RV10-Archive.digest.vol-kc

August 07, 2014 - August 30, 2014



      he CG back. So, worst case scenario would be a light pilot on low fuel. Even
       with the stock battery in the stock location, you'll be forward of the CG l
      imit. Adding ~40 lbs in the baggage area will keep the plane within CG in th
      is light configuration, and have the benefit of being removable when carryin
      g capacity is needed. If even a single 65lb person is in the back seat, this
       extra weight isn't needed.
      > 
      > The real problem is hitting the aft CG before you hit gross weight, becaus
      e, as I stated before, pretty much every pound you add pushed the CG rearwar
      d. Because of this, I personally would prefer to have a CG as far forward as
       possible to give me more options.
      > 
      > Basically, having the battery in the tail only moves the cg aft 1" in a si
      ngle pilot no fuel scenario
      > but allows you to carry 30lbs more baggage in a full gross scenario.
      > 
      > The one thing these numbers don't include are the weight and CG changes fr
      om removing the large #2 power cable from the tailcone to the firewall.
      > 
      > Thehe WnB spreadsheet I've used for my numbers is here:
      > [url]http://www.edandcolleen.com/files/RV10WeightBalance.xlsx[/url]
      > Thanks to Justin Twilbeck for throwing this together for me. (It even has a
       calculation for the loading needed to cause a tailstrike! Good stuff!)
      > 
      > 
      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
      > 
      > 
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: NavWorx ADS-B
Seems like FF is trying to limit compatibility to the Stratus units exclusively. On 8/7/2014 1:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > > > Wifi support for FF would make life complete. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2014
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: NavWorx ADS-B
Seems like? Basically they've always been that way and show no signs of changing. That's why I advocate openness and buy wingX for in flight. Admittedly, I buy Foreflight for preflight planning because it's awesome for that, but for in flight I won't pay Foreflight for pro when wingX offers a discount for 3 year subscription. That's my biggest problem with garmin too. If they were into open standards for protocols I'd have a much higher opinion of the company. Tim > On Aug 7, 2014, at 9:05 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > Seems like FF is trying to limit compatibility to the Stratus units exclusively. > >> On 8/7/2014 1:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote: >> >> >> Wifi support for FF would make life complete. >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: NavWorx ADS-B
What variety of primer do you use on FF?? Does it work on Garmin stuff as well? ;-)) On 8/7/2014 7:40 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Seems like? Basically they've always been that way and show no signs > of changing. That's why I advocate openness and buy wingX for in > flight. Admittedly, I buy Foreflight for preflight planning because > it's awesome for that, but for in flight I won't pay Foreflight for > pro when wingX offers a discount for 3 year subscription. That's my > biggest problem with garmin too. If they were into open standards for > protocols I'd have a much higher opinion of the company. > Tim > >> On Aug 7, 2014, at 9:05 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >> >> >> Seems like FF is trying to limit compatibility to the Stratus units >> exclusively. >> >>> On 8/7/2014 1:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote: >>> >>> >>> Wifi support for FF would make life complete. >>> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 07, 2014
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: NavWorx ADS-B
:) I guess I always use green.....without giving foreflight, wingx, Jeppesen, and others lots of green, it's much harder to fly. Tim On 8/7/2014 9:46 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > What variety of primer do you use on FF?? Does it work on Garmin stuff > as well? > ;-)) > On 8/7/2014 7:40 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >> >> Seems like? Basically they've always been that way and show no signs >> of changing. That's why I advocate openness and buy wingX for in >> flight. Admittedly, I buy Foreflight for preflight planning because >> it's awesome for that, but for in flight I won't pay Foreflight for >> pro when wingX offers a discount for 3 year subscription. That's my >> biggest problem with garmin too. If they were into open standards for >> protocols I'd have a much higher opinion of the company. >> Tim >> >>> On Aug 7, 2014, at 9:05 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >>> >>> >>> Seems like FF is trying to limit compatibility to the Stratus units >>> exclusively. >>> >>>> On 8/7/2014 1:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Wifi support for FF would make life complete. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NavWorx ADS-B
From: PReid <Rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Date: Aug 07, 2014
I've managed to fly across the country two times and never spent a dime with the green tools. I have free FltPlan go and Iflightplanner for iPad , that offers everything I need for inflight, I used airnav FBO for airport fuel info and flyQ for airport info. Granted its three tools to do the job of 1 but for the way I fly it seems to offer far more than I ever had in the military over 20 years ago. I actually needed to think where I was back in those days :-) Not putting very nice tools like FF and wing X down, just commenting that there are other options that work well for free. Pascal > On Aug 7, 2014, at 7:58 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > :) I guess I always use green.....without giving foreflight, wingx, > Jeppesen, and others lots of green, it's much harder to fly. > > Tim > > >> On 8/7/2014 9:46 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >> >> What variety of primer do you use on FF?? Does it work on Garmin stuff >> as well? >> ;-)) >>> On 8/7/2014 7:40 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >>> >>> Seems like? Basically they've always been that way and show no signs >>> of changing. That's why I advocate openness and buy wingX for in >>> flight. Admittedly, I buy Foreflight for preflight planning because >>> it's awesome for that, but for in flight I won't pay Foreflight for >>> pro when wingX offers a discount for 3 year subscription. That's my >>> biggest problem with garmin too. If they were into open standards for >>> protocols I'd have a much higher opinion of the company. >>> Tim >>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2014, at 9:05 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Seems like FF is trying to limit compatibility to the Stratus units >>>> exclusively. >>>> >>>>> On 8/7/2014 1:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wifi support for FF would make life complete. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LiFePo4 Battery on the Firewall, Part II
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Aug 08, 2014
Ed, I have a bunch of truly experimental stuff in my plane. I built a bunch of electronics from scratch, I have a few Arduinos running the show, and I went pretty far trying to build my own EFIS. Just before getting ready to fly I chickened out, admitted defeat, dumped the whole idea and called Rob from AFS :) I practically dumped a boatload of money and even more time right out the window, but i'm still very happy with my decision. You can build pretty complex and cool systems, but when it comes to flying with them the pucker factor sneaks up on you, which you never think of when designing and building these things. When I started out I always thought that I can build something better than what's on the market. Now I have a lot of respect for these guys because I know how much testing and tweaking is involved to make things work properly and reliably. It almost never works right the first time around. Yes, you can fly around with a funky new lithium battery by yourself in Phase I, but I want to see you put your family in the plane and not worry about that battery catching on fire. You can save those 20lbs on your interior instead of the battery. Instead of real cowhide use synthetic leather on your seats. Paint your doors instead of adding funky door panels, use a single stage paint, etc. Another aspect is that with a 12ah battery you'll be afraid to have your master on for even short periods of time. I know I worry about draining my battery even with my PC925. Once you drain your battery down pretty good the alternator starts charging at close to full power. I know it's designed to do that, but I don't like to see that going on when i'm flying. Besides, it's hard on the regulator, hard on the belt and so on. I looked at the Shorai batteries very briefly trying to shave off some pounds because my air conditioning adds 50lbs to my empty weight. I did a quick image search to see what form factors they come in and i saw a couple of melted ones. Moved on... I'd rather be flying fat Albert with less junk in the baggage than worrying. If I built a plane again, I'd use proven reliable parts and not take 6 years building it... :) At OSH I got this perseverance award plaque from the EAA. It says: "In recognition of the EAA members who have pursued, with stamina and tenacity, the ultimate fullfillment of building an aircraft no matter how long it took." Anda reads it and she says: Oh cool! Did you get that cause you took so long? :) Lenny PS: Btw, I can get you a pretty good price on Odyssey batteries :) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428204#428204 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NavWorx ADS-B
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Aug 08, 2014
Interesting marketing strategy: telling customers that if they wait the price will drop? I'm with Tim on trying to avoid companies that force you into one product line (with Foreflight, it's Stratus). Garmin has a very competitive mode S-ES transponder out now, but apparently it only works if you buy a G3X. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428214#428214 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2014
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: NavWorx ADS-B
I think the reasoning for the price is, right now they're planning to do the GPS modules in a bulk order come next year, so, right now the production costs are much higher in small batch runs than if you wait a short time and get one after they do the large batch. I'm guessing prices will rise over time, otherwise, because there's been competition in the market now for a while, so unless someone drastically undercuts others, there's nothing that's going to bring much price pressure. Tim On 8/8/2014 2:35 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > Interesting marketing strategy: telling customers that if they wait the price will drop? > > I'm with Tim on trying to avoid companies that force you into one product line (with Foreflight, it's Stratus). Garmin has a very competitive mode S-ES transponder out now, but apparently it only works if you buy a G3X. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2014
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: LiFePo4 Battery on the Firewall, Part II
Well better late than never, I always say, eh Lenny? You only missed out on a dozen or so cool RV-10 trips. :) We'll get you caught up. The thing that shocked me is, if I was doing that battery, I really don't think I'd trust that the smaller one would do it for me up here in North country. I know for sure that there was someone that switched from 680's to 925's just for more crank, who lives up north. So if I went with the EarthX, I'd go for the ETX48E for sure. Then I looked at the price and see that they sell for $725 or so. That one really floored me! I don't care if it IS an 8 year battery....unless you can do a proper load test you can't in good conscience simply TRUST that it's good at 7 years, or 6 years, or 5 years. So you'd have to come up with some sort of replacement timeline. I personally am on my 3rd PC925. They're what, $135 or so from what I paid last? Even though they're a 5 year battery, I felt it best to cut them off at 3 years. There's always a secondary use for the batteries. One of mine is used for charging cellphones at OSH. That battery is still good from 2005. Another one powers my Tow Buddy power tug. So I don't even TRY to run them for max life in the aircraft. My aux batteries I also replace on a 2-3 year schedule. They're just like UPS batteries at work, and those usually last 2-7 years, depending on abuse. So if I had an EarthX, and it really is an 8 year battery, (have they been making them 8 years, to know that the claim is true?) I personally would cut it off around 4 years, maybe 5 if I pushed it, but 5 is quite a long time. Even at that point you're talking over $100/year for just the cost of that one battery. In 15 years, you'd have $2175 (at today's prices, roughly) in batteries on a 5 year replacement. With a PC925, you'd have 5 changes at 3 year replacement, for about $675. That's over 3x the cost even over 15 years, with what I'd consider reasonably shortened life expectancies. Something over 250-270 gallons of avgas. If there's one thing I've learned about flying the RV-10, it isn't cheap by any means. Sure, it's more efficient than flying some slow planes, especial Carbureted where LOP is tough to do, but it's not super cheap. Insurance is going to be North of $3000 for any new owner, and I still figure my hourly operational cost is around $125/hr altogether. It's enough, anyway, to make me think twice about putting time on at times. So weight and balance, fire, space, or any other issues aside, I just don't see the economics of it. It's hard enough to afford all the post-flying tools a guy needs, like Compression testers, bead breakers, and all sorts of other things you fill your toolbox with, without adding all that cost too. Maybe the EarthX 36 sized battery will work, but, if it doesn't, it's another time and money wasting experiment, involving new wire pulls and additional downtime. Lenny's the guy to tell ya, NOT flying is a hell of a lot less fun than flying. Rework sucks. Enough on the topic from me though. I'm sure we can talk about it at OSH 2015 again... :) Tim On 8/8/2014 9:16 AM, Lenny Iszak wrote: > > > Ed, > > I have a bunch of truly experimental stuff in my plane. I built a > bunch of electronics from scratch, I have a few Arduinos running the > show, and I went pretty far trying to build my own EFIS. Just before > getting ready to fly I chickened out, admitted defeat, dumped the > whole idea and called Rob from AFS :) I practically dumped a boatload > of money and even more time right out the window, but i'm still very > happy with my decision. > > You can build pretty complex and cool systems, but when it comes to > flying with them the pucker factor sneaks up on you, which you never > think of when designing and building these things. > > When I started out I always thought that I can build something better > than what's on the market. Now I have a lot of respect for these guys > because I know how much testing and tweaking is involved to make > things work properly and reliably. It almost never works right the > first time around. > > Yes, you can fly around with a funky new lithium battery by yourself > in Phase I, but I want to see you put your family in the plane and > not worry about that battery catching on fire. > > You can save those 20lbs on your interior instead of the battery. > Instead of real cowhide use synthetic leather on your seats. Paint > your doors instead of adding funky door panels, use a single stage > paint, etc. > > Another aspect is that with a 12ah battery you'll be afraid to have > your master on for even short periods of time. I know I worry about > draining my battery even with my PC925. Once you drain your battery > down pretty good the alternator starts charging at close to full > power. I know it's designed to do that, but I don't like to see that > going on when i'm flying. Besides, it's hard on the regulator, hard > on the belt and so on. > > I looked at the Shorai batteries very briefly trying to shave off > some pounds because my air conditioning adds 50lbs to my empty > weight. I did a quick image search to see what form factors they come > in and i saw a couple of melted ones. Moved on... I'd rather be > flying fat Albert with less junk in the baggage than worrying. > > If I built a plane again, I'd use proven reliable parts and not take > 6 years building it... :) > > At OSH I got this perseverance award plaque from the EAA. It says: > "In recognition of the EAA members who have pursued, with stamina and > tenacity, the ultimate fullfillment of building an aircraft no matter > how long it took." Anda reads it and she says: Oh cool! Did you get > that cause you took so long? :) > > Lenny > > PS: Btw, I can get you a pretty good price on Odyssey batteries :) > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428204#428204 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dynon after the sale customer service
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 08, 2014
I guess it could be said that you are Doubley pleased. ;) -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428220#428220 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stuck in Cheyenne
From: "cjay" <cgfinney(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 09, 2014
I fly with600-6s, wanted a little better performance on unimproved airstrips. Definitely had to mod the wheel pants though. Another benefit was the 30 mph shimmy went away. cjay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428251#428251 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2014
From: LES KEARNEY <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Lean of Peak and other heresies
Hi At KOSH I received some very conflicted info on lean of peak ops with an IO540. Continental (admittedly not a Lyc IO540), had a wonderful simulation / presentation about how to safely run LOP. Their position was to stay under 65% power to avoid the "red Box". Lycoming seemed to think that LOP was was a high risk venture that most mere mortals should avoid like the plague. They even has a 2000 monograph that had a few veiled references to Gami. Mike Busch was very much in support of LOP ops in either brand C or L engines. His view was physics doesnt't change with the brand of engine. So, given that we have now resolved how to properly prime lithium batteries, I would be interested in hearing about first hand LOP experiences. Has anyone experienced problems with LOP. Lycoming seems to think that LOP requires more attention to detail than the average pilot can muster when things busy. They also suggest that ROP at power settings that match LOP power yields similar albeit somewhat higher fuel flows. Does actual experience bear this out? Any comments? Cheers Les Inquiring minds need to know! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
Date: Aug 11, 2014
Plainly put the lycoming rep was uneducated on the Lycoming stance: http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182849-1.html?redirected=1 Lie #7: Aggressive leaning results in burned valves and detonation. Fear of the red knob is one of the most pernicious areas of misinformation among general aviation pilots. Most pilots operate way too rich most of the time, and do so because of the mistaken belief that leaning will harm their engine. The result is usually trouble: fouled spark plugs, accelerated exhaust valve guide wear, and stuck exhaust valves. Lycoming engine Lycoming has long authorized leaning to peak EGT at any cruise setting up to 75% power. TCM authorizes leaning to peak EGT up to 65%, and its latest recommendations even endorse lean-of-peak operation for many big-bore engines, provided the engines will run smoothly when operated that lean. Contrary to popular belief, aggressive leaning doesn't cause burned valves. Most burned valves are the result of excessive valve guide wear or valve stem contamination. Aggressive leaning doesn't cause detonation, either. Most of our engines are incapable of detonation at cruise power settings, provided that we don't exceed CHT red-line or try to burn contaminated fuel. Furthermore, recent tests on Lycoming engines by ASTM revealed this fascinating result: detonation is most likely to occur at a mixture setting 11% richer than stoichiometric (i.e., substantially richer than peak EGT). Lean as aggressively as the book allows. For Lycomings, that means peak EGT at all cruise power settings to 75%. For Continentals, lean to peak EGT up to 65%, 50=C2=B0F rich of peak at 75%. For turbocharged engines, also limit TIT to 1600=C2=B0F. Lean during all ground operations except for engine start. It is particularly important to lean for taxi and runup. Since EGT is usually off-scale at idle power, the best method is to lean for peak RPM at idle. Read through Lycoming=99s Key Operations- found on the lycoming site. Plenty about leaning at 75% and lower and even a chart that says they do not recommend LOP, but on the same page has: pg38 6. Leaning to best economy mixture. a. Set manifold pressure and RPM for the desired cruise power setting per the aircraft POH/AFM. b. Lean slowly in small steps, while monitoring instrumentation, to peak TIT or maximum allowable TIT, whichever occurs first than on pg 39: Once cruise power has been set, leaning to best economy should be standard procedure as damage to the engine will not occur from leaning at cruise power settings. -----Original Message----- From: LES KEARNEY Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 PM Subject: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies Hi At KOSH I received some very conflicted info on lean of peak ops with an IO540. Continental (admittedly not a Lyc IO540), had a wonderful simulation / presentation about how to safely run LOP. Their position was to stay under 65% power to avoid the "red Box". Lycoming seemed to think that LOP was was a high risk venture that most mere mortals should avoid like the plague. They even has a 2000 monograph that had a few veiled references to Gami. Mike Busch was very much in support of LOP ops in either brand C or L engines. His view was physics doesnt't change with the brand of engine. So, given that we have now resolved how to properly prime lithium batteries, I would be interested in hearing about first hand LOP experiences. Has anyone experienced problems with LOP. Lycoming seems to think that LOP requires more attention to detail than the average pilot can muster when things busy. They also suggest that ROP at power settings that match LOP power yields similar albeit somewhat higher fuel flows. Does actual experience bear this out? Any comments? Cheers Les Inquiring minds need to know! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Speaking of Mike Busch: Manifesto
Date: Aug 11, 2014
I just today finished reading "Manifesto" by Mike Busch. I think he did a pretty good job on this book but look forward to the rest in the series to get more detail. I really think he's spot on with his views on maintenance based on time in service. Anyway, I think it's a great boot and was quick and cheap to get on Amazon, and I read it in an hour or two. Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Aug 11, 2014
Hi Pascal Here is a link to the monograph I hot from Lycoming at KOSH. http://www.shamrockairservices.com/images/LEANING%20TECHNIQUES.pdf Cheers Les Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:43 PM, "Pascal" wrote: > > Plainly put the lycoming rep was uneducated on the Lycoming stance: > http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182849-1.html?redirected=1 > Lie #7: > Aggressive leaning results in burned valves and detonation. > > Fear of the red knob is one of the most pernicious areas of misinformation among general aviation pilots. Most pilots operate way too rich most of the time, and do so because of the mistaken belief that leaning will harm their engine. The result is usually trouble: fouled spark plugs, accelerated exha ust valve guide wear, and stuck exhaust valves. > > Lycoming engine Lycoming has long authorized leaning to peak EGT at any c ruise setting up to 75% power. TCM authorizes leaning to peak EGT up to 65%, and its latest recommendations even endorse lean-of-peak operation for many big-bore engines, provided the engines will run smoothly when operated that lean. > > Contrary to popular belief, aggressive leaning doesn't cause burned valves . Most burned valves are the result of excessive valve guide wear or valve s tem contamination. > > Aggressive leaning doesn't cause detonation, either. Most of our engines a re incapable of detonation at cruise power settings, provided that we don't exceed CHT red-line or try to burn contaminated fuel. Furthermore, recent t ests on Lycoming engines by ASTM revealed this fascinating result: detonatio n is most likely to occur at a mixture setting 11% richer than stoichiometri c (i.e., substantially richer than peak EGT). > > Lean as aggressively as the book allows. For Lycomings, that means peak EG T at all cruise power settings to 75%. For Continentals, lean to peak EGT up to 65%, 50=C2=B0F rich of peak at 75%. For turbocharged engines, also limit TIT to 1600=C2=B0F. > > Lean during all ground operations except for engine start. It is particula rly important to lean for taxi and runup. Since EGT is usually off-scale at i dle power, the best method is to lean for peak RPM at idle. > > Read through Lycoming=99s Key Operations- found on the lycoming site . Plenty about leaning at 75% and lower and even a chart that says they do n ot recommend LOP, but on the same page has: > pg38 > 6. Leaning to best economy mixture. > a. Set manifold pressure and RPM for the desired cruise power setting per t he aircraft POH/AFM. > b. Lean slowly in small steps, while monitoring instrumentation, to peak T IT or maximum allowable TIT, whichever occurs first > > > than on pg 39: > Once cruise power has been set, leaning to best economy should be standard procedure as damage to the engine will not occur from leaning at cruise pow er settings. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: LES KEARNEY > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies > > > Hi > > At KOSH I received some very conflicted info on lean of peak ops with an I O540. > > Continental (admittedly not a Lyc IO540), had a wonderful simulation / pre sentation about how to safely run LOP. Their position was to stay under 65% p ower to avoid the "red Box". > > Lycoming seemed to think that LOP was was a high risk venture that most me re mortals should avoid like the plague. They even has a 2000 monograph that had a few veiled references to Gami. > > Mike Busch was very much in support of LOP ops in either brand C or L engi nes. His view was physics doesnt't change with the brand of engine. > > So, given that we have now resolved how to properly prime lithium batterie s, I would be interested in hearing about first hand LOP experiences. Has an yone experienced problems with LOP. Lycoming seems to think that LOP require s more attention to detail than the average pilot can muster when things bus y. They also suggest that ROP at power settings that match LOP power yields s imilar albeit somewhat higher fuel flows. Does actual experience bear this o ut? > > Any comments? > > Cheers > > Les > Inquiring minds need to know! > > ============ > RV10-List Email Forum - > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========== === sp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - ============ = sp; - List Contribution Web Site - sp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com/contribution ========= === > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Aug 11, 2014
In no particular order: 1. I do not attempt to operate LOP at high power settings. I think my injectors aren't tuned well enough to get all the cylinders out of the red box at high powers. 2. I did have to tune the injectors. Stock setup was not great in that regard. 3. Typical cruise for me is at 11,000'; all cylinders 10 to 30 F LOP; wide open throttle; 2200-2300 RPM; 9.5 gal/hr fuel flow; 160 KTAS. CHT's are 325 F plus or minus 10F or so (I removed the front air dams). This is two people plus bags. Full gross and I lose a couple of knots. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428328#428328 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
Date: Aug 11, 2014
