked to go a little smaller to start because at the low cruise fuel flows I was shooting for ( -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400528#400528 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV-10 Electric system
From: "marcausman" <marc(at)verticalpower.com>
Date: May 13, 2013
bob88, The VP-X should be used by itself without other bus managers like the one you mention. The VP-X installation manual (available here: http://verticalpower.com/documents/ ) shows you how to provide system-level redundancy in case of a failure. Hope that helps. :D -------- Marc Ausman http://www.verticalpower.com "Move up to a modern electrical system" RV-7 IO-390 Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400558#400558 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 13, 2013
Dear Listers, As it looks like I will be retiring from flying long before e-Mag produces a 6 cylinder P-Mag I think it is time to search for an alternative electron ic ignition for my -10. I would like a referral to the best choices availab le assuming I am I a flying retrofit situation vs. building from scratch. D o any of you have strong preferences in systems? Thanks, Robin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: "chazking" <airplane-lists(at)hotmail.com>
Date: May 13, 2013
I've used the ElectroAir / Jeff Rose system on an earlier plane. It worked flawlessly. I plan to install it on N1XS this Winter. In my experience it gives the engine a noticeably stronger sound. I do not have empirical data, though. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400583#400583 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2013
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Been flying with dual Lightspeeds for 500+ hours.... only issue, lost one c oil.- Easy to find which one based on egt's, and I think Klaus and I dete rmined it was from heat after shutdown.- I have a plenum and from that po int on, whenever I stop the plane and put it in my hangar, the next thing i s to turn on a fan placed in front of one of the intake holes in the cowl.. .. about 15 minutes brings the temp down substantially.- No issues since. - Suggest all with single or dual Lightspeed do the same. Don McDonald --- On Mon, 5/13/13, Robin Marks wrote: From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition Date: Monday, May 13, 2013, 6:18 PM =0A=0A =0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0ADear Listers, =0AAs it looks like I will be retir ing from flying long before e-Mag produces a 6 cylinder P-Mag I think it is time to search for an alternative electronic ignition for my -10.=0A I wou ld like a referral to the best choices available assuming I am I a flying r etrofit situation vs. building from scratch. Do any of you have strong pref ==============0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2013
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
I was going to try the G3i system, but decided to wait until after the bird is flying. Hadn't heard about any RV-10s with it. http://www.g3ignition.com/ -Sean #40303 On 5/13/13 10:46 PM, Don McDonald wrote: > Been flying with dual Lightspeeds for 500+ hours.... only issue, lost > one coil. Easy to find which one based on egt's, and I think Klaus > and I determined it was from heat after shutdown. I have a plenum and > from that point on, whenever I stop the plane and put it in my hangar, > the next thing is to turn on a fan placed in front of one of the > intake holes in the cowl.... about 15 minutes brings the temp down > substantially. No issues since. Suggest all with single or dual > Lightspeed do the same. > Don McDonald > > --- On *Mon, 5/13/13, Robin Marks //* wrote: > > > From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> > Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition > To: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" > Date: Monday, May 13, 2013, 6:18 PM > > Dear Listers, > > As it looks like I will be retiring from flying long before e-Mag > produces a 6 cylinder P-Mag I think it is time to search for an > alternative electronic ignition for my -10. I would like a > referral to the best choices available assuming I am I a flying > retrofit situation vs. building from scratch. Do any of you have > strong preferences in systems? > > Thanks, > > Robin > > *tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > > > * > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: May 14, 2013
There are several RV-10s with it installed. I have it, but not flying yet, nut should be In a few weeks. I'm sure that Thomas will share the other contacts. Sent from my iPad On May 14, 2013, at 12:30 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > I was going to try the G3i system, but decided to wait until after the bird is flying. Hadn't heard about any RV-10s with it. > > http://www.g3ignition.com/ > > -Sean #40303 > > On 5/13/13 10:46 PM, Don McDonald wrote: >> Been flying with dual Lightspeeds for 500+ hours.... only issue, lost one coil. Easy to find which one based on egt's, and I think Klaus and I determined it was from heat after shutdown. I have a plenum and from that point on, whenever I stop the plane and put it in my hangar, the next thing is to turn on a fan placed in front of one of the intake holes in the cowl.... about 15 minutes brings the temp down substantially. No issues since. Suggest all with single or dual Lightspeed do the same. >> Don McDonald >> >> --- On *Mon, 5/13/13, Robin Marks //* wrote: >> >> >> From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> >> Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition >> To: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" >> Date: Monday, May 13, 2013, 6:18 PM >> >> Dear Listers, >> >> As it looks like I will be retiring from flying long before e-Mag >> produces a 6 cylinder P-Mag I think it is time to search for an >> alternative electronic ignition for my -10. I would like a >> referral to the best choices available assuming I am I a flying >> retrofit situation vs. building from scratch. Do any of you have >> strong preferences in systems? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Robin >> >> *tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >> >> >> * > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 14, 2013
I've got it. It eliminates the need for shower of sparks and gives good redundancy. My engine runs very smooth with it. No hot start issues. Half the cost of other systems and covers all plugs. Easy install. No spark advance though. Thomas can explain his thoughts on this. Flew it since day one so I have no comparison data. Be happy to answer any other questions about the system. Dave Leikam 414-807-5499 On May 14, 2013, at 5:42 AM, Bob Leffler wrote: > > There are several RV-10s with it installed. I have it, but not flying yet, nut should be In a few weeks. I'm sure that Thomas will share the other contacts. > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 14, 2013, at 12:30 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > >> >> I was going to try the G3i system, but decided to wait until after the bird is flying. Hadn't heard about any RV-10s with it. >> >> http://www.g3ignition.com/ >> >> -Sean #40303 >> >> On 5/13/13 10:46 PM, Don McDonald wrote: >>> Been flying with dual Lightspeeds for 500+ hours.... only issue, lost one coil. Easy to find which one based on egt's, and I think Klaus and I determined it was from heat after shutdown. I have a plenum and from that point on, whenever I stop the plane and put it in my hangar, the next thing is to turn on a fan placed in front of one of the intake holes in the cowl.... about 15 minutes brings the temp down substantially. No issues since. Suggest all with single or dual Lightspeed do the same. >>> Don McDonald >>> >>> --- On *Mon, 5/13/13, Robin Marks //* wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> >>> Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition >>> To: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" >>> Date: Monday, May 13, 2013, 6:18 PM >>> >>> Dear Listers, >>> >>> As it looks like I will be retiring from flying long before e-Mag >>> produces a 6 cylinder P-Mag I think it is time to search for an >>> alternative electronic ignition for my -10. I would like a >>> referral to the best choices available assuming I am I a flying >>> retrofit situation vs. building from scratch. Do any of you have >>> strong preferences in systems? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> *tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >>> >>> >>> * >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 14, 2013
From: davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
We installed the G3i on my buddies Superior IO-360 in his Cozy MKIV and in addition to easier starting and smoother running, he shaved 9% off his fuel flow at cruise power settings. I am going stock Slick mags for now and get a bench mark that I can measure to when I install the G3i David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Stephens" <sean(at)stephensville.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:30:19 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition I was going to try the G3i system, but decided to wait until after the bird is flying. Hadn't heard about any RV-10s with it. http://www.g3ignition.com/ -Sean #40303 On 5/13/13 10:46 PM, Don McDonald wrote: > Been flying with dual Lightspeeds for 500+ hours.... only issue, lost > one coil. Easy to find which one based on egt's, and I think Klaus > and I determined it was from heat after shutdown. I have a plenum and > from that point on, whenever I stop the plane and put it in my hangar, > the next thing is to turn on a fan placed in front of one of the > intake holes in the cowl.... about 15 minutes brings the temp down > substantially. No issues since. Suggest all with single or dual > Lightspeed do the same. > Don McDonald > > --- On *Mon, 5/13/13, Robin Marks //* wrote: > > > From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> > Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition > To: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" > Date: Monday, May 13, 2013, 6:18 PM > > Dear Listers, > > As it looks like I will be retiring from flying long before e-Mag > produces a 6 cylinder P-Mag I think it is time to search for an > alternative electronic ignition for my -10. I would like a > referral to the best choices available assuming I am I a flying > retrofit situation vs. building from scratch. Do any of you have > strong preferences in systems? > > Thanks, > > Robin > > *tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > > > * > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "tom.on.the.road(at)juno.com" <tom.on.the.road(at)juno.com>
Date: May 14, 2013
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
I'm in the engine building business. We've used Electroair systems with great results (real nice system for the 540.. If you talk to them tell them Tom Lawson (with the Lancair) sent you. Cheers, Tom970-420-1798 ____________________________________________________________ Political system upset? Democrats BIG advantage in America about to completely vanish http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/51924cec978f54cec390bst01vuc ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: May 14, 2013
Comparison data should be easy to obtain. Just turn it off and run on the mags. ;^). That's my plan in phase I. Sent from my iPhone On May 14, 2013, at 9:23 AM, David Leikam wrote: I've got it. It eliminates the need for shower of sparks and gives good redundancy. My engine runs very smooth with it. No hot start issues. Half the cost of other systems and covers all plugs. Easy install. No spark advance though. Thomas can explain his thoughts on this. Flew it since day one so I have no comparison data. Be happy to answer any other questions about the system. Dave Leikam 414-807-5499 On May 14, 2013, at 5:42 AM, Bob Leffler wrote: > > There are several RV-10s with it installed. I have it, but not flying yet, nut should be In a few weeks. I'm sure that Thomas will share the other contacts. > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 14, 2013, at 12:30 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > >> >> I was going to try the G3i system, but decided to wait until after the bird is flying. Hadn't heard about any RV-10s with it. >> >> http://www.g3ignition.com/ >> >> -Sean #40303 >> >> On 5/13/13 10:46 PM, Don McDonald wrote: >>> Been flying with dual Lightspeeds for 500+ hours.... only issue, lost one coil. Easy to find which one based on egt's, and I think Klaus and I determined it was from heat after shutdown. I have a plenum and from that point on, whenever I stop the plane and put it in my hangar, the next thing is to turn on a fan placed in front of one of the intake holes in the cowl.... about 15 minutes brings the temp down substantially. No issues since. Suggest all with single or dual Lightspeed do the same. >>> Don McDonald >>> >>> --- On *Mon, 5/13/13, Robin Marks //* wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> >>> Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition >>> To: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" >>> Date: Monday, May 13, 2013, 6:18 PM >>> >>> Dear Listers, >>> >>> As it looks like I will be retiring from flying long before e-Mag >>> produces a 6 cylinder P-Mag I think it is time to search for an >>> alternative electronic ignition for my -10. I would like a >>> referral to the best choices available assuming I am I a flying >>> retrofit situation vs. building from scratch. Do any of you have >>> strong preferences in systems? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> *tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >>> >>> >>> * >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 15, 2013
Subject: 500
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
For those who missed it: https://www.facebook.com/notes/vans-aircraft-inc/rv-10-500/602548626422180 -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: "hotwheels" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 15, 2013
I have dual Lightspeed Plasma III's on my Lyco IO-540. Using dual batteries and alternators (Z-14 architecture). LSE start engine on 1-2 blades and there's no discernible RPM drop between A&B sides during run up. Note that Plasma III boxes require forced cooling and ManP connections for spark advance. Separate wire runs for coax and sensor wires prevent EMF issues. Flywheel timing magnets are required (got LSE to do mine). Behind-prop sensor mounting bracket required drilling/tapping a couple of holes in the case. It turned out fine, but I puckered the whole time all the same. Proper connection of coax outputs to respective coil was an interesting exercise and resulted in a bit of learning on my part. So far, I like 'em... with one caveat: Version "A1" box died at 14 hours while on the ground and just after engine start (my other box is version B). The good news is that redundancy worked as expected and the engine just kept right on turning. Wouldn't have have noticed until run up had the circuit breaker hadn't popped and warning LED illuminated. I checked the wiring, called LSE support and sent the offending box in for service. Will report back on whatever is found. Klaus has been friendly and helpful when I've had questions. Cheers, Jay N433RV Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400702#400702 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 15, 2013
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
Carlos, I did something a bit different. I can see from David Maib's photo that he has a Stein panel blank as well as Steins eyeball vent. I used the same panel blank and vent but instead of mounting it below the panel, I put the vent on the panel and ran a piece of SCAT (I actually used CEET for the color and so that the wire is covered, won't rust and it has less internal friction to air flow). Take a look here: http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=5253&log=66090&row=6 It turns out that you can do a minimum radius 360 turn with the SCAT quite nicely. I just added a pic showing it finished: http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=5253&log=170694&row=1 The SCAT (or CEET) is slightly visible underneath the panel but is completely non-obtrusive. I think the vent looks best mounted in the panel. Makes a nice water trap if that's a problem (I guess it isn't because I've never heard anyone complain about it) Bill "having just been reminded that it's bird nesting season... do they always build on cylinders 1-3-5" Watson ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 15, 2013
I used the Stein vents mounted in a hole in a piece of scrap aluminum, which in turn was mounted directly to the Van's duct with some screws/nuts. I did put a piece of nylon screen in there to keep out bugs. I mounted the Van's duct late in the game, and as I had no easy way to clamp it, I used a couple of flush pull rivets (fore and aft) to hold it while the pro-seal set. I left the rivets in. Works fine, air can be directed anywhere, lots of it once you're moving. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400706#400706 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: May 15, 2013
Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com wrote: > Carlos, I did something a bit different. > > I can see from David Maib's photo that he has a Stein panel blank as > well as Steins eyeball vent. I used the same panel blank and vent but > instead of mounting it below the panel, I put the vent on the panel and > ran a piece of SCAT (I actually used CEET for the color and so that the > wire is covered, won't rust and it has less internal friction to air > flow). Take a look here: > http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=5253&log=66090&row=6 > > It turns out that you can do a minimum radius 360 turn with the SCAT > quite nicely. I just added a pic showing it finished: > http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=5253&log=170694&row=1 > > > > The SCAT (or CEET) is slightly visible underneath the panel but is > completely non-obtrusive. I think the vent looks best mounted in the > panel. Makes a nice water trap if that's a problem (I guess it isn't > because I've never heard anyone complain about it) > > Bill "having just been reminded that it's bird nesting season... do they > always build on cylinders 1-3-5" Watson That is a really nice looking air vent installation, Bill. Maybe on my next airplane................. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400715#400715 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 15, 2013
Yep - the first hard failure in my dual Lightspeed install (RV-8A) was evidenced with the breaker popping open and not resetting. I however was in the air at the time. I had a troubled experience with this install starting with the kits as they came out of the box, and just gave up after the problems simply kept coming. I replace the ignitions with pMags 300 hours ago and can report the pMags have been flawless. For the RV-10 I plan on staying with the stock Slick mags and continue my patient wait for the six cylinder pMags from Brad. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of hotwheels Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:24 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition I have dual Lightspeed Plasma III's on my Lyco IO-540. Using dual batteries and alternators (Z-14 architecture). LSE start engine on 1-2 blades and there's no discernible RPM drop between A&B sides during run up. Note that Plasma III boxes require forced cooling and ManP connections for spark advance. Separate wire runs for coax and sensor wires prevent EMF issues. Flywheel timing magnets are required (got LSE to do mine). Behind-prop sensor mounting bracket required drilling/tapping a couple of holes in the case. It turned out fine, but I puckered the whole time all the same. Proper connection of coax outputs to respective coil was an interesting exercise and resulted in a bit of learning on my part. So far, I like 'em... with one caveat: Version "A1" box died at 14 hours while on the ground and just after engine start (my other box is version B). The good news is that redundancy worked as expected and the engine just kept right on turning. Wouldn't have have noticed until run up had the circuit breaker hadn't popped and warning LED illuminated. I checked the wiring, called LSE support and sent the offending box in for service. Will report back on whatever is found. Klaus has been friendly and helpful when I've had questions. Cheers, Jay N433RV Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400702#400702 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 15, 2013
800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition. Only problem with the Lightspeed was a coil failure 200 hours ago. On second mag with several incidents. Love the Lightspeed. Good service on getting the coil and plugs as needed. Albert Gardner N9914RV Yuma, AZ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Fresh Air Vents
Thanks David. There are a few things I'd do on my next plane too... but I've told everyone I know that I only have one in me. It's been the best project ever, but I'm thinking it best not to return to the scene of the crime. On 5/15/2013 8:07 PM, dmaib(at)me.com wrote: > > > Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com wrote: >> Carlos, I did something a bit different. >> >> I can see from David Maib's photo that he has a Stein panel blank as >> well as Steins eyeball vent. I used the same panel blank and vent but >> instead of mounting it below the panel, I put the vent on the panel and >> ran a piece of SCAT (I actually used CEET for the color and so that the >> wire is covered, won't rust and it has less internal friction to air >> flow). Take a look here: >> http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=5253&log=66090&row=6 >> >> It turns out that you can do a minimum radius 360 turn with the SCAT >> quite nicely. I just added a pic showing it finished: >> http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=5253&log=170694&row=1 >> >> >> >> The SCAT (or CEET) is slightly visible underneath the panel but is >> completely non-obtrusive. I think the vent looks best mounted in the >> panel. Makes a nice water trap if that's a problem (I guess it isn't >> because I've never heard anyone complain about it) >> >> Bill "having just been reminded that it's bird nesting season... do they >> always build on cylinders 1-3-5" Watson > > That is a really nice looking air vent installation, Bill. Maybe on my next airplane................. > > -------- > David Maib > RV-10 #40559 > Transition Trainer > New Smyrna Beach, FL > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400715#400715 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 16, 2013
I've been reading this thread with great interest as I want to put electron ic ignition on my -10. Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case? > From: ibspud(at)roadrunner.com > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > Date: Wed=2C 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 > > > 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition . > Only problem with the Lightspeed was a coil failure 200 hours ago. On sec ond > mag with several incidents. Love the Lightspeed. Good service on getting the > coil and plugs as needed. > Albert Gardner > N9914RV > Yuma=2C AZ > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: May 16, 2013
