RV10-Archive.digest.vol-jt

May 27, 2014 - June 18, 2014



Subject: Inverting Oil Cooler
Date: May 27, 2014
I have the stock Van's engine and Vetterman exhaust. I did not have a problem but I remember cutting one of the exhaust mount threaded rods shorter so that it did not hit the bottom of the cooler. I looked for a photo with all the stuff mounted but the attached is the closest I found. Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:16 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Inverting Oil Cooler That's an excellent way to mount the cooler, but my exhaust hangars would go right through the fwd right corner of the cooler. Do you have a different way of mounting the hangars or a different exhaust setup??? Linn On 5/27/2014 10:18 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: In general, a liquid based cooler is discharged at the top. This forces the cooler to always be full before fluid leaves - as in the fluid media tubes are not bypassed and you do not have an air lock stuck at the top of the cooler. For the RV-10 I did not like the Van's bounce off the firewall then back at the engine air path. I used the Airflow 2006X cooler but did a horizontal firewall mount. Even on hot days I end up closing down on the air to cooler butterfly valve to keep oil temps up. Photo attached. Note the cooler also has a forward adle clamp attachment to the engine mount that is not shown in this photo. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Pulis Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:37 AM Subject: RV10-List: Inverting Oil Cooler --> Has anyone contemplated or installed their oil cooler upside down compared to the Vans recommended standard installation, to enable residual oil to be drained from the oil cooler during an oil change, without the need to remove the cooler? Wanting to know if this is feasible or practicable please? Any photos would be appreciated please. Warm regards Patrick ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Inverting Oil Cooler
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: May 28, 2014
Many thanks guys. Warm regards Patrick > On 28 May 2014, at 1:18, "Carl Froehlich" wro te: > > I have the stock Van=99s engine and Vetterman exhaust. I did not ha ve a problem but I remember cutting one of the exhaust mount threaded rods s horter so that it did not hit the bottom of the cooler. I looked for a phot o with all the stuff mounted but the attached is the closest I found. > > Carl > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:16 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Inverting Oil Cooler > > That's an excellent way to mount the cooler, but my exhaust hangars would g o right through the fwd right corner of the cooler. Do you have a different way of mounting the hangars or a different exhaust setup??? > Linn > > On 5/27/2014 10:18 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > In general, a liquid based cooler is discharged at the top. This forces t he > cooler to always be full before fluid leaves - as in the fluid media tubes > are not bypassed and you do not have an air lock stuck at the top of the > cooler. > > For the RV-10 I did not like the Van's bounce off the firewall then back a t > the engine air path. I used the Airflow 2006X cooler but did a horizontal > firewall mount. Even on hot days I end up closing down on the air to cool er > butterfly valve to keep oil temps up. Photo attached. Note the cooler al so > has a forward adle clamp attachment to the engine mount that is not shown i n > this photo. > > Carl > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Pulis > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:37 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Inverting Oil Cooler > > --> > > Has anyone contemplated or installed their oil cooler upside down compared > to the Vans recommended standard installation, to enable residual oil to b e > drained from the oil cooler during an oil change, without the need to remo ve > the cooler? > > Wanting to know if this is feasible or practicable please? > > Any photos would be appreciated please. > > Warm regards > > Patrick > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > http://www.matronic================ > http://forums.matronics.com - List Contribution Web generous nbsp; --> http://www.matronics.com/c > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance/Hours/Where to go from here
From: "hotwheels" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 28, 2014
FYI on insurance rates. I can't decide if I should be excited or depressed on the quotes... Pilot stats: ~400 hours total time (~110 hours RV time), instrument rating (not current), and high power/complex endorsement. Hull value at $175,000. Liability $1 million/occurrence with sublimit of $100,000 per passenger. Med pay $5,000 per passenger including crew. USAIG: Total annual premium = $2620 Deductibles: -0- Specialty: Total annual premium = $3590 Deductibles: $250 not in motion; $2500 in motion US Specialty: Total annual premium = $3130 Deductibles: -0- Global Aerospace: Total annual premium = $3137 Deductibles: -0- Med pay: $10,000 per passenger including crew, benefit of EAA membership Aerospace: Total annual premium = $3279 Deductibles: $100 not in motion; $500 in motion AIG Aerospace: Total annual premium = $3517 Alternate quote that is coverage for ground and taxi = $2311 Deductibles: -0- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=423918#423918 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance/Hours/Where to go from here
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: May 29, 2014
My number last Sept. from Global $2300. $175K Hull !m/100K. I have 2000 hrs. TT, 300 RV10. My initial quote was $2994 for first year and first flight. I would say you have a good set of numbers for your hours. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424009#424009 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance/Hours/Where to go from here
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: May 29, 2014
I just got insured recently. I started with AOPA because I had a previous relationship with them for 10 years on a Socata. They initially quoted me 2700. Then they called me back a couple of weeks later and said they found a company for 2200. I called them back the morning of my first engine start to bind the coverage and make the payment which they accepted. I specifically told them I was starting the engine that day and flying a week or two later. Later that afternoon I get an email from them wanting to verify that my fly off period was complete. I called them and reminded them that I had just told them that morning that I hadn't flown yet. They told me that the new company wouldn't cover the fly off period and they were sorry for the confusion. Frustratedly, I converted back to the original policy with AIG. Next year I'm going to shop better. For $2700 I got 150k w/1mil no deduct. Coverage from first flight. No dual or checkout required. 23K TT 2500 HP piston Air carrier currency ATP CFII/MEI 6 hours RV time (giving BFR's) -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. FWF complete. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424016#424016 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Seatbelt hardware
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: May 30, 2014
I am finishing the doors and would like to mount the overhead seatbelt hardware in the cabin top hard points before priming the cabin cover. However, not yet sure about the color and source of belts. Is there a standard bolt that connects the shoulder harness to the hard point? Any general advice about seatbelts? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424037#424037 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Upper forward fuselage attach
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: May 30, 2014
Anyone have advice re delaying final attachment of upper forward fuselage until after mounting engine and doing most of the firewall forward work? Is it reasonable to delay (waiting to do instruments/avionics near the end of the project)? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424039#424039 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Seatbelt hardware
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: May 30, 2014
It gets a countersunk 5/16" screw. You drill the hold and countersink the cabin top. If you want to mark the hard points, just drill a small hole. Otherwise, you can just wait if you don't cover over the hardpoints and forget where they are. There is no actual hardware that gets mounted to the hardpoints, you just bolt through it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 On May 30, 2014, at 11:08 AM, bob88 wrote: > > I am finishing the doors and would like to mount the overhead seatbelt hardware in the cabin top hard points before priming the cabin cover. However, not yet sure about the color and source of belts. Is there a standard bolt that connects the shoulder harness to the hard point? Any general advice about seatbelts? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424037#424037 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upper forward fuselage attach
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: May 30, 2014
You can delay all of that until closer to the end. Avionics are changing so fast that making those decisions the absolute last thing is the best way to go. Just make sure you have conduits through closed up areas. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 On May 30, 2014, at 11:23 AM, bob88 wrote: > > Anyone have advice re delaying final attachment of upper forward fuselage until after mounting engine and doing most of the firewall forward work? Is it reasonable to delay (waiting to do instruments/avionics near the end of the project)? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424039#424039 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Seatbelt hardware
Date: May 30, 2014
A few thoughts: - I considered the cabin top too thin to do a countersunk screw hard point for the front shoulder belts. I added about 1/8" of additional glass, perhaps a foot square or so, on the inside of the cabin, flared enough at the edges so it looked ok. - On the cabin top I squared off the hard point screw head a little, then used flox in the countersunk hole. The screw head was just below flush so some flox is on top. After sanding I put a thin layer of glass over the top of the screw head. After that set some micro to fair everything in. I was worried that about the screw head spinning in the countersunk hole when tightening the harness attach nut and screwing up the paint job. - I used Hooker Harness for the RV-10 as I had them in my RV-8A and like them. Carl -----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 30, 2014 11:08 AM Subject: RV10-List: Seatbelt hardware I am finishing the doors and would like to mount the overhead seatbelt hardware in the cabin top hard points before priming the cabin cover. However, not yet sure about the color and source of belts. Is there a standard bolt that connects the shoulder harness to the hard point? Any general advice about seatbelts? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424037#424037 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2014
Subject: Re: Upper forward fuselage attach
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Yes, delay can be advantageous. A few of the firewall rivets will get interesting to drive with the engine mount in the way, but otherwise, I think a large percentage of us have done same thing. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:23 AM, bob88 wrote: > > Anyone have advice re delaying final attachment of upper forward fuselage > until after mounting engine and doing most of the firewall forward work? Is > it reasonable to delay (waiting to do instruments/avionics near the end of > the project)? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424039#424039 > > -- - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2014
Subject: Re: Upper forward fuselage attach
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
I'm getting ready to drop my panel in for good. The plan is to build the upper fuse section out with the panel and wiring; then drop the entire assembly down into the fuselage from the top. Has anyone tried that with Geoff's panel? I'm assuming it will work fine, but it would be nice to discover any issues before I have thousands of dollars hanging a few feet in the air. Phil On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > Yes, delay can be advantageous. A few of the firewall rivets will get > interesting to drive with the engine mount in the way, but otherwise, I > think a large percentage of us have done same thing. > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:23 AM, bob88 wrote: > >> >> Anyone have advice re delaying final attachment of upper forward fuselage >> until after mounting engine and doing most of the firewall forward work? Is >> it reasonable to delay (waiting to do instruments/avionics near the end of >> the project)? >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424039#424039 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> 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 > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: Upper forward fuselage attach
Date: May 30, 2014
I did the same. I got quite good at taking it on and off. Even after the c abin cover was installed. It definitely saves time that you have to spend on your back under the panel . Even more important for use old farts with bifocals. Sent from my iPhone On May 30, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: Yes, delay can be advantageous. A few of the firewall rivets will get intere sting to drive with the engine mount in the way, but otherwise, I think a la rge percentage of us have done same thing. > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:23 AM, bob88 wrote: > > Anyone have advice re delaying final attachment of upper forward fuselage u ntil after mounting engine and doing most of the firewall forward work? Is i t reasonable to delay (waiting to do instruments/avionics near the end of th e project)? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424039#424039 > > > > > > > > ========== > 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 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Upper forward fuselage attach
I made my panel removable as a unit so I have connectors between the panel and the airframe. It will be easier to rivet the fwd upper fuse on without the instrument panel in place but the rivets just fwd of the panel may be hard to get to with a bucking bar. If you can't get to the tail with a bucking bar ..... well, that's why they make pull rivets. Linn On 5/30/2014 1:31 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: > I'm getting ready to drop my panel in for good. The plan is to build > the upper fuse section out with the panel and wiring; then drop the > entire assembly down into the fuselage from the top. > > Has anyone tried that with Geoff's panel? I'm assuming it will work > fine, but it would be nice to discover any issues before I have > thousands of dollars hanging a few feet in the air. > > Phil > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Kelly McMullen > wrote: > > Yes, delay can be advantageous. A few of the firewall rivets will > get interesting to drive with the engine mount in the way, but > otherwise, I think a large percentage of us have done same thing. > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:23 AM, bob88 > wrote: > > > > > Anyone have advice re delaying final attachment of upper > forward fuselage until after mounting engine and doing most of > the firewall forward work? Is it reasonable to delay (waiting > to do instruments/avionics near the end of the project)? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424039#424039 > > > ========== > 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 > > * > > get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > tp://forums.matronics.com > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > * > > > * > > > * > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Upper forward fuselage attach
Date: May 30, 2014
For two RVs now I have panels that unplug and come out of the plane. I would recommend the same approach to any builder. While this might seem complicated it is really simple once you figure out what interconnecting wiring stays with the panel and what parts get mounted someplace other than the panel (e.g. ARINC, Transponder, EMS, ADHRS). Power breakers and associated switches are very straightforward if you are using a stock Van's panel as the non-avionic stuff stays in the plan on the bottom apron. The panel avionic breakers are mounted on the panel - and thus come out with the panel. You will modify your panel at some point. The RV-8A had 4 mods in 11 years. The RV-10 has had one mod in the first two years. Having it come out of the plane after a few minutes of disconnecting stuff really simplifies this. So for the original question I would decouple the forward fuselage attach from any panel issue. Considering pile of work needed on the windshield and canopy you will have a lot of time to buy newer avionics when you are really ready for them. What I did was fully finish the fuselage, doors, and all associated glass work before engine mount. The fuselage on stubby legs to facilitate all this work. I did run the needed conduit and such before putting in the floorboards. After that the plane went to the hangar for engine and cowl fit once it was up on the gear. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 1:36 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Upper forward fuselage attach I did the same. I got quite good at taking it on and off. Even after the cabin cover was installed. It definitely saves time that you have to spend on your back under the panel. Even more important for use old farts with bifocals. Sent from my iPhone On May 30, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: Yes, delay can be advantageous. A few of the firewall rivets will get interesting to drive with the engine mount in the way, but otherwise, I think a large percentage of us have done same thing. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:23 AM, bob88 wrote: Anyone have advice re delaying final attachment of upper forward fuselage until after mounting engine and doing most of the firewall forward work? Is it reasonable to delay (waiting to do instruments/avionics near the end of the project)? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424039#424039 ========== 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 D======================== ========= D======================== ========= D======================== ========= D======================== ========= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Upper forward fuselage attach
On 5/30/2014 2:08 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > > For two RVs now I have panels that unplug and come out of the plane. > I would recommend the same approach to any builder. While this might > seem complicated it is really simple once you figure out what > interconnecting wiring stays with the panel and what parts get mounted > someplace other than the panel (e.g. ARINC, Transponder, EMS, ADHRS). > Power breakers and associated switches are very straightforward if you > are using a stock Van's panel as the non-avionic stuff stays in the > plan on the bottom apron. The panel avionic breakers are mounted on > the panel -- and thus come out with the panel. > snip I modified the 'bottom apron' or 'switch panel' ..... cut the 'tab' off the switch panel and replaced it with a piece of angle with a nut plate on it, riveted to the fuselage like the panel tab. My fuse panel is from Stein and uses automotive fuses with the indicator light. It's attached by hinge to the vans switch panel, and flips up against the sub-panel where it's held with automotive plastic pull fasteners. I use Molex .093 connectors for the 'larger stuff' and molex .062 for the smaller wires .... on the left side. I also have wires that drop down in the center from the inst panel and sub panel and run in the tunnel. I also use D connectors where convenient. I still have to remove the screws from the bus bar and alt. breaker, but everything else is on a connector. There are those builders that fly for years without ever removing any part of their panel .... and I may be one too, but I've already 'installed' my panel a couple dozen times ..... and I don't have the fwd upper fuse riveted on yet .... but soon. Linn ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: Upper forward fuselage attach
Date: May 30, 2014
I don't think that will work. I believe the longerons will get in they way o f the air ducts on Geoff's panel. I took the panel off before installing/rem oving the upper fuse assembly. Sent from my iPhone On May 30, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: I'm getting ready to drop my panel in for good. The plan is to build the up per fuse section out with the panel and wiring; then drop the entire assembl y down into the fuselage from the top. Has anyone tried that with Geoff's panel? I'm assuming it will work fine, b ut it would be nice to discover any issues before I have thousands of dollar s hanging a few feet in the air. Phil > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote : > Yes, delay can be advantageous. A few of the firewall rivets will get inte resting to drive with the engine mount in the way, but otherwise, I think a l arge percentage of us have done same thing. > > >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:23 AM, bob88 wrote: >> >> Anyone have advice re delaying final attachment of upper forward fuselage until after mounting engine and doing most of the firewall forward work? Is it reasonable to delay (waiting to do instruments/avionics near the end of t he project)? >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424039#424039 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> 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 > > > get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > tp://forums.matronics.com > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Seatbelt hardware
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: May 30, 2014
I dremeled slots aligned with the slot in the screw head and embedded a finish nail to prevent the screw from turning. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. FWF complete. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424068#424068 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Seatbelt hardware
From: Gary <speckter(at)comcast.net>
Date: May 30, 2014
Don't you think Van did his engineering on the belt mount? Gary > On May 30, 2014, at 11:40 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: > > > A few thoughts: > - I considered the cabin top too thin to do a countersunk screw hard point > for the front shoulder belts. I added about 1/8" of additional glass, > perhaps a foot square or so, on the inside of the cabin, flared enough at > the edges so it looked ok. > - On the cabin top I squared off the hard point screw head a little, then > used flox in the countersunk hole. The screw head was just below flush so > some flox is on top. After sanding I put a thin layer of glass over the top > of the screw head. After that set some micro to fair everything in. I was > worried that about the screw head spinning in the countersunk hole when > tightening the harness attach nut and screwing up the paint job. > - I used Hooker Harness for the RV-10 as I had them in my RV-8A and like > them. > > Carl > > -----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 30, 2014 11:08 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Seatbelt hardware > > > I am finishing the doors and would like to mount the overhead seatbelt > hardware in the cabin top hard points before priming the cabin cover. > However, not yet sure about the color and source of belts. Is there a > standard bolt that connects the shoulder harness to the hard point? Any > general advice about seatbelts? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424037#424037 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com>
Subject: Seatbelt hardware
Date: May 30, 2014
Not to mention I think it's been tested a few times as well with adequate performance for the off field events that were survivable. -Ben -----Original Message----- Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 3:05 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Seatbelt hardware Don't you think Van did his engineering on the belt mount? Gary ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Seatbelt hardware
Date: May 30, 2014
I always consider Van to have a good design. I prefer to do such very simple things to make sure I'm not violating some assumption Van may have made or that I see as perhaps marginal. In this case a added a few layers of glass to make sure in my countersinking zest I did not violate the assumed depth or purity of the countersink hole. There are examples however of the Van's design not being adequate. The obvious one here are the doors. If everything works just right there will be no problem. It has been demonstrated however that this presents a practical risk as doors have departed in flight. For any RV-10 I recommend installing or back fitting a system like the PlaneAround latch. Other common sense things include adding 3/16" tinnermans under the door hinge screw heads where the mounting screw relies on a thin piece of fiberglass with a countersink that tends to extend through the material. One good gust of wind catching a door and those screw heads might pull through. But with all such things, we each must do what is needed so that we don't worry about some aspect of the build every time we hop in the plane. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 6:05 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Seatbelt hardware Don't you think Van did his engineering on the belt mount? Gary > On May 30, 2014, at 11:40 AM, "Carl Froehlich" wrote: > > --> > > A few thoughts: > - I considered the cabin top too thin to do a countersunk screw hard > point for the front shoulder belts. I added about 1/8" of additional > glass, perhaps a foot square or so, on the inside of the cabin, flared > enough at the edges so it looked ok. > - On the cabin top I squared off the hard point screw head a little, > then used flox in the countersunk hole. The screw head was just below > flush so some flox is on top. After sanding I put a thin layer of > glass over the top of the screw head. After that set some micro to > fair everything in. I was worried that about the screw head spinning > in the countersunk hole when tightening the harness attach nut and screwing up the paint job. > - I used Hooker Harness for the RV-10 as I had them in my RV-8A and > like them. > > Carl > > -----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 30, 2014 11:08 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Seatbelt hardware > > > I am finishing the doors and would like to mount the overhead seatbelt > hardware in the cabin top hard points before priming the cabin cover. > However, not yet sure about the color and source of belts. Is there a > standard bolt that connects the shoulder harness to the hard point? > Any general advice about seatbelts? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424037#424037 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2014
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Seatbelt hardware
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=2155&log=111736&row=1 On 5/30/2014 4:38 PM, woxofswa wrote: > > I dremeled slots aligned with the slot in the screw head and embedded a finish nail to prevent the screw from turning. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2014
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Seatbelt hardware
Well, I assumed he did but then extended the thinking to assume that the back seat belts could be mounted the same way(!?) So I created two new hardpoints for the rear seat belts by cutting out a the same size as the original hardpoints. That circle cut thru the outer layer of glass and the honeycomb. Then I filled in the hole with flox and glassed it over. Kitlog <http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=2155&log=91924&row=4> Hope I never have to find out if my engineering assumptions were sound. On 5/30/2014 6:04 PM, Gary wrote: > > Don't you think Van did his engineering on the belt mount? > > Gary > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Seatbelt hardware
For the front seats the 'requirement' to have the shoulder harness attach point higher than the shoulder makes the cabin top the only likely fastening point. For the back seat that 'requirement' is met by the cable attachment. The drawback to the back seat arrangement is that the cable goes through the baggage compartment. Moving the attach point to the aft cabin top .... with suitable hardpoint installed ..... saves some weight and provides the same safety margin as the front shoulder harness. I never gave it much thought or I'd have done the cabin top mod too. Linn .... somewhat late to the party On 5/30/2014 8:00 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > Well, I assumed he did but then extended the thinking to assume that > the back seat belts could be mounted the same way(!?) > > So I created two new hardpoints for the rear seat belts by cutting out > a the same size as the original hardpoints. > That circle cut thru the outer layer of glass and the honeycomb. Then > I filled in the hole with flox and glassed it over. > Kitlog > <http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=2155&log=91924&row=4> > > Hope I never have to find out if my engineering assumptions were sound. > > On 5/30/2014 6:04 PM, Gary wrote: >> >> Don't you think Van did his engineering on the belt mount? >> >> Gary >> > > * > > > * > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Steven DeFord <riveteddragon(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Delaying avionics choices
Date: May 30, 2014
So I, as everyone else, have been convinced to delay avionics selection until the last minute, but this brings up a question-- I have to install autopilot servos (and possibly trim) before closing up the wings (I presume)-- is there some common servo interface and I can put whatever in, or do I have to select a brand, or what? Or do the servos install on the control rods in the fuselage, where one can easily retain access to them? Steven DeFord RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com (925) 596-0426 (cell) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Delaying avionics choices
I decided to get my avionics early so I could plan on the wiring I would need. I could have decided on an avionics package got the manuals and done the wiring. Hobson's choice. Roll servo is far easier to install in the wing before the last big panel is riveted in place. Pitch servo is easy to get to at any time. If you decide on the vendor for your avionics then you might buy the servos, install them, and purchase the panel parts when you get to that point. Problem is .... you may decide to change vendors and your servos end up on ebay. Installing the roll servo can be accomplished after the wing is completed but will be a PITA. The avionics I chose have seen upgrades but the units I purchased far exceed the requirements for my mission anyway. Linn On 5/30/2014 11:13 PM, Steven DeFord wrote: > > So I, as everyone else, have been convinced to delay avionics selection until the last minute, but this brings up a question-- I have to install autopilot servos (and possibly trim) before closing up the wings (I presume)-- is there some common servo interface and I can put whatever in, or do I have to select a brand, or what? Or do the servos install on the control rods in the fuselage, where one can easily retain access to them? > > Steven DeFord > RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com > (925) 596-0426 (cell) > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Delaying avionics choices
Well, installing my Dynon roll servo in the completed wing was no big deal. It goes right where there is an access plate and it is just a matter of changing a few pieces of hardware, maybe drilling one hole IIRC. Running the cable to the servo is easier before wing is closed up. OTOH, there really isn't much reason to close the wing until you are getting ready to mount the wings. Mine have been sitting in racks, finished for more than a year. On 5/30/2014 8:34 PM, Linn Walters wrote: > > I decided to get my avionics early so I could plan on the wiring I > would need. I could have decided on an avionics package got the > manuals and done the wiring. Hobson's choice. Roll servo is far > easier to install in the wing before the last big panel is riveted in > place. Pitch servo is easy to get to at any time. If you decide on > the vendor for your avionics then you might buy the servos, install > them, and purchase the panel parts when you get to that point. > Problem is .... you may decide to change vendors and your servos end > up on ebay. Installing the roll servo can be accomplished after the > wing is completed but will be a PITA. The avionics I chose have seen > upgrades but the units I purchased far exceed the requirements for my > mission anyway. > Linn > > On 5/30/2014 11:13 PM, Steven DeFord wrote: >> >> So I, as everyone else, have been convinced to delay avionics >> selection until the last minute, but this brings up a question-- I >> have to install autopilot servos (and possibly trim) before closing >> up the wings (I presume)-- is there some common servo interface and I >> can put whatever in, or do I have to select a brand, or what? Or do >> the servos install on the control rods in the fuselage, where one can >> easily retain access to them? >> >> Steven DeFord >> RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com >> (925) 596-0426 (cell) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Delaying avionics choices
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 30, 2014
Agree with Kelly, I put in Trio servos after the wing was closed, no big deal. I did run a bunch of wires prior to closing up the wings. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424092#424092 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 2014