Funny thy tell folks to avoid when they have this to support just the opposite. To answer you questions, I always fly LOP, I tuned the injectors and can get the plane to fly smoothly at around the 9.8-10.2gph range. Every annual has shown a very clean and good looking cylinder. The A&P that does the scope says it=99s the cleanest cylinder he sees all year. He cant believe its because I fly LOP, but knows the certs he sees are flying ROP because of carbs or POH instructions to be 50-100F ROP, and is starting to believe that the 75F LOP I usually see is the reason for the cleaner inspections. I have about 300hrs on the narrow deck / eci cylinders and LOP works very well for my CHT temps. I do not fly ROP ever (except TO and initial climb), pretty much from 1K up I have the aircraft leaned. Pascal From: Les Kearney Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 7:18 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies Hi Pascal Here is a link to the monograph I hot from Lycoming at KOSH. http://www.shamrockairservices.com/images/LEANING%20TECHNIQUES.pdf Cheers Les Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:43 PM, "Pascal" wrote: Plainly put the lycoming rep was uneducated on the Lycoming stance: http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182849-1.html?redirected=1 Lie #7: Aggressive leaning results in burned valves and detonation. Fear of the red knob is one of the most pernicious areas of misinformation among general aviation pilots. Most pilots operate way too rich most of the time, and do so because of the mistaken belief that leaning will harm their engine. The result is usually trouble: fouled spark plugs, accelerated exhaust valve guide wear, and stuck exhaust valves. Lycoming engine Lycoming has long authorized leaning to peak EGT at any cruise setting up to 75% power. TCM authorizes leaning to peak EGT up to 65%, and its latest recommendations even endorse lean-of-peak operation for many big-bore engines, provided the engines will run smoothly when operated that lean. Contrary to popular belief, aggressive leaning doesn't cause burned valves. Most burned valves are the result of excessive valve guide wear or valve stem contamination. Aggressive leaning doesn't cause detonation, either. Most of our engines are incapable of detonation at cruise power settings, provided that we don't exceed CHT red-line or try to burn contaminated fuel. Furthermore, recent tests on Lycoming engines by ASTM revealed this fascinating result: detonation is most likely to occur at a mixture setting 11% richer than stoichiometric (i.e., substantially richer than peak EGT). Lean as aggressively as the book allows. For Lycomings, that means peak EGT at all cruise power settings to 75%. For Continentals, lean to peak EGT up to 65%, 50=C2=B0F rich of peak at 75%. For turbocharged engines, also limit TIT to 1600=C2=B0F. Lean during all ground operations except for engine start. It is particularly important to lean for taxi and runup. Since EGT is usually off-scale at idle power, the best method is to lean for peak RPM at idle. Read through Lycoming=99s Key Operations- found on the lycoming site. Plenty about leaning at 75% and lower and even a chart that says they do not recommend LOP, but on the same page has: pg38 6. Leaning to best economy mixture. a. Set manifold pressure and RPM for the desired cruise power setting per the aircraft POH/AFM. b. Lean slowly in small steps, while monitoring instrumentation, to peak TIT or maximum allowable TIT, whichever occurs first than on pg 39: Once cruise power has been set, leaning to best economy should be standard procedure as damage to the engine will not occur from leaning at cruise power settings. -----Original Message----- From: LES KEARNEY Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 PM To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies Hi At KOSH I received some very conflicted info on lean of peak ops with an IO540. Continental (admittedly not a Lyc IO540), had a wonderful simulation / presentation about how to safely run LOP. Their position was to stay under 65% power to avoid the "red Box". Lycoming seemed to think that LOP was was a high risk venture that most mere mortals should avoid like the plague. They even has a 2000 monograph that had a few veiled references to Gami. Mike Busch was very much in support of LOP ops in either brand C or L engines. His view was physics doesnt't change with the brand of engine. So, given that we have now resolved how to properly prime lithium batteries, I would be interested in hearing about first hand LOP experiences. Has anyone experienced problems with LOP. Lycoming seems to think that LOP requires more attention to detail than the average pilot can muster when things busy. They also suggest that ROP at power settings that match LOP power yields similar albeit somewhat higher fuel flows. Does actual experience bear this out? Any comments? Cheers Les Inquiring minds need to know! ============ RV10-List Email Forum - http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ============= sp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - ============= sp; - List Contribution Web Site - sp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com/c============= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2014
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Pascal has it right. Lycoming says you are too inattentive, too dumb and basically incapable of operating lean of peak because a. their engineers have never tried it b. their engineers are too stupid to understand it c. their lawyers perceive a little itty bitty risk that must be avoided d. they wouldn't want to change from what they recommended 50 yrs ago. I've operated my 200 hp Lycoming IO-360-A1A LOP for the past 12 yrs or 700 hours without a problem. Prior to that it had some valve sticking that probably caused overload on the cam lobes that resulted in spalled cam lobes and lifters. It is stock 8.7:1 compression requiring 100 octane minimum...closer to detonation margin than an stock IO-540 260 hp at 8.5:1 compression. The main thing is to understand that you have one reference point for ROP (when the first cylinder peaks) and LOP (when the LAST cylinder peaks). I normally run full throttle and 10-20 LOP anywhere above 6000 ft (~24" MAP). Fuel consumption will be about 0.5 gph per cylinder less than same power ROP. 75% for IO-540=195hp = ~13gph LOP. 65%=169hp=~11.3 gph for normally aspirated engines between 8.5 and 8.7 to 1 compression when LOP power=FF*15 (14.9 if you want that much precision) On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > Hi Pascal > > Here is a link to the monograph I hot from Lycoming at KOSH. > > http://www.shamrockairservices.com/images/LEANING%20TECHNIQUES.pdf > > Cheers > > Les > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:43 PM, "Pascal" wrote: > > Plainly put the lycoming rep was uneducated on the Lycoming stance: > http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182849-1.html?redirected=1 > Lie #7: > Aggressive leaning results in burned valves and detonation. > > Fear of the red knob is one of the most pernicious areas of misinformatio n > among general aviation pilots. Most pilots operate way too rich most of t he > time, and do so because of the mistaken belief that leaning will harm the ir > engine. The result is usually trouble: fouled spark plugs, accelerated > exhaust valve guide wear, and stuck exhaust valves. > > Lycoming engine Lycoming has long authorized leaning to peak EGT at any > cruise setting up to 75% power. TCM authorizes leaning to peak EGT up to > 65%, and its latest recommendations even endorse lean-of-peak operation f or > many big-bore engines, provided the engines will run smoothly when operat ed > that lean. > > Contrary to popular belief, aggressive leaning doesn't cause burned > valves. Most burned valves are the result of excessive valve guide wear o r > valve stem contamination. > > Aggressive leaning doesn't cause detonation, either. Most of our engines > are incapable of detonation at cruise power settings, provided that we > don't exceed CHT red-line or try to burn contaminated fuel. Furthermore, > recent tests on Lycoming engines by ASTM revealed this fascinating result : > detonation is most likely to occur at a mixture setting 11% richer than > stoichiometric (i.e., substantially richer than peak EGT). > > Lean as aggressively as the book allows. For Lycomings, that means peak > EGT at all cruise power settings to 75%. For Continentals, lean to peak E GT > up to 65%, 50=B0F rich of peak at 75%. For turbocharged engines, also lim it > TIT to 1600=B0F. > > Lean during all ground operations except for engine start. It is > particularly important to lean for taxi and runup. Since EGT is usually > off-scale at idle power, the best method is to lean for peak RPM at idle. > > Read through Lycoming's Key Operations- found on the lycoming site. Plent y > about leaning at 75% and lower and even a chart that says they do not > recommend LOP, but on the same page has: > pg38 > 6. Leaning to best economy mixture. > a. Set manifold pressure and RPM for the desired cruise power setting per > the aircraft POH/AFM. > b. Lean slowly in small steps, while monitoring instrumentation, to peak > TIT or maximum allowable TIT, whichever occurs first > > > than on pg 39: > Once cruise power has been set, leaning to best economy should be standar d > procedure as damage to the engine will not occur from leaning at cruise > power settings. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: LES KEARNEY > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies > > > Hi > > At KOSH I received some very conflicted info on lean of peak ops with an > IO540. > > Continental (admittedly not a Lyc IO540), had a wonderful simulation / > presentation about how to safely run LOP. Their position was to stay unde r > 65% power to avoid the "red Box". > > Lycoming seemed to think that LOP was was a high risk venture that most > mere mortals should avoid like the plague. They even has a 2000 monograph > that had a few veiled references to Gami. > > Mike Busch was very much in support of LOP ops in either brand C or L > engines. His view was physics doesnt't change with the brand of engine. > > So, given that we have now resolved how to properly prime lithium > batteries, I would be interested in hearing about first hand LOP > experiences. Has anyone experienced problems with LOP. Lycoming seems to > think that LOP requires more attention to detail than the average pilot c an > muster when things busy. They also suggest that ROP at power settings tha t > match LOP power yields similar albeit somewhat higher fuel flows. Does > actual experience bear this out? > > Any comments? > > Cheers > > Les > Inquiring minds need to know! > > ============ > RV10-List Email Forum - > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= ==== sp; - > MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - ============= sp; - Lis t Contribution Web Site - > sp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com/ c============ > > > <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > > * > =========== onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> =========== =========== om/contribution> =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2014
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
I'm assuming it is fuel economy that motivates your operating at 55% power LOP? Absolutely nothing wrong with it, and excellent speed for that power. On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > In no particular order: > 1. I do not attempt to operate LOP at high power settings. I think my > injectors aren't tuned well enough to get all the cylinders out of the red > box at high powers. > 2. I did have to tune the injectors. Stock setup was not great in that > regard. > 3. Typical cruise for me is at 11,000'; all cylinders 10 to 30 F LOP; wide > open throttle; 2200-2300 RPM; 9.5 gal/hr fuel flow; 160 KTAS. CHT's are 325 > F plus or minus 10F or so (I removed the front air dams). This is two > people plus bags. Full gross and I lose a couple of knots. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428328#428328 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Aug 11, 2014
Hmmm Has anyone run LOP with 9:1 compression cylinders? For the IO540, is there a power setting analogous to the Brand C 65% power s etting that eliminates the red box risk? Cheers Les Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 11, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Pascal has it right. Lycoming says you are too inattentive, too dumb and b asically incapable of operating lean of peak because a. their engineers have never tried it > b. their engineers are too stupid to understand it > c. their lawyers perceive a little itty bitty risk that must be avoided > d. they wouldn't want to change from what they recommended 50 yrs ago. > I've operated my 200 hp Lycoming IO-360-A1A LOP for the past 12 yrs or 700 hours without a problem. Prior to that it had some valve sticking that pro bably caused overload on the cam lobes that resulted in spalled cam lobes an d lifters. It is stock 8.7:1 compression requiring 100 octane minimum...clos er to detonation margin than an stock IO-540 260 hp at 8.5:1 compression. > The main thing is to understand that you have one reference point for ROP ( when the first cylinder peaks) and LOP (when the LAST cylinder peaks). I nor mally run full throttle and 10-20 LOP anywhere above 6000 ft (~24" MAP). Fue l consumption will be about 0.5 gph per cylinder less than same power ROP. > 75% for IO-540=195hp = ~13gph LOP. > 65%=169hp=~11.3 gph > for normally aspirated engines between 8.5 and 8.7 to 1 compression when L OP power=FF*15 (14.9 if you want that much precision) > > >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Les Kearney wrote: >> Hi Pascal >> >> Here is a link to the monograph I hot from Lycoming at KOSH. >> >> http://www.shamrockairservices.com/images/LEANING%20TECHNIQUES.pdf >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:43 PM, "Pascal" wrote: >>> >>> Plainly put the lycoming rep was uneducated on the Lycoming stance: >>> http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182849-1.html?redirected=1 >>> Lie #7: >>> Aggressive leaning results in burned valves and detonation. >>> >>> Fear of the red knob is one of the most pernicious areas of misinformati on among general aviation pilots. Most pilots operate way too rich most of t he time, and do so because of the mistaken belief that leaning will harm the ir engine. The result is usually trouble: fouled spark plugs, accelerated ex haust valve guide wear, and stuck exhaust valves. >>> >>> Lycoming engine Lycoming has long authorized leaning to peak EGT at any c ruise setting up to 75% power. TCM authorizes leaning to peak EGT up to 65%, and its latest recommendations even endorse lean-of-peak operation for many big-bore engines, provided the engines will run smoothly when operated that lean. >>> >>> Contrary to popular belief, aggressive leaning doesn't cause burned valv es. Most burned valves are the result of excessive valve guide wear or valve stem contamination. >>> >>> Aggressive leaning doesn't cause detonation, either. Most of our engines are incapable of detonation at cruise power settings, provided that we don' t exceed CHT red-line or try to burn contaminated fuel. Furthermore, recent t ests on Lycoming engines by ASTM revealed this fascinating result: detonatio n is most likely to occur at a mixture setting 11% richer than stoichiometri c (i.e., substantially richer than peak EGT). >>> >>> Lean as aggressively as the book allows. For Lycomings, that means peak E GT at all cruise power settings to 75%. For Continentals, lean to peak EGT u p to 65%, 50=C2=B0F rich of peak at 75%. For turbocharged engines, also limi t TIT to 1600=C2=B0F. >>> >>> Lean during all ground operations except for engine start. It is particu larly important to lean for taxi and runup. Since EGT is usually off-scale a t idle power, the best method is to lean for peak RPM at idle. >>> >>> Read through Lycoming=99s Key Operations- found on the lycoming si te. Plenty about leaning at 75% and lower and even a chart that says they do not recommend LOP, but on the same page has: >>> pg38 >>> 6. Leaning to best economy mixture. >>> a. Set manifold pressure and RPM for the desired cruise power setting pe r the aircraft POH/AFM. >>> b. Lean slowly in small steps, while monitoring instrumentation, to peak TIT or maximum allowable TIT, whichever occurs first >>> >>> >>> than on pg 39: >>> Once cruise power has been set, leaning to best economy should be standa rd procedure as damage to the engine will not occur from leaning at cruise p ower settings. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: LES KEARNEY >>> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 PM >>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies >>> >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> At KOSH I received some very conflicted info on lean of peak ops with an IO540. >>> >>> Continental (admittedly not a Lyc IO540), had a wonderful simulation / p resentation about how to safely run LOP. Their position was to stay under 65 % power to avoid the "red Box". >>> >>> Lycoming seemed to think that LOP was was a high risk venture that most m ere mortals should avoid like the plague. They even has a 2000 monograph tha t had a few veiled references to Gami. >>> >>> Mike Busch was very much in support of LOP ops in either brand C or L en gines. His view was physics doesnt't change with the brand of engine. >>> >>> So, given that we have now resolved how to properly prime lithium batter ies, I would be interested in hearing about first hand LOP experiences. Has a nyone experienced problems with LOP. Lycoming seems to think that LOP requir es more attention to detail than the average pilot can muster when things bu sy. They also suggest that ROP at power settings that match LOP power yields similar albeit somewhat higher fuel flows. Does actual experience bear this out? >>> >>> Any comments? >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Les >>> Inquiring minds need to know! >>> >>> ============ >>> RV10-List Email Forum - >>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= ==== sp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - =========== == sp; - List Contribution Web Site - sp; -Matt Dra lle, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com/c=========== = >> >> >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> _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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2014
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Les, Just curious why you would want 9:1 compression when the availability of true 100 octane fuel into the future is questionable? The gain in horsepower might help a little on really short or high elevation airports, but it isn't going to do much for cruise speed. I don't know anyone that thinks the acceleration and climb of the stock 260 is inadequate for most any normal operation. The physics is the same. 8.7:1 has almost zero red box and 8.5 to 1 even less. Higher compression just means the red box is bigger and needs more attention, just like a turbo would. On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > Hmmm > > Has anyone run LOP with 9:1 compression cylinders? > > For the IO540, is there a power setting analogous to the Brand C 65% powe r > setting that eliminates the red box risk? > > Cheers > > Les > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 11, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Pascal has it right. Lycoming says you are too inattentive, too dumb and > basically incapable of operating lean of peak because a. their engineers > have never tried it > b. their engineers are too stupid to understand it > c. their lawyers perceive a little itty bitty risk that must be avoided > d. they wouldn't want to change from what they recommended 50 yrs ago. > I've operated my 200 hp Lycoming IO-360-A1A LOP for the past 12 yrs or 70 0 > hours without a problem. Prior to that it had some valve sticking that > probably caused overload on the cam lobes that resulted in spalled cam > lobes and lifters. It is stock 8.7:1 compression requiring 100 octane > minimum...closer to detonation margin than an stock IO-540 260 hp at 8.5: 1 > compression. > The main thing is to understand that you have one reference point for ROP > (when the first cylinder peaks) and LOP (when the LAST cylinder peaks). I > normally run full throttle and 10-20 LOP anywhere above 6000 ft (~24" MAP ). > Fuel consumption will be about 0.5 gph per cylinder less than same power > ROP. > 75% for IO-540=195hp = ~13gph LOP. > 65%=169hp=~11.3 gph > for normally aspirated engines between 8.5 and 8.7 to 1 compression when > LOP power=FF*15 (14.9 if you want that much precision) > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > >> Hi Pascal >> >> Here is a link to the monograph I hot from Lycoming at KOSH. >> >> http://www.shamrockairservices.com/images/LEANING%20TECHNIQUES.pdf >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:43 PM, "Pascal" wrote: >> >> Plainly put the lycoming rep was uneducated on the Lycoming stance: >> http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182849-1.html?redirected=1 >> Lie #7: >> Aggressive leaning results in burned valves and detonation. >> >> Fear of the red knob is one of the most pernicious areas of >> misinformation among general aviation pilots. Most pilots operate way to o >> rich most of the time, and do so because of the mistaken belief that >> leaning will harm their engine. The result is usually trouble: fouled sp ark >> plugs, accelerated exhaust valve guide wear, and stuck exhaust valves. >> >> Lycoming engine Lycoming has long authorized leaning to peak EGT at any >> cruise setting up to 75% power. TCM authorizes leaning to peak EGT up to >> 65%, and its latest recommendations even endorse lean-of-peak operation for >> many big-bore engines, provided the engines will run smoothly when opera ted >> that lean. >> >> Contrary to popular belief, aggressive leaning doesn't cause burned >> valves. Most burned valves are the result of excessive valve guide wear or >> valve stem contamination. >> >> Aggressive leaning doesn't cause detonation, either. Most of our engines >> are incapable of detonation at cruise power settings, provided that we >> don't exceed CHT red-line or try to burn contaminated fuel. Furthermore, >> recent tests on Lycoming engines by ASTM revealed this fascinating resul t: >> detonation is most likely to occur at a mixture setting 11% richer than >> stoichiometric (i.e., substantially richer than peak EGT). >> >> Lean as aggressively as the book allows. For Lycomings, that means peak >> EGT at all cruise power settings to 75%. For Continentals, lean to peak EGT >> up to 65%, 50=B0F rich of peak at 75%. For turbocharged engines, also li mit >> TIT to 1600=B0F. >> >> Lean during all ground operations except for engine start. It is >> particularly important to lean for taxi and runup. Since EGT is usually >> off-scale at idle power, the best method is to lean for peak RPM at idle . >> >> Read through Lycoming's Key Operations- found on the lycoming site. >> Plenty about leaning at 75% and lower and even a chart that says they do >> not recommend LOP, but on the same page has: >> pg38 >> 6. Leaning to best economy mixture. >> a. Set manifold pressure and RPM for the desired cruise power setting pe r >> the aircraft POH/AFM. >> b. Lean slowly in small steps, while monitoring instrumentation, to peak >> TIT or maximum allowable TIT, whichever occurs first >> >> >> than on pg 39: >> Once cruise power has been set, leaning to best economy should be >> standard procedure as damage to the engine will not occur from leaning a t >> cruise power settings. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: LES KEARNEY >> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 PM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies >> >> >> Hi >> >> At KOSH I received some very conflicted info on lean of peak ops with an >> IO540. >> >> Continental (admittedly not a Lyc IO540), had a wonderful simulation / >> presentation about how to safely run LOP. Their position was to stay und er >> 65% power to avoid the "red Box". >> >> Lycoming seemed to think that LOP was was a high risk venture that most >> mere mortals should avoid like the plague. They even has a 2000 monograp h >> that had a few veiled references to Gami. >> >> Mike Busch was very much in support of LOP ops in either brand C or L >> engines. His view was physics doesnt't change with the brand of engine. >> >> So, given that we have now resolved how to properly prime lithium >> batteries, I would be interested in hearing about first hand LOP >> experiences. Has anyone experienced problems with LOP. Lycoming seems to >> think that LOP requires more attention to detail than the average pilot can >> muster when things busy. They also suggest that ROP at power settings th at >> match LOP power yields similar albeit somewhat higher fuel flows. Does >> actual experience bear this out? >> >> Any comments? >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> Inquiring minds need to know! >> >> ============ >> RV10-List Email Forum - >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= ==== sp; - >> MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - ============= sp; - Li st Contribution Web Site - >> sp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com /c============ >> >> >> >> >> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> >> >> * >> >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://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 > 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 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D > //forums.matronics.com <http://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 =3D=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 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D > > * > > * > =========== onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> =========== =========== om/contribution> =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
Date: Aug 11, 2014
This is right on based on my experience as well. Our -10 has over 1,300 hrs o n ECI narrow deck cylinders running LOP exactly as Pascal describes. Tuned i njectors help. Some engines can't even get LOP smoothly without them. Some d o, but it helps in all cases. That is why I started stocking the AFP restric tors. I recommend it to everybody I can. It's nice to be able to avoid the G ami prices with our experimentals. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Aug 11, 2014, at 10:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Pascal has it right. Lycoming says you are too inattentive, too dumb and b asically incapable of operating lean of peak because a. their engineers have never tried it > b. their engineers are too stupid to understand it > c. their lawyers perceive a little itty bitty risk that must be avoided > d. they wouldn't want to change from what they recommended 50 yrs ago. > I've operated my 200 hp Lycoming IO-360-A1A LOP for the past 12 yrs or 700 hours without a problem. Prior to that it had some valve sticking that pro bably caused overload on the cam lobes that resulted in spalled cam lobes an d lifters. It is stock 8.7:1 compression requiring 100 octane minimum...clos er to detonation margin than an stock IO-540 260 hp at 8.5:1 compression. > The main thing is to understand that you have one reference point for ROP ( when the first cylinder peaks) and LOP (when the LAST cylinder peaks). I nor mally run full throttle and 10-20 LOP anywhere above 6000 ft (~24" MAP). Fue l consumption will be about 0.5 gph per cylinder less than same power ROP. > 75% for IO-540=195hp = ~13gph LOP. > 65%=169hp=~11.3 gph > for normally aspirated engines between 8.5 and 8.7 to 1 compression when L OP power=FF*15 (14.9 if you want that much precision) > > >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Les Kearney wrote: >> Hi Pascal >> >> Here is a link to the monograph I hot from Lycoming at KOSH. >> >> http://www.shamrockairservices.com/images/LEANING%20TECHNIQUES.pdf >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:43 PM, "Pascal" wrote: >>> >>> Plainly put the lycoming rep was uneducated on the Lycoming stance: >>> http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182849-1.html?redirected=1 >>> Lie #7: >>> Aggressive leaning results in burned valves and detonation. >>> >>> Fear of the red knob is one of the most pernicious areas of misinformati on among general aviation pilots. Most pilots operate way too rich most of t he time, and do so because of the mistaken belief that leaning will harm the ir engine. The result is usually trouble: fouled spark plugs, accelerated ex haust valve guide wear, and stuck exhaust valves. >>> >>> Lycoming engine Lycoming has long authorized leaning to peak EGT at any c ruise setting up to 75% power. TCM authorizes leaning to peak EGT up to 65%, and its latest recommendations even endorse lean-of-peak operation for many big-bore engines, provided the engines will run smoothly when operated that lean. >>> >>> Contrary to popular belief, aggressive leaning doesn't cause burned valv es. Most burned valves are the result of excessive valve guide wear or valve stem contamination. >>> >>> Aggressive leaning doesn't cause detonation, either. Most of our engines are incapable of detonation at cruise power settings, provided that we don' t exceed CHT red-line or try to burn contaminated fuel. Furthermore, recent t ests on Lycoming engines by ASTM revealed this fascinating result: detonatio n is most likely to occur at a mixture setting 11% richer than stoichiometri c (i.e., substantially richer than peak EGT). >>> >>> Lean as aggressively as the book allows. For Lycomings, that means peak E GT at all cruise power settings to 75%. For Continentals, lean to peak EGT u p to 65%, 50=C2=B0F rich of peak at 75%. For turbocharged engines, also limi t TIT to 1600=C2=B0F. >>> >>> Lean during all ground operations except for engine start. It is particu larly important to lean for taxi and runup. Since EGT is usually off-scale a t idle power, the best method is to lean for peak RPM at idle. >>> >>> Read through Lycoming=99s Key Operations- found on the lycoming si te. Plenty about leaning at 75% and lower and even a chart that says they do not recommend LOP, but on the same page has: >>> pg38 >>> 6. Leaning to best economy mixture. >>> a. Set manifold pressure and RPM for the desired cruise power setting pe r the aircraft POH/AFM. >>> b. Lean slowly in small steps, while monitoring instrumentation, to peak TIT or maximum allowable TIT, whichever occurs first >>> >>> >>> than on pg 39: >>> Once cruise power has been set, leaning to best economy should be standa rd procedure as damage to the engine will not occur from leaning at cruise p ower settings. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: LES KEARNEY >>> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 PM >>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies >>> >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> At KOSH I received some very conflicted info on lean of peak ops with an IO540. >>> >>> Continental (admittedly not a Lyc IO540), had a wonderful simulation / p resentation about how to safely run LOP. Their position was to stay under 65 % power to avoid the "red Box". >>> >>> Lycoming seemed to think that LOP was was a high risk venture that most m ere mortals should avoid like the plague. They even has a 2000 monograph tha t had a few veiled references to Gami. >>> >>> Mike Busch was very much in support of LOP ops in either brand C or L en gines. His view was physics doesnt't change with the brand of engine. >>> >>> So, given that we have now resolved how to properly prime lithium batter ies, I would be interested in hearing about first hand LOP experiences. Has a nyone experienced problems with LOP. Lycoming seems to think that LOP requir es more attention to detail than the average pilot can muster when things bu sy. They also suggest that ROP at power settings that match LOP power yields similar albeit somewhat higher fuel flows. Does actual experience bear this out? >>> >>> Any comments? >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Les >>> Inquiring minds need to know! >>> >>> ============ >>> RV10-List Email Forum - >>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= ==== sp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - =========== == sp; - List Contribution Web Site - sp; -Matt Drall e, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com/c============ >> >> >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> _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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2014