[quote="jdriggs49(at)msn.com"]I've been reading this thread with great interest as I want to put electronic ignition on my -10. Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case? > From: ibspud(at)roadrunner.com > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Re: Electronic Ignition > Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 > > > > 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition I have about 650 hours and almost five years with no coil problems. In fact, no problems at all. (I hope saying this doesn't jinx me!) I believe Klaus recommends that you replace spark plug wires about every three years or so to reduce stress on the coils. I also have read that keeping plugs gapped properly reduces stress on the coils. Since I am providing transition training, I have to do 100 hour condition inspections, so am replacing the plugs about every 8 or 9 months. The plugs are cheap, so I don't mind that at all. As previously mentioned, the connections on the coils are very important. I also have a plenum, and almost always open my oil door after shutting down to vent heat from the plenum. My main reason for doing this was to help start the hot engine, but perhaps it has helped my coils as well. After saying all of this, I am going to order a spare coil today to carry in the airplane. I am very happy with the Lightspeed EI. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400753#400753 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
I've never had a coil go bad. I'm guessing most of those are probably heat related though, if you park hot and don't open the oil door and vent that heat. Just a guess anyway. 1.5 short of 950 hours on the system. I had one of the pre-cooling-mod units, of much older (before the A's and B's) lineage, and I did have a problem with that box after many hundreds of hours. The tach started reading wrong at times (I think that was a loose socketed IC), but I had a few instances of the unit not starting. Once the engine was running it has never missed a beat, but I had a few days where I'd go out cold and it wouldn't run. Klaus reworked that and found something in the power circuit that was intermittent. I don't remember if it was a solder joint or component. At any rate, I did have those 2 problems with the box in the same timeframe. These days though it's back to purring like a kitten. I'm not sure what I'll do exactly, on the RV-14. I'll see what Van's offering will be, but if it doesn't have E.I., I will most likely go Lightspeed based on all the quantity of units there are that I've heard good things on. I personally fly lots with Scott and Sean and other RV10's with Lightspeed and everyone has pretty much good luck. It has the hottest spark you can fire, and I listened first hand one day as someone told Klaus that they don't think their wife would be alive without the system, as the spark had to fire through an oily cylinder as their engine came apart, and the lightspeed kept it running....that guy was totally sold on it. So I'd do it again with no problems. I do also have one other thing that I'm kind of doing with some critical components....I buy spares. I know it's a lot to put on a shelf, but so many of our products these days are made by 1 person or 1 company. With any single source component, especially something like an electronic ignition, I'd prefer to have an on-hand spare. If a company owner or key employee dies, it could be really handy. Heck, even with my TruTrak, I'm finding that it may be nice to have a spare AP control head, because some of the newer software may break some functions. But I haven't splurged on that yet. I do have spare EFIS's though, or is that EFII in plural? Tim On 5/16/2013 11:11 AM, dmaib(at)me.com wrote: > > [quote="jdriggs49(at)msn.com"]I've been reading this thread with great interest as I want to put electronic ignition on my -10. > Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case? > > >> From: ibspud(at)roadrunner.com >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: RE: Re: Electronic Ignition >> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 >> >> >> >> 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition > > > I have about 650 hours and almost five years with no coil problems. In fact, no problems at all. (I hope saying this doesn't jinx me!) I believe Klaus recommends that you replace spark plug wires about every three years or so to reduce stress on the coils. I also have read that keeping plugs gapped properly reduces stress on the coils. Since I am providing transition training, I have to do 100 hour condition inspections, so am replacing the plugs about every 8 or 9 months. The plugs are cheap, so I don't mind that at all. As previously mentioned, the connections on the coils are very important. I also have a plenum, and almost always open my oil door after shutting down to vent heat from the plenum. My main reason for doing this was to help start the hot engine, but perhaps it has helped my coils as well. After saying all of this, I am going to order a spare coil today to carry in the airplane. I am very happy with the Lightspeed EI. > > -------- > David Maib > RV-10 #40559 > Transition Trainer > New Smyrna Beach, FL > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
As I said before.... we think the coil problems originate because of heat.. .. the heat generated ONLY when you STOP the engine.... no different in car s.- If you're on a ramp, you can make sure you're pointing into the wind, but in a hangar, just set up a fan blowing into the intake. Don --- On Thu, 5/16/13, dmaib(at)me.com wrote: From: dmaib(at)me.com <dmaib(at)me.com> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition Date: Thursday, May 16, 2013, 11:11 AM [quote="jdriggs49(at)msn.com"]I've been reading this thread with great in terest as I want to put electronic ignition on my -10. Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case? >- From: ibspud(at)roadrunner.com >- To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >- Subject: RE: Re: Electronic Ignition >- Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 >- >- >- >- 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignit ion I have about 650 hours and almost five years with no coil problems. In fact , no problems at all. (I hope saying this doesn't jinx me!) I believe Klaus recommends that you replace spark plug wires about every three years or so to reduce stress on the coils. I also have read that keeping plugs gapped properly reduces stress on the coils. Since I am providing transition train ing, I have to do 100 hour condition inspections, so am replacing the plugs about every 8 or 9 months. The plugs are cheap, so I don't mind that at al l. As previously mentioned, the connections on the coils are very important . I also have a plenum, and almost always open my oil door after shutting d own to vent heat from the plenum. My main reason for doing this was to help start the hot engine, but perhaps it has helped my coils as well. After sa ying all of this, I am going to order a spare coil today to carry in the ai rplane. I am very happy with the Lightspeed EI. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400753#400753 le, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 16, 2013
VGltLA0KSSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHRoYXQgeW91IG1hZGUgYW4gImVtZXJnZW5jeSIg8J+YgSBzdG9w IGluIFRlbm5lc3NlZSBhYm91dCBhDQp0d28gd2Vla3MgYWdvLiBUaGF0IHdhcyBteSBibGFjayBh bmQgd2hpdGUgUlYtMTAgaW4gdGhlIGhhbmdlciB3YWl0aW5nIG9uIGl0cyBlbmdpbmUuICBEYW4g UmlnZ3MNCk9rYXkuLi4uLi5vbmUgb2YgaGlzIGdpcmxzIGhhZCB0byAicGVlIHJpZ2h0IG5vdyEi IA0KSSB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIGxpa2VkIHRvIG1ldCB5b3UgYnV0IHdhcyBpbiBVdGFoIHdhdGNoaW5n IG15IGRhdWdodGVyIHJ1biBhIHRyaWF0aGFsb24uIExlb24gc2FpZCBoZSB0b29rIGdvb2QgY2Fy ZSBvZiB5b3UuDQoNCj4gRGF0ZTogVGh1LCAxNiBNYXkgMjAxMyAxMTozMTozOCAtMDUwMA0KPiBG cm9tOiBUaW1ATXlSVjEwLmNvbQ0KPiBUbzogcnYxMC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20NCj4gU3Vi amVjdDogUmU6IFJWMTAtTGlzdDogUmU6IEVsZWN0cm9uaWMgSWduaXRpb24NCj4gDQo+IC0tPiBS VjEwLUxpc3QgbWVzc2FnZSBwb3N0ZWQgYnk6IFRpbSBPbHNvbiA8VGltQG15cnYxMC5jb20+DQo+ IA0KPiBJJ3ZlIG5ldmVyIGhhZCBhIGNvaWwgZ28gYmFkLiAgSSdtIGd1ZXNzaW5nIG1vc3Qgb2Yg dGhvc2UNCj4gYXJlIHByb2JhYmx5IGhlYXQgcmVsYXRlZCB0aG91Z2gsIGlmIHlvdSBwYXJrIGhv dCBhbmQgZG9uJ3QNCj4gb3BlbiB0aGUgb2lsIGRvb3IgYW5kIHZlbnQgdGhhdCBoZWF0LiAgSnVz dCBhIGd1ZXNzIGFueXdheS4NCj4gMS41IHNob3J0IG9mIDk1MCBob3VycyBvbiB0aGUgc3lzdGVt LiAgSSBoYWQgb25lIG9mIHRoZQ0KPiBwcmUtY29vbGluZy1tb2QgdW5pdHMsIG9mIG11Y2ggb2xk ZXIgKGJlZm9yZSB0aGUgQSdzIGFuZCBCJ3MpDQo+IGxpbmVhZ2UsIGFuZCBJIGRpZCBoYXZlIGEg cHJvYmxlbSB3aXRoIHRoYXQgYm94IGFmdGVyDQo+IG1hbnkgaHVuZHJlZHMgb2YgaG91cnMuICBU aGUgdGFjaCBzdGFydGVkIHJlYWRpbmcNCj4gd3JvbmcgYXQgdGltZXMgKEkgdGhpbmsgdGhhdCB3 YXMgYSBsb29zZSBzb2NrZXRlZCBJQyksDQo+IGJ1dCBJIGhhZCBhIGZldyBpbnN0YW5jZXMgb2Yg dGhlIHVuaXQgbm90IHN0YXJ0aW5nLiAgT25jZQ0KPiB0aGUgZW5naW5lIHdhcyBydW5uaW5nIGl0 IGhhcyBuZXZlciBtaXNzZWQgYSBiZWF0LCBidXQNCj4gSSBoYWQgYSBmZXcgZGF5cyB3aGVyZSBJ J2QgZ28gb3V0IGNvbGQgYW5kIGl0IHdvdWxkbid0DQo+IHJ1bi4gIEtsYXVzIHJld29ya2VkIHRo YXQgYW5kIGZvdW5kIHNvbWV0aGluZyBpbiB0aGUNCj4gcG93ZXIgY2lyY3VpdCB0aGF0IHdhcyBp bnRlcm1pdHRlbnQuIEkgZG9uJ3QgcmVtZW1iZXINCj4gaWYgaXQgd2FzIGEgc29sZGVyIGpvaW50 IG9yIGNvbXBvbmVudC4gIEF0IGFueSByYXRlLCBJIGRpZA0KPiBoYXZlIHRob3NlIDIgcHJvYmxl bXMgd2l0aCB0aGUgYm94IGluIHRoZSBzYW1lIHRpbWVmcmFtZS4NCj4gDQo+IFRoZXNlIGRheXMg dGhvdWdoIGl0J3MgYmFjayB0byBwdXJyaW5nIGxpa2UgYSBraXR0ZW4uDQo+IA0KPiBJJ20gbm90 IHN1cmUgd2hhdCBJJ2xsIGRvIGV4YWN0bHksIG9uIHRoZSBSVi0xNC4NCj4gSSdsbCBzZWUgd2hh dCBWYW4ncyBvZmZlcmluZyB3aWxsIGJlLCBidXQgaWYgaXQgZG9lc24ndA0KPiBoYXZlIEUuSS4s IEkgd2lsbCBtb3N0IGxpa2VseSBnbyBMaWdodHNwZWVkIGJhc2VkIG9uDQo+IGFsbCB0aGUgcXVh bnRpdHkgb2YgdW5pdHMgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHRoYXQgSSd2ZSBoZWFyZCBnb29kDQo+IHRoaW5ncyBv bi4gIEkgcGVyc29uYWxseSBmbHkgbG90cyB3aXRoIFNjb3R0IGFuZCBTZWFuDQo+IGFuZCBvdGhl ciBSVjEwJ3Mgd2l0aCBMaWdodHNwZWVkIGFuZCBldmVyeW9uZSBoYXMgcHJldHR5DQo+IG11Y2gg Z29vZCBsdWNrLiAgSXQgaGFzIHRoZSBob3R0ZXN0IHNwYXJrIHlvdSBjYW4NCj4gZmlyZSwgYW5k IEkgbGlzdGVuZWQgZmlyc3QgaGFuZCBvbmUgZGF5IGFzIHNvbWVvbmUNCj4gdG9sZCBLbGF1cyB0 aGF0IHRoZXkgZG9uJ3QgdGhpbmsgdGhlaXIgd2lmZSB3b3VsZCBiZQ0KPiBhbGl2ZSB3aXRob3V0 IHRoZSBzeXN0ZW0sIGFzIHRoZSBzcGFyayBoYWQgdG8gZmlyZQ0KPiB0aHJvdWdoIGFuIG9pbHkg Y3lsaW5kZXIgYXMgdGhlaXIgZW5naW5lIGNhbWUgYXBhcnQsDQo+IGFuZCB0aGUgbGlnaHRzcGVl ZCBrZXB0IGl0IHJ1bm5pbmcuLi4udGhhdCBndXkgd2FzDQo+IHRvdGFsbHkgc29sZCBvbiBpdC4N Cj4gDQo+IFNvIEknZCBkbyBpdCBhZ2FpbiB3aXRoIG5vIHByb2JsZW1zLiBJIGRvIGFsc28NCj4g aGF2ZSBvbmUgb3RoZXIgdGhpbmcgdGhhdCBJJ20ga2luZCBvZiBkb2luZyB3aXRoDQo+IHNvbWUg Y3JpdGljYWwgY29tcG9uZW50cy4uLi5JIGJ1eSBzcGFyZXMuICBJIGtub3cNCj4gaXQncyBhIGxv dCB0byBwdXQgb24gYSBzaGVsZiwgYnV0IHNvIG1hbnkgb2Ygb3VyIHByb2R1Y3RzDQo+IHRoZXNl IGRheXMgYXJlIG1hZGUgYnkgMSBwZXJzb24gb3IgMSBjb21wYW55LiAgV2l0aA0KPiBhbnkgc2lu Z2xlIHNvdXJjZSBjb21wb25lbnQsIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgc29tZXRoaW5nDQo+IGxpa2UgYW4gZWxl Y3Ryb25pYyBpZ25pdGlvbiwgSSdkIHByZWZlciB0bw0KPiBoYXZlIGFuIG9uLWhhbmQgc3BhcmUu IElmIGEgY29tcGFueSBvd25lciBvciBrZXkNCj4gZW1wbG95ZWUgZGllcywgaXQgY291bGQgYmUg cmVhbGx5IGhhbmR5LiAgSGVjaywgZXZlbg0KPiB3aXRoIG15IFRydVRyYWssIEknbSBmaW5kaW5n IHRoYXQgaXQgbWF5IGJlIG5pY2UgdG8NCj4gaGF2ZSBhIHNwYXJlIEFQIGNvbnRyb2wgaGVhZCwg YmVjYXVzZSBzb21lIG9mIHRoZSBuZXdlcg0KPiBzb2Z0d2FyZSBtYXkgYnJlYWsgc29tZSBmdW5j dGlvbnMuICBCdXQgSSBoYXZlbid0DQo+IHNwbHVyZ2VkIG9uIHRoYXQgeWV0LiAgSSBkbyBoYXZl IHNwYXJlIEVGSVMncyB0aG91Z2gsDQo+IG9yIGlzIHRoYXQgRUZJSSBpbiBwbHVyYWw/DQo+IA0K PiBUaW0NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBPbiA1LzE2LzIwMTMgMTE6MTEgQU0sIGRtYWli QG1lLmNvbSB3cm90ZToNCj4gPiAtLT4gUlYxMC1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiAiZG1h aWJAbWUuY29tIiA8ZG1haWJAbWUuY29tPg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gW3F1b3RlPSJqZHJpZ2dzNDkoYXQp bXNuLmNvbSJdSSd2ZSBiZWVuIHJlYWRpbmcgdGhpcyB0aHJlYWQgd2l0aCBncmVhdCBpbnRlcmVz dCBhcyBJIHdhbnQgdG8gcHV0IGVsZWN0cm9uaWMgaWduaXRpb24gb24gbXkgLTEwLg0KPiA+IFN1 cmUgc2VlbXMgbGlrZSB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGFyZSBhIExPVCBvZiBjb2lsIGZhaWx1cmVzLiBHdXlz IGFyZSBzYXlpbmcgdGhhdCB0aGV5IHJlYWxseSBsaWtlIHRoZSBzeXN0ZW1zIGFmdGVyIHRoZXkg aGF2ZSB0byByZXBsYWNlIGF0IGxlYXN0IG9uZSBjb2lsLiBUaGlzIHRoZSBjYXNlPw0KPiA+DQo+ ID4NCj4gPj4gICBGcm9tOiBpYnNwdWRAcm9hZHJ1bm5lci5jb20NCj4gPj4gICBUbzogcnYxMC1s aXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20NCj4gPj4gICBTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogUmU6IEVsZWN0cm9uaWMgSWdu aXRpb24NCj4gPj4gICBEYXRlOiBXZWQsIDE1IE1heSAyMDEzIDIwOjQwOjI5IC0wNzAwDQo+ID4+ DQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+ICAgODAwIGhvdXJzIG9uIG15IFJWLTEwIHdpdGggYSBTbGljayBt YWcgYW5kIExpZ2h0c3BlZWQgZWxlY3Ryb25pYyBpZ25pdGlvbg0KPiA+DQo+ID4NCj4gPiBJIGhh dmUgYWJvdXQgNjUwIGhvdXJzIGFuZCBhbG1vc3QgZml2ZSB5ZWFycyB3aXRoIG5vIGNvaWwgcHJv YmxlbXMuIEluIGZhY3QsIG5vIHByb2JsZW1zIGF0IGFsbC4gKEkgaG9wZSBzYXlpbmcgdGhpcyBk b2Vzbid0IGppbnggbWUhKSBJIGJlbGlldmUgS2xhdXMgcmVjb21tZW5kcyB0aGF0IHlvdSByZXBs YWNlIHNwYXJrIHBsdWcgd2lyZXMgYWJvdXQgZXZlcnkgdGhyZWUgeWVhcnMgb3Igc28gdG8gcmVk dWNlIHN0cmVzcyBvbiB0aGUgY29pbHMuIEkgYWxzbyBoYXZlIHJlYWQgdGhhdCBrZWVwaW5nIHBs dWdzIGdhcHBlZCBwcm9wZXJseSByZWR1Y2VzIHN0cmVzcyBvbiB0aGUgY29pbHMuIFNpbmNlIEkg YW0gcHJvdmlkaW5nIHRyYW5zaXRpb24gdHJhaW5pbmcsIEkgaGF2ZSB0byBkbyAxMDAgaG91ciBj b25kaXRpb24gaW5zcGVjdGlvbnMsIHNvIGFtIHJlcGxhY2luZyB0aGUgcGx1Z3MgYWJvdXQgZXZl cnkgOCBvciA5IG1vbnRocy4gVGhlIHBsdWdzIGFyZSBjaGVhcCwgc28gSSBkb24ndCBtaW5kIHRo YXQgYXQgYWxsLiBBcyBwcmV2aW91c2x5IG1lbnRpb25lZCwgdGhlIGNvbm5lY3Rpb25zIG9uIHRo ZSBjb2lscyBhcmUgdmVyeSBpbXBvcnRhbnQuIEkgYWxzbyBoYXZlIGEgcGxlbnVtLCBhbmQgYWxt b3N0IGFsd2F5cyBvcGVuIG15IG9pbCBkb29yIGFmdGVyIHNodXR0aW5nIGRvd24gdG8gdmVudCBo ZWF0IGZyb20gdGhlIHBsZW51bS4gTXkgbWFpbiByZWFzb24gZm9yIGRvaW5nIHRoaXMgd2FzIHRv IGhlbHAgc3RhcnQgdGhlIGhvdCBlbmdpbmUsIGJ1dCBwZXJoYXBzIGl0IGhhcyBoZWxwZWQgbXkg Y29pbHMgYXMgd2VsbC4gQWZ0ZXIgc2F5aW5nIGFsbCBvZiB0aGlzLCBJIGFtIGdvaW5nIHRvIG9y ZGVyIGEgc3BhcmUgY29pbCB0b2RheSB0byBjYXJyeSBpbiB0aGUgYWlycGxhbmUuIEkgYW0gdmVy eSBoYXBweSB3aXRoIHRoZSBMaWdodHNwZWVkIEVJLg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gPiBE YXZpZCBNYWliDQo+ID4gUlYtMTAgIzQwNTU5DQo+ID4gVHJhbnNpdGlvbiBUcmFpbmVyDQo+ID4g TmV3IFNteXJuYSBCZWFjaCwgRkwNCj4gPg0KPiA+DQo+IA0KPiBfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KPiBfLT0gICAgICAg ICAgLSBUaGUgUlYxMC1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVtIC0NCj4gXy09IFVzZSB0aGUgTWF0cm9uaWNz IExpc3QgRmVhdHVyZXMgTmF2aWdhdG9yIHRvIGJyb3dzZQ0KPiBfLT0gdGhlIG1hbnkgTGlzdCB1 dGlsaXRpZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBMaXN0IFVuL1N1YnNjcmlwdGlvbiwNCj4gXy09IEFyY2hpdmUgU2Vh cmNoICYgRG93bmxvYWQsIDctRGF5IEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLA0KPiBfLT0gUGhvdG9zaGFy ZSwgYW5kIG11Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3JlOg0KPiBfLT0NCj4gXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0 cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9OYXZpZ2F0b3I/UlYxMC1MaXN0DQo+IF8tPQ0KPiBfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KPiBfLT0gICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAtIE1BVFJPTklDUyBXRUIgRk9SVU1TIC0NCj4gXy09IFNhbWUgZ3JlYXQgY29u dGVudCBhbHNvIGF2YWlsYWJsZSB2aWEgdGhlIFdlYiBGb3J1bXMhDQo+IF8tPQ0KPiBfLT0gICAt LT4gaHR0cDovL2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQo+IF8tPQ0KPiBfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KPiBfLT0gICAg ICAgICAgICAgLSBMaXN0IENvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiBXZWIgU2l0ZSAtDQo+IF8tPSAgVGhhbmsgeW91 IGZvciB5b3VyIGdlbmVyb3VzIHN1cHBvcnQhDQo+IF8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIC1NYXR0IERyYWxsZSwgTGlzdCBBZG1pbi4NCj4gXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu bWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9jb250cmlidXRpb24NCj4gXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCiAJCSAJICAg CQkgIA= ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JimVillani" <Jim(at)JimVillani.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 16, 2013
According to the statistics Electronic ignitions fail 16% of the time, (Twice as much as magnetos) Magnetos fail 8% of the time. If it's not broken, why fix it? Interesting, I don't think they have got there yet. N10KQ 91Hrs Bendix Magneto Shower of Sparks From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Danny Riggs Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:38 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition I've been reading this thread with great interest as I want to put electronic ignition on my -10. Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case? > From: ibspud(at)roadrunner.com > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 > > > 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition. > Only problem with the Lightspeed was a coil failure 200 hours ago. On second > mag with several incidents. Love the Lightspeed. Good service on getting the > coil and plugs as needed. > Albert Gardner > N9914RV > Yum > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 16, 2013
I prefer the mixed set up of one EI and one mag. I love the set up on my 8A with one Pmag. I won't run dual anything but Mags however I prefer the bet ter burn of EI and with a single EI you get almost all the benefit of havin g dual EI but still have a good old Mag to rely upon. I would consider two different EI but not two of the same EIs. I wish the 6 cylinder pmag were available (and fully tested) Robin JimVillani wrote: According to the statistics Electronic ignitions fail 16% of the time, (Twice as much as magnetos) Magnetos fail 8% of the time=85 If it=92s not broken, why fix it? Interesting, I don=92t think they have got there yet=85 N10KQ 91Hrs Bendix Magneto Shower of Sparks From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Danny Riggs Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:38 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition I've been reading this thread with great interest as I want to put electron ic ignition on my -10. Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case? > From: ibspud(at)roadrunner.com<mailto:ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 > mailto:ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>> > > 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition . > Only problem with the Lightspeed was a coil failure 200 hours ago. On sec ond > mag with several incidents. Love the Lightspeed. Good service on getting the > coil and plugs as needed. > Albert Gardner > N9914RV > Yum > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 16, 2013
FWIW, this is one of the reasons I went with the split decision, one electronic ignition and one magneto. I've read consistently that 95% of the gain in performance is made with the first electronic ignition making the second one of little value regarding performance increases. With a magneto on board I also don't need the backup battery system. A lot of folks have done a great job with those and are quite pleased, I just didn't want the hassle when a magneto which nicely provides a reliable back in case of an electric failure (which I have had). Having said that, I sure love only spending $1.50 on spark plugs for the Lightspeed! Marcus On May 16, 2013, at 1:05 PM, JimVillani wrote: According to the statistics Electronic ignitions fail 16% of the time, (Twice as much as magnetos) Magnetos fail 8% of the time=85 If it=92s not broken, why fix it? Interesting, I don=92t think they have got there yet=85 N10KQ 91Hrs Bendix Magneto Shower of Sparks From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Danny Riggs Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:38 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition I've been reading this thread with great interest as I want to put electronic ignition on my -10. Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case? > From: ibspud(at)roadrunner.com > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 > > > 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition. > Only problem with the Lightspeed was a coil failure 200 hours ago. On second > mag with several incidents. Love the Lightspeed. Good service on getting the > coil and plugs as needed. > Albert Gardner > N9914RV > Yum > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
I feel about the same. I wouldn't ever be happy anymore with 2 Mags. Reliability wise I've actually had more worrysome issues with planes over the years with mags than with the lightspeed on one side. I'm not sure where those statistics came from exactly, but especially with that last Slick AD I'm not sure I'd believe them. Maybe Bendix would be a different story. These days nobody runs points and mags in a car....and even in my boat one of the best things I did in the last year was swap the points for an electronic trigger module. So one side has to be E.I. for me. But, just like Robin says, I don't know that I'd want to put TWO of anything on the engine yet. If I did have 2, I don't think the lightspeed would be my choice on the RV-10, because you'd still have one crank sensor. And given the Looooooong time to market and broken promises of pMag for the 6, I think I'd want to see a few hundred flying, for a few 10's of thousands of hours before I'd dive in. It wouldn't take but a couple years for them to develop a track record one way or the other...and I have to assume that if they were reliable right now, they would be AVAILABLE right now, because there certainly is a market for them once they are released. I can only assume that it's because of issues that they aren't making it to market...so I'll want to see a track record before I'd go that route. In the end, I'm very happy to have only 1 mag to overhaul, but even happier that the engine runs best on that one EI. I would prefer to keep that same type of arrangement down the road...I'm not an "all eggs in 1 basket" kind of guy. Tim On 5/16/2013 12:20 PM, Robin Marks wrote: > I prefer the mixed set up of one EI and one mag. I love the set up on my 8A with one Pmag. I won't run dual anything but Mags however I prefer the better burn of EI and with a single EI you get almost all the benefit of having dual EI but still have a good old Mag to rely upon. > I would consider two different EI but not two of the same EIs. > I wish the 6 cylinder pmag were available (and fully tested) > > Robin > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Speaking of plugs... I'm running the same iridium plugs I have been for so many hours on the bottom now...Aircraft Plugs. But on the top my last swap I went with the Denso Iridium plugs. You can get them for almost the same price as the denso W24EMR-C plugs that I got with the system now, since those went up in price. (I know, I could save an by NGK or something) But the iridium has worked good and you could probably run those for 1000 hours with no problem. So that's what I've been running now for a bit over 100 hours. It is nice that they're cheaper. I don't mind the iridium aviation plugs on the bottom though. I think those actually provide the better value long-term too as opposed to the massives...and they're certainly easier to clean. Tim On 5/16/2013 12:40 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > FWIW, this is one of the reasons I went with the split decision, one > electronic ignition and one magneto. I've read consistently that 95% of > the gain in performance is made with the first electronic ignition > making the second one of little value regarding performance increases. > With a magneto on board I also don't need the backup battery system. > A lot of folks have done a great job with those and are quite pleased, > I just didn't want the hassle when a magneto which nicely provides a > reliable back in case of an electric failure (which I have had). Having > said that, I sure love only spending $1.50 on spark plugs for the > Lightspeed! > > Marcus > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Insurance