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Delaying avionics choices
If you find yourself already leaning towards a brand, it may make sense to make that brand commitment and put their servos in at the most convenient point. The servos may well bridge the brand's next upgrades or at least be fully compatible. The servo stuff is sooooo good at this point, it's hard to imagine what you might give up. But YMMV.... On 5/30/2014 11:13 PM, Steven DeFord wrote: > > So I, as everyone else, have been convinced to delay avionics selection until the last minute, but this brings up a question-- I have to install autopilot servos (and possibly trim) before closing up the wings (I presume)-- is there some common servo interface and I can put whatever in, or do I have to select a brand, or what? Or do the servos install on the control rods in the fuselage, where one can easily retain access to them? > > Steven DeFord > RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com > (925) 596-0426 (cell) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Delaying avionics choices
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: May 31, 2014
Conduit in the wings is probably the best option. Servos and all wires can easily be added later. Don't corner yourself in too early. I know if a lot of cases where people change directions and end up selling their servos and buying different ones. That's hundreds of dollars down the tubes and they end up swapping servos out after things are closed up anyway. I have actually never once installed a servo before closing up a wing or attaching a tailcone. It's just not worth the risk of doing it early, IMHO. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On May 31, 2014, at 1:44 AM, "Bob Turner" wrote: > > > Agree with Kelly, I put in Trio servos after the wing was closed, no big deal. I did run a bunch of wires prior to closing up the wings. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424092#424092 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Delaying avionics choices
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: May 31, 2014
Aileron trim and autopilot servos can easily both be done with the wing closed up, and I have done them several times with the wings on and controls connected. Don't box yourself in. Just close up the wing (with wiring conduit installed) and move on. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On May 30, 2014, at 11:13 PM, Steven DeFord wrote: > > > So I, as everyone else, have been convinced to delay avionics selection until the last minute, but this brings up a question-- I have to install autopilot servos (and possibly trim) before closing up the wings (I presume)-- is there some common servo interface and I can put whatever in, or do I have to select a brand, or what? Or do the servos install on the control rods in the fuselage, where one can easily retain access to them? > > Steven DeFord > RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com > (925) 596-0426 (cell) > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Delaying avionics choices
From: Karol Hansen <karolamy(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: May 31, 2014
Regarding autopilot servos, I was going to go one way, waited, things changed over time and better options surfaced. I finished and riveted the wings all except the larger outboard lower wing skin, for later access. That being said, with the aforementioned skin available to remove, I did not remove it, nor did I need to to install the roll servo. So, if you feel compelled to close it up, go ahead. Like others said, just be sure some sort of conduit for the wire runs is in place. I figure about 12 hours of riveting for each wing skin still remains. Not a big deal in the life of the build for the ease of running final wiring to lights, AOA, pitot, or whatever you do. It doesnt hurt to have the wings in the cradle with the underside facing outboard, so you can do your wiring, servos, pitot, landing lights, strobes, nav lights, AOA, etc with that skin off. Just cleco it in place to keep it out of the way and move on. Oh boy, you get to rivet some more later on! After all the fiberglass work, youll be ready to get back in the swing of things with that big bad gun! Again, either way can work, it's kinda your choice... Rich Hansen RV-6A Sold RV-10 final wiring, and just riveted fwd top fuse skin on AFTER doing absolutely everything possible on that panel and sub-panel! Boy am I glad! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Les Kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 01, 2014
Hi As some of may recall, I took the path less travelled and put a 3.6L Subie on my -10. Over the past year I have been quite happy with the performance that is to say until I had a piston problem. As I a) haven't been able to determine the root cause of the problem and b) determine how to prevent it, I have decided to retrofit an IO540. Although there many 3.0L Subies flying on small RV's, there are not many 3.6L engines which complicates matters. I plan to get a Barret engine but still need to decide on a governor / propeller combination. Van's Hartzell seems like a good choice especially from a cost perspective but I would be interested in knowing the other options. From what I have read, 2 blade props are best below 300HP but there also seems to be a number of 3 blade options as well. Any info appreciated. Cheers Les #40643 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 01, 2014
Just for reference. I am very happy with my Hartzell IO-540 (260 HP) combination. I fly out of Utah, field elevation 4460 and have operated hot and heavy out of other higher altitude fields. Climb performance with that combination is more than adequate. Having not done any side by side comparison on 2 vs 3 blades I do not know the performance differences. I think there is some use full information in the archive on that type of testing. One thing to note, I would not like anything that made getting the lower cowling on and off more difficult. The three blade props do look sexy and fast.. Rene' Felker N423CF 801-721-6080 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 10:55 AM Subject: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations Hi As some of may recall, I took the path less travelled and put a 3.6L Subie on my -10. Over the past year I have been quite happy with the performance that is to say until I had a piston problem. As I a) haven't been able to determine the root cause of the problem and b) determine how to prevent it, I have decided to retrofit an IO540. Although there many 3.0L Subies flying on small RV's, there are not many 3.6L engines which complicates matters. I plan to get a Barret engine but still need to decide on a governor / propeller combination. Van's Hartzell seems like a good choice especially from a cost perspective but I would be interested in knowing the other options. From what I have read, 2 blade props are best below 300HP but there also seems to be a number of 3 blade options as well. Any info appreciated. Cheers Les #40643 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 01, 2014
The Van's two blade Hartzell blended airfoil is, my opinion, the best performance value out there. For governors, recommend looking at the PCU-5000. I've used them on two RVs and they have been flawless. I got both via group buys on Van's Air Force at significant discounts. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene Felker Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 1:15 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations Just for reference. I am very happy with my Hartzell IO-540 (260 HP) combination. I fly out of Utah, field elevation 4460 and have operated hot and heavy out of other higher altitude fields. Climb performance with that combination is more than adequate. Having not done any side by side comparison on 2 vs 3 blades I do not know the performance differences. I think there is some use full information in the archive on that type of testing. One thing to note, I would not like anything that made getting the lower cowling on and off more difficult. The three blade props do look sexy and fast.. Rene' Felker N423CF 801-721-6080 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 10:55 AM Subject: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations Hi As some of may recall, I took the path less travelled and put a 3.6L Subie on my -10. Over the past year I have been quite happy with the performance that is to say until I had a piston problem. As I a) haven't been able to determine the root cause of the problem and b) determine how to prevent it, I have decided to retrofit an IO540. Although there many 3.0L Subies flying on small RV's, there are not many 3.6L engines which complicates matters. I plan to get a Barret engine but still need to decide on a governor / propeller combination. Van's Hartzell seems like a good choice especially from a cost perspective but I would be interested in knowing the other options. From what I have read, 2 blade props are best below 300HP but there also seems to be a number of 3 blade options as well. Any info appreciated. Cheers Les #40643 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 01, 2014
I have a Barrett IO-540. What an engine!!! Couldn't be happier. If you use their cold air induction you will need the Show Planes cowl which works very well. I have a MT three blade prop and it seems to be almost as fast as the Hartz ell blended two blade But it really out climbs it. Also a function of more horse power. From: rene(at)felker.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations Date: Sun=2C 1 Jun 2014 11:14:53 -0600 Just for reference. I am very happy with my Hartzell IO-540 (260 HP) combi nation. I fly out of Utah=2C field elevation 4460 and have operated hot an d heavy out of other higher altitude fields. Climb performance with that co mbination is more than adequate. Having not done any side by side comparis on on 2 vs 3 blades I do not know the performance differences. I think the re is some use full information in the archive on that type of testing. One thing to note=2C I would not like anything that made getting the lower cow ling on and off more difficult. The three blade props do look sexy and fast =85=85 Rene' FelkerN423CF801-721-6080 From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronic s.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearne y Sent: Sunday=2C June 01=2C 2014 10:55 AM Subject: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations Hi As some of may recall=2C I took the path less travelled and put a 3.6L Subie on my -10. Ov er the past year I have been quite happy with the performance that is to sa y until I had a piston problem. As I a) haven=92t been able to determine th e root cause of the problem and b) determine how to prevent it=2C I have de cided to retrofit an IO540. Although there many 3.0L Subies flying on small RV=92s=2C there are not many 3.6L engines which complicates matters. I pl an to get a Barret engine but still need to decide on a governor / propelle r combination. Van=92s Hartzell seems like a good choice especially from a cost perspective but I would be interested in knowing the other options. Fr om what I have read=2C 2 blade props are best below 300HP but there also se ems to be a number of 3 blade options as well. Any info appreciated. Cheers Les#40643 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matr onics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 01, 2014
Hi Rene I agree with the sexy bit. I will miss my 4 blade Quinti prop.... Les Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 1, 2014, at 11:14 AM, "Rene Felker" wrote: > > Just for reference. I am very happy with my Hartzell IO-540 (260 HP) comb ination. I fly out of Utah, field elevation 4460 and have operated hot and h eavy out of other higher altitude fields. Climb performance with that combin ation is more than adequate. Having not done any side by side comparison on 2 vs 3 blades I do not know the performance differences. I think there is s ome use full information in the archive on that type of testing. > > One thing to note, I would not like anything that made getting the lower c owling on and off more difficult. > > The three blade props do look sexy and fast > > Rene' Felker > N423CF > 801-721-6080 > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 10:55 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > > Hi > > As some of may recall, I took the path less travelled and put a 3.6L Subie on my -10. Over the past year I have been quite happy with the performance t hat is to say until I had a piston problem. As I a) haven=99t been abl e to determine the root cause of the problem and b) determine how to prevent it, I have decided to retrofit an IO540. Although there many 3.0L Subies fl ying on small RV=99s, there are not many 3.6L engines which complicate s matters. > > I plan to get a Barret engine but still need to decide on a governor / pro peller combination. Van=99s Hartzell seems like a good choice especial ly from a cost perspective but I would be interested in knowing the other op tions. =46rom what I have read, 2 blade props are best below 300HP but there also seems to be a number of 3 blade options as well. > > Any info appreciated. > > Cheers > > Les > #40643 > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > http://forums.matronics.com > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 01, 2014
Danny What was the vist of the MT? I have heard that they are quite spendy. Cheers Les Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: > > I have a Barrett IO-540. What an engine!!! > Couldn't be happier. If you use their cold air induction you will need the Show Planes cowl which works very well. > I have a MT three blade prop and it seems to be almost as fast as the Hart zell blended two blade > But it really out climbs it. Also a function of more horse power. > > From: rene(at)felker.com > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:14:53 -0600 > > Just for reference. I am very happy with my Hartzell IO-540 (260 HP) comb ination. I fly out of Utah, field elevation 4460 and have operated hot and h eavy out of other higher altitude fields. Climb performance with that combin ation is more than adequate. Having not done any side by side comparison on 2 vs 3 blades I do not know the performance differences. I think there is s ome use full information in the archive on that type of testing. > > > > One thing to note, I would not like anything that made getting the lower c owling on and off more difficult. > > > > The three blade props do look sexy and fast > > > > Rene' Felker > > N423CF > > 801-721-6080 > > > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 10:55 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > > > > Hi > > > > As some of may recall, I took the path less travelled and put a 3.6L Subie on my -10. Over the past year I have been quite happy with the performance t hat is to say until I had a piston problem. As I a) haven=99t been abl e to determine the root cause of the problem and b) determine how to prevent it, I have decided to retrofit an IO540. Although there many 3.0L Subies fl ying on small RV=99s, there are not many 3.6L engines which complicate s matters. > > > > I plan to get a Barret engine but still need to decide on a governor / pro peller combination. Van=99s Hartzell seems like a good choice especial ly from a cost perspective but I would be interested in knowing the other op tions. =46rom what I have read, 2 blade props are best below 300HP but there also seems to be a number of 3 blade options as well. > > > > Any info appreciated. > > > > Cheers > > > > Les > > #40643 > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > http://forums.matronics.com > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > > > ist" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ank>http://forums.matronics.com > rget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Orth" <mosurf(at)xplornet.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 01, 2014
FOR SALE 3 ENGINES & 1 PROP ENGINE #1-RIGHT CONTINENTAL 10-470L S/N 91968-5-L TTSO 1489.8 COMPLETE ENGINE & PROPELLER PITCH CONTROL. COMPLETE LOGS. REMOVED FROM BEECHCRAFT BARON THAT LANDED GEAR-UP. INCIDENT HAS NOT BEEN ENTERED INTO ENGINE LOG. OIL DRAINED AND SHOWED NO SIGN OF CONTAMINATION. OIL-PAN DROPPED AND VISUAL INSPECTION SHOWED NO SIGN OF DAMAGE. MY FEELING IS THAT THIS ENGINE DID NOT SUFFER ANY DAMAGE AS THE RESULT OF THE ACCIDENT. COULD BE USED IN A/C, AIRBOAT, OR HOVERCRAFT. PRICE $5,000 USD; YOU PAY SHIPPING. ENGINE #2-LEFT CONTINENTAL 10-470L S/N 91945-5-L TTSO 1457.8 COMPLETE ENGINE & PROPELLER PITCH CONTROL. COMPLETE LOGS REMOVED FROM BEECHCRAFT BARON THAT LANDED GEAR-UP. INCIDENT HAS NOT BEEN ENTERED INTO ENGINE LOG. OIL DRAINED AND SHOWED NO SIGN OF CONTAMINATION. OIL-PAN DROPPED AND VISUAL INSPECTION SHOWED NO SIGN OF DAMAGE. MY FEELING IS THAT THIS ENGINE DID NOT SUFFER ANY DAMAGE AS THE RESULT OF THE ACCIDENT. COULD BE USED IN A/C, AIRBOAT, OR HOVERCRAFT. PRICE $5,000 USD; YOU PAY SHIPPING. ENGINE #3 LYCOMING IO-540 G1D5 S/N L-9927-48 TTSO 5.43 COMPLETE LOGS PROP #1 HARTZELL HC-92WK-1DW TTSO 2.12 S/N S/N AC-206 PRICE-ENGINE & PROP $18,000 USD. YOU PAY SHIPPING. THIS IS HOW THE ENGINE WAS DESCRIBED TO ME: =9C. purchased the engine and prop from Westair International Company, Monument, CO 80132 Jim Cullen is the owner. (719) 481-2286 He sold a number of these engines and was recommended to me by Murphy. They thought this was a perfect engine for their plane. I called a fellow who bought one from him to check up on his transaction. He was very pleased with Jim and the engine and prop. (His name is John Knutson, Chicago, (312) 642 0335 home (312) 383 1300 x 104 work) I believe he was putting it into his homebuilt. I haven't talked to him in ten years so I don't know if the numbers are still good. The engine arrived as promised and is complete with magnetos, harness, fuel pump, Bendix injection system, alternator and starter. It is preserved, and includes platinum spark plugs (not installed--the plug holes have the things in them that absorb moisture--I can't remember what they are called!) There are three tech manuals also. It is still in the shipping crate which has always been in my heated shop. I looked in it today and it looks good. The IO-540 G1D5 engine serial number is L-9927-48. It is rated as 290 HP, max rpm 2575. The Hartzell Propeller Model HC-92WK-1DW S/N AC-206 The engine has a total of 799.22 hours since new. It has 5.43 hours since overhaul. The propeller has a total of 731.12 with 2.12 since overhaul. There are two complete log books for the engine and one for the propeller. My concern before buying was that they came out of an IAR 823 airplane which was a plane used by the Romanian Air Force! (I Googled it and it looks like a Mooney to me.) I checked with several engine building people (including the company that overhauled my Cessna engine) who told me the overhaul facility in Romania is noted for quality services. (BOAC had them do all their engine maintenance.) A fellow on the Murphy group, George Coy (who now sells M14P radials and was building a Moose--put this IO-540 in his plane. I asked him why not use one of his radials and he said he was going to put it on floats in Vermont and could not have any oil dripping into their pristine lakes. I guess coffee cans wired under the jugs does not meet environmental standards for catching 100% of the oil! The log books are all in Romanian but I had someone go over them with me (they spoke Romanian) and they are very detailed and complete. I was going to sit down with this person and rewrite each entry but haven't yet. I got a new English engine log from Jim Cullen--I'm not sure it is really necessary to translate the old ones. I feel comfortable with the accuracy of the logs and the work that has been done. A mechanic where I get my Cessna serviced was interested in using the engine for his tow plane--checked out the engine and logs, said it looked good but then found his mounts or something were different and it wouldn't fit. He offered my $20,000 for it! (I should have paid for his new mounts!) Hope this is the info you needed--I think it is the right motor for the Murphy. I've watched a friend mess with a M14 radial in his Moose but his struggles with the cowl, oil leaks, air start, parts, mounts and extra fuel burn, etc. etc. convinced me a good old 290 HP Lycoming was what I felt most comfortable with.=9D Michael Orth Beaver Valley, British Columbia, Canada mosurf(at)xplornet.com (250) 243-0013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- From: Les Kearney Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2014 9:55 AM Subject: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations Hi As some of may recall, I took the path less travelled and put a 3.6L Subie on my -10. Over the past year I have been quite happy with the performance that is to say until I had a piston problem. As I a) haven=99t been able to determine the root cause of the problem and b) determine how to prevent it, I have decided to retrofit an IO540. Although there many 3.0L Subies flying on small RV=99s, there are not many 3.6L engines which complicates matters. I plan to get a Barret engine but still need to decide on a governor / propeller combination. Van=99s Hartzell seems like a good choice especially from a cost perspective but I would be interested in knowing the other options. From what I have read, 2 blade props are best below 300HP but there also seems to be a number of 3 blade options as well. Any info appreciated. Cheers Les #40643 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 06/01/14 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 01, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Les, when I bought my prop and governor a year ago it was around $12K with shipping for the two together from Jim Ayers. I was notified by MT that something had happened to Jim, so both came direct from MT in Miami. On 6/1/2014 11:32 AM, Les Kearney wrote: > Danny > > What was the vist of the MT? I have heard that they are quite spendy. > > Cheers > > Les > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Danny Riggs > wrote: > >> I have a Barrett IO-540. What an engine!!! >> Couldn't be happier. If you use their cold air induction you will >> need the Show Planes cowl which works very well. >> I have a MT three blade prop and it seems to be almost as fast as the >> Hartzell blended two blade >> But it really out climbs it. Also a function of more horse power. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> From: rene(at)felker.com <mailto:rene(at)felker.com> >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations >> Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:14:53 -0600 >> >> Just for reference. I am very happy with my Hartzell IO-540 (260 HP) >> combination. I fly out of Utah, field elevation 4460 and have >> operated hot and heavy out of other higher altitude fields. Climb >> performance with that combination is more than adequate. Having not >> done any side by side comparison on 2 vs 3 blades I do not know the >> performance differences. I think there is some use full information >> in the archive on that type of testing. >> >> One thing to note, I would not like anything that made getting the >> lower cowling on and off more difficult. >> >> The three blade props do look sexy and fast >> >> Rene' Felker >> >> N423CF >> >> 801-721-6080 >> >> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Les Kearney >> *Sent:* Sunday, June 01, 2014 10:55 AM >> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> *Subject:* RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations >> >> Hi >> >> As some of may recall, I took the path less travelled and put a 3.6L >> Subie on my -10. Over the past year I have been quite happy with the >> performance that is to say until I had a piston problem. As I a) >> havent been able to determine the root cause of the problem and b) >> determine how to prevent it, I have decided to retrofit an IO540. >> Although there many 3.0L Subies flying on small RVs, there are not >> many 3.6L engines which complicates matters. >> >> I plan to get a Barret engine but still need to decide on a governor >> / propeller combination. Vans Hartzell seems like a good choice >> especially from a cost perspective but I would be interested in >> knowing the other options. From what I have read, 2 blade props are >> best below 300HP but there also seems to be a number of 3 blade >> options as well. >> >> Any info appreciated. >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> #40643 >> >> * * >> * * >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* >> ** >> ** >> *http://forums.matronics.com* >> ** >> ** >> ** >> ** >> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* >> ** >> * * >> * >> >> ist" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ank>http://forums.matronics.com >> rget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> >> * >> * >> >> D============================================ >> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> D============================================ >> //forums.matronics.com >> D============================================ >> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> D============================================ >> >> * > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk(at)mac.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 01, 2014
I agree the 2 blade is best. I have had a MT and now fly w/ the vans 2blade. FOD caused so much damage to the MT I had to send it to Florida for O/h. In s pd for 1blade. Had to replace all.very $$$. KISS. You'll be glad you did . Lost climb rate of 500fpm but gained 5gph . I fly out of Ruidoso.6800ft no p roblem with Vans prop. N661G kcrp. 750 and loving it. Robert Brunkenhoefer Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Carl Froehlich w rote: > > The Van=99s two blade Hartzell blended airfoil is, my opinion, the b est performance value out there. > > For governors, recommend looking at the PCU-5000. I=99ve used them o n two RVs and they have been flawless. I got both via group buys on Van =99s Air Force at significant discounts. > > Carl > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene Felker > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 1:15 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > > Just for reference. I am very happy with my Hartzell IO-540 (260 HP) comb ination. I fly out of Utah, field elevation 4460 and have operated hot and h eavy out of other higher altitude fields. Climb performance with that combin ation is more than adequate. Having not done any side by side comparison on 2 vs 3 blades I do not know the performance differences. I think there is s ome use full information in the archive on that type of testing. > > One thing to note, I would not like anything that made getting the lower c owling on and off more difficult. > > The three blade props do look sexy and fast > > Rene' Felker > N423CF > 801-721-6080 > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 10:55 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > > Hi > > As some of may recall, I took the path less travelled and put a 3.6L Subie on my -10. Over the past year I have been quite happy with the performance t hat is to say until I had a piston problem. As I a) haven=99t been abl e to determine the root cause of the problem and b) determine how to prevent it, I have decided to retrofit an IO540. Although there many 3.0L Subies fl ying on small RV=99s, there are not many 3.6L engines which complicate s matters. > > I plan to get a Barret engine but still need to decide on a governor / pro peller combination. Van=99s Hartzell seems like a good choice especial ly from a cost perspective but I would be interested in knowing the other op tions. =46rom what I have read, 2 blade props are best below 300HP but there also seems to be a number of 3 blade options as well. > > Any info appreciated. > > Cheers > > Les > #40643 > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > > http://forums.matronics.com > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > http://forums.matronics.com > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: RV-10 Down
Date: Jun 01, 2014
The news reported that a RV-10 went down in Toledo, OR yesterday about 4pm. Only one of the three occupants survived the accident. Based upon the video from the link below, it appears to be Doug Nebert's RV-10. There has been no release of the occupant's names as of yet. http://briansrv10.squarespace.com/picture/doug%20nebert.jpg?pictureId=166564 88 http://koin.com/2014/05/31/plane-crashes-in-toledo-ore-3-on-board/ TOLEDO, Ore. (KOIN 6) - Two people were pronounced dead on scene after a plane carrying three passengers crashed in Toledo, Ore. at 4:19 p.m. Saturday. The third passenger was taken via Life Flight to Good Samaritan Hospital in Corvallis, Ore. in critical condition. Life Flight crews transport the only survivor of a plane crash in Toledo, Ore. May 31, 2014 (KOIN 6) Toledo Police said the plane crashed inside the Georgia Pacific Mill property. Waitress Josalyn Smith was taking an order outside when she heard her customer gasp. "I turned and saw the plane nosediving and heard a crash shortly thereafter," she said. "It just was going straight down towards the ground, no sounds, the engine must have cut out," she said. Toledo Police Chief David Enyeart said in a statement the small light plane left from Newport Airport, but the plane lost altitude near Toledo. He said Toledo Police, Fire and the Lincoln County Sheriff's Office responded to the scene. The National Transportation Safety Board, Toledo Police and the Federal Aviation Administration continue to investigate. Names will be released once next of kin are notified. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk(at)mac.com>
Date: Jun 01, 2014
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
I agree the 2 blade is best. I have had a MT and now fly w/ the vans 2blade. FOD caused so much damage to the MT I had to send it to Florida for O/h. In s pd for 1blade. Had to replace all.very $$$. KISS. You'll be glad you did . Lost climb rate of 500fpm but gained 5gph . I fly out of Ruidoso.6800ft no p roblem with Vans prop. N661G kcrp. 750 and loving it. Robert Brunkenhoefer Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Carl Froehlich w rote: > > The Van=99s two blade Hartzell blended airfoil is, my opinion, the b est performance value out there. > > For governors, recommend looking at the PCU-5000. I=99ve used them o n two RVs and they have been flawless. I got both via group buys on Van =99s Air Force at significant discounts. > > Carl > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene Felker > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 1:15 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > > Just for reference. I am very happy with my Hartzell IO-540 (260 HP) comb ination. I fly out of Utah, field elevation 4460 and have operated hot and h eavy out of other higher altitude fields. Climb performance with that combin ation is more than adequate. Having not done any side by side comparison on 2 vs 3 blades I do not know the performance differences. I think there is s ome use full information in the archive on that type of testing. > > One thing to note, I would not like anything that made getting the lower c owling on and off more difficult. > > The three blade props do look sexy and fast > > Rene' Felker > N423CF > 801-721-6080 > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 10:55 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > > Hi > > As some of may recall, I took the path less travelled and put a 3.6L Subie on my -10. Over the past year I have been quite happy with the performance t hat is to say until I had a piston problem. As I a) haven=99t been abl e to determine the root cause of the problem and b) determine how to prevent it, I have decided to retrofit an IO540. Although there many 3.0L Subies fl ying on small RV=99s, there are not many 3.6L engines which complicate s matters. > > I plan to get a Barret engine but still need to decide on a governor / pro peller combination. Van=99s Hartzell seems like a good choice especial ly from a cost perspective but I would be interested in knowing the other op tions. =46rom what I have read, 2 blade props are best below 300HP but there also seems to be a number of 3 blade options as well. > > Any info appreciated. > > Cheers > > Les > #40643 > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > > http://forums.matronics.com > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > http://forums.matronics.com > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Re: RV-10 Down
Date: Jun 01, 2014
Here's an update... You're correct. It is Doug Nebert's RV-10. Child among 2 dead in Toledo, Ore. plane crash | KOIN.com On Jun 1, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Bob Leffler wrote: > The news reported that a RV-10 went down in Toledo, OR yesterday about 4pm. Only one of the three occupants survived the accident. Based upon the video from the link below, it appears to be Doug Nebert=92s RV-10. There has been no release of the occupant=92s names as of yet. > > > > http://koin.com/2014/05/31/plane-crashes-in-toledo-ore-3-on-board/ > TOLEDO, Ore. (KOIN 6) =97 Two people were pronounced dead on scene after a plane carrying three passengers crashed in Toledo, Ore. at 4:19 p.m. Saturday. > The third passenger was taken via Life Flight to Good Samaritan Hospital in Corvallis, Ore. in critical condition. > Life Flight crews transport the only survivor of a plane crash in Toledo, Ore. May 31, 2014 (KOIN 6) > Toledo Police said the plane crashed inside the Georgia Pacific Mill property. > Waitress Josalyn Smith was taking an order outside when she heard her customer gasp. > =93I turned and saw the plane nosediving and heard a crash shortly thereafter,=94 she said. > =93It just was going straight down towards the ground, no sounds, the engine must have cut out,=94 she said. > Toledo Police Chief David Enyeart said in a statement the small light plane left from Newport Airport, but the plane lost altitude near Toledo. > He said Toledo Police, Fire and the Lincoln County Sheriff=92s Office responded to the scene. > The National Transportation Safety Board, Toledo Police and the Federal Aviation Administration continue to investigate. Names will be released once next of kin are notified. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-10 Down