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
How about 9:5 compression?=C2- That's what I have, and I fly LOP everywhe re.=C2- Lot's of hp, 3 blade prop... cruise at 1/2 throttle (at 10,500', instead of WOT providing 21.3 inches, I'm around 18.5") and between 2,000 a nd 2,100 rpm. I'm sure Kelley will tell us what % power that setting is.=C2 - Before some of you say "he can't get 21.3" at 10,500, I only get 20.3". ... you can if you have a 4" forward facing servo with cold air induction a nd an F1 Rocket scoop.=0AWith these settings we cruise fast enough (156kts) , have a low fuel burn, and the engine temps and my wallet are very happy. =0ADon Mc=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: Les Kearney =0ATo: "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" =0ASent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:21 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: Lean o f Peak and other heresies=0A =0A=0A=0AHmmm=0A=0AHas anyone run LOP with 9:1 compression cylinders?=0A=0AFor the IO540, is there a power setting analog ous to the Brand C 65% power setting that eliminates the red box risk?=0A =0ACheers=0A=0ALes=0A=0ASent from my iPhone=0A=0AOn Aug 11, 2014, at 8:53 P M, Kelly McMullen wrote:=0A=0A=0APascal has it right. L ycoming says you are too inattentive, too dumb and basically incapable of o perating lean of peak because a. their engineers have never tried it=0A>b. their engineers are too stupid to understand it=0A>c. their lawyers perceiv e a little itty bitty risk that must be avoided=0A>d. they wouldn't want to change from what they recommended 50 yrs ago.=0A>I've operated my 200 hp L ycoming IO-360-A1A LOP for the past 12 yrs or 700 hours without a problem. =C2- Prior to that it had some valve sticking that probably caused overlo ad on the cam lobes that resulted in spalled cam lobes and lifters. It is s tock 8.7:1 compression requiring 100 octane minimum...closer to detonation margin than an stock IO-540 260 hp at 8.5:1 compression.=0A>The main thing is to understand that you have one reference point for ROP (when the first cylinder peaks) and LOP (when the LAST cylinder peaks). I normally run full throttle and 10-20 LOP anywhere above 6000 ft (~24" MAP). Fuel consumption will be about 0.5 gph per cylinder less than same power ROP.=0A>75% for IO -540=195hp = ~13gph LOP.=0A>65%=169hp=~11.3 gph=0A>for normally asp irated engines between 8.5 and 8.7 to 1 compression when LOP power=FF*15 =C2- (14.9 if you want that much precision)=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>On Mon, Au g 11, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Les Kearney wrote:=0A>=0A>Hi Pasca l=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>Here is a link to the monograph I hot from Lycoming at KOSH .=C2-=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>http://www.shamrockairservices.com/images/LEANING%20T ECHNIQUES.pdf=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>Cheers=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>Les=0A>>=0A>>Sent from my iPhone=0A>>=0A>>On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:43 PM, "Pascal" wrote:=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>Plainly put the lycoming rep was uneducated on the Lyc oming stance:=0A>>>http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182849-1.html?redirected =1=0A>>>Lie #7:=0A>>>Aggressive leaning results in burned valves and deto nation.=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>Fear of the red knob is one of the most pernicious areas of misinformation =0Aamong general aviation pilots. Most pilots oper ate way too rich most of the =0Atime, and do so because of the mistaken bel ief that leaning will harm their =0Aengine. The result is usually trouble: fouled spark plugs, accelerated exhaust =0Avalve guide wear, and stuck exha ust valves.=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>Lycoming engine Lycoming has long authorized l eaning to peak EGT at any =0Acruise setting up to 75% power. TCM authorizes leaning to peak EGT up to 65%, =0Aand its latest recommendations even endo rse lean-of-peak operation for many =0Abig-bore engines, provided the engin es will run smoothly when operated that =0Alean.=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>Contrary to popular belief, aggressive leaning doesn't cause burned valves. =0AMost burned valves are the result of excessive valve guide wear or valve stem =0Acontamination.=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>Aggressive leaning doesn't cause detonat ion, either. Most of our engines =0Aare incapable of detonation at cruise p ower settings, provided that we don't =0Aexceed CHT red-line or try to burn contaminated fuel. Furthermore, recent tests =0Aon Lycoming engines by AST M revealed this fascinating result: detonation is most =0Alikely to occur a t a mixture setting 11% richer than stoichiometric (i.e., =0Asubstantially richer than peak EGT).=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>Lean as aggressively as the book al lows. For Lycomings, that means peak EGT =0Aat all cruise power settings to 75%. For Continentals, lean to peak EGT up to =0A65%, 50=C2=B0F rich of pe ak at 75%. For turbocharged engines, also limit TIT to =0A1600=C2=B0F.=0A>> >=C2-=0A>>>Lean during all ground operations except for engine start. It is =0Aparticularly important to lean for taxi and runup. Since EGT is usual ly =0Aoff-scale at idle power, the best method is to lean for peak RPM at i dle. =0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>Read through Lycoming=99s Key Operations- foun d on the lycoming site. Plenty =0Aabout leaning at 75% and lower and even a chart that says they do not recommend =0ALOP, but on the same page has: =0A>>>pg38=0A>>>6. Leaning to best economy mixture.=0A>>>a. Set manifold pr essure and RPM for the desired cruise power setting per =0Athe aircraft POH /AFM.=0A>>>b. Lean slowly in small steps, while monitoring instrumentation, to peak =0ATIT or maximum allowable TIT, whichever occurs first=0A>>>=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>than on pg 39:=0A>>>Once cruise power has been s et, leaning to best economy should be standard =0Aprocedure as damage to th e engine will not occur from leaning at cruise power =0Asettings.=0A>>>=C2 -=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>-----Original Message----- =0A>>>From: LES KEARNEY =0A >>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 PM =0A>>>To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com =0A>>>Subject: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies =0A>>>=C2-=0A>> -=0A>>>Hi=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>At KOSH I received some very conflicted info o n lean of peak ops with an =0AIO540. =0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>Continental (admitte dly not a Lyc IO540), had a wonderful simulation / =0Apresentation about ho w to safely run LOP. Their position was to stay under 65% =0Apower to avoid the "red Box". =0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>Lycoming seemed to think that LOP was was a high risk venture that most =0Amere mortals should avoid like the plague . They even has a 2000 monograph that =0Ahad a few veiled references to Gam i.=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>Mike Busch was very much in support of LOP ops in eithe r brand C or L =0Aengines. His view was physics doesnt't change with the br and of engine.=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>So, given that we have now resolved how to properly prime lithium =0Abatteries, I would be interested in hearing about first hand LOP experiences. =0AHas anyone experienced problems with LOP. L ycoming seems to think that LOP =0Arequires more attention to detail than t he average pilot can muster when things =0Abusy. They also suggest that ROP at power settings that match LOP power yields =0Asimilar albeit somewhat h igher fuel flows. Does actual experience bear this =0Aout?=0A>>>=C2-=0A>> >Any comments?=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>Cheers=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>Les=0A>>>Inquiring minds need to know!=0A>>>=C2-=0A============= =0ARV10-List =0AEmail Forum -http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ==============0Asp;=C2-=C2-=C2- =0A- MATRON ICS WEB FORUMS -=0A==============0Asp;=C2- =0A- List Contribution Web Site -=0Asp;=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2 -=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- =0A-M att Dralle, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com/c======== ===== =0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>>=C2-=0A>>get="_blank">htt p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List tp://forums.matronics.com=0A_blan k">http://www.matronics.com/contribution =0A>=0A>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=0AList"">http://www.matr onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List=0AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0A//forums.matronics.com=0AD=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0Aot;">ht tp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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: Lean of Peak and other heresies
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Aug 11, 2014
Hi Kelly I am not too fussed about 100ll. As well, I plan to fly over the rocks to th e west. Cheers Les Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Les, > Just curious why you would want 9:1 compression when the availability of t rue 100 octane fuel into the future is questionable? > The gain in horsepower might help a little on really short or high elevati on airports, but it isn't going to do much for cruise speed. > I don't know anyone that thinks the acceleration and climb of the stock 26 0 is inadequate for most any normal operation. > The physics is the same. 8.7:1 has almost zero red box and 8.5 to 1 even l ess. Higher compression just means the red box is bigger and needs more atte ntion, just like a turbo would. > > >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Les Kearney wrote: >> Hmmm >> >> Has anyone run LOP with 9:1 compression cylinders? >> >> For the IO540, is there a power setting analogous to the Brand C 65% powe r setting that eliminates the red box risk? >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Aug 11, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >>> >>> Pascal has it right. Lycoming says you are too inattentive, too dumb and basically incapable of operating lean of peak because a. their engineers ha ve never tried it >>> b. their engineers are too stupid to understand it >>> c. their lawyers perceive a little itty bitty risk that must be avoided >>> d. they wouldn't want to change from what they recommended 50 yrs ago. >>> I've operated my 200 hp Lycoming IO-360-A1A LOP for the past 12 yrs or 7 00 hours without a problem. Prior to that it had some valve sticking that p robably caused overload on the cam lobes that resulted in spalled cam lobes a nd lifters. It is stock 8.7:1 compression requiring 100 octane minimum...clo ser to detonation margin than an stock IO-540 260 hp at 8.5:1 compression. >>> The main thing is to understand that you have one reference point for RO P (when the first cylinder peaks) and LOP (when the LAST cylinder peaks). I n ormally run full throttle and 10-20 LOP anywhere above 6000 ft (~24" MAP). Fu el consumption will be about 0.5 gph per cylinder less than same power ROP. >>> 75% for IO-540=195hp = ~13gph LOP. >>> 65%=169hp=~11.3 gph >>> for normally aspirated engines between 8.5 and 8.7 to 1 compression when LOP power=FF*15 (14.9 if you want that much precision) >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Les Kearney wrote: >>>> Hi Pascal >>>> >>>> Here is a link to the monograph I hot from Lycoming at KOSH. >>>> >>>> http://www.shamrockairservices.com/images/LEANING%20TECHNIQUES.pdf >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Les >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:43 PM, "Pascal" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Plainly put the lycoming rep was uneducated on the Lycoming stance: >>>>> http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182849-1.html?redirected=1 >>>>> Lie #7: >>>>> Aggressive leaning results in burned valves and detonation. >>>>> >>>>> Fear of the red knob is one of the most pernicious areas of misinforma tion among general aviation pilots. Most pilots operate way too rich most of the time, and do so because of the mistaken belief that leaning will harm t heir engine. The result is usually trouble: fouled spark plugs, accelerated e xhaust valve guide wear, and stuck exhaust valves. >>>>> >>>>> Lycoming engine Lycoming has long authorized leaning to peak EGT at an y cruise setting up to 75% power. TCM authorizes leaning to peak EGT up to 6 5%, and its latest recommendations even endorse lean-of-peak operation for m any big-bore engines, provided the engines will run smoothly when operated t hat lean. >>>>> >>>>> Contrary to popular belief, aggressive leaning doesn't cause burned va lves. Most burned valves are the result of excessive valve guide wear or va lve stem contamination. >>>>> >>>>> Aggressive leaning doesn't cause detonation, either. Most of our engin es are incapable of detonation at cruise power settings, provided that we do n't exceed CHT red-line or try to burn contaminated fuel. Furthermore, recen t tests on Lycoming engines by ASTM revealed this fascinating result: detona tion is most likely to occur at a mixture setting 11% richer than stoichiome tric (i.e., substantially richer than peak EGT). >>>>> >>>>> Lean as aggressively as the book allows. For Lycomings, that means pea k EGT at all cruise power settings to 75%. For Continentals, lean to peak EG T up to 65%, 50=C2=B0F rich of peak at 75%. For turbocharged engines, also l imit TIT to 1600=C2=B0F. >>>>> >>>>> Lean during all ground operations except for engine start. It is parti cularly important to lean for taxi and runup. Since EGT is usually off-scale at idle power, the best method is to lean for peak RPM at idle. >>>>> >>>>> Read through Lycoming=99s Key Operations- found on the lycoming s ite. Plenty about leaning at 75% and lower and even a chart that says they d o not recommend LOP, but on the same page has: >>>>> pg38 >>>>> 6. Leaning to best economy mixture. >>>>> a. Set manifold pressure and RPM for the desired cruise power setting p er the aircraft POH/AFM. >>>>> b. Lean slowly in small steps, while monitoring instrumentation, to pe ak TIT or maximum allowable TIT, whichever occurs first >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> than on pg 39: >>>>> Once cruise power has been set, leaning to best economy should be stan dard procedure as damage to the engine will not occur from leaning at cruise power settings. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: LES KEARNEY >>>>> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 PM >>>>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>>>> Subject: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> At KOSH I received some very conflicted info on lean of peak ops with a n IO540. >>>>> >>>>> Continental (admittedly not a Lyc IO540), had a wonderful simulation / presentation about how to safely run LOP. Their position was to stay under 6 5% power to avoid the "red Box". >>>>> >>>>> Lycoming seemed to think that LOP was was a high risk venture that mos t mere mortals should avoid like the plague. They even has a 2000 monograph t hat had a few veiled references to Gami. >>>>> >>>>> Mike Busch was very much in support of LOP ops in either brand C or L e ngines. His view was physics doesnt't change with the brand of engine. >>>>> >>>>> So, given that we have now resolved how to properly prime lithium batt eries, I would be interested in hearing about first hand LOP experiences. Ha s anyone experienced problems with LOP. Lycoming seems to think that LOP req uires more attention to detail than the average pilot can muster when things busy. They also suggest that ROP at power settings that match LOP power yie lds similar albeit somewhat higher fuel flows. Does actual experience bear t his out? >>>>> >>>>> Any comments? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Les >>>>> Inquiring minds need to know! >>>>> >>>>> ============ >>>>> RV10-List Email Forum - >>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ========= ==== sp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - =========== == sp; - List Contribution Web Site - sp; -Matt Dral le, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com/c============ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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=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 >>> >> >> >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> _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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
The only way to determine power LOP is by the fuel flow calculation I provided earlier. While higher compression does provide somewhat better efficiency, it is offset by lower detonation margins. I don't know whether WOT with stock compression would be less or equally efficient than partial throttle with higher compression. I do know that partial throttle does disrupt the airflow into the manifold. Whether that offsets some of the efficiency gain would probably have to be determined on a dyno or other instrumented setup. I just prefer the keep it simple way of doing things, so that if something fails, I can get replacement stock parts, and I don't have to worry if I find myself somewhere that only 91 octane mogas is available. All choices that we get to make as amateur builders. Only those that make sense for our individual needs are the right ones. Kelly On 8/11/2014 8:56 PM, Don McDonald wrote: > How about 9:5 compression? That's what I have, and I fly LOP > everywhere. Lot's of hp, 3 blade prop... cruise at 1/2 throttle (at > 10,500', instead of WOT providing 21.3 inches, I'm around 18.5") and > between 2,000 and 2,100 rpm. I'm sure Kelley will tell us what % power > that setting is. Before some of you say "he can't get 21.3" at 10,500, > I only get 20.3".... you can if you have a 4" forward facing servo > with cold air induction and an F1 Rocket scoop. > With these settings we cruise fast enough (156kts), have a low fuel > burn, and the engine temps and my wallet are very happy. > Don Mc > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Les Kearney > *To:* "rv10-list(at)matronics.com" > *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2014 10:21 PM > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies > > Hmmm > > Has anyone run LOP with 9:1 compression cylinders? > > For the IO540, is there a power setting analogous to the Brand C 65% > power setting that eliminates the red box risk? > > Cheers > > Les > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 11, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Kelly McMullen > wrote: > >> Pascal has it right. Lycoming says you are too inattentive, too dumb >> and basically incapable of operating lean of peak because a. their >> engineers have never tried it >> b. their engineers are too stupid to understand it >> c. their lawyers perceive a little itty bitty risk that must be avoided >> d. they wouldn't want to change from what they recommended 50 yrs ago. >> I've operated my 200 hp Lycoming IO-360-A1A LOP for the past 12 yrs >> or 700 hours without a problem. Prior to that it had some valve >> sticking that probably caused overload on the cam lobes that resulted >> in spalled cam lobes and lifters. It is stock 8.7:1 compression >> requiring 100 octane minimum...closer to detonation margin than an >> stock IO-540 260 hp at 8.5:1 compression. >> The main thing is to understand that you have one reference point for >> ROP (when the first cylinder peaks) and LOP (when the LAST cylinder >> peaks). I normally run full throttle and 10-20 LOP anywhere above >> 6000 ft (~24" MAP). Fuel consumption will be about 0.5 gph per >> cylinder less than same power ROP. >> 75% for IO-540=195hp = ~13gph LOP. >> 65%=169hp=~11.3 gph >> for normally aspirated engines between 8.5 and 8.7 to 1 compression >> when LOP power=FF*15 (14.9 if you want that much precision) >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Les Kearney > > wrote: >> >> Hi Pascal >> >> Here is a link to the monograph I hot from Lycoming at KOSH. >> >> http://www.shamrockairservices.com/images/LEANING%20TECHNIQUES.pdf >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:43 PM, "Pascal" > > wrote: >> >>> Plainly put the lycoming rep was uneducated on the Lycoming stance: >>> http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182849-1.html?redirected=1 >>> Lie #7: >>> Aggressive leaning results in burned valves and detonation. >>> Fear of the red knob is one of the most pernicious areas of >>> misinformation among general aviation pilots. Most pilots >>> operate way too rich most of the time, and do so because of the >>> mistaken belief that leaning will harm their engine. The result >>> is usually trouble: fouled spark plugs, accelerated exhaust >>> valve guide wear, and stuck exhaust valves. >>> Lycoming engine Lycoming has long authorized leaning to peak EGT >>> at any cruise setting up to 75% power. TCM authorizes leaning to >>> peak EGT up to 65%, and its latest recommendations even endorse >>> lean-of-peak operation for many big-bore engines, provided the >>> engines will run smoothly when operated that lean. >>> Contrary to popular belief, aggressive leaning doesn't cause >>> burned valves. Most burned valves are the result of excessive >>> valve guide wear or valve stem contamination. >>> Aggressive leaning doesn't cause detonation, either. Most of our >>> engines are incapable of detonation at cruise power settings, >>> provided that we don't exceed CHT red-line or try to burn >>> contaminated fuel. Furthermore, recent tests on Lycoming engines >>> by ASTM revealed this fascinating result: detonation is most >>> likely to occur at a mixture setting 11% richer than >>> stoichiometric (i.e., substantially richer than peak EGT). >>> Lean as aggressively as the book allows. For Lycomings, that >>> means peak EGT at all cruise power settings to 75%. For >>> Continentals, lean to peak EGT up to 65%, 50F rich of peak at >>> 75%. For turbocharged engines, also limit TIT to 1600F. >>> Lean during all ground operations except for engine start. It is >>> particularly important to lean for taxi and runup. Since EGT is >>> usually off-scale at idle power, the best method is to lean for >>> peak RPM at idle. >>> Read through Lycomings Key Operations- found on the lycoming >>> site. Plenty about leaning at 75% and lower and even a chart >>> that says they do not recommend LOP, but on the same page has: >>> pg38 >>> 6. Leaning to best economy mixture. >>> a. Set manifold pressure and RPM for the desired cruise power >>> setting per the aircraft POH/AFM. >>> b. Lean slowly in small steps, while monitoring instrumentation, >>> to peak TIT or maximum allowable TIT, whichever occurs first >>> >>> than on pg 39: >>> Once cruise power has been set, leaning to best economy should >>> be standard procedure as damage to the engine will not occur >>> from leaning at cruise power settings. >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: LES KEARNEY >>> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 PM >>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: RV10-List: Lean of Peak and other heresies >>> > >>> Hi >>> At KOSH I received some very conflicted info on lean of peak ops >>> with an IO540. >>> Continental (admittedly not a Lyc IO540), had a wonderful >>> simulation / presentation about how to safely run LOP. Their >>> position was to stay under 65% power to avoid the "red Box". >>> Lycoming seemed to think that LOP was was a high risk venture >>> that most mere mortals should avoid like the plague. They even >>> has a 2000 monograph that had a few veiled references to Gami. >>> Mike Busch was very much in support of LOP ops in either brand C >>> or L engines. His view was physics doesnt't change with the >>> brand of engine. >>> So, given that we have now resolved how to properly prime >>> lithium batteries, I would be interested in hearing about first >>> hand LOP experiences. Has anyone experienced problems with LOP. >>> Lycoming seems to think that LOP requires more attention to >>> detail than the average pilot can muster when things busy. They >>> also suggest that ROP at power settings that match LOP power >>> yields similar albeit somewhat higher fuel flows. Does actual >>> experience bear this out? >>> Any comments? >>> Cheers >>> Les >>> Inquiring minds need to know! >>> ============ >>> RV10-List Email Forum - >>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ============ >>> sp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - ============= sp; - List >>> Contribution Web Site - sp; -Matt Dralle, List >>> Admin. http://www.matronics.com/c============ >>> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> >> >> * >> >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> _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============================================ >> >> * > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.matronics.com/contributi= > > * > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 11, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
Hi Les, Like I said, individual choices, individual opinions. Compression needs are probably related to which primer you used...................... IIRC the -10 will climb over any rock in North America with a stock engine. I know the service ceiling is higher than my 200 hp Mooney that will do 18,800 for service ceiling. IIRC there aren't too many rocks in Canada besides Mt. Logan that are in the upper teens. Of course most of us ignore the advice that mods take time, money, more time and more money. On 8/11/2014 9:06 PM, Les Kearney wrote: > Hi Kelly > > I am not too fussed about 100ll. As well, I plan to fly over the rocks > to the west. > > Cheers > > Les > > Sent from my iPhone > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Bockelman" <dvdbock(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Want to fly and own an RV-10
Date: Aug 11, 2014
Cheers I have just joined the RV-10 list because I want to fly and own an RV-10. Have built and have eight years flying a 'RV-derivative' Rocket. Love flying the Rocket, but "life changes"have caused me to want a more-comfortable, larger aircraft. Need some help: 1) wish to determine if RV-10 is fun to fly ( like the other RVs have flown) -- welcome comments from you, but also want to fly in an RV-10 with someone in the Southwest, not too far from Los Angeles. Will pay for expenses. 2) Am looking for a well-built and well maintained RV-10 to purchase. Please respond with comments and/ or if you can help... Thanks Dave B ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lean of Peak and other heresies
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Aug 12, 2014
I run my TMX-IO-540 always LOP. Usually at 8-9.5k WOT it generates 160 TAS using 38-40l/h which is about 10-10.5 USGAL . You should take the advanced pilot seminar online course this will make you understand the physics behind engine management. I after break in I spent all my flights on injector balancing and I am now at a 2l difference which works for now. Clearly electronic engine monitoring and balanced fuel flow injection is a prerequisite for LOP ops. Given that I pay about 11.7$ per USgal LOP makes a lot of sense from an economical view as well. Mike -------- RV-10 builder (flying) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428355#428355 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Want to fly and own an RV-10
From: "rsipp(at)earthlink.net" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Aug 12, 2014
I have a 10 that would certainly meet your needs. IFR equipped 530 hours on a irplane prop and engine since new. Planned on putting it on the market this f all. Located in Midland, MI. Can provide pictures and more detail as you des ire next week as we are currently out of town on vacation. This is a reliabl e quality build by myself a repeat builder. Best Regards Dick Sipp 989 948 5452 Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Dave Bockelman" wrote: > > Cheers > I have just joined the RV-10 list because I want to fly and own an RV-10. > Have built and have eight years flying a 'RV-derivative' Rocket. Love flyi ng the Rocket, but "life changes"have caused me to want a more-comfortable, l arger aircraft. > Need some help: > 1) wish to determine if RV-10 is fun to fly ( like the other RVs have flow n) -- welcome comments from you, but also want to fly in an RV-10 with some one in the Southwest, not too far from Los Angeles. Will pay for expenses. > 2) Am looking for a well-built and well maintained RV-10 to purchase. > Please respond with comments and/ or if you can help... > Thanks > Dave B > > > > 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: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: LOP
Date: Aug 12, 2014
I have been operating LOP for six years and 837 hours. at 2500 pounds I routinely get 150KTAS at 55% and 9 gph. I have been asked "how fast does it go and I answer I don't know , I haven't been there". My CHTs at LOP run 275-320 and EGTs are all elow 1421. Be advised that the EGTS will rise aove 1420 and then fall off as you continue to lean. I use the lean function of the GRT avionics to lean and minitor.I start leani8ng shortly after I see the 25gph flow on TO. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: LOP