From: Terry Moushon <tmoushon(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 16, 2013
Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and quickly approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on insurance (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% done only to have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am building it in my garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% humidity controlled basement. Did any of you have some type of builders insurance? Appreciate your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance
From: "tsts4" <tsts4(at)verizon.net>
Date: May 16, 2013
I have a Builder's Policy (officially Ground Not in Motion - Builder's Risk) through Falcon (via USAA which has all my other policies). -------- Todd Stovall aka Auburntsts on EAA, AOPA, Purple Pilots, VAF, and RVairspace RV-10 N728TT Empacone, Wings, Fuse, Finishing www.mykitlog.com/auburntsts Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400776#400776 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 16, 2013
If you have one mag and one EI=2C do you run the mag all the time with the EI or is the EI sufficent by itself and the mag for backup? From: cooprv7(at)yahoo.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition Date: Thu=2C 16 May 2013 13:40:44 -0400 FWIW=2C this is one of the reasons I went with the split decision=2C one el ectronic ignition and one magneto. I've read consistently that 95% of the gain in performance is made with the first electronic ignition making the s econd one of little value regarding performance increases. With a magneto on board I also don't need the backup battery system. A lot of folks have done a great job with those and are quite pleased=2C I just didn't want the hassle when a magneto which nicely provides a reliable back in case of an electric failure (which I have had). Having said that=2C I sure love only spending $1.50 on spark plugs for the Lightspeed! Marcus On May 16=2C 2013=2C at 1:05 PM=2C JimVillani wrote:Ac cording to the statistics Electronic ignitions fail 16% of the time=2C(Twic e as much as magnetos)Magnetos fail 8% of the time=85If it=92s not broken =2C why fix it?Interesting=2C I don=92t think they have got there yet=85N10 KQ91HrsBendix MagnetoShower of SparksFrom: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics .com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Danny Riggs Sent: Thursday=2C May 16=2C 2013 7:38 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition I've been reading this thre ad with great interest as I want to put electronic ignition on my -10. Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case?> From: ibspud(at)roadrunner.com > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > Date: Wed=2C 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 > > > 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition . > Only problem with the Lightspeed was a coil failure 200 hours ago. On sec ond > mag with several incidents. Love the Lightspeed. Good service on getting the > coil and plugs as needed. > Albert Gardner > N9914RV > Yum > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comh ttp://www.matronics.com/contribution =0A =0A style="color: purple=3B text-decoration: underline=3B ">http://www.matron ics.com/Navigator?RV10-List=0A purple=3B text-decoration: underline=3B ">http://forums.matronics.com=0A style="color: purple=3B text-decoration: underline=3B ">http://www.matron ics.com/contribution=0A =0A =0A =0A =0A ============0A ============0A ============0A ============0A =0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance
From: James Dearborn <jdearborn(at)mac.com>
Date: May 16, 2013
Hi Terry, Contact your homeowners insurance agent, you may already be covered. Worst case is having a "Rider" added to your current policy for a few dollars. Cheers, Jim On May 16, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Terry Moushon wrote: > > Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and quickly approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on insurance (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% done only to have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am building it in my garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% humidity controlled basement. Did any of you have some type of builders insurance? Appreciate your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
From: Linn <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Insurance
I hate insurance!!!! Since it's in your garage, I'd talk to your homeowners insurance agent ..... they may put a rider on your policy. Barring that, just a 'not in motion' policy with any aviation insurance company might work. Linn On 5/16/2013 2:25 PM, Terry Moushon wrote: > > Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and quickly approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on insurance (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% done only to have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am building it in my garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% humidity controlled basement. Did any of you have some type of builders insurance? Appreciate your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: May 16, 2013
Your can get builder's insurance for about 1% of the insured value. I purchased insurance about halfway through the project. Then when you make the next major investment, just update the insured value. Sent from my iPad On May 16, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Terry Moushon wrote: > > Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and quickly approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on insurance (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% done only to have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am building it in my garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% humidity controlled basement. Did any of you have some type of builders insurance? Appreciate your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: May 16, 2013
I would be surprised if any homeowners policy would cover the build. I know there are exceptions, but I suspect they are in the minority. Sent from my iPad On May 16, 2013, at 2:48 PM, James Dearborn wrote: > > Hi Terry, > > Contact your homeowners insurance agent, you may already be covered. Worst case is having a "Rider" added to your current policy for a few dollars. > > Cheers, > Jim > > On May 16, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Terry Moushon wrote: > >> >> Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and quickly approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on insurance (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% done only to have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am building it in my garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% humidity controlled basement. Did any of you have some type of builders insurance? Appreciate your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 16, 2013
Both run all the time with the exception of Run Up & Testing. Robin From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Danny Riggs Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:48 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition If you have one mag and one EI, do you run the mag all the time with the EI or is the EI sufficent by itself and the mag for backup? ________________________________ From: cooprv7(at)yahoo.com<mailto:cooprv7(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:40:44 -0400 FWIW, this is one of the reasons I went with the split decision, one electr onic ignition and one magneto. I've read consistently that 95% of the gain in performance is made with the first electronic ignition making the secon d one of little value regarding performance increases. With a magneto on b oard I also don't need the backup battery system. A lot of folks have done a great job with those and are quite pleased, I just didn't want the hassl e when a magneto which nicely provides a reliable back in case of an electr ic failure (which I have had). Having said that, I sure love only spending $1.50 on spark plugs for the Lightspeed! Marcus On May 16, 2013, at 1:05 PM, JimVillani > wrote: According to the statistics Electronic ignitions fail 16% of the time, (Twice as much as magnetos) Magnetos fail 8% of the time... If it's not broken, why fix it? Interesting, I don't think they have got there yet... N10KQ 91Hrs Bendix Magneto Shower of Sparks From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma tronics.com> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Danny Riggs Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:38 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition I've been reading this thread with great interest as I want to put electron ic ignition on my -10. Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case? > From: ibspud(at)roadrunner.com<mailto:ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 > mailto:ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>> > > 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition . > Only problem with the Lightspeed was a coil failure 200 hours ago. On sec ond > mag with several incidents. Love the Lightspeed. Good service on getting the > coil and plugs as needed. > Albert Gardner > N9914RV > Yum > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics. com/Navigator?RV10-List purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics. com/contribution arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Greenley" <wgreenley(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Insurance
Date: May 16, 2013
There is a catch-22, at least for me when I researched, to get builder's insurance you need an N-number. Have you are you ready to pay any state sales/use tax? I have been told that if you end up selling the project to someone problems can be caused if you already have it registered in your name, don't know if this is true. Bill Greenley Waiting on RV-10 finishing kit -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:00 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Insurance Your can get builder's insurance for about 1% of the insured value. I purchased insurance about halfway through the project. Then when you make the next major investment, just update the insured value. Sent from my iPad On May 16, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Terry Moushon wrote: > > Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and quickly approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on insurance (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% done only to have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am building it in my garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% humidity controlled basement. Did any of you have some type of builders insurance? Appreciate your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 16, 2013
I run both all the time just as if it was dual mags. I'm sure the EI would be sufficient, but I don't want it to get real quiet if one quits. Marcus On May 16, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: If you have one mag and one EI, do you run the mag all the time with the EI or is the EI sufficent by itself and the mag for backup? From: cooprv7(at)yahoo.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:40:44 -0400 FWIW, this is one of the reasons I went with the split decision, one electronic ignition and one magneto. I've read consistently that 95% of the gain in performance is made with the first electronic ignition making the second one of little value regarding performance increases. With a magneto on board I also don't need the backup battery system. A lot of folks have done a great job with those and are quite pleased, I just didn't want the hassle when a magneto which nicely provides a reliable back in case of an electric failure (which I have had). Having said that, I sure love only spending $1.50 on spark plugs for the Lightspeed! Marcus On May 16, 2013, at 1:05 PM, JimVillani wrote: According to the statistics Electronic ignitions fail 16% of the time, (Twice as much as magnetos) Magnetos fail 8% of the time=85 If it=92s not broken, why fix it? Interesting, I don=92t think they have got there yet=85 N10KQ 91Hrs Bendix Magneto Shower of Sparks From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Danny Riggs Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:38 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition I've been reading this thread with great interest as I want to put electronic ignition on my -10. Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case? > From: ibspud(at)roadrunner.com > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 > > > 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition. > Only problem with the Lightspeed was a coil failure 200 hours ago. On second > mag with several incidents. Love the Lightspeed. Good service on getting the > coil and plugs as needed. > Albert Gardner > N9914RV > Yum > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
They both run all the time. Tim On 5/16/2013 1:47 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: > If you have one mag and one EI, do you run the mag all the time with the > EI or is the EI sufficent by itself and the mag for backup? > > ----------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance
From: "tsts4" <tsts4(at)verizon.net>
Date: May 16, 2013
wgreenley wrote: > There is a catch-22, at least for me when I researched, to get builder's > insurance you need an N-number. Have you are you ready to pay any state > sales/use tax? I have been told that if you end up selling the project to > someone problems can be caused if you already have it registered in your > name, don't know if this is true. > Bill Greenley > Waiting on RV-10 finishing kit > > -- Not sure about the N-number needed for builder's insurance. But what I do know is it won't trigger a tax bill until you actually register it with the FAA. The reason is you can have an N-number reserved (not the same as registration) and tell the insurance company that's the N-number that you plan to use for the kit (it's what I did but I don't recall it being mandatory--I simply already had an N-number so used it when I filled out the forms). Anyway, until you actually send in the registration forms to assign that number to the kit, it really doesn't exist as far as the government is concerned hence no worries about tax. And as a data point my homeowners policy (USAA) wouldn't cover my kit so I had to get a separate policy. -------- Todd Stovall aka Auburntsts on EAA, AOPA, Purple Pilots, VAF, and RVairspace RV-10 N728TT Empacone, Wings, Fuse, Finishing www.mykitlog.com/auburntsts Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400791#400791 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Insurance
From: Ron Walker <n520tx(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 16, 2013
I've dealt with Jenny at NationAir for 2 build projects, this is the first I've ever heard of the "N-number" requirement. www.nationair.com http://www.nationair.com/private/specialty/vans.php They have a special program just for Vans aircraft. Coverage was inexpensive and even covered your hourly logged build time in addition to materials cost. Once it's under its own power, you are no longer covered. --Ron > > There is a catch-22, at least for me when I researched, to get builder's > insurance you need an N-number. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
I have 2 of the smaller Oddysys batteries, and they have a separate wire ru nning from each to 2 seperate circuit breakers, and then to 2ea. 3 position switches.=C2- (So they're totally independent)=C2- I can turn every co mponent in the plane off, as well as both masters, and the Lightspeeds keep right on going.=C2- IIRC they can run as long as the battery voltage is above 5 volts. --- On Thu, 5/16/13, Marcus Cooper wrote: From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition Date: Thursday, May 16, 2013, 12:40 PM FWIW, this is one of the reasons I went with the split decision, one electr onic ignition and one magneto. =C2-I've read consistently that 95% of the gain in performance is made with the first electronic ignition making the second one of little value regarding performance increases. =C2-With a ma gneto on board I also don't need the backup battery system. =C2-A lot of folks have done a great job with those and are quite pleased, I just didn't want the hassle when a magneto which nicely provides a reliable back in ca se of an electric failure (which I have had). =C2-Having said that, I sur e love only spending $1.50 on spark plugs for the Lightspeed! Marcus On May 16, 2013, at 1:05 PM, JimVillani wrote: According to the statistics Electronic ignitions fail 16% of the time,(Twic e as much as magnetos)Magnetos fail 8% of the timeIf it=99s not broken, why fix it?Interesting, I don=99t think they have got the re yetN10KQ91HrsBendix MagnetoShower of SparksFrom:=C2-owner-rv1 0-list-server(at)matronics.com=C2-[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.c om]=C2-On Behalf Of=C2-Danny Riggs Sent:=C2-Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:38 AM To:=C2-rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject:=C2-RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition =C2-I've been readin g this thread with great interest as I want to put electronic ignition on m y -10. Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case?> From:=C2-ibspud(at)roadrunner.com > To:=C2-rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 >=C2- >=C2- > 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition . > Only problem with the Lightspeed was a coil failure 200 hours ago. On sec ond > mag with several incidents. Love the Lightspeed. Good service on getting the > coil and plugs as needed. > Albert Gardner > N9914RV > Yum >=C2- >=C2- >=C2-=C2-http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matr onics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=C2-=0A=0Astyle="color: p urple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV1 0-List=0Apurple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com =0Astyle="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matroni cs.com/contribution=0A=0A ==================0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
From: davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Insurance
I checked my homeowners policy with AAA a read through it. There is a specific clause in it that excludes Aircraft and Aircraft parts and it is not available from them . I did not purchase builders insurance but will do so in the next few weeks for the big move to a hanger. My work shop where the plane is now is alarmed and behind the house so I feel pretty secure there. Your really playing the odds though by not getting builders insurance. David Clifford RV-10 Builder Howell, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:02:23 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Insurance I would be surprised if any homeowners policy would cover the build. I know there are exceptions, but I suspect they are in the minority. Sent from my iPad On May 16, 2013, at 2:48 PM, James Dearborn wrote: > > Hi Terry, > > Contact your homeowners insurance agent, you may already be covered. Worst case is having a "Rider" added to your current policy for a few dollars. > > Cheers, > Jim > > On May 16, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Terry Moushon wrote: > >> >> Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and quickly approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on insurance (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% done only to have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am building it in my garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% humidity controlled basement. Did any of you have some type of builders insurance? Appreciate your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Greenley" <wgreenley(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Insurance
Date: May 16, 2013
When I called Falcon they said they needed an N-Number. Bill Greenley -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tsts4 Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:40 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Insurance wgreenley wrote: > There is a catch-22, at least for me when I researched, to get > builder's insurance you need an N-number. Have you are you ready to > pay any state sales/use tax? I have been told that if you end up > selling the project to someone problems can be caused if you already > have it registered in your name, don't know if this is true. > Bill Greenley > Waiting on RV-10 finishing kit > > -- Not sure about the N-number needed for builder's insurance. But what I do know is it won't trigger a tax bill until you actually register it with the FAA. The reason is you can have an N-number reserved (not the same as registration) and tell the insurance company that's the N-number that you plan to use for the kit (it's what I did but I don't recall it being mandatory--I simply already had an N-number so used it when I filled out the forms). Anyway, until you actually send in the registration forms to assign that number to the kit, it really doesn't exist as far as the government is concerned hence no worries about tax. And as a data point my homeowners policy (USAA) wouldn't cover my kit so I had to get a separate policy. -------- Todd Stovall aka Auburntsts on EAA, AOPA, Purple Pilots, VAF, and RVairspace RV-10 N728TT Empacone, Wings, Fuse, Finishing www.mykitlog.com/auburntsts Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400791#400791 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: May 16, 2013
That's not correct. I had builders insurance through chartis before I registered my n number. Sent from my iPad On May 16, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "William Greenley" wrote: > > There is a catch-22, at least for me when I researched, to get builder's > insurance you need an N-number. Have you are you ready to pay any state > sales/use tax? I have been told that if you end up selling the project to > someone problems can be caused if you already have it registered in your > name, don't know if this is true. > Bill Greenley > Waiting on RV-10 finishing kit > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:00 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Insurance > > > Your can get builder's insurance for about 1% of the insured value. I > purchased insurance about halfway through the project. Then when you make > the next major investment, just update the insured value. > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 16, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Terry Moushon wrote: > >> >> Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and quickly > approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on insurance > (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% done only to > have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am building it in my > garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% humidity controlled > basement. Did any of you have some type of builders insurance? Appreciate > your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