Date: Jun 01, 2014
God Bless. Dave Leikam On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: > > Here's an update... You're correct. It is Doug Nebert's RV-10. > > Child among 2 dead in Toledo, Ore. plane crash | KOIN.com > > > > On Jun 1, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Bob Leffler wrote: > >> The news reported that a RV-10 went down in Toledo, OR yesterday about 4pm. Only one of the three occupants survived the accident. Based upon the video from the link below, it appears to be Doug Nebert=92s RV-10. There has been no release of the occupant=92s names as of yet. >> >> >> >> http://koin.com/2014/05/31/plane-crashes-in-toledo-ore-3-on-board/ >> TOLEDO, Ore. (KOIN 6) =97 Two people were pronounced dead on scene after a plane carrying three passengers crashed in Toledo, Ore. at 4:19 p.m. Saturday. >> The third passenger was taken via Life Flight to Good Samaritan Hospital in Corvallis, Ore. in critical condition. >> Life Flight crews transport the only survivor of a plane crash in Toledo, Ore. May 31, 2014 (KOIN 6) >> Toledo Police said the plane crashed inside the Georgia Pacific Mill property. >> Waitress Josalyn Smith was taking an order outside when she heard her customer gasp. >> =93I turned and saw the plane nosediving and heard a crash shortly thereafter,=94 she said. >> =93It just was going straight down towards the ground, no sounds, the engine must have cut out,=94 she said. >> Toledo Police Chief David Enyeart said in a statement the small light plane left from Newport Airport, but the plane lost altitude near Toledo. >> He said Toledo Police, Fire and the Lincoln County Sheriff=92s Office responded to the scene. >> The National Transportation Safety Board, Toledo Police and the Federal Aviation Administration continue to investigate. Names will be released once next of kin are notified. >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 01, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Please explain the 5gph gain???? No question a 3 blade will be more expensive to repair and overhaul. I would expect vibration and noise to be somewhat less with the MT. Agreed climb is very good either way. The MT governor is less money than the PCU-500. Haven't heard any strong reason to choose one over the other. On 6/1/2014 2:00 PM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: > I agree the 2 blade is best. I have had a MT and now fly w/ the vans > 2blade. FOD caused so much damage to the MT I had to send it to > Florida for O/h. Ins pd for 1blade. Had to replace all.very $$$. KISS. > You'll be glad you did . Lost climb rate of 500fpm but gained 5gph . I > fly out of Ruidoso.6800ft no problem with Vans prop. N661G kcrp. 750 > and loving it. Robert Brunkenhoefer > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Carl Froehlich > > wrote: > >> The Vans two blade Hartzell blended airfoil is, my opinion, the best >> performance value out there. >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk(at)mac.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 01, 2014
I meant 5-7kts faster . I continue to use the MT governor. It works great. Robert Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 1, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > Please explain the 5gph gain???? > No question a 3 blade will be more expensive to repair and overhaul. > I would expect vibration and noise to be somewhat less with the MT. > Agreed climb is very good either way. > The MT governor is less money than the PCU-500. Haven't heard any strong reason to choose one over the other. > >> On 6/1/2014 2:00 PM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: >> I agree the 2 blade is best. I have had a MT and now fly w/ the vans 2blade. FOD caused so much damage to the MT I had to send it to Florida for O/h. Ins pd for 1blade. Had to replace all.very $$$. KISS. You'll be glad you did . Lost climb rate of 500fpm but gained 5gph . I fly out of Ruidoso.6800ft no problem with Vans prop. N661G kcrp. 750 and loving it. Robert Brunkenhoefer >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Carl Froehlich > wrote: >>> >>> The Vans two blade Hartzell blended airfoil is, my opinion, the best performance value out there. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 01, 2014
I assume he meant mph, not gph. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Jun 1, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > Please explain the 5gph gain???? > No question a 3 blade will be more expensive to repair and overhaul. > I would expect vibration and noise to be somewhat less with the MT. > Agreed climb is very good either way. > The MT governor is less money than the PCU-500. Haven't heard any strong reason to choose one over the other. > >> On 6/1/2014 2:00 PM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: >> I agree the 2 blade is best. I have had a MT and now fly w/ the vans 2blade. FOD caused so much damage to the MT I had to send it to Florida for O/h. Ins pd for 1blade. Had to replace all.very $$$. KISS. You'll be glad you did . Lost climb rate of 500fpm but gained 5gph . I fly out of Ruidoso.6800ft no problem with Vans prop. N661G kcrp. 750 and loving it. Robert Brunkenhoefer >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Carl Froehlich > wrote: >>> >>> The Vans two blade Hartzell blended airfoil is, my opinion, the best performance value out there. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2014
From: Tim Lewis <TimRVator(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-10 Down
This is a painful loss. Doug was the secretary of EAA 186 here in the D.C. area for years. He was a friendly, outgoing guy who made a difference in the lives of those around him. A few years ago he and his wife moved to Oregon to run a bed and breakfast (while still telecommuting to his job at NGA). I'll miss seeing him in RV camping at OSH, and at our annual EAA 186 breakfast there. -- Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) A&P RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold RV-10 N31TD -- 500 hrs Jeff Carpenter said the following on 6/1/2014 6:50 PM: > > Here's an update... You're correct. It is Doug Nebert's RV-10. > > Child among 2 dead in Toledo, Ore. plane crash | KOIN.com > <http://koin.com/2014/05/31/plane-crashes-in-toledo-ore-3-on-board/> > > > On Jun 1, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Bob Leffler wrote: > >> The news reported that a RV-10 went down in Toledo, OR yesterday >> about 4pm. Only one of the three occupants survived the accident. >> Based upon the video from the link below, it appears to be Doug >> Neberts RV-10. There has been no release of the occupants names >> as of yet. >> >> http://koin.com/2014/05/31/plane-crashes-in-toledo-ore-3-on-board/ >> TOLEDO, Ore. (KOIN 6) Two people were pronounced dead on scene >> after a plane carrying three passengers crashed in Toledo, Ore. at >> 4:19 p.m. Saturday. >> The third passenger was taken via Life Flight to Good Samaritan >> Hospital in Corvallis, Ore. in critical condition. >> Life Flight crews transport the only survivor of a plane crash in >> Toledo, Ore. May 31, 2014 (KOIN 6) >> Toledo Police said the plane crashed inside the Georgia Pacific Mill >> property. >> Waitress Josalyn Smith was taking an order outside when she heard her >> customer gasp. >> I turned and saw the plane nosediving and heard a crash shortly >> thereafter, she said. >> It just was going straight down towards the ground, no sounds, the >> engine must have cut out, she said. >> Toledo Police Chief David Enyeart said in a statement the small light >> plane left from Newport Airport, but the plane lost altitude near >> Toledo. ** >> He said Toledo Police, Fire and the Lincoln County Sheriffs Office >> responded to the scene. >> The National Transportation Safety Board, Toledo Police and the >> Federal Aviation Administration continue to investigate. Names will >> be released once next of kin are notified. > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2014
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
=0AOK, here's my 2 cents.=0AWhen people are comparing the props and give nu mbers on speed differences, that is wide open throttle and rpm.=0AI've race d my 3 blade MT against 8 RV10's, 7 with 2 blade hartzell's, one with a 3 b lade, but not MT, and beat them all.=C2- Ok, so I have more ponies.... bu t it's smoother, climbs at least as well, and who flies flat out all the ti me anyway.=C2- I'm able to cruise at roughly the same speed, but am able to run lower MP (18-19) and RPM settings (2,000 to 2,200), and have found n o other 10 that gets as good of fuel mileage as I get. (9.5 to 10.3)=0A=0A =0ALatest test was on a long trip in the 10 with a brand new RV8 with a new IO-390.... at 10,500', I heard those wonderful words from the 8 "you're pu lling me".=0AJust remember if it seems smoother to you, it's easier on ever ything, the engine, the airframe, the avionics, etc.=0A=0A=0ADon McDonald =0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Robert Brunkenhoefer =0ATo: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" =0ASent: Sunday, June 1, 2014 9:17 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: Propel bert Brunkenhoefer =0A=0AI meant 5-7kts=0A faster . I continue to use the MT governor. It works great. Robert=0A=0ASent from my i Phone=0A=0A> On Jun 1, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Kelly McMullen =0A> =0A> Please explain the 5gph gain????=0A> No question a 3 blade will be more expensive to repair and overhaul.=0A> I would expect vi bration and noise to be somewhat less with the MT.=0A> Agreed climb is very good either way.=0A> The MT governor is less money than the PCU-500. Haven 't heard any strong reason to choose one over the other.=0A> =0A>> On 6/1/2 014 2:00 PM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote:=0A>> I agree the 2 blade is best. I have had a MT and now fly w/ the vans 2blade. FOD=0A caused so much damag e to the MT I had to send it to Florida for O/h. Ins pd for 1blade. Had to replace all.very $$$. KISS. You'll be glad you did . Lost climb rate of 500 fpm but gained 5gph . I fly out of Ruidoso.6800ft no problem with Vans prop . N661G kcrp. 750 and loving it. Robert Brunkenhoefer=0A>> =0A>> Sent from my iPhone=0A>> =0A>>> On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Carl Froehlich > wrote:=0A>>> =0A>>> The Van=99s two blade Hartzell blended airfoil is, my opinion, the b - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -=0A_ =C2- =C2-=0A =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk(at)mac.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 02, 2014
I went to the Northwest Territories with my MT prop and could not go to kugl utuk north of the arctic circle because the gravel runways might damage the p rop and there was no way to file them and fly out of there. They have that l imitation. IMHO Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 2, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Don McDonald wro te: > > > OK, here's my 2 cents. > When people are comparing the props and give numbers on speed differences, that is wide open throttle and rpm. > I've raced my 3 blade MT against 8 RV10's, 7 with 2 blade hartzell's, one w ith a 3 blade, but not MT, and beat them all. Ok, so I have more ponies.... but it's smoother, climbs at least as well, and who flies flat out all the t ime anyway. I'm able to cruise at roughly the same speed, but am able to ru n lower MP (18-19) and RPM settings (2,000 to 2,200), and have found no othe r 10 that gets as good of fuel mileage as I get. (9.5 to 10.3) > > Latest test was on a long trip in the 10 with a brand new RV8 with a new I O-390.... at 10,500', I heard those wonderful words from the 8 "you're pulli ng me". > Just remember if it seems smoother to you, it's easier on everything, the e ngine, the airframe, the avionics, etc. > > Don McDonald > > From: Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk(at)mac.com> > To: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" > Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2014 9:17 PM > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > > > > I meant 5-7kts faster . I continue to use the MT governor. It works great. Robert > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 1, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > > > > Please explain the 5gph gain???? > > No question a 3 blade will be more expensive to repair and overhaul. > > I would expect vibration and noise to be somewhat less with the MT. > > Agreed climb is very good either way. > > The MT governor is less money than the PCU-500. Haven't heard any strong reason to choose one over the other. > > > >> On 6/1/2014 2:00 PM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: > >> I agree the 2 blade is best. I have had a MT and now fly w/ the vans 2b lade. FOD caused so much damage to the MT I had to send it to Florida for O/ h. Ins pd for 1blade. Had to replace all.very $$$. KISS. You'll be glad you d id . Lost climb rate of 500fpm but gained 5gph . I fly out of Ruidoso.6800ft no problem with Vans prop. N661G kcrp. 750 and loving it. Robert Brunkenhoe fer > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>> On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Carl Froehlich > wrote: > >>> > >>> The Van=99s two blade Hartzell blended airfoil is, my opinion, t he best performance value out there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com > http://www.matr======= > > > > > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jun 02, 2014
So as I see it the answer is..... All these props are close enough to each other that only a direct A-B test (change props on the same airplane) can tell the difference. So far as I see only Robert has actually done that, and he seems to confirm the folklore: 2 blade: least expensive, fastest cruise. 3 blade: best climb performance, quieter and smoother. Fro the record, I have the 2 blade Hartzell and Hartzell governor straight from Vans, and am happy with both. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424219#424219 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 02, 2014
I too have both Hartzell prop and gov from Vans. No complaints from me, but I only have about sixty hours at the moment. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 2, 2014, at 2:17 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote: Fro the record, I have the 2 blade Hartzell and Hartzell governor straight from Vans, and am happy with both. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424219#424219 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JimVillani" <Jim(at)JimVillani.com>
Subject: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 02, 2014
Don, I have standard 2 blade 260hp Lyc. Running at 2300 /17 to 18 inches and regularly get 8-9 GPH at 10,500, 150 to 160 knts Ground Speed. What speed and alt are you cruising at with 2200 RPM=99s? Jim Villani Cell: (702) 379 5524 Fax: (702) 946-1185 Email: Jim(at)Sold702.com From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don McDonald Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 8:56 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations OK, here's my 2 cents. When people are comparing the props and give numbers on speed differences, that is wide open throttle and rpm. I've raced my 3 blade MT against 8 RV10's, 7 with 2 blade hartzell's, one with a 3 blade, but not MT, and beat them all. Ok, so I have more ponies.... but it's smoother, climbs at least as well, and who flies flat out all the time anyway. I'm able to cruise at roughly the same speed, but am able to run lower MP (18-19) and RPM settings (2,000 to 2,200), and have found no other 10 that gets as good of fuel mileage as I get. (9.5 to 10.3) Latest test was on a long trip in the 10 with a brand new RV8 with a new IO-390.... at 10,500', I heard those wonderful words from the 8 "you're pulling me". Just remember if it seems smoother to you, it's easier on everything, the engine, the airframe, the avionics, etc. Don McDonald _____ From: Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk(at)mac.com > > Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2014 9:17 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > I meant 5-7kts faster . I continue to use the MT governor. It works great. Robert Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 1, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Kelly McMullen > wrote: > > > > Please explain the 5gph gain???? > No question a 3 blade will be more expensive to repair and overhaul. > I would expect vibration and noise to be somewhat less with the MT. > Agreed climb is very good either way. > The MT governor is less money than the PCU-500. Haven't heard any strong reason to choose one over the other. > >> On 6/1/2014 2:00 PM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: >> I agree the 2 blade is best. I have had a MT and now fly w/ the vans 2blade. FOD caused so much damage to the MT I had to send it to Florida for O/h. Ins pd for 1blade. Had to replace all.very $$$. KISS. You'll be glad you did . Lost climb rate of 500fpm but gained 5gph . I fly out of Ruidoso.6800ft no problem with Vans prop. N661G kcrp. 750 and loving it. Robert Brunkenhoefer >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Carl Froehlich >> wrote: >>> >>> The Van=99s two blade Hartzell blended airfoil is, my opinion, the best performance value out there. > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matr======== <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> Email Forum - Features Navigator to browse such as List Un/Subscription, Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, more: http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ron Mathia" <ron(at)touchtronics.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 02, 2014
Hi All, On one of my tech calls to Vans I asked if they saw/measure much difference between the two bladed and three bladed prop on a RV10 with the 540 engine. The person I spoke with said they had done a test run with two RV10s, flying next to each other, one with 2-blades and one with 3-blades (same 540 engines). Their option was that the overall performs was better with the 2-blades over the 3-blades. As I remember they said the top speed, rate of climb and fuel economy were all slightly better with the 2-blades. The 3-blades was a little quieter than 2-blades. They blamed the added air friction from the 3-blades lowered the overall performance for the RV10. I'm starting to install the finishing kit, then on to the prop and engine. Regards, Ron Mathia -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 2:49 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations I too have both Hartzell prop and gov from Vans. No complaints from me, but I only have about sixty hours at the moment. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 2, 2014, at 2:17 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote: Fro the record, I have the 2 blade Hartzell and Hartzell governor straight from Vans, and am happy with both. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424219#424219 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Bennett" <gary(at)bendun.net>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 02, 2014
I recall reading (eons ago) study results, that showed the most efficient propeller would be very long, single blade, turning very slowly. Not terribly practical, but using the same reasoning, 2-blades will be more efficient than 3. Gary Bennett http://bendun.net/ http://photos.bendun.net/ -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Mathia Sent: June-02-14 4:19 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations Hi All, On one of my tech calls to Vans I asked if they saw/measure much difference between the two bladed and three bladed prop on a RV10 with the 540 engine. The person I spoke with said they had done a test run with two RV10s, flying next to each other, one with 2-blades and one with 3-blades (same 540 engines). Their option was that the overall performs was better with the 2-blades over the 3-blades. As I remember they said the top speed, rate of climb and fuel economy were all slightly better with the 2-blades. The 3-blades was a little quieter than 2-blades. They blamed the added air friction from the 3-blades lowered the overall performance for the RV10. I'm starting to install the finishing kit, then on to the prop and engine. Regards, Ron Mathia -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 2:49 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations I too have both Hartzell prop and gov from Vans. No complaints from me, but I only have about sixty hours at the moment. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 2, 2014, at 2:17 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote: Fro the record, I have the 2 blade Hartzell and Hartzell governor straight from Vans, and am happy with both. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424219#424219 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Jessen" <n212pj(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 02, 2014
You might send a note asking about this to Rob Hickman, who I believe is using a 3-blade. He might have some data to share. John J -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Mathia Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 1:19 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations Hi All, On one of my tech calls to Vans I asked if they saw/measure much difference between the two bladed and three bladed prop on a RV10 with the 540 engine. The person I spoke with said they had done a test run with two RV10s, flying next to each other, one with 2-blades and one with 3-blades (same 540 engines). Their option was that the overall performs was better with the 2-blades over the 3-blades. As I remember they said the top speed, rate of climb and fuel economy were all slightly better with the 2-blades. The 3-blades was a little quieter than 2-blades. They blamed the added air friction from the 3-blades lowered the overall performance for the RV10. I'm starting to install the finishing kit, then on to the prop and engine. Regards, Ron Mathia -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 2:49 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations I too have both Hartzell prop and gov from Vans. No complaints from me, but I only have about sixty hours at the moment. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 2, 2014, at 2:17 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote: Fro the record, I have the 2 blade Hartzell and Hartzell governor straight from Vans, and am happy with both. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424219#424219 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Jun 02, 2014
I flew with Rob a few years ago. I asked him then and he said he was about 7 kts slower with that prop, IIRC. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 2, 2014, at 4:03 PM, "John Jessen" wrote: > > > You might send a note asking about this to Rob Hickman, who I believe is > using a 3-blade. He might have some data to share. > > John J > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Mathia > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 1:19 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > > > Hi All, > > On one of my tech calls to Vans I asked if they saw/measure much difference > between the two bladed and three bladed prop on a RV10 with the 540 engine.. > The person I spoke with said they had done a test run with two RV10s, flying > next to each other, one with 2-blades and one with 3-blades (same 540 > engines). > Their option was that the overall performs was better with the 2-blades over > the 3-blades. > As I remember they said the top speed, rate of climb and fuel economy were > all slightly better with the 2-blades. The 3-blades was a little quieter > than 2-blades. > They blamed the added air friction from the 3-blades lowered the overall > performance for the RV10. > > I'm starting to install the finishing kit, then on to the prop and engine. > > Regards, Ron Mathia > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 2:49 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > > > > I too have both Hartzell prop and gov from Vans. No complaints from me, but > I only have about sixty hours at the moment. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 2, 2014, at 2:17 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote: > > Fro the record, I have the 2 blade Hartzell and Hartzell governor straight > from Vans, and am happy with both. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424219#424219 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jun 02, 2014
gary(at)bendun.net wrote: > I recall reading (eons ago) study results, that showed the most efficient > propeller would be very long, single blade, turning very slowly. Not > terribly practical, but using the same reasoning, 2-blades will be more > efficient than 3. > > Gary Bennett > > http://bendun.net/ > http://photos.bendun.net/ > > > -- Yes. It's the tip losses. Same reason you build mono-planes instead of bi-planes for speed, in general. I recall at least one prop manufacturer tried to put "winglets" at the prop tips. ("Q prop" I think it was called). -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424234#424234 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 02, 2014
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
I have a two-blade, and I fly a friend's -10 with an MT three-blade from time to time. We agree with the herd on the benefits of each. I will say that his -10 is eerily smooth. At speed it feels like a jet, no kidding. No sensation of rotating prop or engine whatsoever. It's kind of weird, but I could defiantly get used to it...if I could only reproduce it on another plane. He has a balanced Barrett engine, so between that and the MT, and a good prop balance, the result is stunning. Other three-blades I've flown don't seem any smoother than a two. --Dave On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Bob Turner wrote: > > So as I see it the answer is..... > All these props are close enough to each other that only a direct A-B test > (change props on the same airplane) can tell the difference. So far as I > see only Robert has actually done that, and he seems to confirm the > folklore: > 2 blade: least expensive, fastest cruise. > 3 blade: best climb performance, quieter and smoother. > > Fro the record, I have the 2 blade Hartzell and Hartzell governor straight > from Vans, and am happy with both. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424219#424219 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Jessen" <n212pj(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
Date: Jun 02, 2014
That=99s what I=99ve heard, that the smoothness is the ultimate benefit of the 3-blad. I=99m thinking of that for my Star. Plus, it=99s just looks great. From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 3:38 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations I have a two-blade, and I fly a friend's -10 with an MT three-blade from time to time. We agree with the herd on the benefits of each. I will say that his -10 is eerily smooth. At speed it feels like a jet, no kidding. No sensation of rotating prop or engine whatsoever. It's kind of weird, but I could defiantly get used to it...if I could only reproduce it on another plane. He has a balanced Barrett engine, so between that and the MT, and a good prop balance, the result is stunning. Other three-blades I've flown don't seem any smoother than a two. --Dave On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Bob Turner > wrote: > So as I see it the answer is..... All these props are close enough to each other that only a direct A-B test (change props on the same airplane) can tell the difference. So far as I see only Robert has actually done that, and he seems to confirm the folklore: 2 blade: least expensive, fastest cruise. 3 blade: best climb performance, quieter and smoother. Fro the record, I have the 2 blade Hartzell and Hartzell governor straight from Vans, and am happy with both. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424219#424219 " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List MS - k">http://forums.matronics.com e - -Matt Dralle, List Admin. t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2014
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Why would a composite prop with a hard metal leading edge be at any more risk on a gravel runway than an aluminum prop? While a nick in an aluminum prop creates risk of a stress riser and cracking, that generally is not the case for a small dent in metal edge of composite prop. Any one that operates on gravel knows to ease in power and not to go to full power until well above taxi speed. Ground clearance is an issue with gravel runways, but the RV-10 has better than average prop clearance IIRC. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: > I went to the Northwest Territories with my MT prop and could not go to > kuglutuk north of the arctic circle because the gravel runways might damage > the prop and there was no way to file them and fly out of there. They have > that limitation. IMHO > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 2, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Don McDonald > wrote: > > > OK, here's my 2 cents. > When people are comparing the props and give numbers on speed differences, > that is wide open throttle and rpm. > I've raced my 3 blade MT against 8 RV10's, 7 with 2 blade hartzell's, one > with a 3 blade, but not MT, and beat them all. Ok, so I have more > ponies.... but it's smoother, climbs at least as well, and who flies flat > out all the time anyway. I'm able to cruise at roughly the same speed, but > am able to run lower MP (18-19) and RPM settings (2,000 to 2,200), and have > found no other 10 that gets as good of fuel mileage as I get. (9.5 to 10.3) > > Latest test was on a long trip in the 10 with a brand new RV8 with a new > IO-390.... at 10,500', I heard those wonderful words from the 8 "you're > pulling me". > Just remember if it seems smoother to you, it's easier on everything, the > engine, the airframe, the avionics, etc. > > Don McDonald > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Robert Brunkenhoefer > *To:* "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" > *Sent:* Sunday, June 1, 2014 9:17 PM > > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations > > > > > I meant 5-7kts faster . I continue to use the MT governor. It works great. > Robert > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jun 1, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > > > > Please explain the 5gph gain???? > > No question a 3 blade will be more expensive to repair and overhaul. > > I would expect vibration and noise to be somewhat less with the MT. > > Agreed climb is very good either way. > > The MT governor is less money than the PCU-500. Haven't heard any strong > reason to choose one over the other. > > > >> On 6/1/2014 2:00 PM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: > >> I agree the 2 blade is best. I have had a MT and now fly w/ the vans > 2blade. FOD caused so much damage to the MT I had to send it to Florida for > O/h. Ins pd for 1blade. Had to replace all.very $$$. KISS. You'll be glad > you did . Lost climb rate of 500fpm but gained 5gph . I fly out of > Ruidoso.6800ft no problem with Vans prop. N661G kcrp. 750 and loving it. > Robert Brunkenhoefer > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>> On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Carl Froehlich < > carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net > wrote: > >>> > >>> The Van's two blade Hartzell blended airfoil is, my opinion, the best > performance value out there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com > http://www.matr======= > > > * > > D============================================ > List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > D============================================ > //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com> > D============================================ > ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > D============================================ > > * > > -- - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 02, 2014
Robert I did that trip two years ago in my now sold PA28/180. If the four a/c on th e trip, one took a nasty ding from a stone. Fortunately we had a file to dre ss it out. By the way, we made it to Inuvik / Tutayaktuk (so?) over Victoria Island to C ambridge Bay while stafing the DEW Line sites. South from there to Yellowkn ife and home to Edmonton. It was a great trip. I wouldn't take a composite prop out of concern, real or imagined, that ston es could do. Cheers Les Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 2, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wr ote: > > I went to the Northwest Territories with my MT prop and could not go to ku glutuk north of the arctic circle because the gravel runways might damage th e prop and there was no way to file them and fly out of there. They have tha t limitation. IMHO > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 2, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Don McDonald wr ote: >> >> >> OK, here's my 2 cents. >> When people are comparing the props and give numbers on speed differences , that is wide open throttle and rpm. >> I've raced my 3 blade MT against 8 RV10's, 7 with 2 blade hartzell's, one with a 3 blade, but not MT, and beat them all. Ok, so I have more ponies.. .. but it's smoother, climbs at least as well, and who flies flat out all th e time anyway. I'm able to cruise at roughly the same speed, but am able to run lower MP (18-19) and RPM settings (2,000 to 2,200), and have found no o ther 10 that gets as good of fuel mileage as I get. (9.5 to 10.3) >> >> Latest test was on a long trip in the 10 with a brand new RV8 with a new I O-390.... at 10,500', I heard those wonderful words from the 8 "you're pulli ng me". >> Just remember if it seems smoother to you, it's easier on everything, the engine, the airframe, the avionics, etc. >> >> Don McDonald >> >> From: Robert Brunkenhoefer <robertbrunk(at)mac.com> >> To: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" >> Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2014 9:17 PM >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Propeller / Governor Recommendations >> m> >> >> I meant 5-7kts faster . I continue to use the MT governor. It works great . Robert >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Jun 1, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >> > >> > >> > Please explain the 5gph gain???? >> > No question a 3 blade will be more expensive to repair and overhaul. >> > I would expect vibration and noise to be somewhat less with the MT. >> > Agreed climb is very good either way. >> > The MT governor is less money than the PCU-500. Haven't heard any stron g reason to choose one over the other. >> > >> >> On 6/1/2014 2:00 PM, Robert Brunkenhoefer wrote: >> >> I agree the 2 blade is best. I have had a MT and now fly w/ the vans 2 blade. FOD caused so much damage to the MT I had to send it to Florida for O /h. Ins pd for 1blade. Had to replace all.very $$$. KISS. You'll be glad you did . Lost climb rate of 500fpm but gained 5gph . I fly out of Ruidoso.6800 ft no problem with Vans prop. N661G kcrp. 750 and loving it. Robert Brunkenh oefer >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >>> On Jun 1, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Carl Froehlich > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The Van=99s two blade Hartzell blended airfoil is, my opinion, t he best performance value out there. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com >> http://www.matr======= >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> //forums.matronics.com >> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propeller / Governor Recommendations