Date: Aug 12, 2014
I don't know how to send pictures but here is a try. I was at 15000 KTRK to KDHT. At Cortez CO I was given a choice of the airway or 17000. These are the pictures at that time. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Want to fly and own an RV-10
Date: Aug 12, 2014
Dave; Not selling the plane yet, but I=92ll gladly take you out for a flight. I think there is also a plane in Ramona. Get on the Socal rv yahoo list for more local options. Pascal From: Dave Bockelman Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:35 AM Subject: RV10-List: Want to fly and own an RV-10 Cheers I have just joined the RV-10 list because I want to fly and own an RV-10. Have built and have eight years flying a 'RV-derivative' Rocket. Love flying the Rocket, but "life changes"have caused me to want a more-comfortable, larger aircraft. Need some help: 1) wish to determine if RV-10 is fun to fly ( like the other RVs have flown) -- welcome comments from you, but also want to fly in an RV-10 with someone in the Southwest, not too far from Los Angeles. Will pay for expenses. 2) Am looking for a well-built and well maintained RV-10 to purchase. Please respond with comments and/ or if you can help... Thanks Dave B ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Want to fly and own an RV-10
From: Bob Kaufmann <bob.kaufmann(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 12, 2014
I have a RV-10 for sale, glass panel and IFR equipped. Call me or email at 5 41 973-7083 or bob.kaufmann(at)gmail.com. Currently has 80 hrs. Last flown on Friday. Cheers Bob Sent from my iPad > On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:35 AM, "Dave Bockelman" wrote: > > Cheers > I have just joined the RV-10 list because I want to fly and own an RV-10. > Have built and have eight years flying a 'RV-derivative' Rocket. Love flyi ng the Rocket, but "life changes"have caused me to want a more-comfortable, l arger aircraft. > Need some help: > 1) wish to determine if RV-10 is fun to fly ( like the other RVs have flow n) -- welcome comments from you, but also want to fly in an RV-10 with someo ne in the Southwest, not too far from Los Angeles. Will pay for expenses. > 2) Am looking for a well-built and well maintained RV-10 to purchase. > Please respond with comments and/ or if you can help... > Thanks > Dave B > > > > 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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Want to fly and own an RV-10
Hi Bob! I'm still building .... working on the windows. Just curious what price you'd put on your -10. What are you going to do if it sells?? Linn On 8/12/2014 10:40 AM, Bob Kaufmann wrote: > I have a RV-10 for sale, glass panel and IFR equipped. Call me or > email at 541 973-7083 or bob.kaufmann(at)gmail.com > . Currently has 80 hrs. Last flown on > Friday. > > Cheers > Bob > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Aug 11, 2014, at 6:35 AM, "Dave Bockelman" > wrote: > >> Cheers >> I have just joined the RV-10 list because I want to fly and own an >> RV-10. >> Have built and have eight years flying a 'RV-derivative' Rocket. Love >> flying the Rocket, but "life changes"have caused me to want a >> more-comfortable, larger aircraft. >> Need some help: >> 1) wish to determine if RV-10 is fun to fly ( like the other RVs have >> flown) -- welcome comments from you, but also want to fly in an RV-10 >> with someone in the Southwest, not too far from Los Angeles. Will pay >> for expenses. >> 2) Am looking for a well-built and well maintained RV-10 to purchase. >> Please respond with comments and/ or if you can help... >> Thanks >> Dave B >> * >> >> >> * > * > > > * > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com>
Subject: Re: Want to fly and own an RV-10
Date: Aug 12, 2014
Hello Dave, Life changes have made my wife and I decide to sell our beloved RV-10. I have not actually put it on the market yet, but your timely email has made me get moving. We built this airplane when we lived in Minnesota and finished in the fall of 2008. I had quite a bit of professional help building it, particularly on the firewall forward and the electronics. We moved to Florida in early 2009 when I retired, and, of course, the airplane came with us. It has been hangared its entire life. My wife and I have traveled widely in this airplane. The engine is an IO-540-C4B5 that I had overhauled. It has approximately 740 hours SMOH. MT three bladed propeller 740 hours since new. The airplane is IFR capable and I keep it legal with transponder and pitot static system checks. I am including a link to some photos I took a couple of years ago. The one big difference is that I replaced the dual Chelton EFIS shown in the photos on the pilot side, with a new Grand Rapids Technology Hxr 10 inch EFIS about a year and a half ago. I loved the Cheltons, but was concerned about long term support from Chelton. When I upgraded to the GRT, I also equipped with full 2020 compliant in and out ADS-B. I have recent compliance checks from the FAA confirming that the system is compliant. If you are interested, I can get a recent photo showing the GRT EFIS installation I put in many extras, including Flightline AC air conditioning and HW extended range tip tanks. I also have the Vertical Power VP-200 duo electrical system. Many other upgrades and extras. Here is the link to the photos. https://picasaweb.google.com/111440357646577121791/RV10ForSale?authkey=G v1sRgCMnqmKqDw9GX9AE I am asking $195,000 Best regards, David Maib 612-202-6309 On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Dave Bockelman wrote: Cheers I have just joined the RV-10 list because I want to fly and own an RV-10. Have built and have eight years flying a 'RV-derivative' Rocket. Love flying the Rocket, but "life changes"have caused me to want a more-comfortable, larger aircraft. Need some help: 1) wish to determine if RV-10 is fun to fly ( like the other RVs have flown) -- welcome comments from you, but also want to fly in an RV-10 with someone in the Southwest, not too far from Los Angeles. Will pay for expenses. 2) Am looking for a well-built and well maintained RV-10 to purchase. Please respond with comments and/ or if you can help... Thanks Dave B David ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV GoPro Mounts
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Aug 13, 2014
I can't remember who out there was selling RV GoPro mounts for the underwing tie-downs and fuel caps. If you're out there could you please email me Warm regards Patrick Pulis Adelaide, South Australia ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV GoPro Mounts
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2014
Planearound.com Sent from my iPad > On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: > > > I can't remember who out there was selling RV GoPro mounts for the underwing tie-downs and fuel caps. > > If you're out there could you please email me > > Warm regards > > Patrick Pulis > Adelaide, South Australia > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV GoPro Mounts
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Aug 13, 2014
Thank you Warm regards Patrick > On 13 Aug 2014, at 18:40, Bob Leffler wrote: > > > Planearound.com > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: >> >> >> I can't remember who out there was selling RV GoPro mounts for the underwing tie-downs and fuel caps. >> >> If you're out there could you please email me >> >> Warm regards >> >> Patrick Pulis >> Adelaide, South Australia > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Ref: FLIGHT DATA SYSTEMS GD-40 CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Aug 13, 2014
Could anyone please tell me if they have installed the above unit in their RV-10? If so could you please indicate your thoughts regarding the ease of installation, display functionality and unit operation? Warm regards and thanks Patrick Pulis Adelaide, South Australia #40299 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ref: FLIGHT DATA SYSTEMS GD-40 CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR
From: "charliewaffles" <mcooper(at)live.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2014
I have the GD40 in my RV10. Installs very easily on the sub-panel. Audio line to the audio panel for announciations. Serial line to the EFIS for data/visual warnings. There is a small LED light and switch on the panel to interact with the system. Very happy with it - has been trouble free since installation. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428399#428399 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ref: FLIGHT DATA SYSTEMS GD-40 CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Aug 14, 2014
Thank you Warm regards Patrick > On 14 Aug 2014, at 0:40, "charliewaffles" wrote: > > > I have the GD40 in my RV10. Installs very easily on the sub-panel. Audio line to the audio panel for announciations. Serial line to the EFIS for data/visual warnings. There is a small LED light and switch on the panel to interact with the system. Very happy with it - has been trouble free since installation. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428399#428399 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ref: FLIGHT DATA SYSTEMS GD-40 CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR
From: "dhmoose" <dhmoose(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2014
charliewaffles wrote: > I have the GD40 in my RV10. Installs very easily on the sub-panel. Audio line to the audio panel for announciations. Serial line to the EFIS for data/visual warnings. There is a small LED light and switch on the panel to interact with the system. Very happy with it - has been trouble free since installation. Ditto. Slightly expensive compared to simpler solutions but those simpler solutions do not have the same functionality and benefits. Btw, these units have a 5-7 year life before you send it in for calibration. D -------- David Halmos RV-10 Flying! Portland, OR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428437#428437 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Trip interest
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2014
One of my first flying jobs almost 30 years ago was as a dashing young tour pilot in the Grand Canyon, Lake Powell, Monument Valley area. I am looking into the potential interest of putting together a Color Country Caravan of 6-10 RV-10's (10ish couples) who would be interested in a 3 day 2 night joint loosely guided expedition in that area with overnights at Bar10 ranch (GC) and Goulding's lodge (MV). I'm thinking a Thurs/Fri/Sat type thing starting in Sedona perhaps late Sept. I am just gauging interest prior to coming up with a hard itinerary/cost/reservations, etc. Myron woxof(at)aol.com 602 421-2868 -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428451#428451 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Trip interest
From: "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net>
Date: Aug 14, 2014
Interested last weekend of Sept. or later. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428473#428473 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Need QB wing plans
Date: Aug 15, 2014
All, Following up on my note about a Rhode Island Air National Guard C-130 damaging my airplane, I'm working with Van's to just order a right Quick Build wing as the repair option. My RV-10 was a slow build so I have those plans. What I don't know is what parts to order/delete from the Quick Build order form as things like torque tubes, bell cranks, flap, aileron and wingtip will be reused from the current wing. If anyone has a PDF of the quick build wing plans I'd appreciate getting it. On my claim with the Air National Guard I'm sad to report that they have failed to step up. 100% of my communication with the Rhode Island Air National Guard Ops Boss has been me calling him. On the last call I was told they are taking no action and that I should just file an claim against my insurance policy (and thus eat the forever forward increase in my insurance premium). After a day of calls I finally broke the code to get into the Air National Guard command here in DC. I got a claim form to fill out which I submitted earlier this week. The two voice mails I left asking if they got my claim remain unanswered. Back when I wore the uniform accountability and leadership were still core competencies. Based on this experience I conclude times have changed. Carl ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: Need QB wing plans
Date: Aug 15, 2014
I don't think there is any difference in the plans. I believe the quick bui lds get the same plans we use to enable them a method to audit all the previ ous steps. I'm sure you've already talked with your insurance agent. I wouldn't expec t your rates to go up if you had no fault. Let them go after the guard v ia subragration Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2014, at 10:14 AM, "Carl Froehlich" w rote: All, Following up on my note about a Rhode Island Air National Guard C-130 damagi ng my airplane, I=99m working with Van=99s to just order a right Quick Build wing as the repair option. My RV-10 was a slow build so I have those plans. What I don=99t know is what parts to order/delete from t he Quick Build order form as things like torque tubes, bell cranks, flap, ai leron and wingtip will be reused from the current wing. If anyone has a PDF of the quick build wing plans I=99d appreciate get ting it. On my claim with the Air National Guard I=99m sad to report that they h ave failed to step up. 100% of my communication with the Rhode Island Air N ational Guard Ops Boss has been me calling him. On the last call I was told they are taking no action and that I should just file an claim against my i nsurance policy (and thus eat the forever forward increase in my insurance p remium). After a day of calls I finally broke the code to get into the Air N ational Guard command here in DC. I got a claim form to fill out which I su bmitted earlier this week. The two voice mails I left asking if they got my claim remain unanswered. Back when I wore the uniform accountability and leadership were still core c ompetencies. Based on this experience I conclude times have changed. Carl 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Need QB wing plans
Date: Aug 15, 2014
Ralph Capen provide the plans. Thanks, Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 10:15 AM Subject: RV10-List: Need QB wing plans All, Following up on my note about a Rhode Island Air National Guard C-130 damaging my airplane, I'm working with Van's to just order a right Quick Build wing as the repair option. My RV-10 was a slow build so I have those plans. What I don't know is what parts to order/delete from the Quick Build order form as things like torque tubes, bell cranks, flap, aileron and wingtip will be reused from the current wing. If anyone has a PDF of the quick build wing plans I'd appreciate getting it. On my claim with the Air National Guard I'm sad to report that they have failed to step up. 100% of my communication with the Rhode Island Air National Guard Ops Boss has been me calling him. On the last call I was told they are taking no action and that I should just file an claim against my insurance policy (and thus eat the forever forward increase in my insurance premium). After a day of calls I finally broke the code to get into the Air National Guard command here in DC. I got a claim form to fill out which I submitted earlier this week. The two voice mails I left asking if they got my claim remain unanswered. Back when I wore the uniform accountability and leadership were still core competencies. Based on this experience I conclude times have changed. Carl ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2014
From: Rodger Todd <rj_todd(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Need QB wing plans
Hi Carl,=0A=0AI was very sorry to read of your incident.=0A=0ATo answer you r question their=C2-are no separate instructions for the QB wing; if you consult your plans you will see that there are instructions which direct yo u what to do if you have a QB or an SB wing eg at section 20 page 5 startin g at step 1.=0A=0AI'm sure that if you write to Van's explaining what you w ant they will put together a kit for you excluding the parts you specifical ly name and wish to reuse,.=C2- The standard QB kit has the ribs mounted; the upper surface wing skin in situ; the inboard lower wing skin in situ; the outer leading edge in situ and finally, the fuel tank in situ.=C2- Yo u also get the aileron and flap as completed units.=C2- You need to fit t he outboard lower stringer and the lower wing skin; fabricate and fit the a ileron actuation components; fit the sender to the wing tank; tap the tie-d own (you'd think they would do that!); etc.=C2- If you don't like the was h primer that Vans uses then you would be best advised to not use the QB wi ng but instead rebuild using the SB components and use a sealing primer.=0A =0AHoping it all works out for you,=0A=0ARodger =0A=0A=0AOn Friday, 15 Augu st 2014, 22:14, Carl Froehlich wrote:=0A =0A =0A=0AAll,=0A=C2-=0AFollowing up on my note about a Rhode Island Air Nati onal Guard C-130 damaging my airplane, I=99m working with Van =99s to just order a right Quick Build wing as the repair option.=C2- My RV-10 was a slow build so I have those plans.=C2- What I don=99t kn ow is what parts to order/delete from the Quick Build order form as things like torque tubes, bell cranks, flap, aileron and wingtip will be reused fr om the current wing.=0A=C2-=0AIf anyone has a PDF of the quick build wing plans I=99d appreciate getting it.=0A=C2-=0AOn my claim with the A ir National Guard I=99m sad to report that they have failed to step u p.=C2- 100% of my communication with the Rhode Island Air National Guard Ops Boss has been me calling him.=C2- On the last call I was told they ar e taking no action and that I should just file an claim against my insuranc e policy (and thus eat the forever forward increase in my insurance premium ).=C2- After a day of calls I finally broke the code to get into the Air National Guard command here in DC.=C2- I got a claim form to fill out whi ch I submitted earlier this week.=C2- The two voice mails I left asking i f they got my claim remain unanswered.=0A=C2-=0ABack when I wore the unif orm accountability and leadership were still core competencies.=C2- Based ========= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 16, 2014
Subject: Re: Trip interest
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Myron, Ed Hayden just called and poked me about this. Judy and I have taken trips with Ed & Shelia before and have had a ball. We're interested . I don't envy you trying to put this togethe, but hope you suceed? What's the smallest group that makes this viable? would love to On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:16 AM, woxofswa wrote: > > One of my first flying jobs almost 30 years ago was as a dashing young > tour pilot in the Grand Canyon, Lake Powell, Monument Valley area. > I am looking into the potential interest of putting together a Color > Country Caravan of 6-10 RV-10's (10ish couples) who would be interested in > a 3 day 2 night joint loosely guided expedition in that area with > overnights at Bar10 ranch (GC) and > Goulding's lodge (MV). > > I'm thinking a Thurs/Fri/Sat type thing starting in Sedona perhaps late > Sept. > > I am just gauging interest prior to coming up with a hard > itinerary/cost/reservations, etc. > > Myron > woxof(at)aol.com > 602 421-2868 > > -------- > Myron Nelson > Mesa, AZ > Flew May 10 2014 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428451#428451 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Trip interest
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 16, 2014
Thanks to everyone for the interest. I am floored by how many emails of interest I got on this adventure. Unfortunately, these are high demand places with a short window of opportunity (prime season) and trying to get accomodations for 10 rooms at both places has proven to be impossible until Spring. I will try and put something together for a trip in the Spring (April/May). -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428574#428574 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rotating wing stands
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Aug 17, 2014
> Guys > > I am looking for pictures or pdf files of rotating wing stands, can you please point me out to some information about those? > > Thanks in advance > Carlos > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Rotating wing stands
Not sure why you want them. The only time I have had my wings out of fixed stands is to put them on work bench to either do riveting or remove/install fuel tanks. Wing stands are not as sturdy as a work bench for riveting, although there are a few rows of rivets that may be easier to do in stands. Wings are relatively easy to turn over on work bench, at least before you put flaps and ailerons on. To be able to rotate you would need a way to attach the outer wing end to a rotating fixture, as well as attaching to the spar at the inner end. Not sure how feasible that is. Most stands have a sling to support the leading edge. To rotate you are putting all the wt onto the spar. I'd rather have had a rotating fuselage stand than rotating wing stand, but that is just my build experience. On 8/17/2014 5:36 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > >> Guys >> >> I am looking for pictures or pdf files of rotating wing stands, can you please point me out to some information about those? >> >> Thanks in advance >> Carlos >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <lewgall(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Rotating wing stands
Date: Aug 17, 2014
Hey Carlos, I agree, for building, you probably don't need rotisserie stands. I do have some that I use for painting -- it helps to tip it up for that bottom edge. I'll try to get some pics. Later, - Lew -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Trigo Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:36 AM Subject: RV10-List: Rotating wing stands > Guys > > I am looking for pictures or pdf files of rotating wing stands, can you > please point me out to some information about those? > > Thanks in advance > Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 18, 2014
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Rotating wing stands
If you are looking for a solution to rotating the wings for painting, take a look at this for a good hint as to how I went about setting up for single handed rotation. The requirement was to be able to paint the entire wing panel in a single session. This eliminates any seams, economizes on paint and simplifies the shoot. And since the stuff is so toxic, I didn't want anyone else in there for the turn unless they had a fresh air supply - I only had one. Opening doors and moving around is not a good thing in a paint booth anyway. So, I found that the lightening holes handily fit PVC pipe. In particular, the second hole back from the leading edge, near the CG, fits one size of pipe quite snugly with no play. In the picture you can see I made collars of the right size pipe and glued those to a smaller size pipe (not sure why in retrospect but I did discover that pipe diameters are not precise batch to batch so the collars would allow a little sanding for fit and ease of insertion). In another (oblong?) hole I used a size of pipe that was close enough and had lots of play. On the other end of the wing I securely mounted a rectangle of plywood for ease of handling and leverage. In the paint booth, I used rope or a strap hanging from the ceiling as a sling for one or both pipes (can't recall the details). For painting, the pipes and the plywood on the other end were laying on sawhorses. When one side was finished, I was able to just grab the plywood and turn the wing over single handed so that it was once again laying on the 2 sawhorses. It all worked surprisingly well and seemed like a cheap/easy solution for a 1 time need. Bill "still loving the single stage polyurethane after recently passing the Oshkosh 20 foot test with /flying colors/" Watson On 8/17/2014 8:36 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > >> Guys >> >> I am looking for pictures or pdf files of rotating wing stands, can you please point me out to some information about those? >> >> Thanks in advance >> Carlos >> >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Stall warning
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 18, 2014
Now that we have angle of attack capability with virtually whichever avionics suite we choose, why install the stall warning system that Van's supplies for the RV10?Any thoughts out there pro or con? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428702#428702 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fuel senders
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 18, 2014
Are the Van's fuel float senders inferior to capacitative (sp?) senders? Are there problems with installation of the capacitative units (I have QB wings)? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428704#428704 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Stall warning
Date: Aug 18, 2014
I didn't install it and used the pressure switch for a baggage door warning. Cheers Les Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 18, 2014, at 8:19 PM, "bob88" wrote: > > > Now that we have angle of attack capability with virtually whichever avionics suite we choose, why install the stall warning system that Van's supplies for the RV10?Any thoughts out there pro or con? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428702#428702 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel senders
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Aug 18, 2014
Capacitive senders are more accurate than floats. But, when calibrated thru an EFIS (I have GRT) the floats are surprisingly accurate, except that they cannot see the top 5 gallons. But on top of that nearly eveyone puts in a fuel flow transducer, and their accuracy is amazing. My advice is to just put in the floats, and spend your money somewhere else. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428716#428716 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stall warning
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Aug 18, 2014
I did install it. With Lightspeed headsets, I can barely hear it. I greatly prefer the audio AOA warning tone from my D6. However, the Vans' stall horn worked on the first flights; the AOA requires in flight calibration. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428718#428718 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel senders
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Aug 19, 2014
I agree with Bob. The float type fuel senders are pretty accurate if you spend some quality time calibrating them with your EFIS. Coupled with the fuel flow sending unit you usually know within a couple of tenths of a gallon, your fuel consumption -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428727#428727 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Rotating wing stands
Date: Aug 19, 2014
Lew Waiting for those pictures. Thanks Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de lewgall(at)charter.net Enviada: 17 de agosto de 2014 16:39 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Rotating wing stands Hey Carlos, I agree, for building, you probably don't need rotisserie stands. I do have some that I use for painting -- it helps to tip it up for that bottom edge. I'll try to get some pics. Later, - Lew -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Trigo Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:36 AM Subject: RV10-List: Rotating wing stands > Guys > > I am looking for pictures or pdf files of rotating wing stands, can > you please point me out to some information about those? > > Thanks in advance > Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stall warning
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Aug 19, 2014
I didn't install it - already have AoA. John -------- #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428740#428740 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: William DeLacey <whd721(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Rotating wing stands
Date: Aug 19, 2014
This is my version of the wing rotator on a 9. 8 Ft 2x4 with legs to make a saw horse. Two 8 Ft lengths of PVC pipe. One 2 inch for rear rib hole the other sized to fit the rib hole aft of spar. Cut in half and insert into both ends o the wing. Easy to flip wing to install stuff. For riveting I used a second set of saw horses with carpet padding on the 2x4 s. Good Luck. On Aug 19, 2014, at 6:43 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Lew > > Waiting for those pictures. > > Thanks > Carlos > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de lewgall(at)charter.net > Enviada: 17 de agosto de 2014 16:39 > Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Rotating wing stands > > > Hey Carlos, > > I agree, for building, you probably don't need rotisserie stands. I do have > some that I use for painting -- it helps to tip it up for that bottom edge. > I'll try to get some pics. > > Later, - Lew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Trigo > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:36 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Rotating wing stands > > > >> Guys >> >> I am looking for pictures or pdf files of rotating wing stands, can >> you please point me out to some information about those? >> >> Thanks in advance >> Carlos > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel senders
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2014
Capacitive fuel senders are only worthwhile if you build your own tanks. If you install them in QB tanks they won't see the top 5 gallons, just like the floats, because of the wing dihedral. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428757#428757 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel senders
Date: Aug 19, 2014