You never want to intentionally run on one ignition system.... those are bi g jugs we have and firing on only one side for extended periods of time wou ld no doubt put different stresses on some internal components.=C2- My 2 cents Don McDonald --- On Thu, 5/16/13, Marcus Cooper wrote: From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition Date: Thursday, May 16, 2013, 2:19 PM I run both all the time just as if it was dual mags. =C2-I'm sure the EI would be sufficient, but I don't want it to get real quiet if one quits. Marcus On May 16, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: If you have one mag and one EI, do you run the mag all the time with the EI or is the EI sufficent by itself and the mag for backup? From:=C2-cooprv7(at)yahoo.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:40:44 -0400 To:=C2-rv10-list(at)matronics.com FWIW, this is one of the reasons I went with the split decision, one electr onic ignition and one magneto. =C2-I've read consistently that 95% of the gain in performance is made with the first electronic ignition making the second one of little value regarding performance increases. =C2-With a ma gneto on board I also don't need the backup battery system. =C2-A lot of folks have done a great job with those and are quite pleased, I just didn't want the hassle when a magneto which nicely provides a reliable back in ca se of an electric failure (which I have had). =C2-Having said that, I sur e love only spending $1.50 on spark plugs for the Lightspeed! Marcus On May 16, 2013, at 1:05 PM, JimVillani wrote: According to the statistics Electronic ignitions fail 16% of the time,(Twic e as much as magnetos)Magnetos fail 8% of the timeIf it=99s not broken, why fix it?Interesting, I don=99t think they have got the re yetN10KQ91HrsBendix MagnetoShower of SparksFrom:=C2-owner-rv1 0-list-server(at)matronics.com=C2-[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.c om]=C2-On Behalf Of=C2-Danny Riggs Sent:=C2-Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:38 AM To:=C2-rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject:=C2-RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition=C2-I've been reading this thread with great interest as I want to put electronic ignition on my -10. Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one coil. This the case?> From:=C2-ibspud(at)roadrunner.com > To:=C2-rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 >=C2- >=C2- > 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic ignition . > Only problem with the Lightspeed was a coil failure 200 hours ago. On sec ond > mag with several incidents. Love the Lightspeed. Good service on getting the > coil and plugs as needed. > Albert Gardner > N9914RV > Yum >=C2- >=C2- >=C2-=C2-http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matr onics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=C2-=0A=0Astyle="color: p urple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV1 0-List=0Apurple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com =0Astyle="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matroni cs.com/contribution=0A=0A =0A=0Aarget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List=0Ahttp: //forums.matronics.com=0A="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution =0A=0A=0A=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://ww w.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List=0Ahref="http://forums.matronics.com"> http://forums.matronics.com=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A=0A ==================0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
I did the same thing as Marcus with the same rationale. I paid $100 for an extra coil and keep it in my tool bag. -Rob On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > I run both all the time just as if it was dual mags. I'm sure the EI > would be sufficient, but I don't want it to get real quiet if one quits. > > Marcus > > On May 16, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: > > If you have one mag and one EI, do you run the mag all the time with the > EI or is the EI sufficent by itself and the mag for backup? > > ------------------------------ > From: cooprv7(at)yahoo.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:40:44 -0400 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > FWIW, this is one of the reasons I went with the split decision, one > electronic ignition and one magneto. I've read consistently that 95% of > the gain in performance is made with the first electronic ignition making > the second one of little value regarding performance increases. With a > magneto on board I also don't need the backup battery system. A lot of > folks have done a great job with those and are quite pleased, I just didn 't > want the hassle when a magneto which nicely provides a reliable back in > case of an electric failure (which I have had). Having said that, I sure > love only spending $1.50 on spark plugs for the Lightspeed! > > Marcus > > On May 16, 2013, at 1:05 PM, JimVillani wrote: > > According to the statistics Electronic ignitions fail 16% of the time, > (Twice as much as magnetos) > Magnetos fail 8% of the time=85 > If it=92s not broken, why fix it? > Interesting, I don=92t think they have got there yet=85 > N10KQ > 91Hrs > Bendix Magneto > Shower of Sparks > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner- > rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Danny Riggs > *Sent:* Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:38 AM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > > I've been reading this thread with great interest as I want to put > electronic ignition on my -10. > Sure seems like that there are a LOT of coil failures. Guys are saying > that they really like the systems after they have to replace at least one > coil. This the case? > > From: ibspud(at)roadrunner.com > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > > Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:40:29 -0700 > > m > > > > > > 800 hours on my RV-10 with a Slick mag and Lightspeed electronic > ignition. > > Only problem with the Lightspeed was a coil failure 200 hours ago. On > second > > mag with several incidents. Love the Lightspeed. Good service on gettin g > the > > coil and plugs as needed. > > Albert Gardner > > N9914RV > > Yum > > > > > > > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > > ** > > ** > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* > > ** > > * * > > * > > style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?RV10-List > purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://forums.matronics.com > style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.matronic s.com/contribution > * > > > * > > arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forum s.matronics.com > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > * > > * > > 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 > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ontribution > * > > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Greenley" <wgreenley(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Insurance
Date: May 16, 2013
Apparently from what people are writing it is only Falcon that requires this. I have my 172 with them as they were they cheapest so had assumed since they worked with the EAA they would be the best for this also. Bill Greenley -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:50 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Insurance That's not correct. I had builders insurance through chartis before I registered my n number. Sent from my iPad On May 16, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "William Greenley" wrote: > --> > > There is a catch-22, at least for me when I researched, to get > builder's insurance you need an N-number. Have you are you ready to > pay any state sales/use tax? I have been told that if you end up > selling the project to someone problems can be caused if you already > have it registered in your name, don't know if this is true. > Bill Greenley > Waiting on RV-10 finishing kit > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:00 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Insurance > > > Your can get builder's insurance for about 1% of the insured value. I > purchased insurance about halfway through the project. Then when you > make the next major investment, just update the insured value. > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 16, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Terry Moushon wrote: > >> >> Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and >> quickly > approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on > insurance (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% > done only to have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am > building it in my garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% > humidity controlled basement. Did any of you have some type of > builders insurance? Appreciate your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
Subject: Re: Insurance
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
They need an N number for tracking purposes. Just use the one you have reserved with the FAA (assuming you do). -Rob On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bob Leffler wrote: > > That's not correct. I had builders insurance through chartis before I > registered my n number. > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 16, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "William Greenley" > wrote: > > > > > > > There is a catch-22, at least for me when I researched, to get builder's > > insurance you need an N-number. Have you are you ready to pay any state > > sales/use tax? I have been told that if you end up selling the project to > > someone problems can be caused if you already have it registered in your > > name, don't know if this is true. > > Bill Greenley > > Waiting on RV-10 finishing kit > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler > > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:00 PM > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Insurance > > > > > > Your can get builder's insurance for about 1% of the insured value. I > > purchased insurance about halfway through the project. Then when you > make > > the next major investment, just update the insured value. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On May 16, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Terry Moushon wrote: > > > >> > >> Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and quickly > > approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on insurance > > (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% done only to > > have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am building it in my > > garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% humidity controlled > > basement. Did any of you have some type of builders insurance? > Appreciate > > your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 16, 2013
I use them both just as would if you had two mags. Light speed has a very low-cost readout with a selector switch available that will show rpm, advance, or atmosphere pressure. While the mag is set at 20 deg BTC, I see the Lightspeed usually is around 30. Albert Gardner N991RV Yuma, AZ Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition If you have one mag and one EI, do you run the mag all the time with the EI or is the EI sufficent by itself and the mag for backup? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: May 16, 2013
Falcon is only an agent, not an underwriter. I would be more than happy to forward the name of my agent. She specializes in aviation insurance. She is local to me in Ohio. I prefer to have an agent I can talk to in person. Jenny @ nationair would be another good choice. Sent from my iPad On May 16, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "William Greenley" wrote: > > Apparently from what people are writing it is only Falcon that requires > this. I have my 172 with them as they were they cheapest so had assumed > since they worked with the EAA they would be the best for this also. > Bill Greenley > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:50 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Insurance > > > That's not correct. I had builders insurance through chartis before I > registered my n number. > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 16, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "William Greenley" wrote: > >> --> >> >> There is a catch-22, at least for me when I researched, to get >> builder's insurance you need an N-number. Have you are you ready to >> pay any state sales/use tax? I have been told that if you end up >> selling the project to someone problems can be caused if you already >> have it registered in your name, don't know if this is true. >> Bill Greenley >> Waiting on RV-10 finishing kit >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler >> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:00 PM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Insurance >> >> >> Your can get builder's insurance for about 1% of the insured value. I >> purchased insurance about halfway through the project. Then when you >> make the next major investment, just update the insured value. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 16, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Terry Moushon wrote: >> >>> >>> Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and >>> quickly >> approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on >> insurance (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% >> done only to have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am >> building it in my garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% >> humidity controlled basement. Did any of you have some type of >> builders insurance? Appreciate your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
From: PJ Seipel <seipel(at)seznam.cz>
Subject: Re: Insurance
For insurance requirements, my N number is my Van's kit number. I've had builders insurance since I started the fuse kit in 2005. My policy shows the N number as N40032. 40032 is my kit serial number. When I finish and register, the N number on my insurance will be updated to whatever I register with the FAA. PJ Seipel On 5/16/2013 12:16, William Greenley wrote: > > There is a catch-22, at least for me when I researched, to get builder's > insurance you need an N-number. Have you are you ready to pay any state > sales/use tax? I have been told that if you end up selling the project to > someone problems can be caused if you already have it registered in your > name, don't know if this is true. > Bill Greenley > Waiting on RV-10 finishing kit > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:00 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Insurance > > > Your can get builder's insurance for about 1% of the insured value. I > purchased insurance about halfway through the project. Then when you make > the next major investment, just update the insured value. > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 16, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Terry Moushon wrote: > >> >> Gentlemen/ladies... I will be starting my -10 fuse in June and quickly > approaching $40k invested. I am curious as to your thoughts on insurance > (preflight). My concern is simple. I don't want to get 99% done only to > have the components destroyed by mother nature. I am building it in my > garage and storing the components in a dry, 40% humidity controlled > basement. Did any of you have some type of builders insurance? Appreciate > your thoughts/suggestions/recommendations. >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2013
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Does your engine call for 20 degrees advance? I thought all the 250/260 hp parallel valve engines were 25 degrees advance. The angle valve engines used to be 25 and Lycoming put out a service instruction to change them to 20, but don't think it applies to parallel valve engines. On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Albert Gardner wrote: > I use them both just as would if you had two mags. Light speed has a very > low-cost readout with a selector switch available that will show rpm, > advance, or atmosphere pressure. While the mag is set at 20 deg BTC, I see > the Lightspeed usually is around 30.**** > > Albert Gardner**** > > N991RV**** > > Yuma, AZ**** > > > *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition**** > > ** ** > > If you have one mag and one EI, do you run the mag all the time with the > EI or is the EI sufficent by itself and the mag for backup?**** > > * > > > * > > -- - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Set up mode g530w
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: May 16, 2013
Hold the enter key on power up until the config page appears -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400822#400822 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick & Vicki Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Insurance
Date: May 16, 2013
Dito Ron for me on all three RV projects. Dick Sipp -----Original Message----- From: Ron Walker Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:40 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Insurance I've dealt with Jenny at NationAir for 2 build projects, this is the first I've ever heard of the "N-number" requirement. www.nationair.com http://www.nationair.com/private/specialty/vans.php They have a special program just for Vans aircraft. Coverage was inexpensive and even covered your hourly logged build time in addition to materials cost. Once it's under its own power, you are no longer covered. --Ron > > There is a catch-22, at least for me when I researched, to get builder's > insurance you need an N-number. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Set up mode g530w
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 17, 2013
Danke bill. Rob Kermanj Sent from my iPad On May 16, 2013, at 10:17 PM, "bill.peyton" wrote: > > Hold the enter key on power up until the config page appears > > -------- > Bill > WA0SYV > Aviation Partners, LLC > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400822#400822 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2013
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Cleaning Up Interior
As I continue in the 90% done 90% to go phase I am looking for recommendations on a small vac with a small enough nozzle to get into the netherlands of the tunnel and side channels. Lots of little bits in there I'd like to get cleaned out before closing up. My shop vac and the better half's vac accessories are just too big. -Sean #40303 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <lewgall(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Up Interior
Date: May 17, 2013
Hey Sean, I just duct taped some plastic hose (similar to Home Depot's irrigation hose) to the end of my shop vac -- worked just fine for the one time job of final clean up. Later, - Lew -----Original Message----- From: Sean Stephens Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:37 AM Subject: RV10-List: Cleaning Up Interior As I continue in the 90% done 90% to go phase I am looking for recommendations on a small vac with a small enough nozzle to get into the netherlands of the tunnel and side channels. Lots of little bits in there I'd like to get cleaned out before closing up. My shop vac and the better half's vac accessories are just too big. -Sean #40303 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2013
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Up Interior
I suggest not getting a small vacuum sold for cleaning keyboards and such. You'll want more suction. 1) Try fabricating your own little nozzle with bits of hose, tubing and duct tape. Big vac power with a small nozzle. 2) Try this from Avery Economy mini vac <http://www.averytools.com/prodinfo.asp?number=72155> . It's powered by compressed air and uses some small diameter tubing as a nozzle. It's powerful and effective for cleaning out the bilge-like areas. Use ear protection or regret it... it's loud. Bill "getting the vacs out for the Starling's nest" Watson On 5/17/2013 10:37 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > As I continue in the 90% done 90% to go phase I am looking for > recommendations on a small vac with a small enough nozzle to get into > the netherlands of the tunnel and side channels. Lots of little bits > in there I'd like to get cleaned out before closing up. My shop vac > and the better half's vac accessories are just too big. > > -Sean #40303 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: "hotwheels" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 17, 2013
Where did these statistics come from? Please cite your reference... Jay "According to the statistics Electronic ignitions fail 16% of the time, (Twice as much as magnetos) Magnetos fail 8% of the time" Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400846#400846 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2013
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Is there a consensus on the performance benefits of the electronic ignition systems on IO540s in '10s (I guess that means Lightspeed)? In particular, what quantitative benefits have been see. I'm guessing that someone has done a writeup - link? Bill "just curious" Watson ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Locking fuel caps??
From: "billz" <billz(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: May 17, 2013
There have been many past reviews of locking gas caps. The general feeling was Andair and Newton caps worked fine, but had a problem leaking through the key slot. 1. Is the fuel leaking out (when tanks are full) still an issue or have there been updated designs?? 2. Is rain leaking into the tank an issue with these caps?? 3. Any other suggestions for locking fuel caps on the RV-10?? I'm thinking of using the Andair retrofit caps. Is the best source to direct order them from Andair?? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400857#400857 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2013
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Up Interior
Thanks guys. I'll give the hose/duct tape method a go. On 5/17/13 10:08 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > I suggest not getting a small vacuum sold for cleaning keyboards and > such. You'll want more suction. > > 1) Try fabricating your own little nozzle with bits of hose, tubing > and duct tape. Big vac power with a small nozzle. > > 2) Try this from Avery Economy mini vac > <http://www.averytools.com/prodinfo.asp?number=72155> . It's powered > by compressed air and uses some small diameter tubing as a nozzle. > It's powerful and effective for cleaning out the bilge-like areas. > Use ear protection or regret it... it's loud. > > Bill "getting the vacs out for the Starling's nest" Watson > > On 5/17/2013 10:37 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: >> >> As I continue in the 90% done 90% to go phase I am looking for >> recommendations on a small vac with a small enough nozzle to get into >> the netherlands of the tunnel and side channels. Lots of little bits >> in there I'd like to get cleaned out before closing up. My shop vac >> and the better half's vac accessories are just too big. >> >> -Sean #40303 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> 05/17/13 >> >> > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Locking fuel caps??