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 02, 2014
Hi Thanks for all the great info. I think I will go with the PCU5000x and Hartzell two blade prop I'll hold off ordering the prop until after KOSH in case there is something new there but I suspect there won't be. Cheers Les ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 02, 2014
Subject: 9:1 Compression Pistons
Hi One of the engine options I have is using 9:1 positions rather than 8:1. I understand that there is a small HP gain with the 9:1 pistons. For those with the 9:1 pistons, is there a significant performance bump. Has anyone had problems with detonation? Cheers Les Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: 9:1 Compression Pistons
Les, The standard compression is 8:5 to 1. All Lycoming engines at that compression were certified on 91/96 octane avgas. Most will run fine on 91-92 octane mogas. All of the angle valve higher horsepower engines have 8.7 to 1 compression and require 100 octane avgas. So you can pretty much be assured that 9 to 1 compression will require 100 octane. Given that Van's does not recommend 260 hp on the airframe, the only really benefit to more horses is climb capability. Top speed with the 260 hp is around 210-212 mph TAS. Design flutter is 230 true air speed. How close do you want to shave that margin? On 6/2/2014 9:36 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > > Hi > > One of the engine options I have is using 9:1 positions rather than 8:1. I understand that there is a small HP gain with the 9:1 pistons. > > For those with the 9:1 pistons, is there a significant performance bump. Has anyone had problems with detonation? > > Cheers > > Les > > Sent from my iPhone > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 9:1 Compression Pistons
From: Jim Rore <pilotdds(at)aol.com>
Date: Jun 02, 2014
FYI I just flew my second 10.Both have 2 blade hartzels the old one has 2 light speeds the new one has one.The old one has a 9 to 1 narrow deck the new one has standard 8.5 to one compression.gross weight is 1630 and 1612.The old one is noticeably more powerful,I don't want to give absolute numbers but there is a difference in both climb and cruise. Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 2, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > > > Hi > > One of the engine options I have is using 9:1 positions rather than 8:1. I understand that there is a small HP gain with the 9:1 pistons. > > For those with the 9:1 pistons, is there a significant performance bump. Has anyone had problems with detonation? > > Cheers > > Les > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 9:1 Compression Pistons
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Jun 03, 2014
The difference between 7:1 and 8.5:1 pistons at 2,575 rpm is 15 hp. I wouldn't expect the increase to 9:1 to be more than 5-10 hp, but it is an increase. If you're only running 100LL, which most 10's do, then you'd be fine with 9:1 and the tbo is still 2,000 hrs. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 3, 2014, at 1:57 AM, Jim Rore wrote: > > > FYI I just flew my second 10.Both have 2 blade hartzels the old one has 2 light speeds the new one has one.The old one has a 9 to 1 narrow deck the new one has standard 8.5 to one compression.gross weight is 1630 and 1612.The old one is noticeably more powerful,I don't want to give absolute numbers but there is a difference in both climb and cruise. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 2, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Les Kearney wrote: >> >> >> Hi >> >> One of the engine options I have is using 9:1 positions rather than 8:1. I understand that there is a small HP gain with the 9:1 pistons. >> >> For those with the 9:1 pistons, is there a significant performance bump. Has anyone had problems with detonation? >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Sudden Oiltemp dropout during climb out
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Jun 03, 2014
Hello I have seen now three times in the last 70h of flight that in long climb outs the oil temp dropped within a second from 185 down to 150-155 it stays there and recovers after leveling off most of the time back to normal within a second or so. I believe that this must be a sensor issue as the oil temp can't change that quickly. What is bothering me is that it only happens at the end of those climbs at around d 8k ft. Did anybody come across something similar? Regards Michael -------- RV-10 builder (flying) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424275#424275 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_480.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Wilson <bob(at)rjw.cc>
Subject: 9:1 Compression Pistons
Date: Jun 03, 2014
Sorry - I missed something but where is it stated that Van's doesn't recommend a 260 HP for the RV-10?? Bob Wilson -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 1:06 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: 9:1 Compression Pistons Les, The standard compression is 8:5 to 1. All Lycoming engines at that compression were certified on 91/96 octane avgas. Most will run fine on 91-92 octane mogas. All of the angle valve higher horsepower engines have 8.7 to 1 compression and require 100 octane avgas. So you can pretty much be assured that 9 to 1 compression will require 100 octane. Given that Van's does not recommend 260 hp on the airframe, the only really benefit to more horses is climb capability. Top speed with the 260 hp is around 210-212 mph TAS. Design flutter is 230 true air speed. How close do you want to shave that margin? On 6/2/2014 9:36 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > > Hi > > One of the engine options I have is using 9:1 positions rather than 8:1. I understand that there is a small HP gain with the 9:1 pistons. > > For those with the 9:1 pistons, is there a significant performance bump. Has anyone had problems with detonation? > > Cheers > > Les > > Sent from my iPhone > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2014
Subject: Re: 9:1 Compression Pistons
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Vans does not recommend ABOVE 260 hp. 260 hp is recommended as the maximum and what most RV-10s have. The parallel valve IO-540 does not come from Lycoming in stock certified form above that hp rating, but can easily be tweaked through higher compression, porting, cold air induction, etc to reach close to 300 hp, without using a turbo. Even turbo normalizing where one does not operate above published 75% power output(195 hp), but maintains it to a higher altitude, will push true airspeed up to 230 mph at around 12,000 ft, which is cited in a Vans paper as why you are flirting with the design limitations when you go to more horsepower. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Bob Wilson wrote: > > Sorry - I missed something but where is it stated that Van's doesn't > recommend a 260 HP for the RV-10?? > > Bob Wilson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 1:06 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: 9:1 Compression Pistons > > > Les, > The standard compression is 8:5 to 1. All Lycoming engines at that > compression were certified on 91/96 octane avgas. > Most will run fine on 91-92 octane mogas. All of the angle valve higher > horsepower engines have 8.7 to 1 compression and require 100 octane avgas. > So you can pretty much be assured that 9 to 1 compression will require 100 > octane. Given that Van's does not recommend 260 hp on the airframe, the > only really benefit to more horses is climb capability. > Top speed with the 260 hp is around 210-212 mph TAS. Design flutter is > 230 true air speed. How close do you want to shave that margin? > > On 6/2/2014 9:36 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > One of the engine options I have is using 9:1 positions rather than 8:1. > I understand that there is a small HP gain with the 9:1 pistons. > > > > For those with the 9:1 pistons, is there a significant performance bump. > Has anyone had problems with detonation? > > > > Cheers > > > > Les > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > > > -- - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: Sudden Oiltemp dropout during climb out
Date: Jun 03, 2014
It really sounds like a wiring problem involving the sensor. The sensor its elf can go out of tolerance or totally go bad but intermittent problems lik e this is usually always a wire problem. Loose connection or a semi broken wire. > Subject: RV10-List: Sudden Oiltemp dropout during climb out > From: rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net > Date: Tue=2C 3 Jun 2014 02:04:29 -0700 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > > Hello > I have seen now three times in the last 70h of flight that in long climb outs the oil temp dropped within a second from 185 down to 150-155 it stays there and recovers after leveling off most of the time back to normal with in a second or so. I believe that this must be a sensor issue as the oil te mp can't change that quickly. What is bothering me is that it only happens at the end of those climbs at around d 8k ft. Did anybody come across somet hing similar? > Regards > Michael > > -------- > RV-10 builder (flying) > #511 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424275#424275 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_480.jpg > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: 9:1 Compression Pistons
Date: Jun 03, 2014
I have a Barrett with 9:1 pistons and cold air induction. The only way I ca n get near the design limit is in a dive. No way can you get there in any k ind of level or near level cruise. Yesterday I had to set the autopilot to the absolute top speed and it took quite a steep dive to get to 200 kts. Nice thing about it that you can go to gross weight and have NO problem get ting off on a hot day. These Barretts with 9:1 and cold air induction are r eal "hosses". Date: Tue=2C 3 Jun 2014 05:38:00 -0700 Subject: Re: RV10-List: 9:1 Compression Pistons From: apilot2(at)gmail.com Vans does not recommend ABOVE 260 hp. 260 hp is recommended as the maximum and what most RV-10s have. The parallel valve IO-540 does not come from Lyc oming in stock certified form above that hp rating=2C but can easily be twe aked through higher compression=2C porting=2C cold air induction=2C etc to reach close to 300 hp=2C without using a turbo. Even turbo normalizing wher e one does not operate above published 75% power output(195 hp)=2C but main tains it to a higher altitude=2C will push true airspeed up to 230 mph at a round 12=2C000 ft=2C which is cited in a Vans paper as why you are flirting with the design limitations when you go to more horsepower. =0A On Tue=2C Jun 3=2C 2014 at 4:30 AM=2C Bob Wilson wrote: =0A =0A =0A Sorry - I missed something but where is it stated that Van's doesn't recomm end a 260 HP for the RV-10?? =0A =0A Bob Wilson =0A =0A =0A -----Original Message----- =0A From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen =0A =0A Sent: Tuesday=2C June 03=2C 2014 1:06 AM =0A =0A Subject: Re: RV10-List: 9:1 Compression Pistons =0A =0A =0A =0A Les=2C =0A The standard compression is 8:5 to 1. All Lycoming engines at that compress ion were certified on 91/96 octane avgas. =0A Most will run fine on 91-92 octane mogas. All of the angle valve higher hor sepower engines have 8.7 to 1 compression and require 100 octane avgas. So you can pretty much be assured that 9 to 1 compression will require 100 oct ane. Given that Van's does not recommend 260 hp on the airframe=2C the only really benefit to more horses is climb capability. =0A =0A Top speed with the 260 hp is around 210-212 mph TAS. Design flutter is =0A 230 true air speed. How close do you want to shave that margin? =0A =0A On 6/2/2014 9:36 PM=2C Les Kearney wrote: =0A =0A > =0A > Hi =0A > =0A > One of the engine options I have is using 9:1 positions rather than 8:1. I understand that there is a small HP gain with the 9:1 pistons. =0A > =0A > For those with the 9:1 pistons=2C is there a significant performance bump . Has anyone had problems with detonation? =0A > =0A > Cheers =0A > =0A > Les =0A > =0A > Sent from my iPhone =0A > =0A > =0A > =0A > =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List =0A =0A http://forums.matronics.com =0A =0A le=2C List Admin. =0A ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A -- =0A - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A =0A ============0A ============0A ============0A ============0A =0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 03, 2014
Subject: Re: Sudden Oiltemp dropout during climb out
I had almost the exact same problem. Replaced the sensor, no help. Finally I put a dedicated ground from as close to the sensor as possible to the firewall. That fixed it. I have a very robust ground from the case to the engine mount, but the OT sensor needed the additional ground. --Dave On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Mike Whisky wrote: > > Hello > I have seen now three times in the last 70h of flight that in long climb > outs the oil temp dropped within a second from 185 down to 150-155 it stays > there and recovers after leveling off most of the time back to normal > within a second or so. I believe that this must be a sensor issue as the > oil temp can't change that quickly. What is bothering me is that it only > happens at the end of those climbs at around d 8k ft. Did anybody come > across something similar? > Regards > Michael > > -------- > RV-10 builder (flying) > #511 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424275#424275 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_480.jpg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2014
Subject: Re: 9:1 Compression Pistons
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Mine produced 285HP with one mag and one lightspeed. Still not flying, but those came from a break-in session, in a test cell, prior to being delivered to me. I was still given a full warranty and TBO of 2,000. Phil On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Danny Riggs wrote: > I have a Barrett with 9:1 pistons and cold air induction. The only way I > can get near the design limit is in a dive. No way can you get there in any > kind of level or near level cruise. Yesterday I had to set the autopilot to > the absolute top speed and it took quite a steep dive to get to 200 kts. > Nice thing about it that you can go to gross weight and have NO problem > getting off on a hot day. These Barretts with 9:1 and cold air induction > are real "hosses". > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 05:38:00 -0700 > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: 9:1 Compression Pistons > From: apilot2(at)gmail.com > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > > Vans does not recommend ABOVE 260 hp. 260 hp is recommended as the maximum > and what most RV-10s have. The parallel valve IO-540 does not come from > Lycoming in stock certified form above that hp rating, but can easily be > tweaked through higher compression, porting, cold air induction, etc to > reach close to 300 hp, without using a turbo. Even turbo normalizing where > one does not operate above published 75% power output(195 hp), but > maintains it to a higher altitude, will push true airspeed up to 230 mph at > around 12,000 ft, which is cited in a Vans paper as why you are flirting > with the design limitations when you go to more horsepower. > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Bob Wilson wrote: > > > Sorry - I missed something but where is it stated that Van's doesn't > recommend a 260 HP for the RV-10?? > > Bob Wilson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 1:06 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: 9:1 Compression Pistons > > > Les, > The standard compression is 8:5 to 1. All Lycoming engines at that > compression were certified on 91/96 octane avgas. > Most will run fine on 91-92 octane mogas. All of the angle valve higher > horsepower engines have 8.7 to 1 compression and require 100 octane avgas. > So you can pretty much be assured that 9 to 1 compression will require 100 > octane. Given that Van's does not recommend 260 hp on the airframe, the > only really benefit to more horses is climb capability. > Top speed with the 260 hp is around 210-212 mph TAS. Design flutter is > 230 true air speed. How close do you want to shave that margin? > > On 6/2/2014 9:36 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > One of the engine options I have is using 9:1 positions rather than 8:1. > I understand that there is a small HP gain with the 9:1 pistons. > > > > For those with the 9:1 pistons, is there a significant performance bump. > Has anyone had problems with detonation? > > > > Cheers > > > > Les > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > > > > ========== > 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 > > * > > ========== > arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > * > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sudden Oiltemp dropout during climb out
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Jun 03, 2014
Thank you for your replies I will follow your advice and check if it appears again. Regards Michael -------- RV-10 builder (flying) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424299#424299 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan(at)hispeed.ch>
Subject: Re: Sudden Oiltemp dropout during climb out
Date: Jun 03, 2014
Michael, 3 times in same flight conditions seems a little suspect to pinpoint it as a sensor / electrical issue, although I would certainly follow advice and add the ground to eliminate that possibility. Having had problems with oil foaming in a previous career, I would wonder if there is a combination of rpm / aircraft attitude / ambient pressure in the climb phase which results in the sensor being in an air or foam pocket rather than having full oil contact, which is then resolved by transition to cruise. That could potentially falsify the sensor reading but might not be a cause for concern if there is no related change in oil pressure. Cheers, Gordon 41015, engine on, baffled ;-) On Jun 3, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Dave Saylor wrote: > I had almost the exact same problem. Replaced the sensor, no help. Finally I put a dedicated ground from as close to the sensor as possible to the firewall. That fixed it. I have a very robust ground from the case to the engine mount, but the OT sensor needed the additional ground. > > --Dave > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Mike Whisky wrote: > > Hello > I have seen now three times in the last 70h of flight that in long climb outs the oil temp dropped within a second from 185 down to 150-155 it stays there and recovers after leveling off most of the time back to normal within a second or so. I believe that this must be a sensor issue as the oil temp can't change that quickly. What is bothering me is that it only happens at the end of those climbs at around d 8k ft. Did anybody come across something similar? > Regards > Michael > > -------- > RV-10 builder (flying) > #511 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424275#424275 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_480.jpg > > > > > ========== > " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > MS - > k">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > e - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sudden Oiltemp dropout during climb out
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Jun 03, 2014
Hi Gordon, thanks for sharing your thoughts I had a similar suspicion. I will now go through my flights and analyze them in Savvyanalysis.com to see if the phenomena occurred really always in a similar attitude, RPM or hight band. But I have found already one exception so wiring/grounding is currently on top of my list. Cheers Michael -------- RV-10 builder (flying) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424309#424309 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: 9:1 Compression Pistons
Danny, You are already at/over the limit and pushing your luck. The limit is TRUE AIRSPEED, not INDICATED airspeed. You need to understand that control flutter is a function of true airspeed, which at most any altitude above sea level is higher than indicated airspeed. 200kts IS 230 mph, you were at indicated in that dive and above the design flutter true airspeed which is 230 MPH. BE CAREFUL out there. One RV-10 lost this week is way too many,. On 6/3/2014 6:30 AM, Danny Riggs wrote: > I have a Barrett with 9:1 pistons and cold air induction. The only way > I can get near the design limit is in a dive. No way can you get there > in any kind of level or near level cruise. Yesterday I had to set the > autopilot to the absolute top speed and it took quite a steep dive to > get to 200 kts. > Nice thing about it that you can go to gross weight and have NO > problem getting off on a hot day. These Barretts with 9:1 and cold air > induction are real "hosses". > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 05:38:00 -0700 > Subject: Re: RV10-List: 9:1 Compression Pistons > From: apilot2(at)gmail.com > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > Vans does not recommend ABOVE 260 hp. 260 hp is recommended as the > maximum and what most RV-10s have. The parallel valve IO-540 does not > come from Lycoming in stock certified form above that hp rating, but > can easily be tweaked through higher compression, porting, cold air > induction, etc to reach close to 300 hp, without using a turbo. Even > turbo normalizing where one does not operate above published 75% power > output(195 hp), but maintains it to a higher altitude, will push true > airspeed up to 230 mph at around 12,000 ft, which is cited in a Vans > paper as why you are flirting with the design limitations when you go > to more horsepower. > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Bob Wilson > wrote: > > > Sorry - I missed something but where is it stated that Van's > doesn't recommend a 260 HP for the RV-10?? > > Bob Wilson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > ] On Behalf Of Kelly > McMullen > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 1:06 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: 9:1 Compression Pistons > > > > > Les, > The standard compression is 8:5 to 1. All Lycoming engines at that > compression were certified on 91/96 octane avgas. > Most will run fine on 91-92 octane mogas. All of the angle valve > higher horsepower engines have 8.7 to 1 compression and require > 100 octane avgas. So you can pretty much be assured that 9 to 1 > compression will require 100 octane. Given that Van's does not > recommend 260 hp on the airframe, the only really benefit to more > horses is climb capability. > Top speed with the 260 hp is around 210-212 mph TAS. Design flutter is > 230 true air speed. How close do you want to shave that margin? > > On 6/2/2014 9:36 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > One of the engine options I have is using 9:1 positions rather > than 8:1. I understand that there is a small HP gain with the 9:1 > pistons. > > > > For those with the 9:1 pistons, is there a significant > performance bump. Has anyone had problems with detonation? > > > > Cheers > > > > Les > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > > > > ========== > 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 > * > > ========== > arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > * > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2014
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Sudden Oiltemp dropout during climb out
I've been waiting for this to come up... I had a similar problem. That is, quick drops and rises of oil temperature. The high points looked like 'normal' temps. The low points were just below the recommended threshold, that is it would reads about 150F. This has been going on for quite awhile. I swapped out sensors but the new sensor at first simply showed me the lower temps. For winter flying, I blocked some of the cooling air to bring the temp up but it seemed to have little impact. At some point, the temps again started vacillating between 'normal' and 'low' temps with no discernible pattern. The vacillations were instantaneous, as in '1 second'. I never got around to trying to do some calibration testing of the sensor. Since everything else seemed right and normal, I just ran with it and removed the cooling air block. I'm using a GRT engine monitor and sensor. I also have an SD-20 alternator installed on the vacuum pump pad (along with a 40amp main alt). During my last oil change, I'm staring at the sensor and the wiring and realize that the generous service loop I have in place for the sensor could allow the wires to rest up against the SD-20 in flight. Could that have something to do with the problem? I can't make any sense of why such a thing would cause such a thing but... I tightened up the service loop a bit so it now looks like this oil temp sensor and SD-20 with tighter service loop I haven't seen anything but 'normal' oil temps since the change with no jumping around. Observation continues. Does this sound possible in other installations? This curious builder wants to know. On 6/3/2014 5:04 AM, Mike Whisky wrote: > > Hello > I have seen now three times in the last 70h of flight that in long climb outs the oil temp dropped within a second from 185 down to 150-155 it stays there and recovers after leveling off most of the time back to normal within a second or so. I believe that this must be a sensor issue as the oil temp can't change that quickly. What is bothering me is that it only happens at the end of those climbs at around d 8k ft. Did anybody come across something similar? > Regards > Michael > > -------- > RV-10 builder (flying) > #511 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Sudden Oiltemp dropout during climb out
Date: Jun 05, 2014
I initially had the short occasional drops in oil temp but cured it by grounding the sensor case. Albert Gardner Yuma, AZ N991RV ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV-10 Down
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 06, 2014
Very sad to hear this. I missed his second from last post on VAF...and no replies. 1500F EGT's!! "I have begun to see lower CHT and EGT on cyls 1 and 3 lately at idle, with EGT not even registering on my MGL Odyssey display until runup. At runup RPM, all temps seem pretty even on all cyls. CHTs are about 50F less than the neighbors but are reasonable. At max power on takeoff the EGTs are slightly higher +50F than the other cyls - just over 1500. At cruise WOT all CHT/EGT readings are very similar on all cylinders. Reducing power sends the EGTs higher on 1 and 3 than the others. Mag drops seem fine and similar on both. When I changed the oil I noticed that I have some dark oily varnish to the left of the plugs and dripped down the intake pipes near the intakes on 1, 2, and 3 cylinders. I suspect that maybe there was some oil was finding its way out around the intake gaskets. I was also thinking that an air leak here (too much induction) at low RPM could make it too lean to fire and explain low rpm pops on the right side of the engine which I sometimes hear, and might explain lower CHT at idle. So, I am going to change the gaskets on the intakes and also the EGT probes - two of which have been replaced in the past three years for bizarre readings. This may be more of the same related behavior, but I want to be sure. Anyone else seen such behavior with their Lyc 540s or its sensors? Other suggestions or thoughts would be appreciated. __________________ Doug Nebert - RV-10, #40546 (SB), started 2/2006, low compression O540 with older CS prop, 375+ hours on Hobbs. Flying since August 2010. Based KONP, Newport, OR" -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424478#424478 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Garage door potentially too low
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jun 07, 2014
Has anyone successfully rolled a complete fuselage out a garage door that is 8 ft 2 in? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424505#424505 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2014
Subject: Re: Garage door potentially too low
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Two thoughts come to mind. Either a motorcycle lift under the nose to lower tail to close to ground, or remove vertical stab. On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:11 PM, bob88 wrote: > > Has anyone successfully rolled a complete fuselage out a garage door that > is 8 ft 2 in? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424505#424505 > > -- - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)gmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 06/07/14
Date: Jun 08, 2014
Need more info. Is the problem the height of the vertical or the width of the gear legs? IIRC we lowered the tire pressure and as the mains cleared we lowered the vertical to clear by slightly raising the nose. If the problem is gear width perhaps removing the wheel pant extensions and possibly the some of the boards attached to the vertical door frame. Eight foot 2 in seems about right for the standard garage door height. We maneuvered the fuselage with vertical and engine easily out the standard height door. Another possibility is the hydraulic crane from harbor freight. We used it to mount the engine and to lift the nose as the airframe was removed from the garage down a sloped driveway. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV10-List Digest Server Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 12:03 AM Subject: RV10-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 06/07/14 * ================================================= Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive ================================================= Today's complete RV10-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the RV10-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 14-06-07&Archive=RV10 Text Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 2014-06-07&Archive=RV10 =============================================== EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive =============================================== ---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 06/07/14: 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 11:12 PM - Garage door potentially too low (bob88) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Subject: RV10-List: Garage door potentially too low From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net> Has anyone successfully rolled a complete fuselage out a garage door that is 8 ft 2 in? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424505#424505 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Garage door potentially too low
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jun 08, 2014
Actually, I am worried about the height of the cabin top. VS is not attached. I am at point of landing gear attach and wondering if I can do that in my garage. I think 8'2" May be typical garage door clearance and a near as I can guesstimate it will be close. Thus would like to hear from someone who has done it (or discovered it couldn't, be done). Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424515#424515 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <lewgall(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Garage door potentially too low
Date: Jun 08, 2014
Hey Bob, With no vertical stab, easily clears 7 feet. I got real good at putting the vert and rudder on and off with a few bolts to tape off for painting. I did have to take off the bottom two feet of molding on the single width door frame sides to clear the wheels with no axel extensions. Later, - Lew ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2014
Subject: Re: Garage door potentially too low
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Lew's right. At a little over 7ft, it's possible. A couple of tips if you need them for a few extra inches.. 1) You can disconnect the garage door from the door opener chain/rail and shove the door up a few more inches. 2) You can let some air out of the tires. 3) You can add some weight to the fuselage to squat the landing gear. You can find quite a few inches if you need to find them. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 7:34 AM, wrote: > > > Hey Bob, > > With no vertical stab, easily clears 7 feet. I got real good at putting > the vert and rudder on and off with a few bolts to tape off for painting. > I did have to take off the bottom two feet of molding on the single width > door frame sides to clear the wheels with no axel extensions. > > Later, - Lew > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <pullbacknow(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: utf-8?Q?RV10-List:_Project_for_sale?