I find the floats plenty accurate after calibration to the EFIS anyway, and really don't much miss the top few gallons of reading, because where I really care about it is when it's under 1/2. With the totalizer on board, the floats are more a 2nd reference anyway. The totalizer is very precise when I top off the tanks. Tim > On Aug 19, 2014, at 11:15 AM, "Lenny Iszak" wrote: > > > Capacitive fuel senders are only worthwhile if you build your own tanks. > If you install them in QB tanks they won't see the top 5 gallons, just like the floats, because of the wing dihedral. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428757#428757 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2014
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel senders
I kind of refer to the floats as a backup to the totalizer also. I visually inspect and stick the tanks as part of preflight. One thing that annoys me during flight when maneuvering is that the floats will obviously be incorrect for a given period of time. This is acceptable because I know that it will happen. The issue for me is that my AFS EFIS will audible and visual warn me that the float readings don't match the totalizer. I've thought about disabling that feature, but I really like the reminder while on the ground after fill-up as a trigger to reset the totalizer for full mains. Have others turned off the float/totalizer mismatch warning? -Sean #40303 (phase one complete, dreading more fiberglass work to finish pants on mains) > Tim Olson > August 19, 2014 at 11:38 AM > > I find the floats plenty accurate after calibration to the EFIS > anyway, and really don't much miss the top few gallons of reading, > because where I really care about it is when it's under 1/2. With the > totalizer on board, the floats are more a 2nd reference anyway. The > totalizer is very precise when I top off the tanks. > Tim > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2014
Subject: Re: Fuel senders
I adjusted the warning on mine for a pretty large difference, like maybe 15 gallons. Still warns if I don't reset it, and less spam. "The system will give the audible warning =9CCheck Fuel Computer =9D on startup if the fuel computer=99s gallons remaining value does not match the fuel tanks level. This feature (if turned on in Instrument Calibration) should warn you if you have added fuel and forget to adjust the fuel computer.* The number of gallons that will generate an error is adjusted in Instrument * *Calibrate*. Since the fuel levels are NOT accurate when the tanks are near full this value is doubled when the tanks show full". That way I don't have to be reminded about my uncoordinated turns ;-) --Dave On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > I kind of refer to the floats as a backup to the totalizer also. I > visually inspect and stick the tanks as part of preflight. > > One thing that annoys me during flight when maneuvering is that the float s > will obviously be incorrect for a given period of time. This is acceptab le > because I know that it will happen. The issue for me is that my AFS EFIS > will audible and visual warn me that the float readings don't match the > totalizer. I've thought about disabling that feature, but I really like > the reminder while on the ground after fill-up as a trigger to reset the > totalizer for full mains. Have others turned off the float/totalizer > mismatch warning? > > -Sean #40303 (phase one complete, dreading more fiberglass work to finish > pants on mains) > > Tim Olson >> August 19, 2014 at 11:38 AM >> >> I find the floats plenty accurate after calibration to the EFIS anyway, >> and really don't much miss the top few gallons of reading, because where I >> really care about it is when it's under 1/2. With the totalizer on board , >> the floats are more a 2nd reference anyway. The totalizer is very precis e >> when I top off the tanks. >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> >> =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2014
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel senders
Ya. Think I have mine set at 10 gallon difference right now. Maybe just increasing that will give me enough spread to reduce the warnings. Working on IFR approaches now and that damn warning causes undesired eye movement and interruptions after my uncoordinated turns. :) -Sean > David Saylor > August 19, 2014 at 12:57 PM > I adjusted the warning on mine for a pretty large difference, like > maybe 15 gallons. Still warns if I don't reset it, and less spam. > > "The system will give the audible warning Check Fuel Computer on > startup if the fuel computers gallons remaining value > does not match the fuel tanks level. This feature (if turned on in > Instrument Calibration) should warn you if you have added > fuel and forget to adjust the fuel computer.*The number of gallons > that will generate an error is adjusted in Instrument * > *Calibrate*. Since the fuel levels are NOT accurate when the tanks are > near full this value is doubled when the tanks show > full". > > That way I don't have to be reminded about my uncoordinated turns ;-) > > --Dave > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stall warning
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Aug 19, 2014
I installed both as well for the sake of redundancy. Although I have to admit that with the Lightspeed headsets as posted before you kind of have to develop a sense to recognize it. After all the stall test I do hear it though now. Mike -------- RV-10 builder (flying) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428787#428787 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotating wing stands
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Aug 19, 2014
Thanks William That's a simple and inexpensive solution. Carlos Enviado do meu iPhone No dia 19/08/2014, s 16:13, William DeLacey escreveu: > This is my version of the wing rotator on a 9. > > 8 Ft 2x4 with legs to make a saw horse. Two 8 Ft lengths of PVC pipe. One 2 inch for rear rib hole the other sized to fit the rib hole aft of spar. Cut in half and insert into both ends o the wing. > > > > > > Easy to flip wing to install stuff. For riveting I used a second set of saw horses with carpet padding on the 2x4 s. > Good Luck. > > On Aug 19, 2014, at 6:43 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > >> >> Lew >> >> Waiting for those pictures. >> >> Thanks >> Carlos >> >> -----Mensagem original----- >> De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de lewgall(at)charter.net >> Enviada: 17 de agosto de 2014 16:39 >> Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Rotating wing stands >> >> >> Hey Carlos, >> >> I agree, for building, you probably don't need rotisserie stands. I do have >> some that I use for painting -- it helps to tip it up for that bottom edge. >> I'll try to get some pics. >> >> Later, - Lew >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carlos Trigo >> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:36 AM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: RV10-List: Rotating wing stands >> >> >> >>> Guys >>> >>> I am looking for pictures or pdf files of rotating wing stands, can >>> you please point me out to some information about those? >>> >>> Thanks in advance >>> Carlos >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: maintenance
Date: Aug 19, 2014
Does anyone have annuals done commercially or record their labor hours for inspection and maintenance? what kind of hours are spent to maintain these? if possible relate it to flight hours. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: maintenance
I'm not flying yet with the RV-10. However I would expect the time to do a condition inspection to be similar to what I spend on doing an annual on my Mooney. While the Mooney is retractable, its control system is simpler and easier to get to, and it has no autopilot and none of the new avionics systems to check. Commercial shops charge approx 25 hours to do a 4 cyl Mooney. I expect a similar amount of time to do an RV-10. Also items like electronic ignition and other options may add to that time. Now if you keep up with maintenance to the point that the only maintenance done at the same time is an oil change, you might be able to do the inspection in half that time, but will have spent the other hours maintaining brakes, wheels, etc. some other time. Kelly A&P/IA On 8/19/2014 5:15 PM, DLM wrote: > Does anyone have annuals done commercially or record their labor hours > for inspection and maintenance? what kind of hours are spent to > maintain these? if possible relate it to flight hours. > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: maintenance
Kelly hinted at the fact that your conditional inspection can occur throughout the year ..... your normal taking care of squawks as they occur. Pick a month to log your conditional inspection and write down all the maintenance items done during the past year. There will be places that you need to look at that you didn't cover during the year so they need to be looked at .... maybe at the time when you do the log book entry. Linn On 8/19/2014 8:30 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > I'm not flying yet with the RV-10. However I would expect the time to > do a condition inspection to be similar to what I spend on doing an > annual on my Mooney. While the Mooney is retractable, its control > system is simpler and easier to get to, and it has no autopilot and > none of the new avionics systems to check. Commercial shops charge > approx 25 hours to do a 4 cyl Mooney. I expect a similar amount of > time to do an RV-10. Also items like electronic ignition and other > options may add to that time. Now if you keep up with maintenance to > the point that the only maintenance done at the same time is an oil > change, you might be able to do the inspection in half that time, but > will have spent the other hours maintaining brakes, wheels, etc. some > other time. > Kelly > A&P/IA > On 8/19/2014 5:15 PM, DLM wrote: >> Does anyone have annuals done commercially or record their labor >> hours for inspection and maintenance? what kind of hours are spent to >> maintain these? if possible relate it to flight hours. >> * >> >> >> * > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: maintenance
Date: Aug 19, 2014
Great question. No I have not recorded the time I have spent and if I did it would not be very relevant. Each year I have done some type of mod to the airplane and in almost every case the modification has taken longer than the annual (condition) inspection. Based on the six I have done ..my guess would be....24 hours for the inspect and minor repair. I also pay an A&P IA to do an engine and prop inspection. This year I paid him for 3 hours. I have had to do very little maintenance during the year.flat tire..oil change. But that only added up to a couple of hours each year. I have noticed that each year there seems to be a few more things to fix... This years inspect was done at 400 hours on the airplane. 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 DLM Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 6:15 PM Subject: RV10-List: maintenance Does anyone have annuals done commercially or record their labor hours for inspection and maintenance? what kind of hours are spent to maintain these? if possible relate it to flight hours. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: maintenance
From: PReid <Rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Date: Aug 19, 2014
My first yearI spent more hours doing maintenance than flying. By the time I did my annual I had seen every section of the plane and had every nut re-to rqued, the next year was more time flying and this year minimal maintenance a nd expect about 10 hours doing mostly engine inspections. Do yourself a favor - do it yourself. There is no better confidence than kno wing that the plane you are flying was inspected by you. If you bought the p lane, than watch the A&P do the inspection and maintenance. In my case I went from 50 plus hours the first year to about 10 hours doing m aintenance this year. My time was spent on fine tuning engine leaks and prob e replacements. Most of it could wait, but I pretty much red X anything that is not working correctly before flying. Pascal > On Aug 19, 2014, at 5:15 PM, "DLM" wrote: > > Does anyone have annuals done commercially or record their labor hours for inspection and maintenance? what kind of hours are spent to maintain these? if possible relate it to flight hours. > > > > > 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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2014
Subject: Re: Fuel senders
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
Weird they implemented it that way. My old Dynons alert you if the fuel tank level changed since the EFIS was powered off. "The fuel computer can be programmed in EMS > SETUP > FUEL > ADD THRESHOLD to automatically detect the addition of fuel while the unit is turned off. When this is configured, the next time you turn the FlightDEK-D180 on, it asks you if you added fuel and gives you a shortcut to the add fuel menu." On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > Ya. Think I have mine set at 10 gallon difference right now. Maybe just > increasing that will give me enough spread to reduce the warnings. > > Working on IFR approaches now and that damn warning causes undesired eye > movement and interruptions after my uncoordinated turns. :) > > -Sean > > David Saylor >> August 19, 2014 at 12:57 PM >> >> I adjusted the warning on mine for a pretty large difference, like maybe >> 15 gallons. Still warns if I don't reset it, and less spam. >> >> "The system will give the audible warning =9CCheck Fuel Computer =9D on >> startup if the fuel computer=99s gallons remaining value >> does not match the fuel tanks level. This feature (if turned on in >> Instrument Calibration) should warn you if you have added >> fuel and forget to adjust the fuel computer.*The number of gallons that >> will generate an error is adjusted in Instrument * >> *Calibrate*. Since the fuel levels are NOT accurate when the tanks are >> near full this value is doubled when the tanks show >> >> full". >> >> That way I don't have to be reminded about my uncoordinated turns ;-) >> >> --Dave >> >> >> >> * >> >> >> * >> > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel senders
Date: Aug 20, 2014
My next question would be does the D-180 recognize a fuel imbalance any other time than startup? I think the decision to alert based on real-time changes is to identify the rare event of a tank issue in flight. -Ben From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kochman Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:39 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fuel senders Weird they implemented it that way. My old Dynons alert you if the fuel tank level changed since the EFIS was powered off. "The fuel computer can be programmed in EMS > SETUP > FUEL > ADD THRESHOLD to automatically detect the addition of fuel while the unit is turned off. When this is configured, the next time you turn the FlightDEK-D180 on, it asks you if you added fuel and gives you a shortcut to the add fuel menu." On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Sean Stephens > wrote: > Ya. Think I have mine set at 10 gallon difference right now. Maybe just increasing that will give me enough spread to reduce the warnings. Working on IFR approaches now and that damn warning causes undesired eye movement and interruptions after my uncoordinated turns. :) -Sean David Saylor > August 19, 2014 at 12:57 PM I adjusted the warning on mine for a pretty large difference, like maybe 15 gallons. Still warns if I don't reset it, and less spam. "The system will give the audible warning =9CCheck Fuel Computer=9D on startup if the fuel computer=99s gallons remaining value does not match the fuel tanks level. This feature (if turned on in Instrument Calibration) should warn you if you have added fuel and forget to adjust the fuel computer.*The number of gallons that will generate an error is adjusted in Instrument * *Calibrate*. Since the fuel levels are NOT accurate when the tanks are near full this value is doubled when the tanks show full". That way I don't have to be reminded about my uncoordinated turns ;-) --Dave * * -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2014
Subject: Re: Fuel senders
My guess--pure speculation--would be either that 1), AFS wanted a little more distance--no shortcuts--between the gauges and the totalizer, or 2), they didn't think of that. --Dave On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Rob Kochman wrote: > Weird they implemented it that way. My old Dynons alert you if the fuel > tank level changed since the EFIS was powered off. > > "The fuel computer can be programmed in EMS > SETUP > FUEL > ADD THRESHOL D > to automatically detect the > addition of fuel while the unit is turned off. When this is configured, > the next time you turn the FlightDEK-D180 on, it > asks you if you added fuel and gives you a shortcut to the add fuel menu. " > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Sean Stephens > wrote: > >> >> Ya. Think I have mine set at 10 gallon difference right now. Maybe jus t >> increasing that will give me enough spread to reduce the warnings. >> >> Working on IFR approaches now and that damn warning causes undesired eye >> movement and interruptions after my uncoordinated turns. :) >> >> -Sean >> >> David Saylor >>> August 19, 2014 at 12:57 PM >>> >>> I adjusted the warning on mine for a pretty large difference, like mayb e >>> 15 gallons. Still warns if I don't reset it, and less spam. >>> >>> "The system will give the audible warning =9CCheck Fuel Computer =9D on >>> startup if the fuel computer=99s gallons remaining value >>> does not match the fuel tanks level. This feature (if turned on in >>> Instrument Calibration) should warn you if you have added >>> fuel and forget to adjust the fuel computer.*The number of gallons that >>> will generate an error is adjusted in Instrument * >>> *Calibrate*. Since the fuel levels are NOT accurate when the tanks are >>> near full this value is doubled when the tanks show >>> >>> full". >>> >>> That way I don't have to be reminded about my uncoordinated turns ;-) >>> >>> --Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> * >>> >>> >>> * >>> >> >> ======================== =========== >> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ======================== =========== >> FORUMS - >> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com >> ======================== =========== >> b Site - >> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> ======================== =========== >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > > * > =========== onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> =========== =========== om/contribution> =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Governor mounting stud question
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2014
It's after Lycoming's support hours. Does anyone know if the governor mounting studs on a io-540-d4a5 go through the case? I have an oil leak coming out one of the mounting studs of my governor. I've replaced the gasket several times, but the leak is persistent. I was wondering if oil is coming through the stud mounting hole. If it doesn't go through the case, then that would eliminate that potential cause. Hartzell is recommending that I use oil as a release agent this time as oppose to installing the gasket dry. Just attempting to determine whether or not it's a gasket failure or coming through the stud mounting hole. Thanks, Bob Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Governor mounting stud question
Well ..... The hole for the stud may have been drilled into the inside of the case, depending on which stud is leaking. R&R the stud is an option, using Loctite as a sealer ..... You may have some luck drawing a little vacuum on the inside of the case .... close off the vent and use the oil filler as a vacuum port ....... Clean around the stud and while you have the vacuum on, keep it wet with laquer thinner to draw some inside to 'clean' the oil out, and then use some green Loctite to seal it. I've used the vacuum method on case leaks where the case halves meet. Mostly successes. Linn On 8/20/2014 7:21 PM, Bob Leffler wrote: > > It's after Lycoming's support hours. Does anyone know if the governor mounting studs on a io-540-d4a5 go through the case? > > I have an oil leak coming out one of the mounting studs of my governor. I've replaced the gasket several times, but the leak is persistent. > > I was wondering if oil is coming through the stud mounting hole. If it doesn't go through the case, then that would eliminate that potential cause. > > Hartzell is recommending that I use oil as a release agent this time as oppose to installing the gasket dry. > > Just attempting to determine whether or not it's a gasket failure or coming through the stud mounting hole. > > Thanks, > Bob > > Sent from my iPad > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Governor mounting stud question
From: "charliewaffles" <mcooper(at)live.com>
Date: Aug 20, 2014
I'm pretty sure the install instructions I had for the Hartzel Governor said to use a release agent - and NOT to do it dry. I believe they specify dow DC-4 compound. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428934#428934 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2014
Subject: Re: Governor mounting stud question
From: Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com>
Bob, my Lycoming had studs installed for a Hartzell governor, which I had changed out to fit the MT governor. The engine builder told me the studs were a "friction" fit, and could possibly need heat to be removed. Didn't sound like locktite was needed. I never asked whether the studs went all the way into the inner case but by the way he talked in our discussions, I feel they do not. Not much help but be careful if you try to remove that stud (hate to hear of one getting snapped off). Rick #40956 Southampton, Ont On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Bob Leffler wrote: > > It's after Lycoming's support hours. Does anyone know if the governor > mounting studs on a io-540-d4a5 go through the case? > > I have an oil leak coming out one of the mounting studs of my governor. > I've replaced the gasket several times, but the leak is persistent. > > I was wondering if oil is coming through the stud mounting hole. If it > doesn't go through the case, then that would eliminate that potential cause. > > Hartzell is recommending that I use oil as a release agent this time as > oppose to installing the gasket dry. > > Just attempting to determine whether or not it's a gasket failure or > coming through the stud mounting hole. > > Thanks, > Bob > > Sent from my iPad > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Main gear installation
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 21, 2014
Anyone have a great idea about how to raise the fuselage enough to install the main gear legs? Currently I have it on a wood dolly about 18 inches off the floor. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428971#428971 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2014
From: Ed Godfrey <egodfrey(at)ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: Main gear installation
Bob, I had a similar situation. I added some extra 2x4's to the bottom of my dolly, so that I would have ground clearance for the landing gear to the floor, since I will need to keep the plane on the dolly to get it out of the garage. I then used some additional 2x4's and a 4x4 in the front to get it high enough to insert the gear legs. I believe that I had to go to 30" of ground clearance to insert them. I also needed to remove the mid-seat-rail support to be able to insert the bolt. Ed Godfrey 40717 On 8/21/2014 8:05 AM, bob88 wrote: > > Anyone have a great idea about how to raise the fuselage enough to install the main gear legs? Currently I have it on a wood dolly about 18 inches off the floor. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428971#428971 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Main gear installation
I placed a sawhorse under the rear fuselage .... as far fwd as I could get it and used my engine hoist attached to the engine lift rings. Inserting the gear legs was far easier than I thought it would be. Linn .... fairing windshield On 8/21/2014 9:05 AM, bob88 wrote: > > Anyone have a great idea about how to raise the fuselage enough to install the main gear legs? Currently I have it on a wood dolly about 18 inches off the floor. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428971#428971 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2014
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: Main gear installation
No pictures, but I just lifted the fuselage up on top of my EAA style workbench with the help of a couple strong backs. Was the perfect height and width. After the gear was on, just lifted the tail up and slid out the workbench. -Sean #40303 > bob88 > August 21, 2014 at 8:05 AM > > Anyone have a great idea about how to raise the fuselage enough to > install the main gear legs? Currently I have it on a wood dolly about > 18 inches off the floor. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428971#428971 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Main gear installation
Date: Aug 21, 2014
Engine hoist strapped to the engine mount (nylon straps, not a chain). A stand for under the tail once you get it lifted. Without an engine the airplane will not be stable - so you need more than a temporary tail stand if you are planning on delaying mounting the engine. Even after engine mount if you still need to be crawling around the tail cone a tail stand is recommended. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Godfrey Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:22 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Main gear installation Bob, I had a similar situation. I added some extra 2x4's to the bottom of my dolly, so that I would have ground clearance for the landing gear to the floor, since I will need to keep the plane on the dolly to get it out of the garage. I then used some additional 2x4's and a 4x4 in the front to get it high enough to insert the gear legs. I believe that I had to go to 30" of ground clearance to insert them. I also needed to remove the mid-seat-rail support to be able to insert the bolt. Ed Godfrey 40717 On 8/21/2014 8:05 AM, bob88 wrote: > > Anyone have a great idea about how to raise the fuselage enough to install the main gear legs? Currently I have it on a wood dolly about 18 inches off the floor. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428971#428971 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2014
Subject: Re: Main gear installation
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Just got a couple of guys and we lifted it up on top of the workbench. No issues. Phil On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> > > Engine hoist strapped to the engine mount (nylon straps, not a chain). A > stand for under the tail once you get it lifted. > > Without an engine the airplane will not be stable - so you need more than a > temporary tail stand if you are planning on delaying mounting the engine. > Even after engine mount if you still need to be crawling around the tail > cone a tail stand is recommended. > > Carl > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Godfrey > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:22 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Main gear installation > > > Bob, > I had a similar situation. I added some extra 2x4's to the bottom of > my dolly, so that I would have ground clearance for the landing gear to the > floor, since I will need to keep the plane on the dolly to get it out of > the > garage. I then used some additional 2x4's and a 4x4 in the front to get it > high enough to insert the gear legs. I believe that I had to go to 30" of > ground clearance to insert them. I also needed to remove the mid-seat-rail > support to be able to insert the bolt. > > Ed Godfrey > 40717 > > On 8/21/2014 8:05 AM, bob88 wrote: > > > > Anyone have a great idea about how to raise the fuselage enough to > install > the main gear legs? Currently I have it on a wood dolly about 18 inches off > the floor. > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428971#428971 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Main gear installation
Date: Aug 21, 2014
I had the same setup. Put it up on a 6 foot lifetime folding table from Costco. Worked great...I sill have the table. Also used the table when I did the gear fairings. Used blocks under the nose gear to level. 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 bob88 Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 7:06 AM Subject: RV10-List: Main gear installation Anyone have a great idea about how to raise the fuselage enough to install the main gear legs? Currently I have it on a wood dolly about 18 inches off the floor. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428971#428971 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Governor mounting stud question
From: "rleffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2014
Just as a follow to my question. Per Lycoming, the studs do NOT go through the case. bob -------- Bob Leffler N410BL - Phase I http://mykitlog.com/rleffler Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429016#429016 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Engine installation sequencing
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 21, 2014
I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the upper forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get avionics installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on my back in the cockpit. The question is whether the engine installation can be completed with the upper forward fuselage off, or just clecoed in place. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2014
Subject: Re: Governor mounting stud question
From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com>