From: Steve T <aircraftspecialty(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 17, 2013
We sell the Andair caps and engrave them if desired. No leaking through the slots anymore. The problem was fixed a few years ago and was fixed with a better O ring. We have them in stock atwww.aircraftspecialty.com. Please feel free to contact with any questions Steve Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone On May 17, 2013, at 12:50, "billz" wrote: > > There have been many past reviews of locking gas caps. The general feelin g was Andair and Newton caps worked fine, but had a problem leaking through t he key slot. > > 1. Is the fuel leaking out (when tanks are full) still an issue or have th ere been updated designs?? > > 2. Is rain leaking into the tank an issue with these caps?? > > 3. Any other suggestions for locking fuel caps on the RV-10?? > > I'm thinking of using the Andair retrofit caps. Is the best source to dir ect order them from Andair?? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400857#400857 > > > > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2013
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Tough one to provide a perfect answer.- It's really about MPG.... and the MPG can vary a lot depending on winds.- I have seen as low as 15 or as h igh as 24, but the 24 was at 11,500 with a great tailwind, gps gs of 230mph on 9.5 gph.- Generally (no wind component) I cruise in the 17 to 18 MPG range.- I have dual Lightspeed.. Just remember it's NOTjust about gph, it's mpg. I can pull the rpm back to 2,000, the mp back to 16", and tell you I only b urn 7.5gph.... but at what speed? Don McDonald --- On Fri, 5/17/13, Bill Watson wrote: From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition Date: Friday, May 17, 2013, 11:16 AM Is there a consensus on the performance benefits of the electronic ignition systems on IO540s in '10s (I guess that means Lightspeed)? In particular, what quantitative benefits have been see. I'm guessing that someone has done a writeup - link? Bill "just curious" Watson le, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Interior paint
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: May 17, 2013
I would like advice about painting the interior of RV10 cabin. Is a primer needed over Van's QB wash primer? Specific type of paint for finish coat? At what point in the build process is best for painting interior? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400866#400866 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Locking fuel caps??
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: May 17, 2013
billz wrote: > There have been many past reviews of locking gas caps. The general feeling was Andair and Newton caps worked fine, but had a problem leaking through the key slot. > > 1. Is the fuel leaking out (when tanks are full) still an issue or have there been updated designs?? > > 2. Is rain leaking into the tank an issue with these caps?? > > 3. Any other suggestions for locking fuel caps on the RV-10?? > > I'm thinking of using the Andair retrofit caps. Is the best source to direct order them from Andair?? The issue with the Newton caps leaking through the key slot was solved last summer when I finally got hold of the right individual at Newton. Here is the thread over on VAF http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=84869&highlight=newton+fuel+caps -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400867#400867 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: "hotwheels" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 17, 2013
Just spoke to LSE regarding my box failure. The box had a dead power transistor (shorted). Upgraded electronic guts to later version and it's back in the mail. I received good service and fast turn around. While I was at it, I asked about power consumption... Box on, engine off: ~0.2A Engine at idle power: ~0.8-0.9A Engine at cruise power: ~2A Good info to add to the POH. Cheers, Jay hotwheels wrote: > I have dual Lightspeed Plasma III's on my Lyco IO-540. Using dual batteries and alternators (Z-14 architecture). > > LSE start engine on 1-2 blades and there's no discernible RPM drop between A&B sides during run up. Note that Plasma III boxes require forced cooling and ManP connections for spark advance. Separate wire runs for coax and sensor wires prevent EMF issues. Flywheel timing magnets are required (got LSE to do mine). Behind-prop sensor mounting bracket required drilling/tapping a couple of holes in the case. It turned out fine, but I puckered the whole time all the same. Proper connection of coax outputs to respective coil was an interesting exercise and resulted in a bit of learning on my part. > > So far, I like 'em... with one caveat: Version "A1" box died at 14 hours while on the ground and just after engine start (my other box is version B). The good news is that redundancy worked as expected and the engine just kept right on turning. Wouldn't have have noticed until run up had the circuit breaker hadn't popped and warning LED illuminated. I checked the wiring, called LSE support and sent the offending box in for service. Will report back on whatever is found. Klaus has been friendly and helpful when I've had questions. > > Cheers, > Jay > N433RV Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400868#400868 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Interior paint
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 17, 2013
I used appliance epoxy spray can paint, no primer. It worked great, came out smooth and is holding up well after 7 years and 600 hours. Cheap and easy. I'd suggest as soon as you get the top on and panels installed is a good time. Marcus Sent from my iPhone On May 17, 2013, at 4:51 PM, "bob88" wrote: > > I would like advice about painting the interior of RV10 cabin. Is a primer needed over Van's QB wash primer? Specific type of paint for finish coat? At what point in the build process is best for painting interior? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400866#400866 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Interior paint
Date: May 17, 2013
The answer is, it depends. You'll need to consult with the top coat paint vendor to see if the SW Wash Primer is ok or what appropriate action you'll need to take. Each top coat paint has different requirements. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob88 Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:52 PM Subject: RV10-List: Interior paint I would like advice about painting the interior of RV10 cabin. Is a primer needed over Van's QB wash primer? Specific type of paint for finish coat? At what point in the build process is best for painting interior? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Interior paint
Date: May 17, 2013
I used Sherwin Williams home paint (VOC 0) its industrial strength- easy clean up.. I applied microballons to the paint to make it thick and fill the voids. With a thick roller it went on quite nicely. Cheap and easy touch-up, although I haven't needed to.. Easy to clean after curing as well. -----Original Message----- From: bob88 Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:51 PM Subject: RV10-List: Interior paint I would like advice about painting the interior of RV10 cabin. Is a primer needed over Van's QB wash primer? Specific type of paint for finish coat? At what point in the build process is best for painting interior? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400866#400866 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Re: Interior paint
Date: May 17, 2013
I suggest you get at it before you install the rudder pedals, upper forward fuselage and the cabin top, as access to areas around the forward area of the floor is much easier at that point. Also, get the cabin top while it's off the plane and you can shoot down at it outside. I used a spatter paint called Zolatone, on a base of Loehle's black highbuild primer with the intention of keeping things light and not installing any upholstery anywhere other than the seats. Jeff Carpenter 40304 On May 17, 2013, at 1:51 PM, bob88 wrote: > > I would like advice about painting the interior of RV10 cabin. Is a primer needed over Van's QB wash primer? Specific type of paint for finish coat? At what point in the build process is best for painting interior? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400866#400866 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: "Greg McFarlane" <grbcmcfarlane(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 18, 2013
O Boy Jim talk about a can of worms. Interesting grab of the last 2 weeks of Matronics re electronic ignition, you sound just like my Mag AP. All the Spam Cans who haven't got the option of bringing ignition forward at least 80 years take it for granted, mag failure on ramp RPM drop 400 or 800 due to oiled up plugs or bad points, failure in flight, no worries, just hope we can make it home one one. We expect overhaul at 500 hours..... no worries at least we don't have to have a back up battery, What's the best starting technique? o hell we've just blown a starter cause we've had hot start issues. I think Tim's option of two bob each way (sorry a quarter each way) one EI & One Mag is best option, You get 90% of the advantage of Dual Electronic Ignition ie Optimum Timing, Easy Starting, Better fuel economy, Smooth running, Better Idle. Electronic readouts for RPM, MP & Timing Position of Ignition with Lightspeed. Wack in a Mag as an easy backup but be careful about relying on it after more than 200Hrs. Maybe the stats would be different if Klaus recommended overhauls at 500 Hours or even less because of the advantages of EI cause nothing lasts forever. Cheers from Western Australia Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400905#400905 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Interior paint
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: May 18, 2013
I used Stewart Systems primer and single part topcoat on the interior and had no problems. Very happy with the results and ease of use/cleanup. -------- 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=400919#400919 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2013
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Interior paint
If you decide to put in Flightline's interior (I assume you aren't), they provide some detailed information on what needs to be painted and what will be hidden under the interior panels. On 5/17/2013 4:51 PM, bob88 wrote: > > I would like advice about painting the interior of RV10 cabin. Is a primer needed over Van's QB wash primer? Specific type of paint for finish coat? At what point in the build process is best for painting interior? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400866#400866 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2013
Subject: Re: Locking fuel caps??
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 5/17/2013 1:50 PM: > There have been many past reviews of locking gas caps. I've always wondered what is the point of locking gas caps without also having locking fuel drains... -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87 Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Locking fuel caps??
From: Neil & Sarah Colliver <ncol(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: May 19, 2013
It's not what they can take out that worries me, but what others might put in. On 19/05/2013, at 9:25 AM, Dj Merrill wrote: > > On 5/17/2013 1:50 PM: >> There have been many past reviews of locking gas caps. > > I've always wondered what is the point of locking gas caps without also having locking fuel drains... > > -Dj > > -- > Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87 > Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ > Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phil Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Locking fuel caps??
Date: May 18, 2013
Agreed. I flew an Arrow out to central Texas for a July 4th fireworks show. On the edges if the ramp were several hundred people and a half dozen kids managed to find their way out to the aircraft that we tied down. I did my best to keep on eye on them and one eye on the show. They weren't causing any problems, but all I could think of when I performed the preflight the next morning were little green army men or action figures that made it into the low wings tanks. Fortunately the standard RV-10 caps aren't quite as intuitive as the Arrows twist-n-takeoff caps. But I'm more concerned about debris than theft. I can always buy more. I wouldn't be happy about it, but it isn't going to cost me an airplane or a member of a family. Phil Just about to get started building again. The little girl is 11 months and I'm starting to get a little more time. :) Sent from my iPhone On May 18, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Neil & Sarah Colliver wrote: > > It's not what they can take out that worries me, but what others might put in. > > > On 19/05/2013, at 9:25 AM, Dj Merrill wrote: > >> >> On 5/17/2013 1:50 PM: >>> There have been many past reviews of locking gas caps. >> >> I've always wondered what is the point of locking gas caps without also having locking fuel drains... >> >> -Dj >> >> -- >> Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87 >> Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ >> Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roberto Brito" <lenabeto(at)uol.com.br>
Subject: 500
Date: May 19, 2013
Hello Rob, These numbers show Brazil's importance to the world market. We consume more RV 10 than the rest of the world!! Currently Brazil has nearly 300 RV-10 flying and some others, about 40, will be flying in 6 months, I guess. People are building their own airplane everywhere. Our history in the aviation is beautiful, but very painful in some ways. We have a large aviation industry, Embraer, but our country does not manufacture aeronautical engines. We can not count on Brazilian Industry to build our own aircraft. Most of the parts are bought in the USA I suppose you can guess how hard it is. Luckily, our economy has improved and we can travel abroad and bring parts and kits to assemble our planes. As for the RV 10, I have a 33-hour plane, which is strong and powerful. It's a big hit in our country and I can honestly say I love it. Regards, Roberto Brito Subject: 500 From: Rob Kochman (rv10rob(at)gmail.com) Date: Wed May 15 - 8:00 AM For those who missed it: https://www.facebook.com/notes/vans-aircraft-inc/rv-10-500/602548626422180 -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JimVillani" <Jim(at)JimVillani.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 19, 2013
Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg Greg... Oh Boy... Yea, The mags are old school... But You mentioned... Oiled up Plugs, Fouled plugs, Sounds like you may have other problems Mixture, Shut down Procedure, Start up procedure, Rings? Blown a starter? Maybe oil leaking from your engine into the throat of the starter, Or maybe you went "Light" on the starter feed cable using #4 or #6 from your battery instead of #2 to save weight (1 to 2 pounds) to get better gas mileage... Mag overhaul or checkout at 500 hours That's 5 maybe 7 to 10 years for most aviators. Most of your hoses on your plane should be replaced every 5 years or so... Oh yea that's in certified planes... Sounds reasonable to me to have your Mags looked at every 5 years... Hot start Issues... Is the mag in control of a "Hot Start?" Or is the Pilot responsible? That's like blaming the Gun for the Murder... I have "Electronic RPM readout" and "Electronic Manifold Pressure" using Magnetos. I have 1-2 turn starts with my Mags and Shower of Sparks System. I also have EGT and Cylinder temps on all cylinders, Oil pressure, Oil temperature, Fuel Pressure using my mags. It's called an "EFIS" Maybe you should look at your starting procedure... Hot Starts on my IO540 are usually 2 to 3 revolutions, but I blame that on the Fuel Injection not the Mag. I have friends with Carbureted engines, and Mags that start in 1-2 turns hot or cold. Why not change out the "Old School Lycoming Engine", It's only good for 2,000 hours anyway... It's been around for 60 or so years also... Why pay $40 to $60k for old school technology? Again engines are good for 20 to 25 years for most aviators You can go buy a Subaru or a "Brand New Factory Porsche engine" for about $15k (you can really save some gas cash using that thought) Then modify it to work in your RV... "Mooney Porsche" did that back in 1989 or so. They were trying to improve on the old school technology also.. That model lasted a year or so... Do you not think that the Millions and Millions of dollars Lycoming, and Continental spends on R&D engineering and testing could have figured this out over the past 30 years or so EI has been around. Maybe they figured out it wasn't "Worth the Risk" Or did you think maybe, "They had a hell of an overstock" of these "Old School Magnetos" that they needed to get rid of, So.. They sold their antiquated engines and ignition systems to "Not so up to speed companies like Cessna and Piper... and they still haven't dumped all the magnetos... Fuel economy... Think about that one night when your EI turns your RV into a glider. "Boy I saved $500 in fuel last year..." "What a deal" Meanwhile you are looking for an off airport landing site... By the way... What was that insurance deductable??? If you want Real Fuel Economy... FLY COMMERCIAL... No Offence... Just some spare time... And a big spoon to stir the pot... Jim N10KQ -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg McFarlane Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:47 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition --> O Boy Jim talk about a can of worms. Interesting grab of the last 2 weeks of Matronics re electronic ignition, you sound just like my Mag AP. All the Spam Cans who haven't got the option of bringing ignition forward at least 80 years take it for granted, mag failure on ramp RPM drop 400 or 800 due to oiled up plugs or bad points, failure in flight, no worries, just hope we can make it home one one. We expect overhaul at 500 hours..... no worries at least we don't have to have a back up battery, What's the best starting technique? o hell we've just blown a starter cause we've had hot start issues. I think Tim's option of two bob each way (sorry a quarter each way) one EI & One Mag is best option, You get 90% of the advantage of Dual Electronic Ignition ie Optimum Timing, Easy Starting, Better fuel economy, Smooth running, Better Idle. Electronic readouts for RPM, MP & Timing Position of Ignition with Lightspeed. Wack in a Mag as an easy backup but be careful about relying on ! it after more than 200Hrs. Maybe the stats would be different if Klaus recommended overhauls at 500 Hours or even less because of the advantages of EI cause nothing lasts forever. Cheers from Western Australia Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400905#400905 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2013
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
There's probably quite a few of the guys that would tell you were to put th e spoon. You had already made YOUR point. BYW over 500 hours, no problems with dual EI in under 4 years. --- On Sun, 5/19/13, JimVillani wrote: From: JimVillani <Jim(at)JimVillani.com> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition Date: Sunday, May 19, 2013, 2:00 PM Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg Greg... Oh Boy... Yea, The mags are old school... But You mentioned... Oiled up Plugs, Fouled plugs, Sounds like you may have other problems Mixture, Shut down Procedure, Start up procedure, Rings? Blown a starter? Maybe oil leaking from your engine into the throat of the starter, Or maybe you went "Light" on the starter feed cable using #4 or #6 from your battery instead of #2 to save weight (1 to 2 pounds) to get better gas mileage... Mag overhaul or checkout at 500 hours That's 5 maybe 7 to 10 years for most aviators. Most of your hoses on your plane should be replaced every 5 years or so... Oh yea that's in certified planes... Sounds reasonable to me to have your Mags looked at every 5 years... Hot start Issues... Is the mag in control of a "Hot Start?" Or is the Pilot responsible? That's like blaming the Gun for the Murder... I have "Electronic RPM readout" and "Electronic Manifold Pressure" using Magnetos. I have 1-2 turn starts with my Mags and Shower of Sparks System. I also have EGT and Cylinder temps on all cylinders, Oil pressure, Oil temperature, Fuel Pressure using my mags. It's called an "EFIS"- Maybe you should look at your starting procedure... Hot Starts on my IO540 are usually 2 to 3 revolutions, but I blame that on the Fuel Injection not the Mag. I have friends with Carbureted engines, and Mags that start in 1-2 turns hot or cold.- Why not change out the "Old School Lycoming Engine", It's only good for 2,000 hours anyway... It's been around for 60 or so years also... Why pay $40 to $60k for old school technology? Again engines are good for 20 to 25 years for most aviators You can go buy a Subaru or a "Brand New Factory Porsche engine" for about $15k (you can really save some gas cash using that thought) Then modify it to work in your RV... "Mooney Porsche" did that back in 1989 or so. They were trying to improve on the old school technology also.. That model lasted a year or so... Do you not think that the Millions and Millions of dollars Lycoming, and Continental spends on R&D engineering and testing could have figured this out over the past 30 years or so EI has been around. Maybe they figured out it wasn't "Worth the Risk" Or did you think maybe, "They had a hell of an overstock" of these "Old School Magnetos" that they needed to get rid of, So.. They sold their antiquated engines and ignition systems to "Not so up to speed companies like Cessna and Piper... and they still haven't dumped all the magnetos... Fuel economy... Think about that one night when your EI turns your RV into a glider. "Boy I saved $500 in fuel last year..." "What a deal" Meanwhile you are looking for an off airport landing site... By the way... What was that insurance deductable??? If you want Real Fuel Economy... FLY COMMERCIAL... No Offence... Just some spare time... And a big spoon to stir the pot... Jim N10KQ -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg McFarlane Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:47 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition --> O Boy Jim talk about a can of worms. Interesting grab of the last 2 weeks o f Matronics re electronic ignition, you sound just like my Mag AP. All the Spam Cans who haven't got the option of bringing ignition forward at least 80 years take it for granted, mag failure on ramp RPM drop 400 or 800 due t o oiled up plugs or bad points, failure in flight, no worries, just hope we can make it home one one. We expect overhaul at 500 hours..... no worries a t least we don't have to have a back up battery, What's the best starting technique? o hell we've just blown a starter cause we've had hot start issues. I think Tim's option of two bob each way (sorry a quarter each way) one EI & One Mag is best option, You get 90% of the advantage of Dual Electronic Ignition ie Optimum Timing, Easy Starting, Better fuel economy, Smooth running, Better Idle. Electronic readouts for RPM, MP & Timing Position of Ignition with Lightspeed. Wack in a Mag as an easy backup but b e careful about relying on ! it after more than 200Hrs. Maybe the stats would be different if Klaus recommended- overhauls at 500 Hours or even less because of the advantage s of EI cause nothing lasts forever. Cheers from Western Australia Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400905#400905 le, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: May 20, 2013
We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of electronic ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance systems available as I do not like the amount of data they make their advance decision on. From what I have been able to find all of the systems doing advance monitor manifold pressure and RPM then determine the amount of ignition advance based on a stored table. In a perfect world this method is fine, my issue is that they are not monitoring the output of the system to determine when the world is not perfect. In the automotive world this is done by monitoring all of the inputs and all of the outputs via sensors like knock, O2, mass air flow, injector PWM, etc. Then all of this information is used by the computer to make adjustments on the fly -er drive. I am not debating the advantages of EI, or even the reliability. I just wonder if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make, and know we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing the timing of the ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors. - 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=400982#400982 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 20, 2013