Date: Jun 09, 2014
DQoNCg0KQnVpbGRlcnMsIEkgYW0gZ29pbmcgdG8gbGlzdCBvdXIgUlYxMCBmb3Igc2FsZSBhcyBh IHBhcnRpYWxseSBidWlsdCBraXQuIEnigJltIHBvc3RpbmcgaXQgaGVyZSBmaXJzdC4gT3VyIGZh bWlsaWVzIG5lZWRzIGZvciBhIDQgcGxhY2UgaGFzIGNoYW5nZWQgYW5kIHdlIGhhdmUgZGVjaWRl ZCB0byBzZWxsIGl0IG9mZiBiZWZvcmUgY29tcGxldGlvbiBzbyB3ZSBjb3VsZCBzdGFydCBvbiBh IChhbm90aGVyKSAyIHNlYXQgUlYuIEl0cyB3ZWxsIHBhc3QgcXVpY2sgYnVpbHQgKGV4Y2VwdCBm dWVsIHRhbmtzKS4gRnVzZSB0b3AgaXMgb24gd2l0aCB1cHBlciBlbXBlbm5hZ2UuIEJyYWtlcyBh bmQgd2hlZWwgaGFyZHdhcmUgY29tcGxldGVkLiBJdHMgb24gaXRzIGdlYXIsIGFuZCByZWFsbHkg bmVlZHMgZ2xhc3MgYW5kIGNvd2wgaW5zdGFsbGVkIG5leHQuICBGb3IgcGljdHVyZXMgZm9sbG93 IHRoZSBsaW5rIGJlbG93LiBXZSBsaXZlIGluIEJ1ZmZhbG8gTlkuIA0KDQpXZSBhcmUgbG9va2lu ZyB0byBjb3ZlciBjb21wb25lbnQgY29zdHMgb2YgdGhlIGtpdCBwbHVzIGEgZmV3IG9mIHRoZSBl eHRyYXMuICAgIA0KDQpUaGVyZSBpcyBleHRlbnNpdmUgd2lyaW5nIGFuZCBwbHVtYmluZyBpbnN0 YWxsZWQsIGFzIHdlbGwgYXMgYW4gSU8tNTQwIGVuZ2luZSBjb3JlLCBhbnRlbm5hcywgYW5kIG1h bnkgZXh0cmFzLiANCg0KUGxlYXNlIHB1dCB0aGUgd29yZCBvdXQgZm9yIHVzLCBhbmQgRW1haWwg dXMgZGlyZWN0bHkgYXQgcHVsbGJhY2tub3dAeWFob28uY29tIGZvciBtb3JlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9u LiANCg0KDQoNCg0KR2VuYSBhbmQgU3RldmUNCg0KDQoNCmh0dHA6Ly9pMTIyOC5waG90b2J1Y2tl dC5jb20vYWxidW1zL2VlNDQ4L2NhcHN0ZXZlL1JWMTAlMjBmb3IlMjBzYWxlL0lNR18yMDEzMDgw MV8xNzUyNTYuanBnfm9yaWdpbmFs ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 08, 2014
Subject: Re: Garage door potentially too low
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
I just checked today. The fuselage, on the landing gear, with engine installed is right around seven feet tall over the doors. So going through an 8 ft tall door would not be an issue with vertical stab removed. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > Lew's right. At a little over 7ft, it's possible. > > A couple of tips if you need them for a few extra inches.. > 1) You can disconnect the garage door from the door opener chain/rail and > shove the door up a few more inches. > 2) You can let some air out of the tires. > 3) You can add some weight to the fuselage to squat the landing gear. > > You can find quite a few inches if you need to find them. > > > On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 7:34 AM, wrote: > >> >> >> Hey Bob, >> >> With no vertical stab, easily clears 7 feet. I got real good at putting >> the vert and rudder on and off with a few bolts to tape off for painting. >> I did have to take off the bottom two feet of molding on the single width >> door frame sides to clear the wheels with no axel extensions. >> >> Later, - Lew >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> =================================== >> " target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> =================================== >> MS - >> k">http://forums.matronics.com >> =================================== >> e - >> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> =================================== >> >> >> >> > * > > > * > > -- - sent from the microchip implanted in my forearm ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Garage door potentially too low
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jun 09, 2014
Thanks guys Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424532#424532 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Garage door potentially too low
From: "Greg McFarlane" <grbcmcfarlane(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 09, 2014
This is how I took 40389 out and back into a 94inch wide garage to trial fit wings/wing root fairings etc,.....sideways with 2 car dolly platforms with castor wheels. Cheers from Western Australia [Laughing] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424535#424535 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/image_696.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Garage door potentially too low
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jun 09, 2014
Brilliant work out in Oz Greg! Thanks for the photo. My problem was just to make sure the vertical clearance would be enough once I have the gear on. At 8'2", seems I'll be OK. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424562#424562 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Added VIRB mount at PlaneAround
From: "Strasnuts" <sean(at)planearound.com>
Date: Jun 09, 2014
Along with the tie down and wingtip GoPro mount, PlaneAround now offers a Garmin VIRB tie down and/or wingtip mount. Order at planearound.com -------- 40936 RV-10 SB N801VR Flying 400 hours Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424570#424570 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/virb_1_868.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2014
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Brake Fluid Out Top Of Reservoir
Did a few taxi test runs today before first flight hopefully this Saturday. When I got her back in the hangar I noticed brake fluid on the belly. Taking off the top cowl I noticed that brake fluid was coming out the top of the reservoir vent cap. I assume that I had it too full? So, how full is full enough where applying the brakes no longer allows it to seep out the top of the reservoir? Thanks, -Sean #40303 (Prepping for first flight) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Brake Fluid Out Top Of Reservoir
I think you still had some air trapped in the system somewhere that forced some fluid back to the reservoir. The expansion was probably due to the air being heated ..... probably near the brake piston. It only takes a small bit of oil to look like you lost a gallon ...... I'd bleed the brakes again .... from the bottom. I have a PVC pipe capped on one end and the other with a female adapter. A plug with a small hole in the end allows you to fill the pipe, put the plug in and put some shop air through the hole. Doesn't take much pressure. Plastic tubing pushed into an undersized hole near the cap on the bottom feeds the fluid to a fitting screwed into the brake cylinder in place of the 'pressure relief' fitting. A barb fitting screwed into the reservoir allows you to capture the 'overflow' and run it into a clean container so you can re-use it. Wait 'till all the bubbles in the line are gone ..... at that point you should have a 'full' brake system .... at least on that side. ;-) Linn On 6/9/2014 6:42 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > Did a few taxi test runs today before first flight hopefully this > Saturday. > > When I got her back in the hangar I noticed brake fluid on the belly. > Taking off the top cowl I noticed that brake fluid was coming out the > top of the reservoir vent cap. I assume that I had it too full? > > So, how full is full enough where applying the brakes no longer allows > it to seep out the top of the reservoir? > > Thanks, > > -Sean #40303 (Prepping for first flight) > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: Night Vision
Date: Jun 09, 2014
While researching cabin lighting, I came across this article on night vision which might be useful to others: Night Vision - The Red Myth Jeff Carpenter 40304 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Bennett" <gary(at)bendun.net>
Subject: Night Vision
Date: Jun 09, 2014
As an amateur astronomer, I am very familiar with the importance of preserving night vision (dark adapted). I wouldn't call red light a "myth". The issue is NOT the color of light, but rather, the intensity. Our eyes see low intensity red light better than other colors. The problem today is that everything has gone LED and red LED flashlights are extremely bright. We had to start a whole new kind of education about that. With those new LED's you might as well just use white light because your night vision is destroyed just as easily if that red light is too bright. Gary Bennett http://bendun.net/ http://photos.bendun.net/ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter Sent: June-09-14 7:49 PM Subject: RV10-List: Night Vision While researching cabin lighting, I came across this article on night vision which might be useful to others: Night Vision - The Red Myth <http://stlplaces.com/night_vision_red_myth/> Jeff Carpenter 40304 D======================== ========= D======================== ========= D======================== ========= D======================== ========= ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Night Vision
From: "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net>
Date: Jun 09, 2014
A lot of info in that article, but I don't think it would help me pick lighting for my cabin. I also note that the website is St. Louis, Places to See, and the poster is anonymous. While that doesn't make the info incorrect, it doesn't give me confidence in the source. When I was looking at cabin lighting, I contacted a friend who is an ophthalmologist and long time pilot. He has a fleet of 6 planes; everything from a C150 to a Citation. His recommendation is to use blue light if your primary concern is seeing things inside the cabin: instruments, maps, etc. Use red if your more concerned with seeing stuff outside the cabin; other planes, stuff on the ground, etc. Jim Berry RV-10 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424591#424591 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rear window installation
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jun 09, 2014
I'm noticing quite a deep flange on the front edge of the rear window (left side) where I had to build up the cabin cover to fit the door. The choice is to shim it (with washers per Vans) or lay in a layer or two of glass on the flange before installing the window. The excess depth is about 3/16" (about a three washer stack would be needed). Suggestions? Better ideas? Go with the washers and hope to fill the channel with adhesive? I plan to use the Lord adhesive. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424600#424600 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jun 10, 2014
I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the mounting of their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator in the sub panel behind the main panel. My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the mounted position, without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub panel once all is completed. I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) who has devised a 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. Warm regards Patrick South Australia ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2014
I put the voltage regulator for my backup alternator behind the sub panel. I ran out of room to mount it on the main panel. I've had to get behind the sub panel for other reasons several times. Once you take the stick out, it isn't too bad getting back there. Bob Sent from my iPad > On Jun 10, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: > > > I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the mounting of their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. > > I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator in the sub panel behind the main panel. > > My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the mounted position, without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub panel once all is completed. > > I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) who has devised a 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. > > Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. > > Warm regards > > Patrick > South Australia > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear window installation
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2014
I shimmed mine with small pieces of cured fiberglass. I only had one place that needed shimming. Either method should work. Sent from my iPad > On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:52 AM, "bob88" wrote: > > > I'm noticing quite a deep flange on the front edge of the rear window (left side) where I had to build up the cabin cover to fit the door. The choice is to shim it (with washers per Vans) or lay in a layer or two of glass on the flange before installing the window. The excess depth is about 3/16" (about a three washer stack would be needed). Suggestions? Better ideas? Go with the washers and hope to fill the channel with adhesive? I plan to use the Lord adhesive. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424600#424600 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jun 10, 2014
Bob Thanks for the reassurance Warm regards Patrick > On 10 Jun 2014, at 18:58, Bob Leffler wrote: > > > I put the voltage regulator for my backup alternator behind the sub panel. I ran out of room to mount it on the main panel. I've had to get behind the sub panel for other reasons several times. Once you take the stick out, it isn't too bad getting back there. > > Bob > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Jun 10, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: >> >> >> I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the mounting of their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. >> >> I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator in the sub panel behind the main panel. >> >> My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the mounted position, without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub panel once all is completed. >> >> I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) who has devised a 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. >> >> Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. >> >> Warm regards >> >> Patrick >> South Australia >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Brake Fluid Out Top Of Reservoir
From: Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2014
I would remove just a tad from where it is right now so you dont get any more overflow. Niko Nikolaos Napoli > On Jun 9, 2014, at 6:42 PM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > > Did a few taxi test runs today before first flight hopefully this Saturday. > > When I got her back in the hangar I noticed brake fluid on the belly. Taking off the top cowl I noticed that brake fluid was coming out the top of the reservoir vent cap. I assume that I had it too full? > > So, how full is full enough where applying the brakes no longer allows it to seep out the top of the reservoir? > > Thanks, > > -Sean #40303 (Prepping for first flight) > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Night Vision
From: "dhmoose" <dhmoose(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2014
Jim Berry wrote: > > > When I was looking at cabin lighting, I contacted a friend who is an ophthalmologist and long time pilot. He has a fleet of 6 planes; everything from a C150 to a Citation. I should have been an Opthamologist! Arrgggg. :) -------- David Halmos RV-10 Flying! Portland, OR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424629#424629 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Night Vision
But the red light washes out the magenta color on the sectionals ...... which is why you need a white light to see all the colors .... Linn On 6/9/2014 10:22 PM, Jim Berry wrote: > > A lot of info in that article, but I don't think it would help me pick lighting for my cabin. I also note that the website is St. Louis, Places to See, and the poster is anonymous. While that doesn't make the info incorrect, it doesn't give me confidence in the source. > > When I was looking at cabin lighting, I contacted a friend who is an ophthalmologist and long time pilot. He has a fleet of 6 planes; everything from a C150 to a Citation. His recommendation is to use blue light if your primary concern is seeing things inside the cabin: instruments, maps, etc. Use red if your more concerned with seeing stuff outside the cabin; other planes, stuff on the ground, etc. > > Jim Berry > RV-10 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424591#424591 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Karol Hansen <karolamy(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Brake Fluid Out Top Of Reservoir
Date: Jun 10, 2014
On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:02 AM, RV10-List Digest Server wrote: > Brake Fluid Out Top Of Reservoir Sean, I don=92t think you ever got an answer as to brake fluid level in Master Cylinder. The cylinder does need to have room for expansion of the fluid as it heats up on braking and so about 3/4 is a good working level for me in past RV=92s. I put a mark on the outside of the cylinder about 3/4 of the way up from the bottom. Take the cap off. Put a finger on the mark on the outside and look in the cylinder matching the fluid level with your finger on the outside. Of course, use a flashlight if needed. If it is too high, syphon a bit out of the M/C with a small hose. That said, I also agree that you should bleed the system (both sides) again to make sure you have removed all air from the lines. I like to screw a fitting (something like ACS part # AN840-4D -$4.45) into the M/C top. Then push on several feet of some tight fitting clear tubing so you can see what comes out. Put the other end of the tubing into a container, then go back down to the calipers and bleed away. Remember we are trying to force the fluid into the calipers through the lines and up into the master cylinder. If you are using Vans stock brake lines you can at least see if there is air in the transfer tubes, so carefully check these. Hope that helps=85.. Rich ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
I wouldn't mount it on the sub-panel just for the reasons you gave. And there's accessibility problems in case you have to troubleshoot a charging issue. I'd mount it on the firewall or on a bracket near the alternator. However, I'm curious why you want to mount the regulator inside the cabin instead of on the engine side of the firewall. Linn On 6/10/2014 5:05 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: > > I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the mounting of their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. > > I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator in the sub panel behind the main panel. > > My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the mounted position, without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub panel once all is completed. > > I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) who has devised a 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. > > Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. > > Warm regards > > Patrick > South Australia > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
Date: Jun 10, 2014
I'm just curious as to why you are using an alternator with an external regular? As we know this charging system design went out in the mid 60s on cars and for good reason. The Plane Power alternator like Van's sells has an internal regulator. I have several years using this alternator on two RVs and they have been trouble free. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:47 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator I wouldn't mount it on the sub-panel just for the reasons you gave. And there's accessibility problems in case you have to troubleshoot a charging issue. I'd mount it on the firewall or on a bracket near the alternator. However, I'm curious why you want to mount the regulator inside the cabin instead of on the engine side of the firewall. Linn On 6/10/2014 5:05 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: > --> > > I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the mounting of their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. > > I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator in the sub panel behind the main panel. > > My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the mounted position, without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub panel once all is completed. > > I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) who has devised a 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. > > Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. > > Warm regards > > Patrick > South Australia > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
Date: Jun 10, 2014
Linn That's probably because there are recommendations to mount the regulator on the cabin side of the firewall. Carlos -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters Sent: tera-feira, 10 de Junho de 2014 16:47 Subject: Re: RV10-List: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator I wouldn't mount it on the sub-panel just for the reasons you gave. And there's accessibility problems in case you have to troubleshoot a charging issue. I'd mount it on the firewall or on a bracket near the alternator. However, I'm curious why you want to mount the regulator inside the cabin instead of on the engine side of the firewall. Linn On 6/10/2014 5:05 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: > --> > > I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the mounting of their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. > > I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator in the sub panel behind the main panel. > > My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the mounted position, without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub panel once all is completed. > > I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) who has devised a 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. > > Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. > > Warm regards > > Patrick > South Australia > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > --- Este email est livre de vrus e malware porque a proteo avast! Antivirus est ativa. http://www.avast.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2014
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Brake Fluid Out Top Of Reservoir
Thanks guys. I'll lower the level a bit in the reservoir and see how it goes. I've used the bottom up bleeding method recommended and the brakes were good. No soft spots noticed on a few taxi runs. > Karol Hansen > June 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM > > > Sean, > I dont think you ever got an answer as to brake fluid level in Master > Cylinder. The cylinder does need to have room for expansion of the > fluid as it heats up on braking and so about 3/4 is a good working > level for me in past RVs. I put a mark on the outside of the > cylinder about 3/4 of the way up from the bottom. Take the cap off. > Put a finger on the mark on the outside and look in the cylinder > matching the fluid level with your finger on the outside. Of course, > use a flashlight if needed. If it is too high, syphon a bit out of > the M/C with a small hose. > > That said, I also agree that you should bleed the system (both sides) > again to make sure you have removed all air from the lines. I like to > screw a fitting (something like ACS part # AN840-4D -$4.45) into the > M/C top. Then push on several feet of some tight fitting clear tubing > so you can see what comes out. Put the other end of the tubing into a > container, then go back down to the calipers and bleed away. Remember > we are trying to force the fluid into the calipers through the lines > and up into the master cylinder. If you are using Vans stock brake > lines you can at least see if there is air in the transfer tubes, so > carefully check these. Hope that helps.. > > Rich > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
Where did those recommendations come from??? I've never seen a voltage regulator installed inside the cabin on certified A/C nor all the homebuilts I've ever looked at. I seriously doubt that the cabin-side recommendations came from Plane Power. Linn On 6/10/2014 12:59 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Linn > > That's probably because there are recommendations to mount the regulator on > the cabin side of the firewall. > > Carlos > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters > Sent: tera-feira, 10 de Junho de 2014 16:47 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator > > > I wouldn't mount it on the sub-panel just for the reasons you gave. And > there's accessibility problems in case you have to troubleshoot a charging > issue. I'd mount it on the firewall or on a bracket near the alternator. > However, I'm curious why you want to mount the regulator inside the cabin > instead of on the engine side of the firewall. > Linn > > On 6/10/2014 5:05 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: >> --> >> >> I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the mounting of > their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. >> I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator in the sub panel > behind the main panel. >> My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the mounted position, > without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub panel once > all is completed. >> I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) who has devised a > 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. >> Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. >> >> Warm regards >> >> Patrick >> South Australia >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> > > > --- > Este email est livre de vrus e malware porque a proteo avast! Antivirus est ativa. > http://www.avast.com > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2014
Subject: Re: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
From: Bob Condrey <condreyb(at)gmail.com>
Here's one recommendation to mount on the cabin side of the firewall from the B&C regulator instructions in the first paragraph: http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/LR3C_Wiring_and_Installation_RevC.pdf Bob On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Linn Walters wrote : > > Where did those recommendations come from??? > I've never seen a voltage regulator installed inside the cabin on > certified A/C nor all the homebuilts I've ever looked at. I seriously > doubt that the cabin-side recommendations came from Plane Power. > Linn > > On 6/10/2014 12:59 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > >> >> Linn >> >> That's probably because there are recommendations to mount the regulator >> on >> the cabin side of the firewall. >> >> Carlos >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters >> Sent: ter=C3=A7a-feira, 10 de Junho de 2014 16:47 >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator >> >> >> I wouldn't mount it on the sub-panel just for the reasons you gave. And >> there's accessibility problems in case you have to troubleshoot a chargi ng >> issue. I'd mount it on the firewall or on a bracket near the alternator . >> However, I'm curious why you want to mount the regulator inside the cabi n >> instead of on the engine side of the firewall. >> Linn >> >> On 6/10/2014 5:05 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: >> >>> --> >>> >>> I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the mounting of >>> >> their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. >> >>> I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator in the sub pan el >>> >> behind the main panel. >> >>> My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the mounted >>> position, >>> >> without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub panel onc e >> all is completed. >> >>> I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) who has devise d >>> a >>> >> 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. >> >>> Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. >>> >>> Warm regards >>> >>> Patrick >>> South Australia >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> Este email est=C3=A1 livre de v=C3=ADrus e malware porque a prote=C3=A7 =C3=A3o avast! >> Antivirus est=C3=A1 ativa. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> >> > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
Thank you Bob! I'm a better educated consumer. ;-) I've seen temps inside the cabin (closed up, of course) higher than the engine compartment a few times but that's not a great statistical sample. For that very reason I would not buy the B&C, but wouldn't know about that suggestion until I had already purchased it. :-( The Plane Power regulator doesn't have that particular suggestion ...... I checked. Linn On 6/10/2014 2:37 PM, Bob Condrey wrote: > Here's one recommendation to mount on the cabin side of the firewall > from the B&C regulator instructions in the first paragraph: > http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/LR3C_Wiring_and_Installation_RevC.pdf > Bob > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Linn Walters > wrote: > > > > > Where did those recommendations come from??? > I've never seen a voltage regulator installed inside the cabin on > certified A/C nor all the homebuilts I've ever looked at. I > seriously doubt that the cabin-side recommendations came from > Plane Power. > Linn > > On 6/10/2014 12:59 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > > > Linn > > That's probably because there are recommendations to mount the > regulator on > the cabin side of the firewall. > > Carlos > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > ] On Behalf Of > Linn Walters > Sent: tera-feira, 10 de Junho de 2014 16:47 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage > Regulator > > > > > I wouldn't mount it on the sub-panel just for the reasons you > gave. And > there's accessibility problems in case you have to > troubleshoot a charging > issue. I'd mount it on the firewall or on a bracket near the > alternator. > However, I'm curious why you want to mount the regulator > inside the cabin > instead of on the engine side of the firewall. > Linn > > On 6/10/2014 5:05 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: > > --> > > > I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the > mounting of > > their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. > > I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator > in the sub panel > > behind the main panel. > > My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the > mounted position, > > without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub > panel once > all is completed. > > I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) > who has devised a > > 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. > > Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. > > Warm regards > > Patrick > South Australia > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> > > > --- > Este email est livre de vrus e malware porque a proteo > avast! Antivirus est ativa. > http://www.avast.com > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> > ============================================the many List > utilities such as List Un/Subscription, > ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ====================== --> http://forums.matronics.com > <http://forums.matronics.com/> > ====================== -Matt Dralle, > List Admin. > ================================ > > > * > > > * > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 10, 2014
Subject: Re: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
From: Bob Condrey <condreyb(at)gmail.com>