To the age old question of lubricating valve cover gaskets. I intentional left one au natural and the others got a combination of engine oil and DC4. The Au Natural developed in immediate leak. Lesson learned, lube with DC4 as recommended and DO NOT overtorque the gasket thinking you know better than the specs. Check those gaskets! John On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:16 PM, rleffler wrote: > > Just as a follow to my question. Per Lycoming, the studs do NOT go > through the case. > > bob > > -------- > Bob Leffler > N410BL - Phase I > http://mykitlog.com/rleffler > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429016#429016 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Engine installation sequencing
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Date: Aug 21, 2014
Or better option, design your panel to come out of the plane as an assembly. At some point or another panel work will come your way, either a fix or the amazingly frequent modifications that you will want to do. For the annual my first step is to remove the panel for better access. Start to finish this only takes 10 minutes or so. WRT engine mount I'm not sure if the upper forward fuselage makes a difference or not. I had the fuselage 100% done before engine mount - including interior paint. Carl 190 hours and already on the second panel design. > On Aug 21, 2014, at 3:43 PM, "bob88" wrote: > > > I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the upper forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get avionics installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on my back in the cockpit. The question is whether the engine installation can be completed with the upper forward fuselage off, or just clecoed in place. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com>
Subject: Engine installation sequencing
Date: Aug 21, 2014
Lots of people, me included, leave the upper fwd fuse removeable and proceed to hang the engine. It makes some of the rivets a bit interesting to buck around where the motor mount attaches to the firewall. I'm now wiring up my panel on the bench and my motor is secured to the plane. -Ben -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob88 Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:44 PM Subject: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the upper forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get avionics installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on my back in the cockpit. The question is whether the engine installation can be completed with the upper forward fuselage off, or just clecoed in place. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Engine installation sequencing
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Aug 21, 2014
I riveted the upper fuselage assembly well after the engine was mounted and the cabin cover was attached. It comes off pretty easily even with the cabin cover bolted in place. I had it cleco'd in place to do the cowl. It makes life much easier! Bob Sent from my iPad > On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:40 PM, "Ben Westfall" wrote: > > > Lots of people, me included, leave the upper fwd fuse removeable and proceed > to hang the engine. It makes some of the rivets a bit interesting to buck > around where the motor mount attaches to the firewall. I'm now wiring up my > panel on the bench and my motor is secured to the plane. > > -Ben > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob88 > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:44 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing > > > I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the upper > forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get avionics > installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on my back in the > cockpit. The question is whether the engine installation can be completed > with the upper forward fuselage off, or just clecoed in place. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 21, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Engine installation sequencing
I did all the wiring and engine installation before riveting on the fwd upper fuse, bolting down the cabin top, and riveting the aft upper panel. I'm now working on the windows and windshield. My panel is designed to be removable and the engine controls panel is mounted to a fiberglass 'console' that's bolted to the tunnel. I did not attach the engine control cables to the subpanel bracket .... in fact, I removed the bracket. Seems like I can't resist doing things contrary to the plans. :-P Linn On 8/21/2014 3:43 PM, bob88 wrote: > > I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the upper forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get avionics installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on my back in the cockpit. The question is whether the engine installation can be completed with the upper forward fuselage off, or just clecoed in place. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2014
Subject: Re: Need QB wing plans
From: Tom Strickland <tom(at)sourcenet.com>
You may wish to call your congressman. Many times they can get things noticed. On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > All, > > > Following up on my note about a Rhode Island Air National Guard C-130 > damaging my airplane, I=99m working with Van=99s to just orde r a right Quick > Build wing as the repair option. My RV-10 was a slow build so I have tho se > plans. What I don=99t know is what parts to order/delete from the Quick > Build order form as things like torque tubes, bell cranks, flap, aileron > and wingtip will be reused from the current wing. > > > If anyone has a PDF of the quick build wing plans I=99d appreciate getting > it. > > > On my claim with the Air National Guard I=99m sad to report that th ey have > failed to step up. 100% of my communication with the Rhode Island Air > National Guard Ops Boss has been me calling him. On the last call I was > told they are taking no action and that I should just file an claim again st > my insurance policy (and thus eat the forever forward increase in my > insurance premium). After a day of calls I finally broke the code to get > into the Air National Guard command here in DC. I got a claim form to fi ll > out which I submitted earlier this week. The two voice mails I left aski ng > if they got my claim remain unanswered. > > > Back when I wore the uniform accountability and leadership were still cor e > competencies. Based on this experience I conclude times have changed. > > > Carl > > * > =========== onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> =========== =========== om/contribution> =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Detachable instrument panel (was "Engine installation sequencing")
Date: Aug 22, 2014
Carl Would you please describe your design of your detachable instrument panel. Please include pictures. Regards Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Carl Froehlich Enviada: 21 de agosto de 2014 21:02 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing --> Or better option, design your panel to come out of the plane as an assembly. At some point or another panel work will come your way, either a fix or the amazingly frequent modifications that you will want to do. For the annual my first step is to remove the panel for better access. Start to finish this only takes 10 minutes or so. WRT engine mount I'm not sure if the upper forward fuselage makes a difference or not. I had the fuselage 100% done before engine mount - including interior paint. Carl 190 hours and already on the second panel design. > On Aug 21, 2014, at 3:43 PM, "bob88" wrote: > > > I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the upper forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get avionics installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on my back in the cockpit. The question is whether the engine installation can be completed with the upper forward fuselage off, or just clecoed in place. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Engine installation sequencing
Date: Aug 22, 2014
Bob Please explain how you made possible for your upper fuselage assembly to come off even with the cabin cover bolted in place. Please include pictures. Regards Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Bob Leffler Enviada: 21 de agosto de 2014 22:39 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing I riveted the upper fuselage assembly well after the engine was mounted and the cabin cover was attached. It comes off pretty easily even with the cabin cover bolted in place. I had it cleco'd in place to do the cowl. It makes life much easier! Bob Sent from my iPad > On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:40 PM, "Ben Westfall" wrote: > > > Lots of people, me included, leave the upper fwd fuse removeable and > proceed to hang the engine. It makes some of the rivets a bit > interesting to buck around where the motor mount attaches to the > firewall. I'm now wiring up my panel on the bench and my motor is secured to the plane. > > -Ben > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob88 > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:44 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing > > > I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the > upper forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get > avionics installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on > my back in the cockpit. The question is whether the engine > installation can be completed with the upper forward fuselage off, or just clecoed in place. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Removable Instrument Panel (was "Engine installation sequencing")
Date: Aug 22, 2014
Linn Following similar requests I made to other -10 builders, and obviously being very interested in using a removable instrument panel, will you please describe your solution. If possible, please include pictures. Thanks in advance Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Linn Walters Enviada: 21 de agosto de 2014 23:13 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing I did all the wiring and engine installation before riveting on the fwd upper fuse, bolting down the cabin top, and riveting the aft upper panel. I'm now working on the windows and windshield. My panel is designed to be removable and the engine controls panel is mounted to a fiberglass 'console' that's bolted to the tunnel. I did not attach the engine control cables to the subpanel bracket .... in fact, I removed the bracket. Seems like I can't resist doing things contrary to the plans. :-P Linn On 8/21/2014 3:43 PM, bob88 wrote: > > I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the upper forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get avionics installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on my back in the cockpit. The question is whether the engine installation can be completed with the upper forward fuselage off, or just clecoed in place. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Removable Instrument Panel (was "Engine installation sequencing")
Carlos, pictures don't show anything but connectors hanging in the air. All the wiring to the instrument panel goes through connectors on the left side. Antenna cables go direct but have an extra foot of 'slack' to move the panel back for access. The pitot/static/AOA tubes go through quick-connects .... from Home Depot. I did have to grind down the panel where the hand-holds are to clear the rivet tails .... I can't drop the panel down because it rests on a console. As for your question about the upper fwd fuse section, it slips in really easily and you can cleco everything down. The rivets on the side next to the firewall will become CherryMax. I also did my engine installation with it off so have CherryMax rivets in the upper firewall. I also put the Aircraft Spruce firewall blanket on the inside .... one 4' in front of the pedals and a 2' up top. After I took this pic. The red fuel selector is Van's selector embedded in flox. Linn ..... windows/windshield. On 8/22/2014 6:48 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Linn > > Following similar requests I made to other -10 builders, and obviously being > very interested in using a removable instrument panel, will you please > describe your solution. > If possible, please include pictures. > > Thanks in advance > Carlos > > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Linn Walters > Enviada: 21 de agosto de 2014 23:13 > Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing > > > I did all the wiring and engine installation before riveting on the fwd > upper fuse, bolting down the cabin top, and riveting the aft upper panel. > I'm now working on the windows and windshield. > My panel is designed to be removable and the engine controls panel is > mounted to a fiberglass 'console' that's bolted to the tunnel. I did not > attach the engine control cables to the subpanel bracket .... in fact, I > removed the bracket. Seems like I can't resist doing things contrary to the > plans. :-P Linn > > On 8/21/2014 3:43 PM, bob88 wrote: >> >> I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the upper > forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get avionics > installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on my back in the > cockpit. The question is whether the engine installation can be completed > with the upper forward fuselage off, or just clecoed in place. >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: Engine installation sequencing
Date: Aug 22, 2014
I didn't have to do anything except not to rivet it in place. It comes off very easily. You can see many photos on my build log. Mykitlog.com/rleffler Sent from my iPhone On Aug 22, 2014, at 6:28 AM, "Carlos Trigo" wrote: Bob Please explain how you made possible for your upper fuselage assembly to come off even with the cabin cover bolted in place. Please include pictures. Regards Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Bob Leffler Enviada: 21 de agosto de 2014 22:39 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing I riveted the upper fuselage assembly well after the engine was mounted and the cabin cover was attached. It comes off pretty easily even with the cabin cover bolted in place. I had it cleco'd in place to do the cowl. It makes life much easier! Bob Sent from my iPad > On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:40 PM, "Ben Westfall" wrote: > > > Lots of people, me included, leave the upper fwd fuse removeable and > proceed to hang the engine. It makes some of the rivets a bit > interesting to buck around where the motor mount attaches to the > firewall. I'm now wiring up my panel on the bench and my motor is secured to the plane. > > -Ben > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob88 > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:44 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing > > > I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the > upper forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get > avionics installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on > my back in the cockpit. The question is whether the engine > installation can be completed with the upper forward fuselage off, or just clecoed in place. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <lewgall(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Rotating wing stands
Date: Aug 22, 2014
See if this pic comes through, Carlos. Basically, bolt the wing spar to the swivel block on one stand, make "sandwich" 2x4's to attach to the end rib on the tip end and bolt to the other stand. Later, - Lew -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Trigo Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:36 AM Subject: RV10-List: Rotating wing stands > Guys > > I am looking for pictures or pdf files of rotating wing stands, can you > please point me out to some information about those? > > Thanks in advance > Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Removable Instrument Panel (was "Engine installation sequencing")
Date: Aug 22, 2014
Thank you Linn So, every single wire that goes to the panel has a connector. That triggers a new question: What was your criteria to group those wires that have a single function, like for example a switch or an annunciator light wire? Did you use 1-wire connectors? (The picture would be, anyway, good to see that .. :)) Carlos De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Linn Walters Enviada: 22 de agosto de 2014 12:27 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Removable Instrument Panel (was "Engine installation sequencing") Carlos, pictures don't show anything but connectors hanging in the air. All the wiring to the instrument panel goes through connectors on the left side. Antenna cables go direct but have an extra foot of 'slack' to move the panel back for access. The pitot/static/AOA tubes go through quick-connects .... from Home Depot. I did have to grind down the panel where the hand-holds are to clear the rivet tails .... I can't drop the panel down because it rests on a console. As for your question about the upper fwd fuse section, it slips in really easily and you can cleco everything down. The rivets on the side next to the firewall will become CherryMax. I also did my engine installation with it off so have CherryMax rivets in the upper firewall. I also put the Aircraft Spruce firewall blanket on the inside .... one 4' in front of the pedals and a 2' up top. After I took this pic. The red fuel selector is Van's selector embedded in flox. Linn ..... windows/windshield. On 8/22/2014 6:48 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: Linn Following similar requests I made to other -10 builders, and obviously being very interested in using a removable instrument panel, will you please describe your solution. If possible, please include pictures. Thanks in advance Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Linn Walters Enviada: 21 de agosto de 2014 23:13 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing I did all the wiring and engine installation before riveting on the fwd upper fuse, bolting down the cabin top, and riveting the aft upper panel. I'm now working on the windows and windshield. My panel is designed to be removable and the engine controls panel is mounted to a fiberglass 'console' that's bolted to the tunnel. I did not attach the engine control cables to the subpanel bracket .... in fact, I removed the bracket. Seems like I can't resist doing things contrary to the plans. :-P Linn On 8/21/2014 3:43 PM, bob88 wrote: I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the upper forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get avionics installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on my back in the cockpit. The question is whether the engine installation can be completed with the upper forward fuselage off, or just clecoed in place. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Rotating wing stands
Date: Aug 22, 2014
Id did come through. Thanks a lot Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de lewgall(at)charter.net Enviada: 22 de agosto de 2014 14:12 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Rotating wing stands See if this pic comes through, Carlos. Basically, bolt the wing spar to the swivel block on one stand, make "sandwich" 2x4's to attach to the end rib on the tip end and bolt to the other stand. Later, - Lew -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Trigo Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:36 AM Subject: RV10-List: Rotating wing stands > Guys > > I am looking for pictures or pdf files of rotating wing stands, can > you please point me out to some information about those? > > Thanks in advance > Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Removable upper fuselage assembly
Date: Aug 22, 2014
Thank you Bob I tried to find them in your build log, but I didn't. Could you please point me out to the exact place where to find this particular subject. Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Bob Leffler Enviada: 22 de agosto de 2014 13:35 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing I didn't have to do anything except not to rivet it in place. It comes off very easily. You can see many photos on my build log. Mykitlog.com/rleffler Sent from my iPhone On Aug 22, 2014, at 6:28 AM, "Carlos Trigo" wrote: Bob Please explain how you made possible for your upper fuselage assembly to come off even with the cabin cover bolted in place. Please include pictures. Regards Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Bob Leffler Enviada: 21 de agosto de 2014 22:39 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing I riveted the upper fuselage assembly well after the engine was mounted and the cabin cover was attached. It comes off pretty easily even with the cabin cover bolted in place. I had it cleco'd in place to do the cowl. It makes life much easier! Bob Sent from my iPad > On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:40 PM, "Ben Westfall" wrote: > > > Lots of people, me included, leave the upper fwd fuse removeable and > proceed to hang the engine. It makes some of the rivets a bit > interesting to buck around where the motor mount attaches to the > firewall. I'm now wiring up my panel on the bench and my motor is > secured to the plane. > > -Ben > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob88 > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:44 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing > > > I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the > upper forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get > avionics installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on > my back in the cockpit. The question is whether the engine > installation can be completed with the upper forward fuselage off, or > just clecoed in place. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: Removable upper fuselage assembly
Date: Aug 22, 2014
Look at 5/24/10 in the finish kit section. 12/29/11 in the panel section You can see that the upper fuselage is just cleco'd in. All you have to do is slightly tilt it to get it out. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 22, 2014, at 10:07 AM, "Carlos Trigo" wrote: Thank you Bob I tried to find them in your build log, but I didn't. Could you please point me out to the exact place where to find this particular subject. Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Bob Leffler Enviada: 22 de agosto de 2014 13:35 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing I didn't have to do anything except not to rivet it in place. It comes off very easily. You can see many photos on my build log. Mykitlog.com/rleffler Sent from my iPhone On Aug 22, 2014, at 6:28 AM, "Carlos Trigo" wrote: Bob Please explain how you made possible for your upper fuselage assembly to come off even with the cabin cover bolted in place. Please include pictures. Regards Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Bob Leffler Enviada: 21 de agosto de 2014 22:39 Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing I riveted the upper fuselage assembly well after the engine was mounted and the cabin cover was attached. It comes off pretty easily even with the cabin cover bolted in place. I had it cleco'd in place to do the cowl. It makes life much easier! Bob Sent from my iPad > On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:40 PM, "Ben Westfall" wrote: > > > Lots of people, me included, leave the upper fwd fuse removeable and > proceed to hang the engine. It makes some of the rivets a bit > interesting to buck around where the motor mount attaches to the > firewall. I'm now wiring up my panel on the bench and my motor is > secured to the plane. > > -Ben > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob88 > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:44 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Engine installation sequencing > > > I'm at the point of engine installation but have not yet riveted the > upper forward fuselage. I had hoped to leave this until after I get > avionics installed 'on the bench' instead of spending a lot of time on > my back in the cockpit. The question is whether the engine > installation can be completed with the upper forward fuselage off, or > just clecoed in place. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429018#429018 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Removable Instrument Panel (was "Engine installation
sequencing") ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Removable Instrument Panel (was "Engine installation
sequencing") On 8/22/2014 10:28 AM, Linn Walters wrote: Mine came in blank .... If I need to resend it .... lemme know. Linn ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Engine installation sequencing
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2014
I built per the plans. The ONLY time I've really been on my back and cussing was when I had to remove my parking brake valve. Otherwise, it takes me three minutes to remove an EFIS screen and have access to my sub panel and wiring and if that isn't enough, it takes me 6 minutes to remove the entire side of my instrument panel and have access to basically everything on that side. Having an Instrument panel that is one solid assembly across the cockpit looks cool, but having it segmented into removable sections is sure nice for assembly, inspection, and maintenance. One thing a thought really hard about doing was removable eyebrow panels on the outside in front of the windscreen like Socata does. In the end, I'm glad I didn't because it hasn't really proven necessary. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429138#429138 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DLM" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: instrument panel
Date: Aug 23, 2014
I cut access panels on the top of the glare shield. 5"by 7"and covered with inspection panels with nut plates. access to the back without laying on my back underneath. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to eliminate noise on COMM 1 (GNS430W)
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Aug 25, 2014
I just wanted to give you an update on my noise issue. Following the advice on de-activating one system after the other I was able to narrow it down to the nav lights. Long story short Aeroleds did sent me new ones and the noise is gone. Great customer service! Regards Michael -------- RV-10 builder (flying) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429307#429307 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: Airbox mod
Date: Aug 25, 2014
I have yet another mod that I did, this time to the fab airbox. With all the feedback of the problems that some have had with the various Vans versions of alternate air devises, I wasn't thrilled with any of them. My design criteria is that there should be zero chance of ingesting anything into the motor. That includes hardware that came loose from the fab, or anything else the engine could suck in while in "alternate air" mode. That would even include dirty, dusty or sandy air. The second feature would be that the bypass must occur automatically. If I suck in a bird at 200 feet agl, right after takeoff, I don't want to have to remember that bypass knob in the few seconds before crashing. The solution was to use reed valves, as others have done, but locate them not below the fab, but behind it. The aft section of the filter is isolated with small dams, and when the reed valves suck in, the air goes thru that section of the filter that isn't contaminated. In that mode you still are breathing clean air, although at a slight decrease in power due to loss of ram air. How much power? Tests on my flying RV8 showed about a 10% reduction during full power static runs. I will run a similar test when I get the 10 flying. I have attached pictures, but they may not come thru. If interested email me off-forum and I'll send them. Chris Hukill still being baffled by baffles ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Aug 25, 2014
I'm all in favor of a better mousetrap, but a few things would bother me here. 1. I'd worry about the 'good' part of the filter getting water soaked from the inside, then later freezing. 2. At WOT you'll need something like a 200 ft/sec airflow thru those three holes, not sure if that is possible. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429320#429320 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2014
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
It did occur to me that one could mount a plate in front of the air filter to fore the air to make a turn, so that any snow, sleet, ice, hail etc would impact on the plate rather than the filter. Some cars used to have an arrangement like that. I think if you are getting enough water to wet the back side of the filter you are in weather a light single has no business being there. Any time air has to change direction any liquid or solids will not make the turn. If the air is cold enough to refreeze water it means it is cold enough for ice on the airframe as well. I don't know what prompted Vans to even offer an alternate air, since they obviously believe in Day VFR as the conditions to fly an RV. So far I have not been convinced of the need for alternate air in the FAB as the plans show it. Maybe if you fly through a volcanic ash cloud you might severely plug the whole filter. And then you are faced with either loss of power or ruining the engine by opening the alt air. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > I'm all in favor of a better mousetrap, but a few things would bother me > here. > 1. I'd worry about the 'good' part of the filter getting water soaked from > the inside, then later freezing. > 2. At WOT you'll need something like a 200 ft/sec airflow thru those three > holes, not sure if that is possible. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429320#429320 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2014
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