They all use stored tables. The difference between the auto and aircraft E IS systems is that the auto systems use greater system sampling (more senso rs) than do the aircraft EIS before making the ignition decisions. That is what makes the auto engines so efficient today. I understand that knock sen sing is difficult in aircraft engines because they are so internally noisy. If they could introduce a couple of more sensors to the equation (like you stated) that would help. I've talked to Rhonda Barrett (Barrett Precision Engines) about EIS. They have been slowly working on a system for their eng ines but she says its a complicated subject. Her concerns were very similar to the ones you stated. > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > From: jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com > Date: Mon=2C 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > com> > > We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of ele ctronic ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance syste ms available as I do not like the amount of data they make their advance de cision on. From what I have been able to find all of the systems doing adv ance monitor manifold pressure and RPM then determine the amount of ignitio n advance based on a stored table. In a perfect world this method is fine =2C my issue is that they are not monitoring the output of the system to de termine when the world is not perfect. In the automotive world this is don e by monitoring all of the inputs and all of the outputs via sensors like k nock=2C O2=2C mass air flow=2C injector PWM=2C etc. Then all of this infor mation is used by the computer to make adjustments on the fly -er drive. > > I am not debating the advantages of EI=2C or even the reliability. I jus t wonder if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make =2C and know we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing th e timing of the ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors. - Jason > > -------- > Jason Kreidler > 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls=2C WI > Tony Kolar=2C Kyle Hokel=2C Wayne Elser=2C Jason Kreidler > N44YH - Flying - #40617 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400982#400982 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2013
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
There is one factor not mentioned. Combustion from EI spark produces a different vibration signature from combustion generated by mag spark. No, I don't know the technical reasons, just know it is an issue that affects propeller harmonics, and on certified planes Hartzell and others want a vibration scan before setting approved rpm ranges for the prop.Unfortunately, such vibration scans are expensive, so prop manufacturers only do them if they see marketing opportunity or someone else pays. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Danny Riggs wrote: > They all use stored tables. The difference between the auto and aircraft > EIS systems is that the auto systems use greater system sampling (more > sensors) than do the aircraft EIS before making the ignition decisions. > That is what makes the auto engines so efficient today. I understand that > knock sensing is difficult in aircraft engines because they are so > internally noisy. If they could introduce a couple of more sensors to the > equation (like you stated) that would help. I've talked to Rhonda Barrett > (Barrett Precision Engines) about EIS. They have been slowly working on a > system for their engines but she says its a complicated subject. Her > concerns were very similar to the ones you stated. > > > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > > From: jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com > > Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700 > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > > jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com> > > > > We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of > electronic ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance > systems available as I do not like the amount of data they make their > advance decision on. From what I have been able to find all of the systems > doing advance monitor manifold pressure and RPM then determine the amount > of ignition advance based on a stored table. In a perfect world this method > is fine, my issue is that they are not monitoring the output of the system > to determine when the world is not perfect. In the automotive world this is > done by monitoring all of the inputs and all of the outputs via sensors > like knock, O2, mass air flow, injector PWM, etc. Then all of this > information is used by the computer to make adjustments on the fly -er > drive. > > > > I am not debating the advantages of EI, or even the reliability. I just > wonder if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make, > and know we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing the > timing of the ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors. - > 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=400982#400982 > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > * > > -- - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 20, 2013
To my (admitted limited) knowledge Electroair is the only one out there tha t has certified EIS for the type of airplanes we commonly drive. They use i nductive type of spark which gives a longer dwell time than the CDI which i s much shorter and very intense. Mag spark is good over 5 degrees of crank and Electroair's is good over about 20 degrees of crank and CDI has to spar k multiple times to get any kind of dwell time=2C or so I understand. I really like the fuel efficiency and easy starting characteristics of the EFI systems. I "think" that with the EFIS systems monitoring multiple engin e parameters that we can keep ahead of most potential problems if or as th ey arise. I was programming my GRT HX EFIS yesterday. I'm still amazed at w hat it can do for such a relatively small amount of money. Date: Mon=2C 20 May 2013 09:55:15 -0500 Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition From: apilot2(at)gmail.com There is one factor not mentioned. Combustion from EI spark produces a diff erent vibration signature from combustion generated by mag spark. No=2C I d on't know the technical reasons=2C just know it is an issue that affects pr opeller harmonics=2C and on certified planes Hartzell and others want a vib ration scan before setting approved rpm ranges for the prop.Unfortunately =2C such vibration scans are expensive=2C so prop manufacturers only do the m if they see marketing opportunity or someone else pays. =0A On Mon=2C May 20=2C 2013 at 8:55 AM=2C Danny Riggs wrot e: =0A =0A =0A =0A They all use stored tables. The difference between the auto and aircraft E IS systems is that the auto systems use greater system sampling (more senso rs) than do the aircraft EIS before making the ignition decisions. That is what makes the auto engines so efficient today. I understand that knock sen sing is difficult in aircraft engines because they are so internally noisy. If they could introduce a couple of more sensors to the equation (like you stated) that would help. I've talked to Rhonda Barrett (Barrett Precision Engines) about EIS. They have been slowly working on a system for their eng ines but she says its a complicated subject. Her concerns were very similar to the ones you stated. =0A > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > From: jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com > Date: Mon=2C 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700 =0A > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > com> =0A > > We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of ele ctronic ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance syste ms available as I do not like the amount of data they make their advance de cision on. From what I have been able to find all of the systems doing adv ance monitor manifold pressure and RPM then determine the amount of ignitio n advance based on a stored table. In a perfect world this method is fine =2C my issue is that they are not monitoring the output of the system to de termine when the world is not perfect. In the automotive world this is don e by monitoring all of the inputs and all of the outputs via sensors like k nock=2C O2=2C mass air flow=2C injector PWM=2C etc. Then all of this infor mation is used by the computer to make adjustments on the fly -er drive. =0A > > I am not debating the advantages of EI=2C or even the reliability. I jus t wonder if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make =2C and know we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing th e timing of the ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors. - Jason =0A > > -------- > Jason Kreidler > 4 Partner Build - Sheboygan Falls=2C WI > Tony Kolar=2C Kyle Hokel=2C Wayne Elser=2C Jason Kreidler > N44YH - Flying - #40617 > > =0A > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=400982#400982 =0A > > > > > =0A =0A =0A =0A get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List=0A tp://forums.matronics.com=0A _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A =0A -- =0A - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A ============0A ============0A ============0A ============0A =0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 20, 2013
At high vacuum (low manifold pressure) the electronic ignition advances the timing (pMag is 34-39 degrees). This is what you want under such cruise conditions as the earlier spark provides more efficient combustion. This does however change the engine resonance - and for some props yields operation restrictions such as reducing RPM below 2600 other than takeoff. I believe MT does not have such restrictions - but would need to verify. Below is the Hartzell limitations for the 180hp Lycoming with electronic ignition (and what I have placarded in the RV-8A). I haven't seen any such testing by Hartzell for the IO-540 - and their website just says "not endorsed". Perhaps Van's will get them to do the same vibration test for the IO-540 like they did for the 180hp 360. Carl (still flying with mags but pinging Brad at eMag to get the six cylinder ignition out) 1. <http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Hartzell_c2yk.pdf> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Hartzell_c2yk.pdf Hartzell HC-C2YK-1BF/F7666A-2 Propeller on 180 Hp Lycoming engines equipped with Electronic Ignition or FADEC The Hartzell Propeller Model HC-C2YK-1BF/F7666A-2 has been vibrationally approved per FAR23.907 on the standard production Lycoming Engine Model O-360-A1A, and similar models, rated at 180 HP at 2700 RPM with a restriction to avoid continuous operation between 2000 and 2250 RPM. The propeller vibration characteristics and stress amplitudes on a reciprocating engine installation are primarily mechanically generated by the engine. Any modification to the standard engine configuration to include high compression pistons, electronic ignition, FADEC, tuned induction and exhaust, and turbocharging or turbonormalizing have the potential to adversely effect the propeller vibration characteristics and stress amplitudes. Hartzell Propeller, therefore, does not endorse any such engine modification unless the specific engine and propeller configurations have been tested and found to be acceptable vibrationwise. The Lightspeed electronic ignition is not certified for use on any aircraft engines so its use is limited to the experimental/amateur built market. Hartzell recently conducted a test with the propeller model HC-C2YK-1BF/F7666A-2 installed on a standard Lycoming O-360-A1A engine, except for a modification to equip it with the Lightspeed ignition in place of one magneto. The results of this test show an increase in the propeller vibratory stress amplitudes within the 2000- 2250 RPM range currently covered by the operating restriction noted in the first paragraph, and additionally above 2600 RPM with high power settings. Based on this data, continued safe use of this propeller on O-360-A1A and similar engines equipped with Lightspeed electronic ignition would require the following: The Hartzell Propeller Model HC-C2YR-1BF/F7666A-2 is satisfactory vibrationwise mounted on Lycoming model O-360-A1A and similar engines rated at 180 HP at 2700 RPM and equipped with Lightspeed Plasma II electronic ignition installed in Van's Aircraft Model RV-8 and similar single engine tractor aircraft with the following operating restrictions. 1. Avoid continuous operation between 2000 and 2250 RPM. 2. Operation above 2600 RPM is limited to takeoff. As soon as practical after takeoff the RPM should be reduced to 2600 RPM or less. 3. The propeller blades are life limited and must be retired upon reaching 8700 hours. The propeller diameter limits are 74 to 72 inches. http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/images/misc/progress.gif From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:55 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition There is one factor not mentioned. Combustion from EI spark produces a different vibration signature from combustion generated by mag spark. No, I don't know the technical reasons, just know it is an issue that affects propeller harmonics, and on certified planes Hartzell and others want a vibration scan before setting approved rpm ranges for the prop.Unfortunately, such vibration scans are expensive, so prop manufacturers only do them if they see marketing opportunity or someone else pays. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Danny Riggs wrote: They all use stored tables. The difference between the auto and aircraft EIS systems is that the auto systems use greater system sampling (more sensors) than do the aircraft EIS before making the ignition decisions. That is what makes the auto engines so efficient today. I understand that knock sensing is difficult in aircraft engines because they are so internally noisy. If they could introduce a couple of more sensors to the equation (like you stated) that would help. I've talked to Rhonda Barrett (Barrett Precision Engines) about EIS. They have been slowly working on a system for their engines but she says its a complicated subject. Her concerns were very similar to the ones you stated. > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > From: jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com > Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 05:02:03 -0700 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > > We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of electronic ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance systems available as I do not like the amount of data they make their advance decision on. From what I have been able to find all of the systems doing advance monitor manifold pressure and RPM then determine the amount of ignition advance based on a stored table. In a perfect world this method is fine, my issue is that they are not monitoring the output of the system to determine when the world is not perfect. In the automotive world this is done by monitoring all of the inputs and all of the outputs via sensors like knock, O2, mass air flow, injector PWM, etc. Then all of this information is used by the computer to make adjustments on the fly -er drive. > > I am not debating the advantages of EI, or even the reliability. I just wonder if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make, and know we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing the timing of the ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors. - 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=400982#400982 > > > > > get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution -- - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2013
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Jason, This is precisely the issue with today's EI. Not only is each engine unique (evidence the dyno runs), but the conditions that the engine operates in are dynamic and vary considerably. We know that things like temperature, humidity, altitude, etc. all combine to effect the effectiveness of the engine. Several years ago, George Braly (GAMI) announced they were investigating/developing a system that would address these specific issues. I believe it was called PRISM, Talking to Alan Barrett, about it, he said that his father (Monty) was very interested in following it's development,because he believed it was the only way that he could see for EI to be an acceptable aircraft engine technology. (Hope I got that right, Alan, pleas chime in). I see that PRISM is listed on the GAMI web- site, but don't know it's current state. As I understood it at the time, The were going to use sensors to sense the operating factors and dynamically build the power/spark curves in real time. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:02 AM, jkreidler wrote: > jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com> > > We are approaching the 500 hour mark and are considering some form of > electronic ignition as well. I struggle with the current timing advance > systems available as I do not like the amount of data they make their > advance decision on. From what I have been able to find all of the systems > doing advance monitor manifold pressure and RPM then determine the amount > of ignition advance based on a stored table. In a perfect world this > method is fine, my issue is that they are not monitoring the output of the > system to determine when the world is not perfect. In the automotive world > this is done by monitoring all of the inputs and all of the outputs via > sensors like knock, O2, mass air flow, injector PWM, etc. Then all of this > information is used by the computer to make adjustments on the fly -er > drive. > > I am not debating the advantages of EI, or even the reliability. I just > wonder if we are taking a big enough picture of the entire system to make, > and know we are making the right decision when it comes to advancing the > timing of the ignition. At very least I would like to see knock sensors. > - 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=400982#400982 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: "jkreidler" <jason.kreidler(at)regalbeloit.com>
Date: May 20, 2013
Wow - talk about a simple subject that is about as complicated as can be. Now that vibration is brought up it adds a whole new element to the equation. I wonder what vibration is created when mags are not timed well and fire at different times, or worse as the gears wear they fire only within a band. One of the systems I have been giving serious consideration is the G3I. Simply because it maintains both mags, so I have a redundant system. It times both sides together so I know the plugs are firing at the same time. It leaves the timing alone, but provides spark for another 20 degrees of rotation (not sure how / if that effects vibraton). On the downside I still have to rebuild those stupid dumb old school mags. By the way, these decisions are a pile more complicated after the airplane is complete. When it is time to decide this stuff during the build you have a thousand other decisions to make, so if you want to finish and fly in a reasonable amount of time you just need to decide and move on. After the airplane is flying the time pressure is no longer there so you can contemplate, think, ask, drink, contemplate some more, go flying, and forget about the decision for another few months. That is until the mags go TU and you are sitting on the ramp somewhere - then you walk in the local shop ask if they have a mag to get you home and the decision is made for another 500 hours. ugh - I think I am reaching the drink stage again! - 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=401004#401004 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan(at)hispeed.ch>
Subject: OAT probe location
Date: May 20, 2013
Old subject revisited, but I'm curious about whether placing the OAT probe under the right side horizontal stabilizer is much less accurate than in the "correct" position eg. in the wing inspection panels. I mainly want to avoid adding 4 spliced junctions to make the wires long enough to reach the wings. (The sensor resistance is 15kOhm at RT so I understand that the joints shouldn't affect the reading significantly, they just aren't "nice".) Does anyone have any data to say what the difference in temperature readings between these 2 locations would be on the RV-10? Thanks! Gordon Anderson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 20, 2013
While the G3I maintaining both mags is an attraction to some, I see it as a disadvantage. The weak sister mechanical aspect of a magneto is as much reason for me to not have mags as the better spark and timing curve with the electronic ignition. I'm sure others see it different. Carl RV-8A (700hrs - 400hrs on pMags and $2 NGK sparkplugs) RV-10 (with 85 hours on mags and for the first time ever on an airplane just cleaned sparkplugs - I hope never to have to do this again) -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jkreidler Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:28 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition --> Wow - talk about a simple subject that is about as complicated as can be. Now that vibration is brought up it adds a whole new element to the equation. I wonder what vibration is created when mags are not timed well and fire at different times, or worse as the gears wear they fire only within a band. One of the systems I have been giving serious consideration is the G3I. Simply because it maintains both mags, so I have a redundant system. It times both sides together so I know the plugs are firing at the same time. It leaves the timing alone, but provides spark for another 20 degrees of rotation (not sure how / if that effects vibraton). On the downside I still have to rebuild those stupid dumb old school mags. By the way, these decisions are a pile more complicated after the airplane is complete. When it is time to decide this stuff during the build you have a thousand other decisions to make, so if you want to finish and fly in a reasonable amount of time you just need to decide and move on. After the airplane is flying the time pressure is no longer there so you can contemplate, think, ask, drink, contemplate some more, go flying, and forget about the decision for another few months. That is until the mags go TU and you are sitting on the ramp somewhere - then you walk in the local shop ask if they have a mag to get you home and the decision is made for another 500 hours. ugh - I think I am reaching the drink stage again! - 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=401004#401004 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Bad Starter Noise
Date: May 20, 2013
I have a Skytec starter with just over 600 hours and recently it started to make an awful grinding noise when starting the engine. The noise seems to quite as soon as the engine starts (a little hard to tell over the noise of the engine). Looking at the flywheel and bendix gear I expected to see a storage wear pattern, and there is a slight one but not really the indication I expected if it wasn't fully engaging. It runs great off the engine and the bendix seems to fully extend, but I know a starter can give a false sense of security when it isn't under any load. Any thoughts on what the culprit might be? Thanks, Marcus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bad Starter Noise
From: Kevin Belue <kdbelue(at)charter.net>
Date: May 20, 2013
Mine did that when the starter mount bent. Sent from my iPhone On May 20, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > > I have a Skytec starter with just over 600 hours and recently it started to make an awful grinding noise when starting the engine. The noise seems to quite as soon as the engine starts (a little hard to tell over the noise of the engine). Looking at the flywheel and bendix gear I expected to see a storage wear pattern, and there is a slight one but not really the indication I expected if it wasn't fully engaging. It runs great off the engine and the bendix seems to fully extend, but I know a starter can give a false sense of security when it isn't under any load. > > Any thoughts on what the culprit might be? > > Thanks, > Marcus > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Bad Starter Noise
Probably a bearing going bad in the starter. Don't know what their current charge is, but was around $150 last time I needed it, and they shipped it out repaired the same day they received it. On 5/20/2013 4:13 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > > I have a Skytec starter with just over 600 hours and recently it started to make an awful grinding noise when starting the engine. The noise seems to quite as soon as the engine starts (a little hard to tell over the noise of the engine). Looking at the flywheel and bendix gear I expected to see a storage wear pattern, and there is a slight one but not really the indication I expected if it wasn't fully engaging. It runs great off the engine and the bendix seems to fully extend, but I know a starter can give a false sense of security when it isn't under any load. > > Any thoughts on what the culprit might be? > > Thanks, > Marcus > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bad Starter Noise
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 20, 2013
It looks normal, is it possible to replace just that part? Thanks, Marcus On May 20, 2013, at 7:42 PM, Kevin Belue wrote: Mine did that when the starter mount bent. Sent from my iPhone On May 20, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > > I have a Skytec starter with just over 600 hours and recently it started to make an awful grinding noise when starting the engine. The noise seems to quite as soon as the engine starts (a little hard to tell over the noise of the engine). Looking at the flywheel and bendix gear I expected to see a storage wear pattern, and there is a slight one but not really the indication I expected if it wasn't fully engaging. It runs great off the engine and the bendix seems to fully extend, but I know a starter can give a false sense of security when it isn't under any load. > > Any thoughts on what the culprit might be? > > Thanks, > Marcus > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 20, 2013