Lancair actually mounts them on the engine side of the firewall from the factory for those that chose quick build firewall stuff. Here's also a comment from Bob Nuckolls on the subject: " *EVERY manufacturer would like to have you place THEIR product in the most benign environment possible. But the bottom line is that short of bolting the LR3 to an engine or exhaust part, it will be fine on the forward side of the firewall also."* Bob On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Linn Walters wrote : > Thank you Bob! I'm a better educated consumer. ;-) > I've seen temps inside the cabin (closed up, of course) higher than the > engine compartment a few times but that's not a great statistical sample. > For that very reason I would not buy the B&C, but wouldn't know about tha t > suggestion until I had already purchased it. :-( > The Plane Power regulator doesn't have that particular suggestion ...... I > checked. > Linn > > > On 6/10/2014 2:37 PM, Bob Condrey wrote: > > Here's one recommendation to mount on the cabin side of the firewall from > the B&C regulator instructions in the first paragraph: > http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/LR3C_Wiring_and_Installation_RevC.pdf > > Bob > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Linn Walters > wrote: > >> >> Where did those recommendations come from??? >> I've never seen a voltage regulator installed inside the cabin on >> certified A/C nor all the homebuilts I've ever looked at. I seriously >> doubt that the cabin-side recommendations came from Plane Power. >> Linn >> >> On 6/10/2014 12:59 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: >> >>> >>> Linn >>> >>> That's probably because there are recommendations to mount the regulato r >>> on >>> the cabin side of the firewall. >>> >>> Carlos >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters >>> Sent: ter=C3=A7a-feira, 10 de Junho de 2014 16:47 >>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator >>> >>> >>> I wouldn't mount it on the sub-panel just for the reasons you gave. An d >>> there's accessibility problems in case you have to troubleshoot a >>> charging >>> issue. I'd mount it on the firewall or on a bracket near the alternato r. >>> However, I'm curious why you want to mount the regulator inside the cab in >>> instead of on the engine side of the firewall. >>> Linn >>> >>> On 6/10/2014 5:05 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: >>> >>>> --> >>>> >>>> I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the mounting of >>>> >>> their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. >>> >>>> I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator in the sub >>>> panel >>>> >>> behind the main panel. >>> >>>> My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the mounted >>>> position, >>>> >>> without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub panel on ce >>> all is completed. >>> >>>> I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) who has >>>> devised a >>>> >>> 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. >>> >>>> Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. >>>> >>>> Warm regards >>>> >>>> Patrick >>>> South Australia >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> Este email est=C3=A1 livre de v=C3=ADrus e malware porque a prote=C3=A7 =C3=A3o avast! >>> Antivirus est=C3=A1 ativa. >>> http://www.avast.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> ======================= =====================the many Lis t utilities such >>> as List Un/Subscription, >>> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target="_blank"> >>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>> ====================== --> http://forums.matronics.com >>> ====================== -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >>> ======================= ========= >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > 06/10/14 > > > * > =========== onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> =========== =========== om/contribution> =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Wilson <bob(at)rjw.cc>
Subject: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
Date: Jun 10, 2014
Both of the regulators on my C310 were under the right front passengers seat. Bob Wilson -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:20 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator Where did those recommendations come from??? I've never seen a voltage regulator installed inside the cabin on certified A/C nor all the homebuilts I've ever looked at. I seriously doubt that the cabin-side recommendations came from Plane Power. Linn On 6/10/2014 12:59 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > --> > > Linn > > That's probably because there are recommendations to mount the > regulator on the cabin side of the firewall. > > Carlos > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn > Walters > Sent: tera-feira, 10 de Junho de 2014 16:47 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage > Regulator > > > I wouldn't mount it on the sub-panel just for the reasons you gave. > And there's accessibility problems in case you have to troubleshoot a > charging issue. I'd mount it on the firewall or on a bracket near the alternator. > However, I'm curious why you want to mount the regulator inside the > cabin instead of on the engine side of the firewall. > Linn > > On 6/10/2014 5:05 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: >> --> >> >> I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the mounting of > their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. >> I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator in the sub >> panel > behind the main panel. >> My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the mounted >> position, > without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub panel > once all is completed. >> I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) who has >> devised a > 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. >> Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. >> >> Warm regards >> >> Patrick >> South Australia >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> > > > --- > Este email est livre de vrus e malware porque a proteo avast! Antivirus est ativa. > http://www.avast.com > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator
Date: Jun 10, 2014
Mine is mounted on the left sidewall just forward of the door. Been there since 2006 and works just fine there. Hid it behind one of Abbey's side panels. Easy to get to if needed. grumpy N184JM do not archivie On Jun 10, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Bob Condrey wrote: > Here's one recommendation to mount on the cabin side of the firewall from the B&C regulator instructions in the first paragraph: > http://www.bandc.biz/pdfs/LR3C_Wiring_and_Installation_RevC.pdf > > Bob > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Linn Walters wrote: > > Where did those recommendations come from??? > I've never seen a voltage regulator installed inside the cabin on certified A/C nor all the homebuilts I've ever looked at. I seriously doubt that the cabin-side recommendations came from Plane Power. > Linn > > On 6/10/2014 12:59 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Linn > > That's probably because there are recommendations to mount the regulator on > the cabin side of the firewall. > > Carlos > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters > Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 10 de Junho de 2014 16:47 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Mounting External Plane Power Voltage Regulator > > > I wouldn't mount it on the sub-panel just for the reasons you gave. And > there's accessibility problems in case you have to troubleshoot a charging > issue. I'd mount it on the firewall or on a bracket near the alternator. > However, I'm curious why you want to mount the regulator inside the cabin > instead of on the engine side of the firewall. > Linn > > On 6/10/2014 5:05 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: > --> > > I'd like to hear from other builders please regarding the mounting of > their external Plane a Power (or similar) voltage regulator. > I was thinking of mounting my external voltage regulator in the sub panel > behind the main panel. > My only concern is accessibility to the regulator in the mounted position, > without having to be a contortionist to gain access to the sub panel once > all is completed. > I'd be interested to hear from anyone (and see pictures) who has devised a > 'drop down' mounting panel which can provide easy access. > Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated please. > > Warm regards > > Patrick > South Australia > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > > > > > --- > Este email est=E1 livre de v=EDrus e malware porque a prote=E7=E3o avast! Antivirus est=E1 ativa. > http://www.avast.com > > > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > ======================== ====================the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription, > ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ====================== --> http://forums.matronics.com > ====================== -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > ======================== ======== > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Night Vision
From: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2014
Sectionals?!?!? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424715#424715 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Night Vision
Yup, sectionals. When the brown stuff impacts the spinning cooler thingy and the expensive things go dark ..... they come in handy. Mine are lacking currency big time but I still carry them. My clear spheroid has failed to warn me of impending cataclysms ...... Linn On 6/11/2014 1:41 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote: > > Sectionals?!?!? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424715#424715 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 11, 2014
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Night Vision
That's what the Ipad and Foreflight is for.=0A=0A=0A=0A____________________ ____________=0A From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@ matronics.com =0ASent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:00 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV10 ers =0A=0AYup, sectionals.- When the brown stuff i mpacts the spinning cooler =0Athingy and the expensive things go dark ..... they come in handy.- Mine =0Aare lacking currency big time but I still c arry them.- My clear spheroid =0Ahas failed to warn me of impending catac lysms ......=0ALinn=0A=0AOn 6/11/2014 1:41 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:=0A> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rocketman1988" =0A> =0A> Sectionals?!?!?=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> Read this topic online here:=0A> =0A> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424715#424715=0A>=0A>=0A >=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> -----=0A> No virus found in this - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List ====== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: N62DN
Date: Jun 13, 2014
Does anyone know whether this aircraft was an electronic ignition aircraft? I read the preliminary NTSB report and the survivor interview where she stated that the engine went silent and the electronics failed immediately thereafter? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: N62DN
Date: Jun 13, 2014
NTSB Identification: WPR14FA218 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Saturday, May 31, 2014 in Toldeo, OR Aircraft: NEBERT VANS RV-10, registration: N62DN Injuries: 2 Fatal,1 Serious. This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report. On May 31, 2014, about 1620 Pacific daylight time, a single-engine experimental Nebert Vans RV-10, N62DN, experienced a loss of power and departed control flight while the pilot was maneuvering for a forced landing in Toledo, Oregon. The private pilot and four-year old passenger were fatally injured; the adult passenger sustained serious injuries. The airplane was registered to and being operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The personal flight departed Newport Municipal Airport, Newport, Oregon with a planned destination of Seattle, Washington. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan had been filed. Numerous witnesses located in Toledo reported observing the airplane flying at a low altitude from the north. The witnesses reported hearing no sound from the airplane's engine and saw it progressively descend in altitude. The airplane approached the Georgia Pacific paper mill and made a steep turn to the left. The airplane subsequently made a rapid descent and impacted terrain in a nose-low near-vertical attitude. The surviving passenger recalled the flight although was heavily medicated during the recounting of the events that transpired. She stated that she was in the aft right seat and her daughter was buckled in a car seat positioned in the aft left seat. Luggage was strapped in the front right seat in an effort to compensate for the aft weight. The departure seemed normal and the pilot commented that the engine sounded the best ever had prior. The airplane continued the takeoff climb through some cloud wisps and ascended above a lower cloud cover, with an overcast layer above. The passenger further stated that suddenly the engine experienced a total loss of power, which she described as the airplane stopping forward motion and there was no engine sound. An alarm sounded and shortly thereafter, all of the airplane electric system failed. She recalled observing the screen in front of the pilot flickered and then went blank. The pilot was busy pressing buttons and maneuvering levers and indicated that they were going to land at the closest airport [which was Toledo]. The airplane descended through clouds heading toward the airport. The pilot stated that they were going to make it to the airport and he was looking for a place to land. The airplane made an alert sound, which she thought indicated the airplane was moving too slow. The pilot made a left turn and tried to pull up but the airplane spiraled down harder to the ground. The accident site was located in the paper mill adjacent to the Yaquina River in Toledo, Oregon, with the debris confined to the immediate area near the main wreckage. The closest airport to the accident was in Toledo, Oregon and was located 0.7 nm for the accident site on a heading of 192-degrees. The wreckage came to rest in a flat area which was a portion of dirt road on the perimeter of the mill. Surrounding the site were 20 ft high stacked bales of crushed cardboard boxes and a railroad track with parked train cars. Additionally, a northwest-southeast oriented 12 ft-diameter tubular conveyer was near the accident site that was about 70 feet high and 1,625 ft long. The main wreckage, which consisted of nearly the entire airplane, was on a heading of 310 degrees. The initial point of impact consisted of a ground scar and disrupted dirt located about 25 feet and on the bearing of 220 degree from the cockpit section of the main wreckage. Embedded in the dirt were fragments of red lens and shards of paint and fiberglass, consistent with the left wing impacting first. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 13, 2014
Subject: Re: N62DN
From: Ed Kranz <ed.kranz(at)gmail.com>
>From his build site: http://websites.expercraft.com/douglasn/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=51251 ....it looks like he was running mags on a carbureted engine. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:12 PM, DLM wrote: > Does anyone know whether this aircraft was an electronic ignition > aircraft? I read the preliminary NTSB report and the survivor interview > where she stated that the engine went silent and the electronics failed > immediately thereafter? > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben" <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Date: Jun 13, 2014
Subject: Re: N62DN
Sad deal.. But.. Like many other crashes after a engine failure....... FLY the plane and do NOT get slow..... Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)cox.net> Subject: RV10-List: N62DN Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:12:04 -0700 Does anyone know whether this aircraft was an electronic ignition aircra ft? I read the preliminary NTSB report and the survivor interview where she stated that the engine went silent and the electronics failed immedi ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ============== ____________________________________________________________ LensCrafters=C2=AE Glasses & Frames at LensCrafters. Visit Online or a Store Near You! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/539b6345e667f6345636fst03duc ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Wilson <bob(at)rjw.cc>
Subject: N62DN
Date: Jun 15, 2014
SW50ZXJlc3RpbmcgdG8gbm90ZSB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgTHljb21pbmcgTWFuZGF0b3J5IFNl cnZpY2UgQnVsbGV0aW4gIzU1NCAoZGF0ZWQgU2VwdCAzMCwgMjAwMikgdGhhdCAgbWFuZGF0ZWQg YSBDcmFua3NoYWZ0IEdlYXIgUmV0YWluaW5nIEJvbHQgUmVwbGFjZW1lbnQuICAgIEV4Y2VycHQg YmVsb3cuDQoNCuKAnCBBbGwgTywgSU8sIChMKVRJTyBvciBBRUlPLTU0MCBlbmdpbmVzIHRoYXQg aGF2ZSBoYWQgYSBjcmFua3NoYWZ0IGJvbHQgcmVwbGFjZWQgZHVyaW5nIG1haW50ZW5hbmNlIG9y IG92ZXJoYXVsIGJldHdlZW4gTm92ZW1iZXIgMjcsIDE5OTYgYW5kIE5vdmVtYmVyIDEwLCAxOTk4 LiAgTHljb21pbmcgaGFzIGRldGVybWluZWQgdGhhdCBhIG1ldGFsbHVyZ2ljYWwgY29uZGl0aW9u IGhhcyBjYXVzZWQgY3JhbmtzaGFmdCBnZWFyIHJldGFpbmluZyBib2x0cyB0byBmYWlsIGluIHNl cnZpY2UuIFRoZSBjcmFua3NoYWZ0IGdlYXIgZHJpdmVzIGJvdGggbWFnbmV0b3MgYW5kIHRoZSBj YW1zaGFmdC4gRmFpbHVyZSBvZiB0aGUgcmV0YWluaW5nIGJvbHQgcmVzdWx0cyBpbiB0b3RhbCBs b3NzIG9mIHBvd2VyIHdpdGhvdXQgcHJpb3Igd2FybmluZy4gTHljb21pbmcgcmVxdWlyZXMgdGhh dCB0aGUgY3JhbmtzaGFmdCBnZWFyIHJldGFpbmluZyBib2x0IGJlIHJlcGxhY2VkIHdpdGggdGhl IG5ldyBib2x0IFAvTiBTVEQtMjIwOSAoY2FkbWl1bSBwbGF0ZWQgYW5kIHNpbHZlciBpbiBjb2xv ciku4oCdDQpCb2IgV2lsc29uDQoNCkZyb206IG93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9u aWNzLmNvbSBbbWFpbHRvOm93bmVyLXJ2MTAtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbV0gT24g QmVoYWxmIE9mIEVkIEtyYW56DQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIEp1bmUgMTMsIDIwMTQgNDo0MSBQTQ0K VG86IHJ2MTAtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogUlYxMC1MaXN0OiBONjJE Tg0KDQpGcm9tIGhpcyBidWlsZCBzaXRlOiBodHRwOi8vd2Vic2l0ZXMuZXhwZXJjcmFmdC5jb20v ZG91Z2xhc24vaW5kZXgucGhwP3E9bG9nX2VudHJ5JmxvZ19pZD01MTI1MQ0KDQouLi4uaXQgbG9v a3MgbGlrZSBoZSB3YXMgcnVubmluZyBtYWdzIG9uIGEgY2FyYnVyZXRlZCBlbmdpbmUuDQoNCk9u IEZyaSwgSnVuIDEzLCAyMDE0IGF0IDM6MTIgUE0sIERMTSA8ZGxtMzQwNzdAY294Lm5ldDxtYWls dG86ZGxtMzQwNzdAY294Lm5ldD4+IHdyb3RlOg0KRG9lcyBhbnlvbmUga25vdyB3aGV0aGVyIHRo aXMgYWlyY3JhZnQgd2FzIGFuIGVsZWN0cm9uaWMgaWduaXRpb24gYWlyY3JhZnQ/IEkgcmVhZCB0 aGUgcHJlbGltaW5hcnkgTlRTQiByZXBvcnQgYW5kIHRoZSBzdXJ2aXZvciBpbnRlcnZpZXcgd2hl cmUgc2hlIHN0YXRlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBlbmdpbmUgd2VudCBzaWxlbnQgYW5kIHRoZSBlbGVjdHJv bmljcyBmYWlsZWQgaW1tZWRpYXRlbHkgdGhlcmVhZnRlcj8NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpnZXQ9Il9ibGFu ayI+aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9SVjEwLUxpc3QNCg0KdHA6Ly9m b3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KDQpfYmxhbmsiPmh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9j b250cmlidXRpb24NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KDQpfLT0gICAgICAgICAgLSBUaGUg UlYxMC1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVtIC0NCg0KXy09IFVzZSB0aGUgTWF0cm9uaWNzIExpc3QgRmVh dHVyZXMgTmF2aWdhdG9yIHRvIGJyb3dzZQ0KDQpfLT0gdGhlIG1hbnkgTGlzdCB1dGlsaXRpZXMg c3VjaCBhcyBMaXN0IFVuL1N1YnNjcmlwdGlvbiwNCg0KXy09IEFyY2hpdmUgU2VhcmNoICYgRG93 bmxvYWQsIDctRGF5IEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLA0KDQpfLT0gUGhvdG9zaGFyZSwgYW5kIG11 Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3JlOg0KDQpfLT0NCg0KXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNv bS9OYXZpZ2F0b3I/UlYxMC1MaXN0DQoNCl8tPQ0KDQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KDQpfLT0gICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAtIE1BVFJPTklDUyBXRUIgRk9SVU1TIC0NCg0KXy09IFNhbWUgZ3JlYXQgY29udGVudCBhbHNv IGF2YWlsYWJsZSB2aWEgdGhlIFdlYiBGb3J1bXMhDQoNCl8tPQ0KDQpfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDov L2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQoNCl8tPQ0KDQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KDQpfLT0gICAgICAgICAgICAg LSBMaXN0IENvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiBXZWIgU2l0ZSAtDQoNCl8tPSAgVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB5b3Vy IGdlbmVyb3VzIHN1cHBvcnQhDQoNCl8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIC1N YXR0IERyYWxsZSwgTGlzdCBBZG1pbi4NCg0KXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0cm9uaWNz LmNvbS9jb250cmlidXRpb24NCg0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCg0KDQo ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Firewall Penetrations
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 15, 2014
Hi I have been reading the recent post regarding firewall penetrations. I was wondering if anyone has used multiple eyeballs for the control cables? If so have you been happy with the results. Any pix? I am not really keen on using bushing and would prefer something that is a bit more fire resistant - the firewall is called that for a reason is it not? Has anyone used a Safeair pass through for all three control cable? This stuffed with fire resistant putty would seem like a a decent idea? Comments? Cheers Les #40-643 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424879#424879 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Propellor Redux
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 15, 2014
Hi I have been carefully weighing all the comments regarding the Hartzell / MT options for the -10. I really, really like the idea of the MT but am concerned about service issues that cause props to go back to German for repair. Has anyone had serious issues that have grounded them (other that prop strikes). Is there a repair station in Canada/US that negates the need for a prop vacation to Germany? I am still leaning towards the Hartzell but really wish the decision was more clear cut. Cheers Les #40643 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424880#424880 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2014
Subject: Re: Propellor Redux
We've used several local prop shops for MT service. They're all service centers. I don't think we've ever sent one back to Germany. The biggest problem we've had was with blisters near the root; that said, there's some allowable criteria, not that big a deal. http://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/services_can.htm And I love my Hartzell... --Dave On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:30 AM, kearney wrote: > > Hi > > I have been carefully weighing all the comments regarding the Hartzell / > MT options for the -10. I really, really like the idea of the MT but am > concerned about service issues that cause props to go back to German for > repair. > > Has anyone had serious issues that have grounded them (other that prop > strikes). > > Is there a repair station in Canada/US that negates the need for a prop > vacation to Germany? > > I am still leaning towards the Hartzell but really wish the decision was > more clear cut. > > Cheers > > Les > #40643 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424880#424880 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Propellor Redux
There is a MT propellor shop on Deland airport. KDED. linn On 6/15/2014 1:30 PM, kearney wrote: > > Hi > > I have been carefully weighing all the comments regarding the Hartzell / MT options for the -10. I really, really like the idea of the MT but am concerned about service issues that cause props to go back to German for repair. > > Has anyone had serious issues that have grounded them (other that prop strikes). > > Is there a repair station in Canada/US that negates the need for a prop vacation to Germany? > > I am still leaning towards the Hartzell but really wish the decision was more clear cut. > > Cheers > > Les > #40643 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424880#424880 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propellor Redux
From: David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2014
MT USA is In Deland FL. Very good service and no need to send props back to Germany. I bought my prop from the late Jim Ayers and had it shipped completely assembled from Germany. This is possible if you live close enough to an airport with international cargo capabilities. Probably true in Canada as well. Saved significant $$ avoiding having to ship to a service center, having it assembled there, and then transporting to my location. Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 15, 2014, at 1:30 PM, kearney wrote: > > > Hi > > I have been carefully weighing all the comments regarding the Hartzell / MT options for the -10. I really, really like the idea of the MT but am concerned about service issues that cause props to go back to German for repair. > > Has anyone had serious issues that have grounded them (other that prop strikes). > > Is there a repair station in Canada/US that negates the need for a prop vacation to Germany? > > I am still leaning towards the Hartzell but really wish the decision was more clear cut. > > Cheers > > Les > #40643 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424880#424880 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propellor Redux
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2014
There is a MT factory service center in Florida. They service and overhaul M T propellers exclusively. They are owned and operated by MT Propeller inc. http://www.mt-propellerusa.com/ Their contact info is under the "contact" link On Jun 15, 2014, at 11:22, Linn Walters wrote: > > There is a MT propellor shop on Deland airport. KDED. > linn > On 6/15/2014 1:30 PM, kearney wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I have been carefully weighing all the comments regarding the Hartzell / M T options for the -10. I really, really like the idea of the MT but am conce rned about service issues that cause props to go back to German for repair. >> >> Has anyone had serious issues that have grounded them (other that prop st rikes). >> >> Is there a repair station in Canada/US that negates the need for a prop v acation to Germany? >> >> I am still leaning towards the Hartzell but really wish the decision was more clear cut. >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> #40643 >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424880#424880 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Propellor Redux
Date: Jun 15, 2014
David Your comment about local assembly is interesting. Another local builder had to have a local shop assemble his prop even though we have an international airport here. I'll have to look into this. I take comfort that repairs can be fine on this continent. Cheers Les Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 15, 2014, at 2:07 PM, David Maib wrote: > > > MT USA is In Deland FL. Very good service and no need to send props back to Germany. I bought my prop from the late Jim Ayers and had it shipped completely assembled from Germany. This is possible if you live close enough to an airport with international cargo capabilities. Probably true in Canada as well. Saved significant $$ avoiding having to ship to a service center, having it assembled there, and then transporting to my location. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 15, 2014, at 1:30 PM, kearney wrote: >> >> >> Hi >> >> I have been carefully weighing all the comments regarding the Hartzell / MT options for the -10. I really, really like the idea of the MT but am concerned about service issues that cause props to go back to German for repair. >> >> Has anyone had serious issues that have grounded them (other that prop strikes). >> >> Is there a repair station in Canada/US that negates the need for a prop vacation to Germany? >> >> I am still leaning towards the Hartzell but really wish the decision was more clear cut. >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> #40643 >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424880#424880 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propellor Redux
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2014
I see on MT website that they have seven MT service centers in Canada. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 Transition Trainer New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424900#424900 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propellor Redux
From: Don Mc Donald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2014
If not anything else, prop stike less likely because with the MT there's a lot more clearance. Sent from my iPad > On Jun 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, "kearney" wrote: > > > Hi > > I have been carefully weighing all the comments regarding the Hartzell / MT options for the -10. I really, really like the idea of the MT but am concerned about service issues that cause props to go back to German for repair. > > Has anyone had serious issues that have grounded them (other that prop strikes). > > Is there a repair station in Canada/US that negates the need for a prop vacation to Germany? > > I am still leaning towards the Hartzell but really wish the decision was more clear cut. > > Cheers > > Les > #40643 > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424880#424880 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Propellor Redux
If you consider 2" a LOT more clearance. Hartzell is 80" diameter, MT 76". Seems like outside of hitting a taxiway/runway light or doing a hard nose wheel first porpoise; prop strike should not be all that likely unless someone has designed a retract gear assembly. On 6/15/2014 6:18 PM, Don Mc Donald wrote: > > If not anything else, prop stike less likely because with the MT there's a lot more clearance. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Jun 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, "kearney" wrote: >> >> >> Hi >> >> I have been carefully weighing all the comments regarding the Hartzell / MT options for the -10. I really, really like the idea of the MT but am concerned about service issues that cause props to go back to German for repair. >> >> Has anyone had serious issues that have grounded them (other that prop strikes). >> >> Is there a repair station in Canada/US that negates the need for a prop vacation to Germany? >> >> I am still leaning towards the Hartzell but really wish the decision was more clear cut. >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> #40643 >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424880#424880 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
From: "rwwende" <n7006w(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2014
Any ideas what would cause my amp reading to spike when I transmit on my sl40. I have the vpx-pro and advance flight 4500. Every time I transmit on my comm 2 the reading spikes to 30 amps and I get the audible warning. This does not happen on comm 1, GNS 430w. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424908#424908 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 15, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
I'd suspect a grounding problem .... either a floating ground or a ground loop. First I'd swap antennas at the radio to see if the problem is in the coax and in particular the coax ground at the antenna, and second, I'd ring out the ground connections to the SL40. If you have a comm panel I'd check that as the third guess. Let us know what you find. Linn On 6/15/2014 10:51 PM, rwwende wrote: > > Any ideas what would cause my amp reading to spike when I transmit on my sl40. I have the vpx-pro and advance flight 4500. Every time I transmit on my comm 2 the reading spikes to 30 amps and I get the audible warning. This does not happen on comm 1, GNS 430w. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424908#424908 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
Date: Jun 15, 2014
I have a similar problem with my sl30. I talked to GRT and they recommended that I put a balum on the wiring harness. It appeared to clear up the problem and then it happened again the other day. More testing is needed. Rene' N423CF 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 9:12 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2 I'd suspect a grounding problem .... either a floating ground or a ground loop. First I'd swap antennas at the radio to see if the problem is in the coax and in particular the coax ground at the antenna, and second, I'd ring out the ground connections to the SL40. If you have a comm panel I'd check that as the third guess. Let us know what you find. Linn On 6/15/2014 10:51 PM, rwwende wrote: > > Any ideas what would cause my amp reading to spike when I transmit on my sl40. I have the vpx-pro and advance flight 4500. Every time I transmit on my comm 2 the reading spikes to 30 amps and I get the audible warning. This does not happen on comm 1, GNS 430w. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424908#424908 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2014
My SL-40 com 2 has similar issues(the only squawk in the plane since new). It is all wired/coaxed the same. I think the SL-40 puts out more power. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424912#424912 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N62DN
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2014
Does not explain electrical power loss unless maybe he turned it off per his emergency checklist. That will be one of the last items before an off field landing. He was trying to make it that last .7 nm to the airport. I think I will go practice stalls and slow flight with the airspeed tape covered again. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424914#424914 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
rwwende wrote: > Any ideas what would cause my amp reading to spike when I transmit on my sl40. I have the vpx-pro and advance flight 4500. Every time I transmit on my comm 2 the reading spikes to 30 amps and I get the audible warning. This does not happen on comm 1, GNS 430w. My setup is similar to yours. I haven't noticed large spikes, but I have noticed that there is a different "quality" between Comm 1, and Comm 2. Most of my comm issues I've been able to trace to the audio panel, so I would certainly keep that in mind. John -------- #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424921#424921 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propellor Redux