Chris, That's some beautiful work. Got a couple comments: I don't have any numbers for how much filter area you need, but knowing Vans, I kind of doubt they provided any extra. What I'm saying is, how do you know you have adequate filter area remaining after you dam off the alternate part? Personally, I kind of think of the air filter as doing it's job over the life of the engine. The odds of inhaling an adequately foreign object -- while running alternate air -- seem small enough to me to tolerate the risk. How do you know it's working? Indicator system? Some other parameter that changes when the alternate is open? While you're at it, look in the archives about mounting an aluminum plate under the filter. It tends to wear through the bottom of the FAB. Blue Skies, --Dave On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Chris Hukill wrote: > I have yet another mod that I did, this time to the fab airbox. With all > the feedback of the problems that some have had with the various Vans > versions of alternate air devises, I wasn't thrilled with any of them. My > design criteria is that there should be zero chance of ingesting anything > into the motor. That includes hardware that came loose from the fab, or > anything else the engine could suck in while in "alternate air" mode. That > would even include dirty, dusty or sandy air. The second feature would be > that the bypass must occur automatically. If I suck in a bird at 200 feet > agl, right after takeoff, I don't want to have to remember that bypass knob > in the few seconds before crashing. The solution was to use reed valves, as > others have done, but locate them not below the fab, but behind it. The aft > section of the filter is isolated with small dams, and when the reed valves > suck in, the air goes thru that section of the filter that isn't > contaminated. In that mode you still are breathing clean air, although at a > slight decrease in power due to loss of ram air. How much power? Tests on > my flying RV8 showed about a 10% reduction during full power static runs. I > will run a similar test when I get the 10 flying. I have attached pictures, > but they may not come thru. If interested email me off-forum and I'll send > them. > Chris Hukill > still being baffled by baffles ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 25, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
At least the alternate air wars have pushed all the other wars aside for the time being. I don't like any control that I can't reverse. That's what drove me to this: The air hole in the bottom of the FAB is the same size as Van's sliding one. There is a piece of screen over the hole to keep out any FOD. We've seen what large birds can do .... coming through the windshield ...... and one that nails the inlet in the cowl could strangle your engine if you don't have alt air. I have to agree with Kelly though .... freezing rain or snow that will plug the filter will only occur if you're flying where you shouldn't be. Linn ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
Date: Aug 25, 2014
You guys with the "bird through the cowl" into the intake are giving me a chuckle. Talk about something with itty bitty small odds.... And if one DID go right into the snorkel, it would probably explode the FAB anyway, giving you a *really* large alternate air opening. I don't know much, but other than the fact that the FAB definitely needs beefing up with a metal plate for the filter to rub on, I just don't see that much that needs more improving over a swing door in the bottom. I don't care if I can re-set it in flight, because it'll fly fine for the remainder of that flight anyway, and I can do it on the ground. Opening it means you had an emergency. I'm happy to take 20 minutes or whatever out of my day after a true emergency. And in 1000+ hours I haven't had the slightest interest in pulling the knob in the first place. All of this should be a real rare occurrence....not something like pulling carb heat on a carbureted engine... Tim > On Aug 25, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Linn Walters wrote: > > At least the alternate air wars have pushed all the other wars aside for the time being. I don't like any control that I can't reverse. That's what drove me to this: > > > The air hole in the bottom of the FAB is the same size as Van's sliding one. There is a piece of screen over the hole to keep out any FOD. We've seen what large birds can do .... coming through the windshield ...... and one that nails the inlet in the cowl could strangle your engine if you don't have alt air. I have to agree with Kelly though .... freezing rain or snow that will plug the filter will only occur if you're flying where you shouldn't be. > Linn > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2014
Our factory provided air filter has barely enough surface area for a 540. I would not want to remove 30% of its area for normal operations. Good luck with your mod. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: FAB wars
Date: Aug 26, 2014
Glad I could help with the FAB wars. I appreciate the comments and would to respond to few. The three holes in the back are mathematically the same area as the intake throat of the injection servo, so if the reeds are fully open, the airflow would be the same as a hole in the bottom of the airbox with Vans system. I doubt that Vans did any engineering on the size of the filter area, as it=99s the same filter they use for all the engine sizes. Off the shelf stuff. The proof is in the pudding. On my RV8, with a souped up AEIO 360, and the same filter, the loss is 10%, determined by actual tests. I attributed that loss to the loss of ram effect, not filter area. The same actual test will be done in my first 25 hours, and I will post results. I thought about indicating on the EFIS, the reed valves movement with a simple micro switch or even a potentiometer, and have provisioned for that with an extra EMS circuit run to the engine. Or a video camera can be temporarily installed. It will be there for initial testing, but probably taken off after as I feel the airbox doesn=99t need to be monitored, other than the slight, but noticeable loss of power . Simply looking into the scoop during preflight will alert to any solid contamination your may have ingested on your previous flight. I fail to see how heavy rain will get to the protected side of the filter. The rain that gets thru the ram portion of the filter will go into the engine. How will a much higher pressure area, essentially vented to the warm air that =98s cooling the engine, attract rain, sleet or ice? I would chuckle too at the ingested bird scenario, if it hadn=99t happened to my brother in his C172, right at takeoff at Hayward CA. About 50 feet in the air and WHOMP! Engine quit and he was able to land in the remaining runway. The front the cowl was completely destroyed by the seagull and the filter was blocked by the feathers and guts. I myself have hit several birds during takeoff in jets over my career. If it hasn=99t happened to you, don=99t rule out the possibility that it can. Now, any opinions on which primer is best for airboxes? Chris Hukill ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: FAB wars
On 8/26/2014 8:28 AM, Chris Hukill wrote: snip > Now, any opinions on which primer is best for airboxes? I like CCI primers, though I don't know if they'll fit an airbox!!! :-) Linn > Chris Hukill > * > > > * > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
I'm curious how you reach that conclusion. There are exactly two limiting orifices to the engine. One is the size of the cowling openning to the FAB, and the other is the fuel injection servo itself. If the alt air openning equals the size of the cowling opening you don't have any restriction. If it equals the servo opening the only loss of power would be from the differing flow directions and loss of ram air. The surface area of the filter is several multiples of either of the limiting openings. I doubt there is very much difference in flow through the factory filter and the one I had on a 370 hp Camaro Z-28 I used to drive and maintain(back when leaded 98 octane was available at most street corners) which at 7000 rpm flowed a heck of a lot more air than a 540 at 270 rpm will. Meaningful flow restriction by an opening only occurs when the pressure drop is sufficient to reach transonic speeds. Also, look at the filter size on many certified planes in the same power range and I think you will find a number that are smaller than the Vans supplied filter. I know the filter for my 200 hp Mooney is a whole lot less, and the filter bypass ram air opening is about the same size as the flange to the fuel servo. On 8/26/2014 5:21 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > Our factory provided air filter has barely enough surface area for a 540. I would not want to remove 30% of its area for normal operations. Good luck with your mod. > > -------- > Wayne G. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2014
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: FAB wars
Chris, You're definitely correct that on takeoff a bird strike to the cowl is much more likely, so the chances are much higher at that point. Still, even if you ingested a bird with a standard FAB, and used the standard door on the bottom, that would still suffice for the solution. I'm not saying your FAB design is bad, and I don't have any data on filter sizes for the airflow required and all of that, and I understand you do. If your design gives plenty of airflow with no restrictions, and you feel better with it, then I say go for it, as long as it has no airflow downside. But, I think that for 99% of the builders, doing anything besides reinforcing the FAB bottom with Aluminum and having a single-use-then-manual reset slide door on the bottom really has no big down side. It'll open airflow for a birdstrike, iced up filter, and provide plenty of airflow when needed....doing anything more than that is just going to slow the builder down. I think that too many people take WAY too long to complete their project, which just leads to frustration for the builder. There are endless mods that a person can do, and every 5, 10, 20 hours, especially for the infernal fiberglass mods, often adds little value for the effort put in. The fact is, when you are flying your RV-10, most of these tweaks and mods bring no added joy to the flying experience, and things such as the FAB mod, I feel are really no real benefit to safety. Your method is cool, but it doesn't do anything significant for safety that the standard FAB offers. (this is NOT an insult or attack on you or your FAB, as it does look real nice) It took me 25 months to finish my RV-10 enough to get it in the air, including the paint. I spent countless wasted hours in a few mods, especially in the Andair fuel valve. That particular mod I really do like, but I wasted a LOT of time doing it. Had I not skipped a couple months of building, and had more builders in front of me to learn from (I was approx. the 24th flying), I could have saved probably 3 or 4 months of build time. By the time you get done with a build, especially doing things like gear leg fairings, all this work is just tedious and frustrating. So I personally believe people would be better off taking Van's advice...."Just build the plane." Tim On 8/26/2014 7:28 AM, Chris Hukill wrote: > Glad I could help with the FAB wars. I appreciate the comments and would > to respond to few. The three holes in the back are mathematically the > same area as the intake throat of the injection servo, so if the reeds > are fully open, the airflow would be the same as a hole in the bottom of > the airbox with Vans system. I doubt that Vans did any engineering on > the size of the filter area, as its the same filter they use for all > the engine sizes. Off the shelf stuff. The proof is in the pudding. On > my RV8, with a souped up AEIO 360, and the same filter, the loss is 10%, > determined by actual tests. I attributed that loss to the loss of ram > effect, not filter area. The same actual test will be done in my first > 25 hours, and I will post results. I thought about indicating on the > EFIS, the reed valves movement with a simple micro switch or even a > potentiometer, and have provisioned for that with an extra EMS circuit > run to the engine. Or a video camera can be temporarily installed. It > will be there for initial testing, but probably taken off after as I > feel the airbox doesnt need to be monitored, other than the slight, but > noticeable loss of power . Simply looking into the scoop during > preflight will alert to any solid contamination your may have ingested > on your previous flight. I fail to see how heavy rain will get to the > protected side of the filter. The rain that gets thru the ram portion of > the filter will go into the engine. How will a much higher pressure > area, essentially vented to the warm air that s cooling the engine, > attract rain, sleet or ice? I would chuckle too at the ingested bird > scenario, if it hadnt happened to my brother in his C172, right at > takeoff at Hayward CA. About 50 feet in the air and WHOMP! Engine quit > and he was able to land in the remaining runway. The front the cowl was > completely destroyed by the seagull and the filter was blocked by the > feathers and guts. I myself have hit several birds during takeoff in > jets over my career. If it hasnt happened to you, dont rule out the > possibility that it can. > Now, any opinions on which primer is best for airboxes? > Chris Hukill > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
Date: Aug 26, 2014
If you invert the top cover of the stock Van's air box it will now fit the taller K&N E-1000 filter. As previously stated, recommend adding an aluminum plate between the bottom of the filter and the fiberglass air box bottom. From experience I know the filter will ablate the fiberglass over time. Talking to Van's on this they are now recommending the same for people who call them about the problem. Hopefully they will update the plans to reflect. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:28 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Airbox mod I'm curious how you reach that conclusion. There are exactly two limiting orifices to the engine. One is the size of the cowling openning to the FAB, and the other is the fuel injection servo itself. If the alt air openning equals the size of the cowling opening you don't have any restriction. If it equals the servo opening the only loss of power would be from the differing flow directions and loss of ram air. The surface area of the filter is several multiples of either of the limiting openings. I doubt there is very much difference in flow through the factory filter and the one I had on a 370 hp Camaro Z-28 I used to drive and maintain(back when leaded 98 octane was available at most street corners) which at 7000 rpm flowed a heck of a lot more air than a 540 at 270 rpm will. Meaningful flow restriction by an opening only occurs when the pressure drop is sufficient to reach transonic speeds. Also, look at the filter size on many certified planes in the same power range and I think you will find a number that are smaller than the Vans supplied filter. I know the filter for my 200 hp Mooney is a whole lot less, and the filter bypass ram air opening is about the same size as the flange to the fuel servo. On 8/26/2014 5:21 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > --> > > Our factory provided air filter has barely enough surface area for a 540. I would not want to remove 30% of its area for normal operations. Good luck with your mod. > > -------- > Wayne G. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2014
>From K & N website... A = (C.I.D. x RPM) / 20,839 A= 540 X 2,700 / 20,839 A= 70 sq in. I already measured mine and it is undersized. One of the reasons many complain of "shrinking filters". Pressure differential, fuel, oil, rain, high heat also contribute. Measure your RV-10 filter ensuring you subtract the 3/4" rubber seals and see what you come up with. Kellym wrote: > I'm curious how you reach that conclusion. There are exactly two > limiting orifices to the engine. One is the size of the cowling openning > to the FAB, and the other is the fuel injection servo itself. If the alt > air openning equals the size of the cowling opening you don't have any > restriction. If it equals the servo opening the only loss of power would > be from the differing flow directions and loss of ram air. The surface > area of the filter is several multiples of either of the limiting > openings. I doubt there is very much difference in flow through the > factory filter and the one I had on a 370 hp Camaro Z-28 I used to drive > and maintain(back when leaded 98 octane was available at most street > corners) which at 7000 rpm flowed a heck of a lot more air than a 540 at > 270 rpm will. Meaningful flow restriction by an opening only occurs when > the pressure drop is sufficient to reach transonic speeds. > Also, look at the filter size on many certified planes in the same power > range and I think you will find a number that are smaller than the Vans > supplied filter. I know the filter for my 200 hp Mooney is a whole lot > less, and the filter bypass ram air opening is about the same size as > the flange to the fuel servo. > On 8/26/2014 5:21 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > > > > > > Our factory provided air filter has barely enough surface area for a 540. I would not want to remove 30% of its area for normal operations. Good luck with your mod. > > > > -------- > > Wayne G. > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429357#429357 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
Wayne, Undersized? I don't think so, but I didn't take the time to measure mine. It's still a virgin! Cut your old one apart and spread out the pleats to really measure the surface area. So, how did you measure yours and what did you come up with? I really believe the shrinking filter is the rubber ring reacting to 100LL. How many have the drain hole? My drain hole drops down into my alt air mod keeping the filter rubber relatively dry. Linn On 8/26/2014 10:58 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > >From K & N website... > > A = (C.I.D. x RPM) / 20,839 > > A= 540 X 2,700 / 20,839 > > A= 70 sq in. > > I already measured mine and it is undersized. One of the reasons many complain of "shrinking filters". Pressure differential, fuel, oil, rain, high heat also contribute. > > Measure your RV-10 filter ensuring you subtract the 3/4" rubber seals and see what you come up with. > > > Kellym wrote: >> I'm curious how you reach that conclusion. There are exactly two >> limiting orifices to the engine. One is the size of the cowling openning >> to the FAB, and the other is the fuel injection servo itself. If the alt >> air openning equals the size of the cowling opening you don't have any >> restriction. If it equals the servo opening the only loss of power would >> be from the differing flow directions and loss of ram air. The surface >> area of the filter is several multiples of either of the limiting >> openings. I doubt there is very much difference in flow through the >> factory filter and the one I had on a 370 hp Camaro Z-28 I used to drive >> and maintain(back when leaded 98 octane was available at most street >> corners) which at 7000 rpm flowed a heck of a lot more air than a 540 at >> 270 rpm will. Meaningful flow restriction by an opening only occurs when >> the pressure drop is sufficient to reach transonic speeds. >> Also, look at the filter size on many certified planes in the same power >> range and I think you will find a number that are smaller than the Vans >> supplied filter. I know the filter for my 200 hp Mooney is a whole lot >> less, and the filter bypass ram air opening is about the same size as >> the flange to the fuel servo. >> On 8/26/2014 5:21 AM, rv10flyer wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Our factory provided air filter has barely enough surface area for a 540. I would not want to remove 30% of its area for normal operations. Good luck with your mod. >>> >>> -------- >>> Wayne G. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -------- > Wayne G. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429357#429357 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2014
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
For that formula to be meaningful it has to be tied to horsepower and a few other things. It has to account for pleats in the filter as being part of the surface area. It really is a formula for the area of the filter media, not the size of the opening. IIRC the opening in the cowling is only about 2.25 by maybe 3.5, if that. That calculates to less than 10 sq in, more like 8. So having 70 sq in of filter area is meaningless for this discussion since the alt air usually is designed to bypass the filter. An Alt air opening that equals the inlet from the cowling is more than enough. 3X3 or equivalent. is going to provide enough air. (unless you use the wrong primer on it) On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:58 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > >From K & N website... > > A = (C.I.D. x RPM) / 20,839 > > A= 540 X 2,700 / 20,839 > > A= 70 sq in. > > I already measured mine and it is undersized. One of the reasons many > complain of "shrinking filters". Pressure differential, fuel, oil, rain, > high heat also contribute. > > Measure your RV-10 filter ensuring you subtract the 3/4" rubber seals and > see what you come up with. > > > Kellym wrote: > > I'm curious how you reach that conclusion. There are exactly two > > limiting orifices to the engine. One is the size of the cowling openning > > to the FAB, and the other is the fuel injection servo itself. If the alt > > air openning equals the size of the cowling opening you don't have any > > restriction. If it equals the servo opening the only loss of power would > > be from the differing flow directions and loss of ram air. The surface > > area of the filter is several multiples of either of the limiting > > openings. I doubt there is very much difference in flow through the > > factory filter and the one I had on a 370 hp Camaro Z-28 I used to drive > > and maintain(back when leaded 98 octane was available at most street > > corners) which at 7000 rpm flowed a heck of a lot more air than a 540 at > > 270 rpm will. Meaningful flow restriction by an opening only occurs when > > the pressure drop is sufficient to reach transonic speeds. > > Also, look at the filter size on many certified planes in the same power > > range and I think you will find a number that are smaller than the Vans > > supplied filter. I know the filter for my 200 hp Mooney is a whole lot > > less, and the filter bypass ram air opening is about the same size as > > the flange to the fuel servo. > > On 8/26/2014 5:21 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Our factory provided air filter has barely enough surface area for a > 540. I would not want to remove 30% of its area for normal operations. Good > luck with your mod. > > > > > > -------- > > > Wayne G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- > Wayne G. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429357#429357 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FAB wars
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Aug 26, 2014
Chris and others, What I actually had in mind was a plane parked on a ramp in a driving rain storm, with the wind blowing a lot of water into the filter;or maybe someone "helpful" directing a washing hose directly at the filter(!); then taking off into clearing but cold skies. But whatever unlikely scenario, the point is that alternate air is meant to bypass a clogged filter, and I know of no alternate air installation that includes a filter, the logic being that whatever unlikely event clogged the main filter could also clog a second one. Or, a small air leak could result in that second filter slowly getting blocked by dirt. You have to balance that against the also unlikely happenstance of sucking in a stray screw. As to airflow, remember that the same filter in the -10 has to pass 540/360 = 1.5x more air than in the IO-360. Tests should tell. I would suggest using an 11 month old (dirty) filter in the test, to emulate the real world. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429378#429378 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: FAB wars
I would suggest that the airflow difference is not the difference in displacement, but the difference in horsepower...260/200=1.3. We know that LOP fuel flow * 15 equals horsepower, and we know that the ratio in round numbers is 15 air to one fuel. Thus the ratio between air flow and horsepower is one to one and only loosely related to displacement. The 300 hp version of the IO-540 will clearly need more air than the 260 hp version, yet displacement is identical. As to airflow, remember that the same filter in the -10 has to pass 540/360 = 1.5x more air than in the IO-360. Tests should tell. I would suggest using an 11 month old (dirty) filter in the test, to emulate the real world. -------- Bob Turner ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FAB wars
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Aug 26, 2014
Kellym wrote: > I would suggest that the airflow difference is not the difference in > displacement, but the difference in horsepower...260/200=1.3. > We know that LOP fuel flow * 15 equals horsepower, and we know that the > ratio in round numbers is 15 air to one fuel. Thus the ratio between air > flow and horsepower is one to one and only loosely related to > displacement. The 300 hp version of the IO-540 will clearly need more > air than the 260 hp version, yet displacement is identical. > Kelly, I respectfully disagree. The higher power engines with the same displacement get most of their extra power by having better thermodynamic efficiency (higher compression ratios) so they get the extra power on the same fuel and air flow. You could turn the engine off, but let it windmill, with the throttle wide open. Every two revolutions (4 stroke) it would attempt to pump 540 cubic inches of air out the exhaust, regardless of whether it is a 250 HP version or a 300 HP version. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429396#429396 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pitot location
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2014
Where to install pitot mast? Vans has a hole in the forward bottom skin just in front of the spar in line with the aileron actuator bracket. given a quickbuild wing with this skin already riveted in place and planning to install a real pitot tube on a standard mast mount, where is best location? I think it will have to be somewhere on the outboard bottom skin? Also, the sequence seems to be installation of the outboard bottom skin before the aileron actuator parts. Is there a reason for this? Seems it would be easier to get that done before closing up the skin. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429407#429407 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ben Westfall" <rv10(at)sinkrate.com>
Subject: Pitot location
Date: Aug 26, 2014
I'm pretty sure it depends on what primer you use on your airbox and where it's alt air door is located! :-) -Ben -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob88 Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:16 PM Subject: RV10-List: Pitot location Where to install pitot mast? Vans has a hole in the forward bottom skin just in front of the spar in line with the aileron actuator bracket. given a quickbuild wing with this skin already riveted in place and planning to install a real pitot tube on a standard mast mount, where is best location? I think it will have to be somewhere on the outboard bottom skin? Also, the sequence seems to be installation of the outboard bottom skin before the aileron actuator parts. Is there a reason for this? Seems it would be easier to get that done before closing up the skin. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429407#429407 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2014
Subject: Re: FAB wars
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Bob, Your assumption of more power on equal fuel and air is simply incorrect. While there may be small improvements in efficiency the vast majority of the horsepower change is by getting more air and fuel through the engine. You aren't pumping an incompressible fluid through the engine. Compression and manifold pressure have a lot to do with the power produced and the mass of the air passing through the engine. That is why turbo motors make more power..they push more air and fuel through the engine while the displacement remains the same. Not to mention that primer in military colors produces more power. Kelly On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > Kelly, I respectfully disagree. The higher power engines with the same > displacement get most of their extra power by having better thermodynamic > efficiency (higher compression ratios) *so they get the extra power on the > same fuel and air flow*. You could turn the engine off, but let it > windmill, with the throttle wide open. Every two revolutions (4 stroke) it > would attempt to pump 540 cubic inches of air out the exhaust, regardless > of whether it is a 250 HP version or a 300 HP version. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429396#429396 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Trim servo question
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 26, 2014
Vans has the aileron trim servo (Ray Allen) in the left wing and Garmin has the GSA28 autopilot servo in the right wing. The wiring from the Ray Allen has to pass through the Garmin servo. Has anyone put both in the same wing, or is it better to just run wire across the fuselage? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429417#429417 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Pitot location
I put mine in the next bay outboard of the aileron bracket. Made my own mast .... because I could. I haven't riveted the bottom panel yet but you can work through the inspection panel. I used the Van's pitot (the hole below the bracket) with a 45 fitting for my AOA. Linn .... final sanding the windshield fairing On 8/26/2014 9:15 PM, bob88 wrote: > > Where to install pitot mast? Vans has a hole in the forward bottom skin just in front of the spar in line with the aileron actuator bracket. given a quickbuild wing with this skin already riveted in place and planning to install a real pitot tube on a standard mast mount, where is best location? I think it will have to be somewhere on the outboard bottom skin? Also, the sequence seems to be installation of the outboard bottom skin before the aileron actuator parts. Is there a reason for this? Seems it would be easier to get that done before closing up the skin. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429407#429407 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Pitot location