Tim / Robin (et al) - We gotta talk. Our aircraft engines DO NOT have two ignition sources for redundancy. It's required for best operation. The combustion chamber in our opposed air-cooled engines is so big it needs to have the flame lit in multiple locations to achieve reasonable combustion in the time allotted per power stroke. If you're running one mag and one EI, you're only running on one plug above idle. Not good. Nowhere close to optimum. A hotter spark from EI masks some of the roughness from inefficient combustion, but it's still just one plug doing all the work. This is a critical system, and not a place for compromise or hedging bets. It's binary-land. You're either in or out. Pick one or the other and run with it. Your fuel consumption per unit power / distance / time (pick your favorite measuring stick) will decrease and engine performance / smoothness will increase. "Redundancy" or "safety" are false promises. Neal George Sent from my iPhone On May 16, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > I feel about the same. I wouldn't ever be happy anymore with > 2 Mags. Reliability wise I've actually had more worrysome > issues with planes over the years with mags than with the > lightspeed on one side. I'm not sure where those statistics > came from exactly, but especially with that last > Slick AD I'm not sure I'd believe them. Maybe Bendix > would be a different story. These days nobody runs > points and mags in a car....and even in my boat one of the > best things I did in the last year was swap the points > for an electronic trigger module. So one side has to be > E.I. for me. > > But, just like Robin says, I don't know that I'd want to put > TWO of anything on the engine yet. If I did have 2, I don't > think the lightspeed would be my choice on the RV-10, because > you'd still have one crank sensor. And given the Looooooong > time to market and broken promises of pMag for the 6, I think > I'd want to see a few hundred flying, for a few 10's of > thousands of hours before I'd dive in. It wouldn't take but > a couple years for them to develop a track record one way > or the other...and I have to assume that if they were > reliable right now, they would be AVAILABLE right now, because > there certainly is a market for them once they are > released. I can only assume that it's because of issues > that they aren't making it to market...so I'll want to > see a track record before I'd go that route. > > In the end, I'm very happy to have only 1 mag to overhaul, > but even happier that the engine runs best on that one > EI. I would prefer to keep that same type of > arrangement down the road...I'm not an "all eggs in 1 > basket" kind of guy. > > Tim > > On 5/16/2013 12:20 PM, Robin Marks wrote: >> I prefer the mixed set up of one EI and one mag. I love the set up on my 8A with one Pmag. I won't run dual anything but Mags however I prefer the better burn of EI and with a single EI you get almost all the benefit of having dual EI but still have a good old Mag to rely upon. >> I would consider two different EI but not two of the same EIs. >> I wish the 6 cylinder pmag were available (and fully tested) >> >> Robin >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: The Joys of Experimental Aircraft Ownership
Date: May 21, 2013
The reason I spend top dollar on a comfortable interior! [https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-8jZ0_d4wPDQ/UZpgXJKtieI/AAAAAAAAFmA/7cq sEpHmOuY/w656-h875-no/IMG_20130520_104123.jpg] Robin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Bad Starter Noise
Date: May 21, 2013
From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com>
Quality Aircraft Accessories in Tulsa can now overhaul Skytec starters. I would send it to them. Rhonda Barrett-Bewley Barrett Precision Engines 2870-B N. Sheridan Rd. Tulsa, OK 74115 (918) 835-1089 phone (918) 835-1754 fax www.barrettprecisionengines.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:56 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Bad Starter Noise Probably a bearing going bad in the starter. Don't know what their current charge is, but was around $150 last time I needed it, and they shipped it out repaired the same day they received it. On 5/20/2013 4:13 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > > I have a Skytec starter with just over 600 hours and recently it started to make an awful grinding noise when starting the engine. The noise seems to quite as soon as the engine starts (a little hard to tell over the noise of the engine). Looking at the flywheel and bendix gear I expected to see a storage wear pattern, and there is a slight one but not really the indication I expected if it wasn't fully engaging. It runs great off the engine and the bendix seems to fully extend, but I know a starter can give a false sense of security when it isn't under any load. > > Any thoughts on what the culprit might be? > > Thanks, > Marcus > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Women in Aviation Plane Wash for Scholarship Fund
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: May 22, 2013
OK Here is your chance to have your plane washed, eat breakfast and do a charitable thing at the same time. The local chapter of WIA is going to be in full force washing planes at the Mt. Vernon, IL KMVN airport. The specifics are: Airplane Wash by Women With Wings Come to the KMVN June fly-in breakfast and Get your plane washed, too! When: Saturday, June 1st, 2013 9:00 am to 12:00 pm (Breakfast is from 8 11) Where: Mount Vernon Airport, Mt. Vernon, IL (KMVN) Cost: $65.00 and up Cash, checks, credit cards accepted! Well use fresh rags to wash, shammys to dry your plane & plexiglass cleaner on your windscreen. We degrease bellies, too! **Proceeds benefit the Women With Wings Scholarship Fund** Women with Wings is the St. Louis area chapter of Women in Aviation International. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401109#401109 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2013
From: Linn <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
On 5/20/2013 9:35 PM, Neal George wrote: > > Tim / Robin (et al) - > > We gotta talk. > > Our aircraft engines DO NOT have two ignition sources for redundancy. It's required for best operation. > > The combustion chamber in our opposed air-cooled engines is so big it needs to have the flame lit in multiple locations to achieve reasonable combustion in the time allotted per power stroke. > > If you're running one mag and one EI, you're only running on one plug above idle. Pardon my ignorance and I'm a little slow so bear with me. What you infer is that one plug/cylinder quits firing??? Why??? Which one quits .... the mag or the EI??? Well, the mag doesn't quit so that leaves the EI .... which (AFAIK) doesn't quit ...... so where did you get derailed??? Linn > > Not good. Nowhere close to optimum. A hotter spark from EI masks some of the roughness from inefficient combustion, but it's still just one plug doing all the work. > > This is a critical system, and not a place for compromise or hedging bets. It's binary-land. You're either in or out. Pick one or the other and run with it. > > Your fuel consumption per unit power / distance / time (pick your favorite measuring stick) will decrease and engine performance / smoothness will increase. > > "Redundancy" or "safety" are false promises. > > Neal George > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 16, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > >> >> I feel about the same. I wouldn't ever be happy anymore with >> 2 Mags. Reliability wise I've actually had more worrysome >> issues with planes over the years with mags than with the >> lightspeed on one side. I'm not sure where those statistics >> came from exactly, but especially with that last >> Slick AD I'm not sure I'd believe them. Maybe Bendix >> would be a different story. These days nobody runs >> points and mags in a car....and even in my boat one of the >> best things I did in the last year was swap the points >> for an electronic trigger module. So one side has to be >> E.I. for me. >> >> But, just like Robin says, I don't know that I'd want to put >> TWO of anything on the engine yet. If I did have 2, I don't >> think the lightspeed would be my choice on the RV-10, because >> you'd still have one crank sensor. And given the Looooooong >> time to market and broken promises of pMag for the 6, I think >> I'd want to see a few hundred flying, for a few 10's of >> thousands of hours before I'd dive in. It wouldn't take but >> a couple years for them to develop a track record one way >> or the other...and I have to assume that if they were >> reliable right now, they would be AVAILABLE right now, because >> there certainly is a market for them once they are >> released. I can only assume that it's because of issues >> that they aren't making it to market...so I'll want to >> see a track record before I'd go that route. >> >> In the end, I'm very happy to have only 1 mag to overhaul, >> but even happier that the engine runs best on that one >> EI. I would prefer to keep that same type of >> arrangement down the road...I'm not an "all eggs in 1 >> basket" kind of guy. >> >> Tim >> >> On 5/16/2013 12:20 PM, Robin Marks wrote: >>> I prefer the mixed set up of one EI and one mag. I love the set up on my 8A with one Pmag. I won't run dual anything but Mags however I prefer the better burn of EI and with a single EI you get almost all the benefit of having dual EI but still have a good old Mag to rely upon. >>> I would consider two different EI but not two of the same EIs. >>> I wish the 6 cylinder pmag were available (and fully tested) >>> >>> Robin >>> >> >> >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Ed Mueller <ed(at)muellerartcover.com>
Date: May 22, 2013
I'll jump into the middle of this. I agree. I'm not a mechanic, but I do know my way around an engine. When I started flying in the mid 80's I thought the two mags were for redundancy also. A couple of experienced mechanics explained it was for better combustion. The flame front propagates so slowly that you need the two sparks to complete combustion correctly. Both mags are firing, since one is so early that starts the flame front. The other one fires so late it doesn't matter much. Ed On May 20, 2013, at 9:35 PM, Neal George wrote: > > Tim / Robin (et al) - > > We gotta talk. > > Our aircraft engines DO NOT have two ignition sources for redundancy. It's required for best operation. > > The combustion chamber in our opposed air-cooled engines is so big it needs to have the flame lit in multiple locations to achieve reasonable combustion in the time allotted per power stroke. > > If you're running one mag and one EI, you're only running on one plug above idle. > > Not good. Nowhere close to optimum. A hotter spark from EI masks some of the roughness from inefficient combustion, but it's still just one plug doing all the work. > > This is a critical system, and not a place for compromise or hedging bets. It's binary-land. You're either in or out. Pick one or the other and run with it. > > Your fuel consumption per unit power / distance / time (pick your favorite measuring stick) will decrease and engine performance / smoothness will increase. > > "Redundancy" or "safety" are false promises. > > Neal George > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 16, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > >> >> I feel about the same. I wouldn't ever be happy anymore with >> 2 Mags. Reliability wise I've actually had more worrysome >> issues with planes over the years with mags than with the >> lightspeed on one side. I'm not sure where those statistics >> came from exactly, but especially with that last >> Slick AD I'm not sure I'd believe them. Maybe Bendix >> would be a different story. These days nobody runs >> points and mags in a car....and even in my boat one of the >> best things I did in the last year was swap the points >> for an electronic trigger module. So one side has to be >> E.I. for me. >> >> But, just like Robin says, I don't know that I'd want to put >> TWO of anything on the engine yet. If I did have 2, I don't >> think the lightspeed would be my choice on the RV-10, because >> you'd still have one crank sensor. And given the Looooooong >> time to market and broken promises of pMag for the 6, I think >> I'd want to see a few hundred flying, for a few 10's of >> thousands of hours before I'd dive in. It wouldn't take but >> a couple years for them to develop a track record one way >> or the other...and I have to assume that if they were >> reliable right now, they would be AVAILABLE right now, because >> there certainly is a market for them once they are >> released. I can only assume that it's because of issues >> that they aren't making it to market...so I'll want to >> see a track record before I'd go that route. >> >> In the end, I'm very happy to have only 1 mag to overhaul, >> but even happier that the engine runs best on that one >> EI. I would prefer to keep that same type of >> arrangement down the road...I'm not an "all eggs in 1 >> basket" kind of guy. >> >> Tim >> >> On 5/16/2013 12:20 PM, Robin Marks wrote: >>> I prefer the mixed set up of one EI and one mag. I love the set up on my 8A with one Pmag. I won't run dual anything but Mags however I prefer the better burn of EI and with a single EI you get almost all the benefit of having dual EI but still have a good old Mag to rely upon. >>> I would consider two different EI but not two of the same EIs. >>> I wish the 6 cylinder pmag were available (and fully tested) >>> >>> Robin >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 22, 2013
Linn, Your error is in assuming that a post that starts out "we gotta talk" is going to be rational. The poster said, correctly, that having two ignition sources and two propagating flame fronts helps the fuel burn more completely within the alloted time (especially true for fixed timing mags), and hence improves engine power and efficiency. (which is why there is an rpm drop on runup when operating on one mag). He also said, correctly, that if you have an EI plug with advanced timing, that its flame front may have propagated past the second, mag fired plug, before the mag has fired, and thus the mag is "doing no work", to use his words. But then he says that this is "bad". If it was bad, then the EI guys just wouldn't advance the timing. But they do, because the engine runs more efficiently with advanced timing under typical cruise conditions. Even if it's only one plug that's advanced. His arguement makes no sense. I thought maybe it was an IQ test, to see how many people responded. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401148#401148 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2013
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com>
This seems the point at which the positives of EI need to be clearly stated - balanced against their negatives. Then compared directly with the clear positives of a magneto and its negatives. When a reader understands the trade-offs they can better understand the frustration with the always coming into the near future Pmag for 6 cylinders which was going to solve everything (comes to mind). Mr. Barrett (or the lovely Ms Rhonda) could weigh in on why the high performance engines he builds use what they do and why power output diminishes on their dyno with one EI and one magneto. Note: a most popular blend with the RV-10 crowd. Another question is what do S.D. Tucker, K. Chambliss and M.Goulian bet their lives on?? Tim's input had something to do with that isolated manufacturing incident with Slick mags a few years ago. Two Slicks with bad carbon made for a bad day. Two EI have their own Achilles heal. As of today, there is still no single right answer. Lycoming has made such an advanced engine in their iE2 with knock sensors, variable timing and redundant FADEC wiring for the Lancair Evolution TEO-540-A1A. The additional price knocked a few willing participants out of the evaluation and they opt for turbine. Know your mission, choose wisely, land safely Every Time. John Cox On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > Linn, > Your error is in assuming that a post that starts out "we gotta talk" is > going to be rational. > The poster said, correctly, that having two ignition sources and two > propagating flame fronts helps the fuel burn more completely within the > alloted time (especially true for fixed timing mags), and hence improves > engine power and efficiency. (which is why there is an rpm drop on runup > when operating on one mag). > He also said, correctly, that if you have an EI plug with advanced timing, > that its flame front may have propagated past the second, mag fired plug, > before the mag has fired, and thus the mag is "doing no work", to use his > words. > But then he says that this is "bad". If it was bad, then the EI guys just > wouldn't advance the timing. But they do, because the engine runs more > efficiently with advanced timing under typical cruise conditions. Even if > it's only one plug that's advanced. His arguement makes no sense. I thought > maybe it was an IQ test, to see how many people responded. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401148#401148 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 23, 2013
I spoke with Barrett and rather than get an answer on their preferred set u p Alan told me they are working on a dual electronic ignition of their own (bolt onto the Magneto platform). They are fashioning it after the successf ul EI they developed for their MP-14 (Radial). ETA likely 2014. As far as what Sean Tucker et.al. uses I am not sure their risk analysis ma tches mine. I frankly never considered flying upside down to cut a ribbon w ith my rudder a few feet off the pavement. Just never came to mind. Thanks, Robin From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:36 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition This seems the point at which the positives of EI need to be clearly stated - balanced against their negatives. Then compared directly with the clea r positives of a magneto and its negatives. When a reader understands the trade-offs they can better understand the frustration with the always comin g into the near future Pmag for 6 cylinders which was going to solve everyt hing (comes to mind). Mr. Barrett (or the lovely Ms Rhonda) could weigh in on why the high perfor mance engines he builds use what they do and why power output diminishes on their dyno with one EI and one magneto. Note: a most popular blend with th e RV-10 crowd. Another question is what do S.D. Tucker, K. Chambliss and M .Goulian bet their lives on?? Tim's input had something to do with that isolated manufacturing incident w ith Slick mags a few years ago. Two Slicks with bad carbon made for a bad day. Two EI have their own Achilles heal. As of today, there is still no single right answer. Lycoming has made such an advanced engine in their iE2 with knock sensors, variable timing and redundant FADEC wiring for the Lancair Evolution TEO-54 0-A1A. The additional price knocked a few willing participants out of the evaluation and they opt for turbine. Know your mission, choose wisely, land safely Every Time. John Cox On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bob Turner > wrote: o:bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>> Linn, Your error is in assuming that a post that starts out "we gotta talk" is go ing to be rational. The poster said, correctly, that having two ignition sources and two propag ating flame fronts helps the fuel burn more completely within the alloted t ime (especially true for fixed timing mags), and hence improves engine powe r and efficiency. (which is why there is an rpm drop on runup when operatin g on one mag). He also said, correctly, that if you have an EI plug with advanced timing, that its flame front may have propagated past the second, mag fired plug, b efore the mag has fired, and thus the mag is "doing no work", to use his wo rds. But then he says that this is "bad". If it was bad, then the EI guys just w ouldn't advance the timing. But they do, because the engine runs more effic iently with advanced timing under typical cruise conditions. Even if it's o nly one plug that's advanced. His arguement makes no sense. I thought maybe it was an IQ test, to see how many people responded. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401148#401148 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com le, List Admin. ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2013
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com>
Research will find they don't mix and match. The Barrett solution for the M-14 has been remarkable.....but... the Russian & Chinese mags had a life limit of 750 hours. Getting correct parts is another matter. Barrett's have made a lot of improvements, for the old M-14. Too bad we don't have a thousand engines available with FADEC. John On May 22, 2013 5:19 PM, "Robin Marks" wrote: > > I spoke with Barrett and rather than get an answer on their preferred set up Alan told me they are working on a dual electronic ignition of their own (bolt onto the Magneto platform). They are fashioning it after the successful EI they developed for their MP-14 (Radial). ETA likely 2014. > > As far as what Sean Tucker et.al. uses I am not sure their risk analysis matches mine. I frankly never considered flying upside down to cut a ribbon with my rudder a few feet off the pavement. Just never came to mind. > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:36 PM > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > > > This seems the point at which the positives of EI need to be clearly stated - balanced against their negatives. Then compared directly with the clear positives of a magneto and its negatives. When a reader understands the trade-offs they can better understand the frustration with the always coming into the near future Pmag for 6 cylinders which was going to solve everything (comes to mind). > > > Mr. Barrett (or the lovely Ms Rhonda) could weigh in on why the high performance engines he builds use what they do and why power output diminishes on their dyno with one EI and one magneto. Note: a most popular blend with the RV-10 crowd. Another question is what do S.D. Tucker, K. Chambliss and M.Goulian bet their lives on?? > > > Tim's input had something to do with that isolated manufacturing incident with Slick mags a few years ago. Two Slicks with bad carbon made for a bad day. Two EI have their own Achilles heal. As of today, there is still no single right answer. > > > Lycoming has made such an advanced engine in their iE2 with knock sensors, variable timing and redundant FADEC wiring for the Lancair Evolution TEO-540-A1A. The additional price knocked a few willing participants out of the evaluation and they opt for turbine. > > > Know your mission, choose wisely, land safely Every Time. > > > John Cox > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > Linn, > Your error is in assuming that a post that starts out "we gotta talk" is going to be rational. > The poster said, correctly, that having two ignition sources and two propagating flame fronts helps the fuel burn more completely within the alloted time (especially true for fixed timing mags), and hence improves engine power and efficiency. (which is why there is an rpm drop on runup when operating on one mag). > He also said, correctly, that if you have an EI plug with advanced timing, that its flame front may have propagated past the second, mag fired plug, before the mag has fired, and thus the mag is "doing no work", to use his words. > But then he says that this is "bad". If it was bad, then the EI guys just wouldn't advance the timing. But they do, because the engine runs more efficiently with advanced timing under typical cruise conditions. Even if it's only one plug that's advanced. His arguement makes no sense. I thought maybe it was an IQ test, to see how many people responded. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401148#401148 > > > ========== > arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > le, List Admin. > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > ============== V10-List Email Forum - > :p> /o:p> tor?RV10-List"> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ============== bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - :p> tp://forums.matronics.com ============== bsp; - List Contribution Web Site - e> bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. bution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ============= > > > ________________________________ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > :p> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