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Kellym wrote: > If you consider 2" a LOT more clearance. Hartzell is 80" diameter, MT 76". > Seems like outside of hitting a taxiway/runway light or doing a hard > nose wheel first porpoise; prop strike should not be all that likely > unless someone has designed a retract gear assembly. > > Hmmm, the Hartzell Van shipped to me was 82". Is there something I need to know about? John -------- #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424922#424922 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: N62DN
Date: Jun 16, 2014
This obviously does not apply for low altitude failure on takeoff but a failure at altitude; it may be possible to turn on the AP while troubleshooting. My Trutrak will maintain altitude until a minimum of 80 KIAS them start giving up altitude for airspeed. Also prop control should be full aft. This would allow full attention to a restart. Of course it would have to hand flown later but it may be acceptable to troubleshoot without also having to control the aircraft. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
John, What did you do to the audio panel or what was the problem? Regards Michael -------- RV-10 builder (flying) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424925#424925 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2014
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: N428RV First Flight
Serial #40303 took flight this last Saturday after 9+ years of blood, sweat, and the occasional profanity-laced tirade. Thanks to everyone on this list and Matt for providing it. It was my go to resource when scratching my head over several steps. No heavy wing or other airframe issues. Just a couple of things to work out between the AFS4500 and the VP-200. #2 and #4 are running a bit hotter than the others, but I'll get that sorted out after break-in. Here's a link to a rushed video I created of the event. Need to dial in the ND filter on my GoPro and work on a better approach and landing, but I'll take it for a first flight. :) http://youtu.be/-88wDzKgS9Q -Sean #40303 (Flying Phase One) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N428RV First Flight
From: Cooprv7 <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Congratulations! Great video too. Have fun, Marcus 40286 700hrs On Jun 16, 2014, at 10:17, Sean Stephens wrote: Serial #40303 took flight this last Saturday after 9+ years of blood, sweat, and the occasional profanity-laced tirade. Thanks to everyone on this list and Matt for providing it. It was my go to resource when scratching my head over several steps. No heavy wing or other airframe issues. Just a couple of things to work out between the AFS4500 and the VP-200. #2 and #4 are running a bit hotter than the others, but I'll get that sorted out after break-in. Here's a link to a rushed video I created of the event. Need to dial in the ND filter on my GoPro and work on a better approach and landing, but I'll take it for a first flight. :) http://youtu.be/-88wDzKgS9Q -Sean #40303 (Flying Phase One) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N428RV First Flight
From: David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Congrads, fly safe! Dave Leikam On Jun 16, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > Serial #40303 took flight this last Saturday after 9+ years of blood, sweat, and the occasional profanity-laced tirade. Thanks to everyone on this list and Matt for providing it. It was my go to resource when scratching my head over several steps. > > No heavy wing or other airframe issues. Just a couple of things to work out between the AFS4500 and the VP-200. #2 and #4 are running a bit hotter than the others, but I'll get that sorted out after break-in. > > Here's a link to a rushed video I created of the event. Need to dial in the ND filter on my GoPro and work on a better approach and landing, but I'll take it for a first flight. :) > > http://youtu.be/-88wDzKgS9Q > > -Sean #40303 (Flying Phase One) > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: N428RV First Flight
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Congrats! Bob Sent from my iPhone On Jun 16, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: Serial #40303 took flight this last Saturday after 9+ years of blood, sweat, and the occasional profanity-laced tirade. Thanks to everyone on this list and Matt for providing it. It was my go to resource when scratching my head over several steps. No heavy wing or other airframe issues. Just a couple of things to work out between the AFS4500 and the VP-200. #2 and #4 are running a bit hotter than the others, but I'll get that sorted out after break-in. Here's a link to a rushed video I created of the event. Need to dial in the ND filter on my GoPro and work on a better approach and landing, but I'll take it for a first flight. :) http://youtu.be/-88wDzKgS9Q -Sean #40303 (Flying Phase One) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: N428RV First Flight
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Congrats. Rene' Felker N423CF 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Stephens Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 8:18 AM Subject: RV10-List: N428RV First Flight Serial #40303 took flight this last Saturday after 9+ years of blood, sweat, and the occasional profanity-laced tirade. Thanks to everyone on this list and Matt for providing it. It was my go to resource when scratching my head over several steps. No heavy wing or other airframe issues. Just a couple of things to work out between the AFS4500 and the VP-200. #2 and #4 are running a bit hotter than the others, but I'll get that sorted out after break-in. Here's a link to a rushed video I created of the event. Need to dial in the ND filter on my GoPro and work on a better approach and landing, but I'll take it for a first flight. :) http://youtu.be/-88wDzKgS9Q -Sean #40303 (Flying Phase One) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Trip out West
Date: Jun 16, 2014
This week I will be flying myself and my wife to Sedona for a day or two then on to Laguna Beach for a day, landing at John Wayne(SNA). Dropping my wife in Laguna to spend a week at a spa with her sister. I will continuing on to Aurora Oregon to visit Vans. I will need to stop once between Laguna and Aurora for fuel, food rest. I will then fly from Oregon Back to WI. Any suggestions for a good layover spot in Northern California? Also in Montana or that area? Dave Leikam ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N62DN
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Same here....80 kts MAS on mine . -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424939#424939 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Trip out West
From: pilotdds <pilotdds(at)aol.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
We can put you up at sck for a night. -----Original Message----- From: David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com> Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 7:59 am Subject: RV10-List: Trip out West This week I will be flying myself and my wife to Sedona for a day or two th en on to Laguna Beach for a day, landing at John Wayne(SNA). Dropping my wife in Laguna to spend a week at a spa with her sister. I will continuing on to A urora Oregon to visit Van=99s. I will need to stop once between Laguna and Aurora for fuel, food rest. I will then fly from Oregon Back to WI. Any suggestions for a good layover spot in Northern California? Also in Mo ntana or that area? Dave Leikam ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N428RV First Flight
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jun 17, 2014
Sean Congratulations on a job well done from downunder mate. I wish you safe skies and tailwinds. Warm regards Patrick Pulis Adelaide South Australia > On 16 Jun 2014, at 23:47, Sean Stephens wrote: > > > Serial #40303 took flight this last Saturday after 9+ years of blood, sweat, and the occasional profanity-laced tirade. Thanks to everyone on this list and Matt for providing it. It was my go to resource when scratching my head over several steps. > > No heavy wing or other airframe issues. Just a couple of things to work out between the AFS4500 and the VP-200. #2 and #4 are running a bit hotter than the others, but I'll get that sorted out after break-in. > > Here's a link to a rushed video I created of the event. Need to dial in the ND filter on my GoPro and work on a better approach and landing, but I'll take it for a first flight. :) > > http://youtu.be/-88wDzKgS9Q > > -Sean #40303 (Flying Phase One) > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geoff Combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com>
Subject: N428RV First Flight
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Sean A big CONGRATULATIONS. Your video brought back great memories of my first flight especially when you Open the door as the engine stops. That big RV GRIN/SMILE and the feeling you have (Priceless) WAY TO GO Geoff Geoff Combs Aerosport Modeling & Design -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Stephens Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: RV10-List: N428RV First Flight Serial #40303 took flight this last Saturday after 9+ years of blood, sweat, and the occasional profanity-laced tirade. Thanks to everyone on this list and Matt for providing it. It was my go to resource when scratching my head over several steps. No heavy wing or other airframe issues. Just a couple of things to work out between the AFS4500 and the VP-200. #2 and #4 are running a bit hotter than the others, but I'll get that sorted out after break-in. Here's a link to a rushed video I created of the event. Need to dial in the ND filter on my GoPro and work on a better approach and landing, but I'll take it for a first flight. :) http://youtu.be/-88wDzKgS9Q -Sean #40303 (Flying Phase One) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Trip out West
Just two suggestions. Be careful for sight seeing traffic around Sedona, and be extra careful if wind strong enough to dictate Rwy 21..much more prone to up and down drafts when wind is out of southwest at over 15kts. I use steeper approach angle to minimize exposure to downdrafts. If you have any doubts as to conditions there, Cottonwood or Flagstaff are okay alternates. As for Montana, the place to stop is Helena, Beck's U pump, aka Mustang Mickeys. Self serv fuel about 10% less than other FBO, showers, bunk beds, kitchen, courtesy car, etc. (recent update from Airnav: /I would use self-service fueling at Becks and occasionally take advantage of the bunks and showers. Becks is now owned by Exec Air. The lounge is still available, as is the self-service fuel. The auto is still available for 2-hour use. However, if you plan on spending the night, bring your own sheets and towels. The linen service is no longer available.) / On 6/16/2014 7:55 AM, David Leikam wrote: > > This week I will be flying myself and my wife to Sedona for a day or two then on to Laguna Beach for a day, landing at John Wayne(SNA). Dropping my wife in Laguna to spend a week at a spa with her sister. I will continuing on to Aurora Oregon to visit Vans. I will need to stop once between Laguna and Aurora for fuel, food rest. I will then fly from Oregon Back to WI. > Any suggestions for a good layover spot in Northern California? Also in Montana or that area? > > Dave Leikam > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Propellor Redux
The only two Hartzell props Van's has in their catalog for O (IO)-540: Compact hub Constant-speed prop for (I)O-540 (260hp) 80" Part Number = PROP C2YR-1BFP/F8068D Price = $7500.00 Three-blade Constant-speed prop for (I)O-540 (260hp) 78" dia Part Number = PROP C3Y1R-1N/N7605C Price = $16795.00 MT Prop: (I)O-540, 76" only for 540 3 Blade, hydraulic pitch change Part Number = PROP MTV12B/193-53 Price = $10500.00 On 6/16/2014 6:31 AM, johngoodman wrote: > > > Kellym wrote: >> If you consider 2" a LOT more clearance. Hartzell is 80" diameter, MT 76". >> Seems like outside of hitting a taxiway/runway light or doing a hard >> nose wheel first porpoise; prop strike should not be all that likely >> unless someone has designed a retract gear assembly. >> >> > > Hmmm, the Hartzell Van shipped to me was 82". Is there something I need to know about? > John > > -------- > #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424922#424922 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N428RV First Flight
From: Nikolaos Napoli <napolin(at)me.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Congratulations Sean Niko Nikolaos Napoli > On Jun 16, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > > Serial #40303 took flight this last Saturday after 9+ years of blood, sweat, and the occasional profanity-laced tirade. Thanks to everyone on this list and Matt for providing it. It was my go to resource when scratching my head over several steps. > > No heavy wing or other airframe issues. Just a couple of things to work out between the AFS4500 and the VP-200. #2 and #4 are running a bit hotter than the others, but I'll get that sorted out after break-in. > > Here's a link to a rushed video I created of the event. Need to dial in the ND filter on my GoPro and work on a better approach and landing, but I'll take it for a first flight. :) > > http://youtu.be/-88wDzKgS9Q > > -Sean #40303 (Flying Phase One) > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: N428RV First Flight
Date: Jun 17, 2014
Great work Sean, Congratulations to you and your team of helpers. Cheers John MacCallum #41016 VH-DUU -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Stephens Sent: Tuesday, 17 June 2014 12:18 AM Subject: RV10-List: N428RV First Flight Serial #40303 took flight this last Saturday after 9+ years of blood, sweat, and the occasional profanity-laced tirade. Thanks to everyone on this list and Matt for providing it. It was my go to resource when scratching my head over several steps. No heavy wing or other airframe issues. Just a couple of things to work out between the AFS4500 and the VP-200. #2 and #4 are running a bit hotter than the others, but I'll get that sorted out after break-in. Here's a link to a rushed video I created of the event. Need to dial in the ND filter on my GoPro and work on a better approach and landing, but I'll take it for a first flight. :) http://youtu.be/-88wDzKgS9Q -Sean #40303 (Flying Phase One) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
From: "maca2790" <vk2gcn(at)cirruscomms.com.au>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
rene(at)felker.com wrote: > I have a similar problem with my sl30. I talked to GRT and they recommended > that I put a balum on the wiring harness. It appeared to clear up the > problem and then it happened again the other day. > > More testing is needed. > > Rene' > N423CF > 801-721-6080 > > -- What form did the Balun take Rene'? I think checking the Grounds as others have suggested is a good point. Or swap the Radios and Coax around and see what happens. You could try bypassing the current sensor with a .01 uf Capacitor. cheers John MacCallum Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424964#424964 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N428RV First Flight
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Sean All the blood sweatband tears become a distant memory on yay first flight. Congrats Les Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 16, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > > Serial #40303 took flight this last Saturday after 9+ years of blood, sweat, and the occasional profanity-laced tirade. Thanks to everyone on this list and Matt for providing it. It was my go to resource when scratching my head over several steps. > > No heavy wing or other airframe issues. Just a couple of things to work out between the AFS4500 and the VP-200. #2 and #4 are running a bit hotter than the others, but I'll get that sorted out after break-in. > > Here's a link to a rushed video I created of the event. Need to dial in the ND filter on my GoPro and work on a better approach and landing, but I'll take it for a first flight. :) > > http://youtu.be/-88wDzKgS9Q > > -Sean #40303 (Flying Phase One) > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N428RV First Flight
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Congrats. Nice video. I noticed no prop arc in the Vedic. What camera brand? Rob Kermanj Sent from my iPad > On Jun 16, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > > Serial #40303 took flight this last Saturday after 9+ years of blood, sweat, and the occasional profanity-laced tirade. Thanks to everyone on this list and Matt for providing it. It was my go to resource when scratching my head over several steps. > > No heavy wing or other airframe issues. Just a couple of things to work out between the AFS4500 and the VP-200. #2 and #4 are running a bit hotter than the others, but I'll get that sorted out after break-in. > > Here's a link to a rushed video I created of the event. Need to dial in the ND filter on my GoPro and work on a better approach and landing, but I'll take it for a first flight. :) > > http://youtu.be/-88wDzKgS9Q > > -Sean #40303 (Flying Phase One) > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
Date: Jun 16, 2014
It was just a magnet that wraps around the harness. I bought several sizes from the aviation department at Amazon and then used the one that fit. More test are called for. I cannot test on the ground for the most part, only happens in the air except when it doesn't...you know how that goes. I have a hall effects sensor, where would the capacitor go? I think I will try switching the antenna cables...... Rene' Felker N423CF 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of maca2790 Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:20 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2 rene(at)felker.com wrote: > I have a similar problem with my sl30. I talked to GRT and they > recommended that I put a balum on the wiring harness. It appeared to > clear up the problem and then it happened again the other day. > > More testing is needed. > > Rene' > N423CF > 801-721-6080 > > -- What form did the Balun take Rene'? I think checking the Grounds as others have suggested is a good point. Or swap the Radios and Coax around and see what happens. You could try bypassing the current sensor with a .01 uf Capacitor. cheers John MacCallum Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424964#424964 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2014
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: N428RV First Flight
It's a GoPro with the new Sporty's variable ND filter attached. I set the ND filter too dark by mistake and it added a purple tint to the video. http://www.sportys.com/PilotShop/product/20985 > Rob Kermanj > June 16, 2014 at 5:52 PM > > Congrats. Nice video. > > I noticed no prop arc in the Vedic. What camera brand? > > Rob Kermanj > Sent from my iPad > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N62DN
From: Cooprv7 <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
I've been mulling whether to add my .02 to thus, but having experienced a catastrophic engine failure in an RV-6 I'll submit my thoughts. This is not a critique of what happened in any way as I don't have all the facts, but simply lessons learned from my experience. As many have said in a number of posts, fly the airplane first, no matter how exciting things get. I'm not sold on the autopilot use since the airplane trims so nicely, but by all means use whatever it takes to keep flying airspeed. I flew fighters for 20 years and lived on angle of attack indicators, however in light airplanes the stall and max range speeds really don't vary much within the acceptable weight range so I would argue a solid airspeed cross check and good feel for the airplane is far more important. The RV-10 has a very subtle stall which is good, but with occasional practice it is still very perceptible. It is also very important to know the best range airspeed engine out, in my airplane's case it's about 80 knots. If you are faster when the engine quits, trade airspeed for altitude which will result in time and options. As my RV-6 glider was cruising over heavily forested hills in search of a place to land a few important things became clear. First of all, when it gets grim don't worry about what's best for the airplane, that's what insurance is for. Do what's best to make sure the pink bodies in the airplane are going to fare as well as possible. I actually made a conscientious decision that the airplane was a write off and focused on survivability and am very thankful for it. Second, fly the airplane at max range speed until landing is assured where you want to go. My passenger was a very low time private pilot and as we cruised in silence he recommended a runway off in the distance on an island. I pointed out that it was rising in the windscreen which means we couldn't make it. Stretching out a glide by slowing down only works when you are just about to land and have the airspeed above stall to spare, too many accidents have been caused by trying to make the airplane fly farther than aerodynamics will allow. Third, be very sensitive to what the airplane is telling you. Once I had the small clearing I thankfully found made, I was doing small S turns to eliminate the extra airspeed and altitude. I had also delayed extending the flaps until landing was assured. During one of the turns I sensed the tickle of an oncoming accelerated stall and quickly backed off. The airplane is happy to talk to you, but make sure you are listening. Finally, the accident happened at a time in my flying career when I was most proficient at engine out situations. As an additional duty I ran the small T-34C program and therefore routinely flew this essentially light airplane fairly often and doing practice engine out approaches was a routine event. I have to admit I don't practice them now as much as I would advocate, but they are a great idea regardless of one's experience. Not only for getting the procedures down, but also getting a realistic expectation of how far the airplane will glide and what that looks like out the window. Enough rambling, hope this helps someone, Marcus 40286 On Jun 16, 2014, at 0:08, "rv10flyer" wrote: Does not explain electrical power loss unless maybe he turned it off per his emergency checklist. That will be one of the last items before an off field landing. He was trying to make it that last .7 nm to the airport. I think I will go practice stalls and slow flight with the airspeed tape covered again. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424914#424914 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
Now I'm curious. would you post the part numbers for the hall effect sensor and the magnet??? I'm used to seeing ferrite cores on cables to reduce noise, but never magnets. Most hall effect sensors are a 'switch' that gives a 0V/+V output and lack the processing circuits for an analog output. Linn On 6/16/2014 7:50 PM, Rene Felker wrote: > > It was just a magnet that wraps around the harness. I bought several sizes > from the aviation department at Amazon and then used the one that fit. More > test are called for. I cannot test on the ground for the most part, only > happens in the air except when it doesn't...you know how that goes. > > I have a hall effects sensor, where would the capacitor go? > > I think I will try switching the antenna cables...... > > Rene' Felker > N423CF > 801-721-6080 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of maca2790 > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:20 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2 > > > rene(at)felker.com wrote: >> I have a similar problem with my sl30. I talked to GRT and they >> recommended that I put a balum on the wiring harness. It appeared to >> clear up the problem and then it happened again the other day. >> >> More testing is needed. >> >> Rene' >> N423CF >> 801-721-6080 >> >> -- > What form did the Balun take Rene'? > I think checking the Grounds as others have suggested is a good point. Or > swap the Radios and Coax around and see what happens. You could try > bypassing the current sensor with a .01 uf Capacitor. > > cheers > John MacCallum > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424964#424964 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
Date: Jun 16, 2014
GRT CS-01 Current Sensor -- Current Sensor, +/- 100 AMP. Suitable for aircraft with 60 amp alternators. It is a Ferrite Core....just clamped around the wire bundle. Rene' N423CF 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 6:19 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2 Now I'm curious. would you post the part numbers for the hall effect sensor and the magnet??? I'm used to seeing ferrite cores on cables to reduce noise, but never magnets. Most hall effect sensors are a 'switch' that gives a 0V/+V output and lack the processing circuits for an analog output. Linn On 6/16/2014 7:50 PM, Rene Felker wrote: > > It was just a magnet that wraps around the harness. I bought several > sizes from the aviation department at Amazon and then used the one > that fit. More test are called for. I cannot test on the ground for > the most part, only happens in the air except when it doesn't...you know how that goes. > > I have a hall effects sensor, where would the capacitor go? > > I think I will try switching the antenna cables...... > > Rene' Felker > N423CF > 801-721-6080 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of maca2790 > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:20 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2 > > --> > > > rene(at)felker.com wrote: >> I have a similar problem with my sl30. I talked to GRT and they >> recommended that I put a balum on the wiring harness. It appeared to >> clear up the problem and then it happened again the other day. >> >> More testing is needed. >> >> Rene' >> N423CF >> 801-721-6080 >> >> -- > What form did the Balun take Rene'? > I think checking the Grounds as others have suggested is a good point. > Or swap the Radios and Coax around and see what happens. You could try > bypassing the current sensor with a .01 uf Capacitor. > > cheers > John MacCallum > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424964#424964 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris" <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
Date: Jun 16, 2014
I have a ferrite core around my fuel pressure wire because when I transmit on the SL30 fuel pressure would go out of limits. The core knocked the effect down enough to only a couple of pounds of pressure change. So not a big deal now. More loops of wire through the core made for additional noise ellimination (to a point). -Chris N9191AR -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 9:10 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2 GRT CS-01 Current Sensor -- Current Sensor, +/- 100 AMP. Suitable for aircraft with 60 amp alternators. It is a Ferrite Core....just clamped around the wire bundle. Rene' N423CF 801-721-6080 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 6:19 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2 Now I'm curious. would you post the part numbers for the hall effect sensor and the magnet??? I'm used to seeing ferrite cores on cables to reduce noise, but never magnets. Most hall effect sensors are a 'switch' that gives a 0V/+V output and lack the processing circuits for an analog output. Linn On 6/16/2014 7:50 PM, Rene Felker wrote: > > It was just a magnet that wraps around the harness. I bought several > sizes from the aviation department at Amazon and then used the one > that fit. More test are called for. I cannot test on the ground for > the most part, only happens in the air except when it doesn't...you > know how that goes. > > I have a hall effects sensor, where would the capacitor go? > > I think I will try switching the antenna cables...... > > Rene' Felker > N423CF > 801-721-6080 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of maca2790 > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:20 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2 > > --> > > > rene(at)felker.com wrote: >> I have a similar problem with my sl30. I talked to GRT and they >> recommended that I put a balum on the wiring harness. It appeared to >> clear up the problem and then it happened again the other day. >> >> More testing is needed. >> >> Rene' >> N423CF >> 801-721-6080 >> >> -- > What form did the Balun take Rene'? > I think checking the Grounds as others have suggested is a good point. > Or swap the Radios and Coax around and see what happens. You could try > bypassing the current sensor with a .01 uf Capacitor. > > cheers > John MacCallum > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424964#424964 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Trip out West
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
About half way between John Wayne and Aurora is Santa Rosa (KSTS). Restaurant in the terminal has decent food. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424976#424976 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2014
From: "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: N62DN
On 06/16/2014 08:12 AM, DLM wrote: > This obviously does not apply for low altitude failure on takeoff but a > failure at altitude; it may be possible to turn on the AP while > troubleshooting. My Trutrak will maintain altitude until a minimum of 80 > KIAS them start giving up altitude for airspeed. Also prop control > should be full aft. This would allow full attention to a restart. Of > course it would have to hand flown later but it may be acceptable to > troubleshoot without also having to control the aircraft. This sounds like a terrible idea at any altitude. You should, above all else, be flying the airplane. When an engine quits in a single-engine aircraft, I don't really care what else you do, but you should land the aircraft safely. [note, some speculation follows...] It would appear from the NTSB preliminary report that the pilot in question failed to fly the airplane. The autopilot wouldn't have helped him here: he picked a field he couldn't make, and apparently never realized he couldn't make it since he forced the airplane into a stall trying. If you've got the autopilot flying some random heading, maintaining best glide, hoping to restart the engine, you will probably kill yourself. I would much rather read about someone who had an engine failure that could have been restarted by flipping a switch, but instead landed safely (albeit unnecessarily) in a field than the alternative. An engine failure should *not* be a life-threatening event, and I'm sick of reading about pilots killing themselves and others because they failed to fly the airplane. Once you've picked a landing spot, figured out how you're going to maneuver the aircraft to that landing spot (I'm a big fan of practicing power-off 360s until you know how to do this), then, and only then, should you attempt an engine restart. By setting the autopilot, you're in effect giving yourself permission to not fly the airplane. As you say, "this would allow full attention to a restart," which, in my not-so-humble opinion is exactly what you should never do. If you trim the airplane for best glide (or, better, minimum sink if you're able to pick a field that's mostly underneath you), it will maintain that speed without input from you. No autopilot necessary, and you'll be paying a lot more attention to which direction you're flying than you would be by moving some heading bug around. The advice for set the prop control to the highest pitch (lowest speed) possible is good assuming you're trying to maximize gliding distance or time aloft. Berck ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