I seem to recall G3i using the term "wasted spark". I chose to get two Bendix S-1200 mags, which is the best mag Bendix ever made(same charge freshly overhaul as new Slick). Sure, some of the benefits of electronics would be nice, but I don't want to do dual bus, dual alternator or dual batteries. If 5% fuel savings is true, I save 1 gal every 20 hours. Gonna take a lot of hours to pay for the extra expense of EI and whatever electrical changes are needed. If Pmag ever shows up and gets a few years of development fixing bugs after they are in the field, I'll revisit. A friend in RV-7 with E mag and a Pmag had total ignition loss a few hundred feet in air, just barely enough to get back to runway. A high voltage event had damaged electronics in both mags. Be careful with your choices, especially with dual EI. On 5/22/2013 4:36 PM, John Cox wrote: > This seems the point at which the positives of EI need to be clearly > stated - balanced against their negatives. Then compared directly > with the clear positives of a magneto and its negatives. When a > reader understands the trade-offs they can better understand the > frustration with the always coming into the near future Pmag for 6 > cylinders which was going to solve everything (comes to mind). > > Mr. Barrett (or the lovely Ms Rhonda) could weigh in on why the high > performance engines he builds use what they do and why power output > diminishes on their dyno with one EI and one magneto. Note: a most > popular blend with the RV-10 crowd. Another question is what do S.D. > Tucker, K. Chambliss and M.Goulian bet their lives on?? > > Tim's input had something to do with that isolated manufacturing > incident with Slick mags a few years ago. Two Slicks with bad carbon > made for a bad day. Two EI have their own Achilles heal. As of > today, there is still no single right answer. > > Lycoming has made such an advanced engine in their iE2 with knock > sensors, variable timing and redundant FADEC wiring for the Lancair > Evolution TEO-540-A1A. The additional price knocked a few willing > participants out of the evaluation and they opt for turbine. > > Know your mission, choose wisely, land safely Every Time. > > John Cox > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bob Turner > wrote: > > > > > Linn, > Your error is in assuming that a post that starts out "we gotta > talk" is going to be rational. > The poster said, correctly, that having two ignition sources and > two propagating flame fronts helps the fuel burn more completely > within the alloted time (especially true for fixed timing mags), > and hence improves engine power and efficiency. (which is why > there is an rpm drop on runup when operating on one mag). > He also said, correctly, that if you have an EI plug with advanced > timing, that its flame front may have propagated past the second, > mag fired plug, before the mag has fired, and thus the mag is > "doing no work", to use his words. > But then he says that this is "bad". If it was bad, then the EI > guys just wouldn't advance the timing. But they do, because the > engine runs more efficiently with advanced timing under typical > cruise conditions. Even if it's only one plug that's advanced. His > arguement makes no sense. I thought maybe it was an IQ test, to > see how many people responded. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401148#401148 > > > ========== > arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > le, List Admin. > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > * > > > * ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 23, 2013
From: "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com>
Here is Monty's feedback on the issue.... EI can be "tailored" to a specific ignition advance curve whereas a magneto cannot. EI can also incorporate a retarded position for improved starting whereas a magneto requires either an impulse coupling OR some type of auxiliary spark creating device. EI can also be constructed for redundancy necessary for aircraft engines which is a requirement of certification. Having said all of this magnetos are a very reliable ignition source. They more or less generate their own power, and if one malfunctions in West Fence Post, Wyoming on a Sunday afternoon, most local mechanics can repair it. However, with EI you will have to wait on the Brown truck. There are other inherent problems with EI that is currently marketed. One of the biggies is that as soon as the engine is started the ignition goes to the fixed advance position which does nothing but increase the CHT. Another problem with the current crop of EIs is that for every setting of an engine there is a finite point at which peak efficiency is obtained. It is a function of where the ignition point occurs relative to crank angle in each cylinder. The requirement for proper ignition "mapping" is a good dynamometer test cell or cylinder pressure measuring equipment, which is very expensive. The proper ignition point varies with manifold pressure, RPM, mixture strength and inlet temperature. It is a very complex set of circumstances. To further explore this subject I need to explain why the M14 EI came into life. The Russian magnetos are quite heavy, are somewhat troublesome, and parts are extremely difficult to obtain plus there is no overhaul data available. During the development of the M14 electronic ignition it was decided that no parts of the Russian ignition system were to be used. We started with a clean sheet of paper. It was also decided to thoroughly "map" the engine under all possible operating conditions for optimum ignition points. We have a test cell with that capability. All this mapping was done on a mule engine that the shop owns. The M14 electronic ignition is a dual system, i.e. it should not be operated as a one and one system. There are certain design differences that inhibit this choice. It is also a coil near plug system (18 individual coils, 1 for each sparkplug), so that a coil loss has minimal effect on the ignition system. Each controller has a built in alternator which provides power to run that specific system at engine speeds above about 450 RPM. Once the engine has been started using battery power for the ignition source the engine will keep running normally, even with the master off. During the "start mode" there are multiple sparks to ensure better starting even with cold weather starts and flooded induction system. As far as I know Tucker, Chambliss and Goulian all use magnetos: not a bad choice when you consider the logistics involved. Monty Barrett BPE, Inc. Rhonda Barrett-Bewley Barrett Precision Engines 2870-B N. Sheridan Rd. Tulsa, OK 74115 (918) 835-1089 phone (918) 835-1754 fax www.barrettprecisionengines.com ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:36 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition This seems the point at which the positives of EI need to be clearly stated - balanced against their negatives. Then compared directly with the clear positives of a magneto and its negatives. When a reader understands the trade-offs they can better understand the frustration with the always coming into the near future Pmag for 6 cylinders which was going to solve everything (comes to mind). Mr. Barrett (or the lovely Ms Rhonda) could weigh in on why the high performance engines he builds use what they do and why power output diminishes on their dyno with one EI and one magneto. Note: a most popular blend with the RV-10 crowd. Another question is what do S.D. Tucker, K. Chambliss and M.Goulian bet their lives on?? Tim's input had something to do with that isolated manufacturing incident with Slick mags a few years ago. Two Slicks with bad carbon made for a bad day. Two EI have their own Achilles heal. As of today, there is still no single right answer. Lycoming has made such an advanced engine in their iE2 with knock sensors, variable timing and redundant FADEC wiring for the Lancair Evolution TEO-540-A1A. The additional price knocked a few willing participants out of the evaluation and they opt for turbine. Know your mission, choose wisely, land safely Every Time. John Cox On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bob Turner wrote: Linn, Your error is in assuming that a post that starts out "we gotta talk" is going to be rational. The poster said, correctly, that having two ignition sources and two propagating flame fronts helps the fuel burn more completely within the alloted time (especially true for fixed timing mags), and hence improves engine power and efficiency. (which is why there is an rpm drop on runup when operating on one mag). He also said, correctly, that if you have an EI plug with advanced timing, that its flame front may have propagated past the second, mag fired plug, before the mag has fired, and thus the mag is "doing no work", to use his words. But then he says that this is "bad". If it was bad, then the EI guys just wouldn't advance the timing. But they do, because the engine runs more efficiently with advanced timing under typical cruise conditions. Even if it's only one plug that's advanced. His arguement makes no sense. I thought maybe it was an IQ test, to see how many people responded. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401148#401148 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com le, List Admin. ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 23, 2013
Linn - I'm not suggesting that one plug stops firing, but that one plug becomes ine ffective. Most electronic ignition systems advance spark timing with MAP, RPM or both. Since the magneto doesn't advance, it's spark occurs late in the combustion cycle and therefore doesn't contribute appreciably to the combustion event. Recall all the glowing reports you've read from folks after installing a sin gle electronic ignition to replace one mag. "Went out and ran it up and got 1 00-RPM drop on the mag and zero drop on the EI ". Well... No kidding. The EI fires at 32- or 34-deg BTDC and the mag doesn't fire until 25- or 20-deg BT DC. For all intents and purposes, the mag is not contributing. Neal George Sent from my iPhone On May 22, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Linn wrote: > On 5/20/2013 9:35 PM, Neal George wrote: >> >> Tim / Robin (et al) - >> >> We gotta talk. >> >> Our aircraft engines DO NOT have two ignition sources for redundancy. It' s required for best operation. >> >> The combustion chamber in our opposed air-cooled engines is so big it nee ds to have the flame lit in multiple locations to achieve reasonable combust ion in the time allotted per power stroke. >> >> If you're running one mag and one EI, you're only running on one plug abo ve idle. > Pardon my ignorance and I'm a little slow so bear with me. What you infer is that one plug/cylinder quits firing??? Why??? Which one quits .... the mag or the EI??? > Well, the mag doesn't quit so that leaves the EI .... which (AFAIK) doesn' t quit ...... so where did you get derailed??? > Linn ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2013
From: Linn <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
I'm a little slow but I'm catching up. ;-) Since our engines are dinosaurs, maybe we should go back and install another engine control .... like the early cars .... that changed the timing mechanically. NOT!!! Thanks for the note. Linn On 5/23/2013 1:28 PM, Neal George wrote: > Linn - > > I'm not suggesting that one plug stops firing, but that one plug > becomes ineffective. > > Most electronic ignition systems advance spark timing with MAP, RPM or > both. Since the magneto doesn't advance, it's spark occurs late in the > combustion cycle and therefore doesn't contribute appreciably to the > combustion event. > > Recall all the glowing reports you've read from folks after installing > a single electronic ignition to replace one mag. "Went out and ran it > up and got 100-RPM drop on the mag and zero drop on the EI ". Well... > No kidding. The EI fires at 32- or 34-deg BTDC and the mag doesn't > fire until 25- or 20-deg BTDC. For all intents and purposes, the mag > is not contributing. > > Neal George > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 22, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Linn > wrote: > >> On 5/20/2013 9:35 PM, Neal George wrote: >>> >>> Tim / Robin (et al) - >>> >>> We gotta talk. >>> >>> Our aircraft engines DO NOT have two ignition sources for redundancy. It's required for best operation. >>> >>> The combustion chamber in our opposed air-cooled engines is so big it needs to have the flame lit in multiple locations to achieve reasonable combustion in the time allotted per power stroke. >>> >>> If you're running one mag and one EI, you're only running on one plug above idle. >> Pardon my ignorance and I'm a little slow so bear with me. What you >> infer is that one plug/cylinder quits firing??? Why??? Which one >> quits .... the mag or the EI??? >> Well, the mag doesn't quit so that leaves the EI .... which (AFAIK) >> doesn't quit ...... so where did you get derailed??? >> Linn > * > > > * > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2013
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 05/23/2013 01:28 PM, Neal George wrote: > For all intents and purposes, the mag is not > contributing. You are absolutely correct, but I think there is a fair argument to be made that it doesn't need to. The hotter, longer spark from the EI is not only adequate to run the engine, it does so far more efficiently than the mag that it replaces. There are many reports of fuel savings from replacing just one mag with an EI, which clearly implies that the engine is performing more efficiently running off the one EI than it did before running off two mags. With one EI and one mag, the mag truly is relegated to the "redundant backup" category rather than the "necessary to have two mag-fired plugs in order to burn all of the fuel in the cylinder head" category. -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87 Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
Date: May 23, 2013
I think D.J. summed it up nicely with this paragraph: "With one EI and one mag=2C the mag truly is relegated to the "redundant backup" category rather than the "necessary to have two mag-fired plugs in order to burn all of the fuel in the cylinder head" category." If you do the research on this subject you will find that one EI system wil l give at least 90% of the claimed gains in fuel and power efficiency. The one mag (in a one mag one EIS system) isn't going to contribute much but it IS adding it's flame within the firing dwell time of the EIS. I would argu e that it's probably more important as a backup but it does contribute to f lame propagation. It seems like that every EIS company has a different way of getting spark t o the cylinders. One is CDI based=2C another develops the spark via an indu ction method and another has its built in alternator to fire the plugs. It' s been an interesting discussion!! > Date: Thu=2C 23 May 2013 13:45:31 -0400 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Electronic Ignition > From: deej(at)deej.net > > > On 05/23/2013 01:28 PM=2C Neal George wrote: > > For all intents and purposes=2C the mag is not > > contributing. > > You are absolutely correct=2C but I think there is a fair argument to be > made that it doesn't need to. The hotter=2C longer spark from the EI is > not only adequate to run the engine=2C it does so far more efficiently > than the mag that it replaces. There are many reports of fuel savings > from replacing just one mag with an EI=2C which clearly implies that the > engine is performing more efficiently running off the one EI than it did > before running off two mags. > > With one EI and one mag=2C the mag truly is relegated to the "redundant > backup" category rather than the "necessary to have two mag-fired plugs > in order to burn all of the fuel in the cylinder head" category. > > -Dj > > > -- > Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87 > Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ > Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 23, 2013
Dj - Partial agreement. The reported efficiencies come from advancing the spark. The physics of the combustion chamber remain. The combustion chamber is so large and the stroke so short that two geographically separated sparks are necessary to extract maximum power from each combustion event. Not to hijack the thread or change focus, but here's another point to consider. Timing specifics notwithstanding, our engines were tested rigorously and certificated using two synchronized sparks. (Yes, I understand that many of us are not operating in as-certificated configuration, but isn't that the basis of our safety and performance expectations?). Certification includes prop combinations and vibration analysis for structural integrity. Changing the characteristics of combustion initiation changes the characteristics of the power stroke, which changes the vibrations and harmonic response of the engine and its individual components. Ever seen the result of a thrown counterweight? Neal George Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Dj Merrill wrote: > > On 05/23/2013 01:28 PM, Neal George wrote: >> For all intents and purposes, the mag is not >> contributing. > > You are absolutely correct, but I think there is a fair argument to be > made that it doesn't need to. The hotter, longer spark from the EI is > not only adequate to run the engine, it does so far more efficiently > than the mag that it replaces. There are many reports of fuel savings > from replacing just one mag with an EI, which clearly implies that the > engine is performing more efficiently running off the one EI than it did > before running off two mags. > > With one EI and one mag, the mag truly is relegated to the "redundant > backup" category rather than the "necessary to have two mag-fired plugs > in order to burn all of the fuel in the cylinder head" category. > > -Dj > > > -- > Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87 > Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ > Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
I'd like to see some actual test data, rather than anecdotal reports. Depending on the EI system the spark may be hotter, longer, maybe both, although that is less likely. That still is NOT going to create a second flame front, nor is the mag spark likely to create one with what little fuel remains by the time it fires 10-15 degrees after the first spark. I suspect most of the gain is from the advanced timing, not the quality of the spark. Only sophisticated test cell is going to get the kind of data needed. On 5/23/2013 10:45 AM, Dj Merrill wrote: > - > You are absolutely correct, but I think there is a fair argument to be > made that it doesn't need to. The hotter, longer spark from the EI is > not only adequate to run the engine, it does so far more efficiently > than the mag that it replaces. There are many reports of fuel savings > from replacing just one mag with an EI, which clearly implies that the > engine is performing more efficiently running off the one EI than it did > before running off two mags. > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2013
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: John Dunne <acs(at)acspropeller.com.au>
Just to highlight one of Neal's points, have a look at ATSB investigation 200005572 under factual information regarding propeller failure. It promotes a lot of thought. John RV10 40315 http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2000/aair/aair200005572.aspx * * On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Neal George wrote: > > Dj - Partial agreement. > > The reported efficiencies come from advancing the spark. > > The physics of the combustion chamber remain. The combustion chamber is so > large and the stroke so short that two geographically separated sparks are > necessary to extract maximum power from each combustion event. > > Not to hijack the thread or change focus, but here's another point to > consider. Timing specifics notwithstanding, our engines were tested > rigorously and certificated using two synchronized sparks. (Yes, I > understand that many of us are not operating in as-certificated > configuration, but isn't that the basis of our safety and performance > expectations?). Certification includes prop combinations and vibration > analysis for structural integrity. > > Changing the characteristics of combustion initiation changes the > characteristics of the power stroke, which changes the vibrations and > harmonic response of the engine and its individual components. Ever seen > the result of a thrown counterweight? > > Neal George > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 23, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Dj Merrill wrote: > > > > > On 05/23/2013 01:28 PM, Neal George wrote: > >> For all intents and purposes, the mag is not > >> contributing. > > > > You are absolutely correct, but I think there is a fair argument to be > > made that it doesn't need to. The hotter, longer spark from the EI is > > not only adequate to run the engine, it does so far more efficiently > > than the mag that it replaces. There are many reports of fuel savings > > from replacing just one mag with an EI, which clearly implies that the > > engine is performing more efficiently running off the one EI than it did > > before running off two mags. > > > > With one EI and one mag, the mag truly is relegated to the "redundant > > backup" category rather than the "necessary to have two mag-fired plugs > > in order to burn all of the fuel in the cylinder head" category. > > > > -Dj > > > > > > -- > > Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87 > > Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ > > Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2013
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 5/23/2013 3:47 PM, Neal George wrote: > The reported efficiencies come from advancing the spark. Yes, but advancing the spark also gives the fuel more time to burn, which allows for more complete combustion versus the pair of mags, which leads to the decrease in fuel consumption. More power is extracted from the same amount of fuel using the EI compared to the pair of mags because more of the fuel is being burned at the proper time. > The physics of the combustion chamber remain. The combustion chamber is so large and the stroke so short that two geographically separated sparks are necessary to extract maximum power from each combustion event. Clearly a more complete combustion event happens from having one EI and a mag installed versus having two mags installed, otherwise we would not see a decrease in fuel burn at the same power level. I would agree that having two EIs firing at the same time produces the best, most efficient combustion event, followed by one EI and one mag that is only slightly less efficient (by about 10% from reports), followed by two mags which is the least efficient. Real World data clearly shows that one EI and one mag is indeed more efficient (ie, produces a more complete combustion event) than two mags, regardless of the difference in timing. > Not to hijack the thread or change focus, but here's another point to consider. Timing specifics notwithstanding, our engines were tested rigorously and certificated using two synchronized sparks. (Yes, I understand that many of us are not operating in as-certificated configuration, but isn't that the basis of our safety and performance expectations?). Certification includes prop combinations and vibration analysis for structural integrity. To be fair, the only ignition system available at the time of certification was the mag. I highly doubt any new engine being certificated today would use mags. Your point about prop combinations and vibration analysis is well taken, however. -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87 Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2013
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Electronic Ignition
You are misinterpreting your observations. Advanced timing does not increase the burn time. In fact it likely decreases it, because the burn starts while the mixture is still being compressed by the piston. More power is generated by the advanced timing, not by any more complete burning. If you advance the timing enough, you will get detonation, or extremely fast burning. The decrease in fuel burn is simply you getting more power for a given throttle setting, and reducing the throttle to achieve same airspeed as before. If you advance timing and use same throttle settings you will go slightly faster and not save any fuel. It is a function of the percent power. Yes, you gain some efficiency IF you throttle back, but there still is a price to pay in harmonic vibration and the fact that you will lose power if the EI fails from loss of battery power or any other reason, just as you lose power if one mag fails. Two EI units WILL do better than one plus a mag. Is it as big an improvement? Of course not. But it would be an improvement without question. Probably in the 10-15% range. On 5/23/2013 5:45 PM, Dj Merrill wrote: > > On 5/23/2013 3:47 PM, Neal George wrote: >> The reported efficiencies come from advancing the spark. > > Yes, but advancing the spark also gives the fuel more time to > burn, which allows for more complete combustion versus the pair of > mags, which leads to the decrease in fuel consumption. More power is > extracted from the same amount of fuel using the EI compared to the > pair of mags because more of the fuel is being burned at the proper time. > >> The physics of the combustion chamber remain. The combustion chamber >> is so large and the stroke so short that two geographically separated >> sparks are necessary to extract maximum power from each combustion >> event. > > Clearly a more complete combustion event happens from having one > EI and a mag installed versus having two mags installed, otherwise we > would not see a decrease in fuel burn at the same power level. > > I would agree that having two EIs firing at the same time produces > the best, most efficient combustion event, followed by one EI and one > mag that is only slightly less efficient (by about 10% from reports), > followed by two mags which is the least efficient. > > Real World data clearly shows that one EI and one mag is indeed > more efficient (ie, produces a more complete combustion event) than > two mags, regardless of the difference in timing. > >


May 01, 2013 - May 23, 2013

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-jj