You'll get minimal noise reduction with the ferrite core clamped around the bundle. A toroidal ferrite core with the signal wires wrapped a couple of turns would be better. I'm wondering if your antenna coax runs near the wire that the HE is on. A bad antenna coax could be coupling energy onto that cable and the HE is responding to it. It's a WAG but possible. Linn On 6/16/2014 9:09 PM, Rene wrote: > > GRT CS-01 Current Sensor -- Current Sensor, +/- 100 AMP. Suitable for > aircraft > with 60 amp alternators. > > It is a Ferrite Core....just clamped around the wire bundle. > > > Rene' > N423CF > 801-721-6080 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 6:19 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2 > > > Now I'm curious. would you post the part numbers for the hall effect sensor > and the magnet??? > I'm used to seeing ferrite cores on cables to reduce noise, but never > magnets. Most hall effect sensors are a 'switch' that gives a 0V/+V output > and lack the processing circuits for an analog output. > Linn > > On 6/16/2014 7:50 PM, Rene Felker wrote: >> >> It was just a magnet that wraps around the harness. I bought several >> sizes from the aviation department at Amazon and then used the one >> that fit. More test are called for. I cannot test on the ground for >> the most part, only happens in the air except when it doesn't...you know > how that goes. >> I have a hall effects sensor, where would the capacitor go? >> >> I think I will try switching the antenna cables...... >> >> Rene' Felker >> N423CF >> 801-721-6080 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of maca2790 >> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:20 PM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2 >> >> --> >> >> >> rene(at)felker.com wrote: >>> I have a similar problem with my sl30. I talked to GRT and they >>> recommended that I put a balum on the wiring harness. It appeared to >>> clear up the problem and then it happened again the other day. >>> >>> More testing is needed. >>> >>> Rene' >>> N423CF >>> 801-721-6080 >>> >>> -- >> What form did the Balun take Rene'? >> I think checking the Grounds as others have suggested is a good point. >> Or swap the Radios and Coax around and see what happens. You could try >> bypassing the current sensor with a .01 uf Capacitor. >> >> cheers >> John MacCallum >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424964#424964 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 16, 2014
From: "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: N62DN
On 06/16/2014 08:29 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > Are you flying your -10 yet? If not, then don't assume you can just trim for a certain speed and it will stay. It's no Cessna. I told my instructor, when I was working on my IFR that it was hard to hold altitude accurately. He didn't believe me until he tried. Any slight stick pressure can give you a 500fpm climb or descent. I'm not arguing for using the autopilot, just saying that it isn't as simple as just trimming for a certain airspeed. With almost 700 RV-10 hours I still feel the same way, that I would not fly this plane IFR without an autopilot. I am not, but I have yet to fly an airplane that cannot be trimmed for an airspeed. An airplane that cannot be trimmed for an airspeed essentially exhibits negative dynamic stability. I'm sure that's not the case for the RV-10. I've flown everything from Cessnas, to turboprops, to jets, and have yet to find an airplane that cannot be easily trimmed for airspeed. Not saying one doesn't exist, but they're not normal, and I don't think the RV-10 is one of them. Maintaining altitude is a different story. As long as you've got positive dynamic stability, you're still going to get a diminishing set of diversions that converge on the airspeed you're trimmed for, though a very maneuverable airplane will take more time to stabilize than a less maneuverable (more stable) airplane. That doesn't mean it won't trim for airspeed, but may hunt a bit for it. The jets I've flown have all been hard to hand-fly in level flight. When I started flying for the airlines, almost all the training the sim was autopilot-centric, and it took quite a few hours in the plane to get proficient hand flying it. The hardest hand-flown maneuver in an airliner, for me, was leveling off from a climb and accelerating to cruise speed with no autopilot or flight director. Very twitchy, the trim very sensitive, the aircraft extremely pitch-sensitive to thrust changes, and all equipped with flight attendants that will bitch if they can tell you're hand-flying while they're walking around. Still, they're all very easy to trim for a stabilized climb/descent at a specific airspeed. Flying a stabilized approach by hand was cake in comparison to flying level. So, yes, I can believe that maintaining altitude in an RV-10 (known for being maneuverable) is tricky. I *do* believe that descents are as simple as trimming for airspeed in a descent. If you've got a +/-5 hunt for airspeed, close enough! Maybe even better that it hunts a bit, I'd rather you were paying attention to airspeed than trying to restart your engine, because maybe you'll land safely. As a somewhat snide side remark that I still hope you'll think about for a second: If you can't fly an RV-10 IFR without an autopilot, I hope you either (a) don't fly an RV-10 IFR or (b) have two fully redundant autopilots installed. Berck ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Firewall Penetrations
From: "dhmoose" <dhmoose(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Hi Les, Yes, I did 4 stainless steel eyeball firewall penetrations and am very happy with the installation. Advantages: They increase the safety of the firewall They allow flexible directions for the cables to travel They can be removed from the engine side of the firewall only! No need to get to the cabin side They provide for a tidy installation Disadvantages: Increased expense It took a little finesse to install them since you need more space from hole center to hole center then what Vans specifies. I think I put two side-by-side, one below that...and one off to the side (for the FAB) They require custom control cable lengths since the length changes depending on the installation I believe I ordered everything from Spruce. The eyeballs are found here: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/eyeballfw1.php?clickkey=6551 I think you have to call them for the custom cables. I hope this helps. David -------- David Halmos RV-10 Flying! Portland, OR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424986#424986 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N62DN
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Eye witness testimony is often wrong, not to mention being sedated, but if in fact there was a complete electrical failure then neither the autopilot, nor the trim, would work. (I note she later heard what may have been the stall horn, which is electric). As for ifr, of course the -10 can be hand flown. It's just more tiring. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424987#424987 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N62DN
From: "cjay" <cgfinney(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
dlm34077 wrote: > This obviously does not apply for low altitude failure on takeoff but a failure at altitude; it may be possible to turn on the AP while troubleshooting. My Trutrak will maintain altitude until a minimum of 80 KIAS them start giving up altitude for airspeed. Also prop control should be full aft. This would allow full attention to a restart. Of course it would have to hand flown later but it may be acceptable to troubleshoot without also having to control the aircraft. > Is this a trutrak setting for glide? I'll have to practice this. Despite other's objections, if your comfortable with both hand flying glide and autopilot glide this makes sense to me especially if you're attempting a restart. The -10 stall is very easy to detect and manage (if you have altitude to play with). The other nice feature to have on your EFIS (if you still have electrical juice) is a glide map overlay that takes into account wind. This is on the Chelton's, but not sure if the others have adopted this very simple tool. Doing this with your senses and in your head would take quite a bit of practice to become proficient in an emergency situation. Now my question I need help on, is prop full aft the best feathering no power glide setting? Frankly, I'm embarrassed that I don't know this. cjay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424988#424988 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com>
Subject: Re: Firewall Penetrations
Date: Jun 16, 2014
Les, I think the safeair pass-thru's would NOT work well for control cables. It might be a bit tight to get all 3 cables through even the largest pass through. If you did I think it would push the bend radius out quite a bit from the firewall thus making them harder to route. I think Dave Saylor had an issue with a cable that got harder and harder to actuate and required replacment so it's not unheard of to have to replace a cable from time to time. I wonder how difficult it would be to pull a single cable out? I did much the same as David. In fact I borrowed his punch set and had a few facetime calls w/him during the installation of mine so that I could share the cussing and bleeding with somebody else. On a somewhat related issue I see something on the SafeAir website that I'm not sure if it would be a problem or not. They use nylock nuts on the pan head screws to secure the pass-thru. Scroll to the pics about half way down http://www.safeair1.com/averytools/firewallpassthrough.php. I would think the heat of the firewall would require a locknut that is more appropriate for the engine compartment. My non-flying 2 cents. -Ben -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dhmoose Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 8:33 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Firewall Penetrations Hi Les, Yes, I did 4 stainless steel eyeball firewall penetrations and am very happy with the installation. Advantages: They increase the safety of the firewall They allow flexible directions for the cables to travel They can be removed from the engine side of the firewall only! No need to get to the cabin side They provide for a tidy installation Disadvantages: Increased expense It took a little finesse to install them since you need more space from hole center to hole center then what Vans specifies. I think I put two side-by-side, one below that...and one off to the side (for the FAB) They require custom control cable lengths since the length changes depending on the installation I believe I ordered everything from Spruce. The eyeballs are found here: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/eyeballfw1.php?clickkey=6551 I think you have to call them for the custom cables. I hope this helps. David -------- David Halmos RV-10 Flying! Portland, OR ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N62DN
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jun 16, 2014
cjay wrote: > > dlm34077 wrote: > > This obviously does not apply for low altitude failure on takeoff but a failure at altitude; it may be possible to turn on the AP while troubleshooting. My Trutrak will maintain altitude until a minimum of 80 KIAS them start giving up altitude for airspeed. Also prop control should be full aft. This would allow full attention to a restart. Of course it would have to hand flown later but it may be acceptable to troubleshoot without also having to control the aircraft. > > > > > Is this a trutrak setting for glide? I'll have to practice this. > Despite other's objections, if your comfortable with both hand flying glide and autopilot glide this makes sense to me especially if you're attempting a restart. The -10 stall is very easy to detect and manage (if you have altitude to play with). > > The other nice feature to have on your EFIS (if you still have electrical juice) is a glide map overlay that takes into account wind. This is on the Chelton's, but not sure if the others have adopted this very simple tool. Doing this with your senses and in your head would take quite a bit of practice to become proficient in an emergency situation. > > Now my question I need help on, is prop full aft the best feathering no power glide setting? Frankly, I'm embarrassed that I don't know this. > > cjay It's not designed to give you best glide,but rather to keep the autopilot from inadvertantly stalling the aircraft. I'd recommend setting the minimum speed closer to 70 kias, in case you want the autopilot to fly an approach at, say, 75 kias. (Trio has the same feature). Yes, if the engine is windmilling, the rpm within governing range, you have oil pressure, etc., then minimum rpm setting (full out) will give you minimum drag. You can also reduce the drag by full open (forward) throttle. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424990#424990 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Amps spike when transmitting on comm2
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Jun 17, 2014
Mike Whisky wrote: > John, > What did you do to the audio panel or what was the problem? I would not know how the audio panel could be involved in the problem. > > Regards > Michael Everything goes through my PMA9000EX. Which radio to transmit on, etc. It even records. There are split modes, swap modes, music, all kinds of junk. In short, there are a lot of wires, and a lot of things going on inside. Almost every comm issue I've had was solved by a quick "re-boot" of the audio panel. John -------- #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425003#425003 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N62DN
From: "cjay" <cgfinney(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 17, 2014
Bob Turner wrote: > > Now my question I need help on, is prop full aft the best feathering no power glide setting? Frankly, I'm embarrassed that I don't know this. > > cjay > It's not designed to give you best glide,but rather to keep the autopilot from inadvertantly stalling the aircraft. I'd recommend setting the minimum speed closer to 70 kias, in case you want the autopilot to fly an approach at, say, 75 kias. (Trio has the same feature). ok that makes sense, thanks. > > Yes, if the engine is windmilling, the rpm within governing range, you have oil pressure, etc., then minimum rpm setting (full out) will give you minimum drag. You can also reduce the drag by full open (forward) throttle. ok thanks, two new questions. 1. If the engine stopped for benign reasons, e.g., fuel depletion in one tank, and you switched tanks, won't the wind resistance on the prop jump start the engine? and if so, is it better to have the prop in max setting or min setting for this? 2. Why does open throttle reduce drag? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425004#425004 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N62DN
From: Cooprv7 <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 17, 2014
(Sorry if this is a repeat, my first try didn't seem to go through) I've been mulling whether to add my .02 to thus, but having experienced a catastrophic engine failure in an RV-6 I'll submit my thoughts. This is not a critique of what happened in any way as I don't have all the facts, but simply lessons learned from my experience. As many have said in a number of posts, fly the airplane first, no matter how exciting things get. I'm not sold on the autopilot use since the airplane trims so nicely, but by all means use whatever it takes to keep flying airspeed. I flew fighters for 20 years and lived on angle of attack indicators, however in light airplanes the stall and max range speeds really don't vary much within the acceptable weight range so I would argue a solid airspeed cross check and good feel for the airplane is far more important. The RV-10 has a very subtle stall which is good, but with occasional practice it is still very perceptible. It is also very important to know the best range airspeed engine out, in my airplane's case it's about 80 knots. If you are faster when the engine quits, trade airspeed for altitude which will result in time and options. As my RV-6 glider was cruising over heavily forested hills in search of a place to land a few important things became clear. First of all, when it gets grim don't worry about what's best for the airplane, that's what insurance is for. Do what's best to make sure the pink bodies in the airplane are going to fare as well as possible. I actually made a conscientious decision that the airplane was a write off and focused on survivability and am very thankful for it. Second, fly the airplane at max range speed until landing is assured where you want to go. My passenger was a very low time private pilot and as we cruised in silence he recommended a runway off in the distance on an island. I pointed out that it was rising in the windscreen which means we couldn't make it. Stretching out a glide by slowing down only works when you are just about to land and have the airspeed above stall to spare, too many accidents have been caused by trying to make the airplane fly farther than aerodynamics will allow. Third, be very sensitive to what the airplane is telling you. Once I had the small clearing I thankfully found made, I was doing small S turns to eliminate the extra airspeed and altitude. I had also delayed extending the flaps until landing was assured. During one of the turns I sensed the tickle of an oncoming accelerated stall and quickly backed off. The airplane is happy to talk to you, but make sure you are listening. Finally, the accident happened at a time in my flying career when I was most proficient at engine out situations. As an additional duty I ran the small T-34C program and therefore routinely flew this essentially light airplane fairly often and doing practice engine out approaches was a routine event. I have to admit I don't practice them now as much as I would advocate, but they are a great idea regardless of one's experience. Not only for getting the procedures down, but also getting a realistic expectation of how far the airplane will glide and what that looks like out the window. Enough rambling, hope this helps someone, Marcus 40286 On Jun 16, 2014, at 0:08, "rv10flyer" wrote: Does not explain electrical power loss unless maybe he turned it off per his emergency checklist. That will be one of the last items before an off field landing. He was trying to make it that last .7 nm to the airport. I think I will go practice stalls and slow flight with the airspeed tape covered again. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424914#424914 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ron Mathia" <ron(at)touchtronics.com>
Subject: Re: Firewall Penetrations
Date: Jun 17, 2014
Hi Les, I'm not sure what the maximum engine "compartment" temperature may be, but the nylock nuts should be usable in this location. I could not determine exactly which nylon the nut manufacture use, could be Nylon 6 or Nylon 66. Nylon 6 has a heat deflection temp of 340F and Nylon 66 has on at 450F Melt temp for 6 is 420F and 66 is 500F. It the engine compartment get in the 350F range you will have other component begin to fail. Regards, Ron -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Westfall Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 1:49 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Firewall Penetrations Les, I think the safeair pass-thru's would NOT work well for control cables. It might be a bit tight to get all 3 cables through even the largest pass through. If you did I think it would push the bend radius out quite a bit from the firewall thus making them harder to route. I think Dave Saylor had an issue with a cable that got harder and harder to actuate and required replacment so it's not unheard of to have to replace a cable from time to time. I wonder how difficult it would be to pull a single cable out? I did much the same as David. In fact I borrowed his punch set and had a few facetime calls w/him during the installation of mine so that I could share the cussing and bleeding with somebody else. On a somewhat related issue I see something on the SafeAir website that I'm not sure if it would be a problem or not. They use nylock nuts on the pan head screws to secure the pass-thru. Scroll to the pics about half way down http://www.safeair1.com/averytools/firewallpassthrough.php. I would think the heat of the firewall would require a locknut that is more appropriate for the engine compartment. My non-flying 2 cents. -Ben -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dhmoose Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 8:33 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Firewall Penetrations Hi Les, Yes, I did 4 stainless steel eyeball firewall penetrations and am very happy with the installation. Advantages: They increase the safety of the firewall They allow flexible directions for the cables to travel They can be removed from the engine side of the firewall only! No need to get to the cabin side They provide for a tidy installation Disadvantages: Increased expense It took a little finesse to install them since you need more space from hole center to hole center then what Vans specifies. I think I put two side-by-side, one below that...and one off to the side (for the FAB) They require custom control cable lengths since the length changes depending on the installation I believe I ordered everything from Spruce. The eyeballs are found here: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/eyeballfw1.php?clickkey=6551 I think you have to call them for the custom cables. I hope this helps. David -------- David Halmos RV-10 Flying! Portland, OR ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N428RV First Flight
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Jun 17, 2014
Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!! -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425018#425018 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Firewall Penetrations
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jun 17, 2014
Ron I wouldn't use anything but steel locknuts FWF. As the safe air nuts are on the aft side of the firewall, I suspect they would be okay. Cheers Les Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 17, 2014, at 11:13 AM, "Ron Mathia" wrote: > > > Hi Les, > > I'm not sure what the maximum engine "compartment" temperature may be, but > the nylock nuts should be usable in this location. > I could not determine exactly which nylon the nut manufacture use, could be > Nylon 6 or Nylon 66. > Nylon 6 has a heat deflection temp of 340F and Nylon 66 has on at 450F > Melt temp for 6 is 420F and 66 is 500F. > It the engine compartment get in the 350F range you will have other > component begin to fail. > > Regards, Ron > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Westfall > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 1:49 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Firewall Penetrations > > > Les, > > I think the safeair pass-thru's would NOT work well for control cables. It > might be a bit tight to get all 3 cables through even the largest pass > through. If you did I think it would push the bend radius out quite a bit > from the firewall thus making them harder to route. I think Dave Saylor had > an issue with a cable that got harder and harder to actuate and required > replacment so it's not unheard of to have to replace a cable from time to > time. I wonder how difficult it would be to pull a single cable out? > > I did much the same as David. In fact I borrowed his punch set and had a > few facetime calls w/him during the installation of mine so that I could > share the cussing and bleeding with somebody else. > > On a somewhat related issue I see something on the SafeAir website that I'm > not sure if it would be a problem or not. They use nylock nuts on the pan > head screws to secure the pass-thru. Scroll to the pics about half way down > http://www.safeair1.com/averytools/firewallpassthrough.php. I would think > the heat of the firewall would require a locknut that is more appropriate > for the engine compartment. > > My non-flying 2 cents. > > -Ben > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dhmoose > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 8:33 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Re: Firewall Penetrations > > > Hi Les, > Yes, I did 4 stainless steel eyeball firewall penetrations and am very happy > with the installation. > > Advantages: > They increase the safety of the firewall They allow flexible directions for > the cables to travel They can be removed from the engine side of the > firewall only! No need to get to the cabin side They provide for a tidy > installation > > Disadvantages: > Increased expense > It took a little finesse to install them since you need more space from hole > center to hole center then what Vans specifies. I think I put two > side-by-side, one below that...and one off to the side (for the FAB) They > require custom control cable lengths since the length changes depending on > the installation > > I believe I ordered everything from Spruce. The eyeballs are found here: > https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/eyeballfw1.php?clickkey=6551 > > I think you have to call them for the custom cables. > I hope this helps. > David > > -------- > David Halmos > RV-10 > Flying! > Portland, OR > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Firewall Penetrations
Especially when you consider that even if the nylock melted, it is ONLY to prevent the nut from vibrating loose. Under short term engine fire conditions the nut is unlikely to back off for the few minutes you need to get the plane on the ground. I only worry about all metal lock nuts for items in direct contact with heat over 200 degrees...exhaust components, etc. The all metal locknuts Van's supplies are the worst possible choice. They are so small that even a 3/8 socket is too big, they have almost no surface contact at all. AN 363s are much nicer. 0On 6/17/2014 8:38 AM, Les Kearney wrote: > > Ron > > I wouldn't use anything but steel locknuts FWF. As the safe air nuts are on the aft side of the firewall, I suspect they would be okay. > > Cheers > > Les > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 17, 2014, at 11:13 AM, "Ron Mathia" wrote: >> >> >> Hi Les, >> >> I'm not sure what the maximum engine "compartment" temperature may be, but >> the nylock nuts should be usable in this location. >> I could not determine exactly which nylon the nut manufacture use, could be >> Nylon 6 or Nylon 66. >> Nylon 6 has a heat deflection temp of 340F and Nylon 66 has on at 450F >> Melt temp for 6 is 420F and 66 is 500F. >> It the engine compartment get in the 350F range you will have other >> component begin to fail. >> >> Regards, Ron >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Westfall >> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 1:49 AM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Firewall Penetrations >> >> >> Les, >> >> I think the safeair pass-thru's would NOT work well for control cables. It >> might be a bit tight to get all 3 cables through even the largest pass >> through. If you did I think it would push the bend radius out quite a bit >> from the firewall thus making them harder to route. I think Dave Saylor had >> an issue with a cable that got harder and harder to actuate and required >> replacment so it's not unheard of to have to replace a cable from time to >> time. I wonder how difficult it would be to pull a single cable out? >> >> I did much the same as David. In fact I borrowed his punch set and had a >> few facetime calls w/him during the installation of mine so that I could >> share the cussing and bleeding with somebody else. >> >> On a somewhat related issue I see something on the SafeAir website that I'm >> not sure if it would be a problem or not. They use nylock nuts on the pan >> head screws to secure the pass-thru. Scroll to the pics about half way down >> http://www.safeair1.com/averytools/firewallpassthrough.php. I would think >> the heat of the firewall would require a locknut that is more appropriate >> for the engine compartment. >> >> My non-flying 2 cents. >> >> -Ben >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dhmoose >> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 8:33 PM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Firewall Penetrations >> >> >> Hi Les, >> Yes, I did 4 stainless steel eyeball firewall penetrations and am very happy >> with the installation. >> >> Advantages: >> They increase the safety of the firewall They allow flexible directions for >> the cables to travel They can be removed from the engine side of the >> firewall only! No need to get to the cabin side They provide for a tidy >> installation >> >> Disadvantages: >> Increased expense >> It took a little finesse to install them since you need more space from hole >> center to hole center then what Vans specifies. I think I put two >> side-by-side, one below that...and one off to the side (for the FAB) They >> require custom control cable lengths since the length changes depending on >> the installation >> >> I believe I ordered everything from Spruce. The eyeballs are found here: >> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/eyeballfw1.php?clickkey=6551 >> >> I think you have to call them for the custom cables. >> I hope this helps. >> David >> >> -------- >> David Halmos >> RV-10 >> Flying! >> Portland, OR >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com>
Subject: Re: Firewall Penetrations
Date: Jun 17, 2014
Kelly and Ron thanks for the education it is much appreciated. Now I have one less thing to continually second guess myself on about my build! -Ben -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:42 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Firewall Penetrations Especially when you consider that even if the nylock melted, it is ONLY to prevent the nut from vibrating loose. Under short term engine fire conditions the nut is unlikely to back off for the few minutes you need to get the plane on the ground. I only worry about all metal lock nuts for items in direct contact with heat over 200 degrees...exhaust components, etc. The all metal locknuts Van's supplies are the worst possible choice. They are so small that even a 3/8 socket is too big, they have almost no surface contact at all. AN 363s are much nicer. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Roger Standley <taildragon(at)msn.com>
Subject: Trip out West
Date: Jun 17, 2014
FYI Van's is having their RV12 Expo at Sun River=2C OR this week. Check Van's w eb site. Come join us. > From: arplnplt(at)gmail.com > Subject: RV10-List: Trip out West > Date: Mon=2C 16 Jun 2014 09:55:15 -0500 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > > This week I will be flying myself and my wife to Sedona for a day or two then on to Laguna Beach for a day=2C landing at John Wayne(SNA). Dropping my wife in Laguna to spend a week at a spa with her sister. I will continu ing on to Aurora Oregon to visit Van=92s. I will need to stop once between Laguna and Aurora for fuel=2C food rest. I will then fly from Oregon Back to WI. > Any suggestions for a good layover spot in Northern California? Also in Montana or that area? > > Dave Leikam > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 17, 2014
Subject: Re: Firewall Penetrations
From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com>
There was a lot of valuable information on the subject of Fire some years ago. Most builder give little consideration to Fire Annunciation, Fire Suppression, Response Time to Loss of Aircraft and the temperatures likely to be encountered with the various fires - Fuel, Oil, Electrical and Exhaust Leaks. The loss of Shannon Knoeflein in his "Plastic" plane, returning home from OSH and his pilot decisions which led to the Accident Report would make for a valued and timely public discussion. Dave McNeil could add input in his plumbed suppression system to buy critical seconds. Too many builders do not reflect on where, when and what kind of annunciation they are likely to get. Nylon loses its fastening properties far too low of a temperature (IMHO having recycled plastics for a living in a previous life). From the moment the determination is made, the fiberglass is rated in seconds .... maybe a few minutes before failure. Anyone want to reflect on the fuel line (inside the cockpit) issue a few years ago. Temperature - Oxygen - a Combustable fuel source. The drill is pretty simple. Still remember the first Corvette I saw converted back in 1966. John Cox - 40600 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Ben Westfall wrote: > > Kelly and Ron thanks for the education it is much appreciated. Now I have > one less thing to continually second guess myself on about my build! > > -Ben > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:42 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Firewall Penetrations > > > Especially when you consider that even if the nylock melted, it is ONLY to > prevent the nut from vibrating loose. Under short term engine fire > conditions the nut is unlikely to back off for the few minutes you need to > get the plane on the ground. > I only worry about all metal lock nuts for items in direct contact with > heat > over 200 degrees...exhaust components, etc. > The all metal locknuts Van's supplies are the worst possible choice. > They are so small that even a 3/8 socket is too big, they have almost no > surface contact at all. AN 363s are much nicer. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N62DN
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jun 17, 2014
[quote="cjay"] Bob Turner wrote: > > > ok thanks, two new questions. >


May 27, 2014 - June 18, 2014

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-jt