Date: Aug 26, 2014
Pitot is about half way, pretty much where Linn has his, I didnt rivet the bottom skins until the end, pretty much when the skins where riveted everything in the wing was installed and bolted down.I did have it clecoed for the pitot install and fitting of tubes. Pascal -----Original Message----- From: bob88 Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:15 PM Subject: RV10-List: Pitot location Where to install pitot mast? Vans has a hole in the forward bottom skin just in front of the spar in line with the aileron actuator bracket. given a quickbuild wing with this skin already riveted in place and planning to install a real pitot tube on a standard mast mount, where is best location? I think it will have to be somewhere on the outboard bottom skin? Also, the sequence seems to be installation of the outboard bottom skin before the aileron actuator parts. Is there a reason for this? Seems it would be easier to get that done before closing up the skin. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429407#429407 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2014
It has nothing to do with HP. It is all about moving a volume of air in a certain amount of time through the air filter. Our 540 cubic-inch engine operating at 2700 RPM flows about 380 CFM at 90% volumetric efficiency. >From K&N website..."Use the formula below to compute the minimum size filter required for your particular application. The usable portion of the filter is called the EFFECTIVE FILTERING AREA which is determined by multiplying the diameter of the filter times Pi (3.1416) times the height of the air filter in inches, then subtracting .75-inch. We subtract .75-inch to compensate for the rubber seals on each end of the element and the filter material near them since very little air flows through this area." No, you don't stretch the pleats out before measuring. I said nothing about his inlet or alternate air opening area. I am seeing about 30% of his EFA(Effective Filtering Area) blocked off. This from an already marginally sized filter. [quote="Kelly McMullen"]For that formula to be meaningful it has to be tied to horsepower and a few other things. It has to account for pleats in the filter as being part of the surface area. It really is a formula for the area of the filter media, not the size of the opening. IIRC the opening in the cowling is only about 2.25 by maybe 3.5, if that. That calculates to less than 10 sq in, more like 8. So having 70 sq in of filter area is meaningless for this discussion since the alt air usually is designed to bypass the filter. An Alt air opening that equals the inlet from the cowling is more than enough. 3X3 or equivalent. is going to provide enough air. (unless you use the wrong primer on it) On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:58 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > >From K & N website... > > A = (C.I.D. x RPM) / 20,839 > > A= 540 X 2,700 / 20,839 > > A= 70 sq in. > > I already measured mine and it is undersized. One of the reasons many complain of "shrinking filters". Pressure differential, fuel, oil, rain, high heat also contribute. > > Measure your RV-10 filter ensuring you subtract the 3/4" rubber seals and see what you come up with. > > > Kellym wrote: > > I'm curious how you reach that conclusion. There are exactly two > > limiting orifices to the engine. One is the size of the cowling openning > > to the FAB, and the other is the fuel injection servo itself. If the alt > > air openning equals the size of the cowling opening you don't have any > > restriction. If it equals the servo opening the only loss of power would > > be from the differing flow directions and loss of ram air. The surface > > area of the filter is several multiples of either of the limiting > > openings. I doubt there is very much difference in flow through the > > factory filter and the one I had on a 370 hp Camaro Z-28 I used to drive > > and maintain(back when leaded 98 octane was available at most street > > corners) which at 7000 rpm flowed a heck of a lot more air than a 540 at > > 270 rpm will. Meaningful flow restriction by an opening only occurs when > > the pressure drop is sufficient to reach transonic speeds. > > Also, look at the filter size on many certified planes in the same power > > range and I think you will find a number that are smaller than the Vans > > supplied filter. I know the filter for my 200 hp Mooney is a whole lot > > less, and the filter bypass ram air opening is about the same size as > > the flange to the fuel servo. > > On 8/26/2014 5:21 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Our factory provided air filter has barely enough surface area for a 540. I would not want to remove 30% of its area for normal operations. Good luck with your mod. > > > > > > -------- > > > Wayne G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- > Wayne G. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429357#429357 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429357#429357) > > > > > > > > ========== > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ========== > ">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > le, List Admin. > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========== > > > > [b] -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429427#429427 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
You also are confusing the engine's air needs. Horsepower has everything to do with how much air moves through the engine. Displacement is only one factor. Air is compressible, it is not a liquid, so the amount going through the engine and out the exhaust is much more closely related to power produced than it is to displacement. Filter area needs have more to do with removal of dirt. It is irrelevant with any alternate air that bypasses the filter. You only need to consider the size of the cowl opening to know the maximum size needed to develop rated horsepower. With alternate air, you don't expect to get full power, but something more like 89 percent power, just as with a carburetor you don't get full power with carb heat. On 8/26/2014 10:22 PM, rv10flyer wrote: > > It has nothing to do with HP. It is all about moving a volume of air in a certain amount of time through the air filter. Our 540 cubic-inch engine operating at 2700 RPM flows about 380 CFM at 90% volumetric efficiency. > > > >From K&N website..."Use the formula below to compute the minimum size filter required for your particular application. The usable portion of the filter is called the EFFECTIVE FILTERING AREA which is determined by multiplying the diameter of the filter times Pi (3.1416) times the height of the air filter in inches, then subtracting .75-inch. We subtract .75-inch to compensate for the rubber seals on each end of the element and the filter material near them since very little air flows through this area." > > No, you don't stretch the pleats out before measuring. I said nothing about his inlet or alternate air opening area. I am seeing about 30% of his EFA(Effective Filtering Area) blocked off. This from an already marginally sized filter. > > [quote="Kelly McMullen"]For that formula to be meaningful it has to be tied to horsepower and a few other things. It has to account for pleats in the filter as being part of the surface area. It really is a formula for the area of the filter media, not the size of the opening. > IIRC the opening in the cowling is only about 2.25 by maybe 3.5, if that. That calculates to less than 10 sq in, more like 8. So having 70 sq in of filter area is meaningless for this discussion since the alt air usually is designed to bypass the filter. An Alt air opening that equals the inlet from the cowling is more than enough. 3X3 or equivalent. is going to provide enough air. (unless you use the wrong primer on it) > > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:58 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > >> >> >From K & N website... >> >> A = (C.I.D. x RPM) / 20,839 >> >> A= 540 X 2,700 / 20,839 >> >> A= 70 sq in. >> >> I already measured mine and it is undersized. One of the reasons many complain of "shrinking filters". Pressure differential, fuel, oil, rain, high heat also contribute. >> >> Measure your RV-10 filter ensuring you subtract the 3/4" rubber seals and see what you come up with. >> >> >> Kellym wrote: >> > I'm curious how you reach that conclusion. There are exactly two >> > limiting orifices to the engine. One is the size of the cowling openning >> > to the FAB, and the other is the fuel injection servo itself. If the alt >> > air openning equals the size of the cowling opening you don't have any >> > restriction. If it equals the servo opening the only loss of power would >> > be from the differing flow directions and loss of ram air. The surface >> > area of the filter is several multiples of either of the limiting >> > openings. I doubt there is very much difference in flow through the >> > factory filter and the one I had on a 370 hp Camaro Z-28 I used to drive >> > and maintain(back when leaded 98 octane was available at most street >> > corners) which at 7000 rpm flowed a heck of a lot more air than a 540 at >> > 270 rpm will. Meaningful flow restriction by an opening only occurs when >> > the pressure drop is sufficient to reach transonic speeds. >> > Also, look at the filter size on many certified planes in the same power >> > range and I think you will find a number that are smaller than the Vans >> > supplied filter. I know the filter for my 200 hp Mooney is a whole lot >> > less, and the filter bypass ram air opening is about the same size as >> > the flange to the fuel servo. >> > On 8/26/2014 5:21 AM, rv10flyer wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > Our factory provided air filter has barely enough surface area for a 540. I would not want to remove 30% of its area for normal operations. Good luck with your mod. >> > > >> > > -------- >> > > Wayne G. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Read this topic online here: >> > > >> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341) >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> -------- >> Wayne G. >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429357#429357 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429357#429357) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ========== >> ">http://forums.matronics.com >> ========== >> le, List Admin. >> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> ========== >> >> >> >> [b] > > -------- > Wayne G. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429427#429427 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pitot location
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2014
The most important thing to keep in mind in pitot location is to keep it outside of the propeller arc. You don't want to be measuring the speed of the air the propeller pushes. On Aug 26, 2014, at 21:00, "Pascal" wrote: > > Pitot is about half way, pretty much where Linn has his, I didnt rivet the bottom skins until the end, pretty much when the skins where riveted everything in the wing was installed and bolted down.I did have it clecoed for the pitot install and fitting of tubes. > Pascal > > -----Original Message----- From: bob88 > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:15 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Pitot location > > > Where to install pitot mast? Vans has a hole in the forward bottom skin just in front of the spar in line with the aileron actuator bracket. given a quickbuild wing with this skin already riveted in place and planning to install a real pitot tube on a standard mast mount, where is best location? I think it will have to be somewhere on the outboard bottom skin? Also, the sequence seems to be installation of the outboard bottom skin before the aileron actuator parts. Is there a reason for this? Seems it would be easier to get that done before closing up the skin. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429407#429407 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2014
The simple formula that K&N provides gives us a MINIMUM filter area for our simple engine. Our filter is undersized according to their formula. Undersized filters equal higher air velocities, greater pressure drop and less efficient filtering. I am not an engineer and it is his airplane. [quote="Kellym"]You also are confusing the engine's air needs. Horsepower has everything to do with how much air moves through the engine. Displacement is only one factor. Air is compressible, it is not a liquid, so the amount going through the engine and out the exhaust is much more closely related to power produced than it is to displacement. Filter area needs have more to do with removal of dirt. It is irrelevant with any alternate air that bypasses the filter. You only need to consider the size of the cowl opening to know the maximum size needed to develop rated horsepower. With alternate air, you don't expect to get full power, but something more like 89 percent power, just as with a carburetor you don't get full power with carb heat. On 8/26/2014 10:22 PM, rv10flyer wrote: > > > It has nothing to do with HP. It is all about moving a volume of air in a certain amount of time through the air filter. Our 540 cubic-inch engine operating at 2700 RPM flows about 380 CFM at 90% volumetric efficiency. > > > >From K&N website..."Use the formula below to compute the minimum size filter required for your particular application. The usable portion of the filter is called the EFFECTIVE FILTERING AREA which is determined by multiplying the diameter of the filter times Pi (3.1416) times the height of the air filter in inches, then subtracting .75-inch. We subtract .75-inch to compensate for the rubber seals on each end of the element and the filter material near them since very little air flows through this area." > > No, you don't stretch the pleats out before measuring. I said nothing about his inlet or alternate air opening area. I am seeing about 30% of his EFA(Effective Filtering Area) blocked off. This from an already marginally sized filter. > > > Kelly McMullen wrote: > > For that formula to be meaningful it has to be tied to horsepower and a few other things. It has to account for pleats in the filter as being part of the surface area. It really is a formula for the area of the filter media, not the size of the opening. > > IIRC the opening in the cowling is only about 2.25 by maybe 3.5, if that. That calculates to less than 10 sq in, more like 8. So having 70 sq in of filter area is meaningless for this discussion since the alt air usually is designed to bypass the filter. An Alt air opening that equals the inlet from the cowling is more than enough. 3X3 or equivalent. is going to provide enough air. (unless you use the wrong primer on it) > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:58 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >From K & N website... > > > > > > A = (C.I.D. x RPM) / 20,839 > > > > > > A= 540 X 2,700 / 20,839 > > > > > > A= 70 sq in. > > > > > > I already measured mine and it is undersized. One of the reasons many complain of "shrinking filters". Pressure differential, fuel, oil, rain, high heat also contribute. > > > > > > Measure your RV-10 filter ensuring you subtract the 3/4" rubber seals and see what you come up with. > > > > > > > > > Kellym wrote: > > > > I'm curious how you reach that conclusion. There are exactly two > > > > limiting orifices to the engine. One is the size of the cowling openning > > > > to the FAB, and the other is the fuel injection servo itself. If the alt > > > > air openning equals the size of the cowling opening you don't have any > > > > restriction. If it equals the servo opening the only loss of power would > > > > be from the differing flow directions and loss of ram air. The surface > > > > area of the filter is several multiples of either of the limiting > > > > openings. I doubt there is very much difference in flow through the > > > > factory filter and the one I had on a 370 hp Camaro Z-28 I used to drive > > > > and maintain(back when leaded 98 octane was available at most street > > > > corners) which at 7000 rpm flowed a heck of a lot more air than a 540 at > > > > 270 rpm will. Meaningful flow restriction by an opening only occurs when > > > > the pressure drop is sufficient to reach transonic speeds. > > > > Also, look at the filter size on many certified planes in the same power > > > > range and I think you will find a number that are smaller than the Vans > > > > supplied filter. I know the filter for my 200 hp Mooney is a whole lot > > > > less, and the filter bypass ram air opening is about the same size as > > > > the flange to the fuel servo. > > > > On 8/26/2014 5:21 AM, rv10flyer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our factory provided air filter has barely enough surface area for a 540. I would not want to remove 30% of its area for normal operations. Good luck with your mod. > > > > > > > > > > -------- > > > > > Wayne G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > > > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429341#429341) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- > > > Wayne G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429357#429357 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429357#429357) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ========== > > > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > > > ========== > > > ">http://forums.matronics.com > > > ========== > > > le, List Admin. > > > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > > ========== > > > > > > > > > > > > [b] > > > > -------- > > Wayne G. > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429427#429427 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429431#429431 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airbox mod
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Aug 26, 2014
So let's all agree that knowing the exact answer is hard; getting an approximate answer can be had in various ways. For a slow turning engine it's just displacement times RPM. For a real engine, the efficiency of the intake valves can be a 10 - 20% factor, so maybe we should use power. But timing and compression ratios can affect power without changing the air flow, so that's not perfect either. But either method should get you close. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429432#429432 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: FAB wars
Date: Aug 27, 2014
Wayne, I would think that the filter to engine displacement data that K&N provides is meant for applications that have little or no ram effect, like cars and boats. We can easily see that the ram effect is quite prominent in the production of HP in our planes, similar to turbo or supercharging. Testing provides the answers. If the filter is restricting the airflow, it will be evident by the reeds opening to allow more air than is allowed thru the forward portion of the filter. If the reeds stay closed, the airstream is pushing enough air thru the filter, simple as that. The question of a fire hose assault on the air filter, while parked during a hurricane warrants further study. I=99ll take an old dirty filter and put a hose to it (while it=99s off the airplane) and blast away, and see how much water gets thru the forward section of the filter, and becomes captured in the aft section, to later freeze. If the amount of water is significant, I will be certain to apply a plug to the scoop whenever parked outside, especially if any hurricanes are forecast. Seriously, that is a valid concern, and deserves further study. An adequate size drain hole will probably be the remedy. The aluminum plate under the filter is certainly one method of controlling the erosion of the filter thru the thin plastic bottom of the fab. On my RV8 however, I applied a thick bead of silicone to the bottom of the filter, put the filter in place, and bolted the fab together. The film of oil on the filter element works as a mold release and when I remove the filter for cleaning, the silicone remains on the fab bottom. After cleaning, the filter goes right back on the silicone bed, and I have zero wear on the fab bottom with over five hundred hours. Just another way to skin a cat. Tim, I am in 100% agreement with you on the necessity and even wisdom of a builder spending time and energy on improving Vans already excellent design. A totally stock RV10 is a fantastic airplane. Having built several airplanes however, my mission is a little different than the average builder. For one thing, I have other airplanes to fly, so there is no hurry for me to finish. The reality is that my job as a corporate pilot requires me to spend the vast majority of my time being in town and available to go fly. Building airplanes is a great way to =9Cgo to work=9D, as I like to think of it. The previous planes that I have built always have had items that I thought I could improve on, if I took the time. That=99s what I=99m doing now. However I certainly would not recommend that approach to other builders who want to get their airplanes flying in any reasonable amount of time. Chris Hukill heading off to work ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 27, 2014
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Pitot location
I put my mast out in the last or next to last bay per some other builders. I have the Gretz heated pitot and it has a little controller that resides close to the mast so the last bay provides easy access via the tip. No problems with the location. The Gretz heated pitot, now handled by Angus Aviation in AUS, has been great. Early units like mine appeared to have a defect causing self destruction. Couldn't have been happier with Angus Aviation's response and resolution despite the unit being 4+ years old before I first turned it on. I recommend the unit highly after 3 years of use. On 8/26/2014 9:15 PM, bob88 wrote: > > Where to install pitot mast? Vans has a hole in the forward bottom skin just in front of the spar in line with the aileron actuator bracket. given a quickbuild wing with this skin already riveted in place and planning to install a real pitot tube on a standard mast mount, where is best location? I think it will have to be somewhere on the outboard bottom skin? Also, the sequence seems to be installation of the outboard bottom skin before the aileron actuator parts. Is there a reason for this? Seems it would be easier to get that done before closing up the skin. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429407#429407 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 27, 2014
Subject: Elect Ign - CB in Tailcone?
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Howdy everyone... I'm pulling my dedicated wire from the tailcone to the Lightspeed box installed at the panel. In the panel I have a resettable 7.5 amp CB per Lightspeed's recommendations. However I'm a bit concerned with fire/circuit protection between the battery and the 7.5 amp CB installed 15 ft away. I'm thinking of installing a 2nd CB at the battery that is larger in size - say 10 or 15 amps. That way, the 7.5 amp CB will provide protection for the Lightspeed, and if the line shorts somewhere in the fuselage, it will pop the tailcone CB and not turn my dedicated wire cherry red and ignite. Have any of you taken this approach? What size CB did you install and what was your experience? Phil ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pitot location
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2014
I have the Gretz mount and mine is mounted one bay closer to the tip than where Van's has the access plate. I'm pretty sure, but haven't yet confirmed, that input it where the Gretz instructions recommended. Anyway, at OSH, I had one of the judges ask me "why did you move your pitot tube?" The question threw me for a loop and I didn't have a quick answer. He responded, "it should work okay, but Van's design is for it to be in-board where the access cover is and yours is the first I've seen further out " Sure enough, I looked at three -10's on the row behind me and theirs were all more inboard than mine. I felt kind of stupid like I had made a silly mistake. As the judge was leaving, I told him that having it where it was gave me more access to the connections with the tip off. He didn't seem impressed and said "that seems like more work than the designated access panel, but whatever, it should work okay." I felt like a dope. Then for the rest of the show, I started looking at the pitot position of every 10 I could find and while the majority where in the inboard position, I did find 4 or 5 that had it exactly where I did. I told one fellow who had his where mine was about the judge's comments, and he said that he also had the Gretz mount and was sure that he mounted it exactly per the instructions. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429462#429462 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elect Ign - CB in Tailcone?
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2014
I have an "always hot" circuit ran from aux bat in the back to my panel accy plug. It is protected at aux bat fuse block with 7.5 A fuse. I think 7.5 A is the max recommended. One definitely does not want unprotected circuits other than right near our batteries and must be as short as possible and very secure. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429464#429464 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elect Ign - CB in Tailcone?
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2014
I'll be using a fusible link from the battery lug per AeroElectric Connection using one size smaller wire about 4 inches wrapped in a firesleeve to protect the wire going forward. . -------- Dave Ford RV6 flying RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429466#429466 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pitot location
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2014
My Falcon heated pitot is in the second bay in, 6" below the wing. I think I used acid-etch primer in an aerosol can and prosealed the joint to prevent water from entering. Standard Van's FAB and engine install, ran slightly LOP. Full gross weight on most flights and 1" forward of aft limit. 24 months/2100 hrs to complete build. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429467#429467 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Elect Ign - CB in Tailcone?
Date: Aug 27, 2014
While not for a LightSpeed ignition install, I had a similar concern about running unprotected wire from the batteries to the panel. I (as most do) have accepted the nice, heavy #2 wire going between the starter solenoid and master relay(s) that is not protected by a circuit breaker. For this unlikely failure scenario however, immediate action procedure to first open both master relays for any electrical fault is the protection. The avionics do not receive any power via the master relays. I divided my avionics into left and right vital loads. Each half being feed by a #10 wire, connecting to the appropriate left or right battery but with the option to feed either side from either battery using a total of four 30 amp DPDT relays. I installed a single 25 amp breaker at the battery after set of two relays for protecting the left and right #10 wires from direct short. Each load on the panel is protected with a separate, smaller breaker downstream of the 25 amp breaker. So a component fault will be protected via the specific load breaker. The #10 feeder wire is protected via the 25 amp breaker. In the unlikely event of one of the 25 amp breakers popping then half the panel is still available. I went back and forth several times on not using this 25 amp breaker and just assuming the 30 amp relay that feeds each side would open if I had a hard short on one of the #10 wires. If a 25 amp breaker pops however, there is a major problem that will not be fixed in the air. On the RV-8A I did not use this 25 amp breaker but the batteries were mounted just behind the firewall so the unprotected run was short. I would not accept this as an alternative if the not using these smaller power distribution relays for the panel =93 just the master relay(s) as their current capacity is so much greater. For your scenario assuming you are using #18 wire, then a 15 amp breaker at the battery should be fine. I did wire a 5 amp breaker on the panel (one on each side) for the yet to be delivered six cylinder pMag ignition. As they provide their own power after engine start having a dedicated feed from the batter is not required nor desired. At Oshkosh Brad gave me another promise of =9Cthree months and I=99m at the top of the list=9D so we=99ll see. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillip Perry Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:57 AM Subject: RV10-List: Elect Ign - CB in Tailcone? Howdy everyone... I'm pulling my dedicated wire from the tailcone to the Lightspeed box installed at the panel. In the panel I have a resettable 7.5 amp CB per Lightspeed's recommendations. However I'm a bit concerned with fire/circuit protection between the battery and the 7.5 amp CB installed 15 ft away. I'm thinking of installing a 2nd CB at the battery that is larger in size - say 10 or 15 amps. That way, the 7.5 amp CB will provide protection for the Lightspeed, and if the line shorts somewhere in the fuselage, it will pop the tailcone CB and not turn my dedicated wire cherry red and ignite. Have any of you taken this approach? What size CB did you install and what was your experience? Phil ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elect Ign - CB in Tailcone?
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2014
I think Bob N. uses 2 wire ga smaller for a fuse link. Double check though. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429469#429469 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elect Ign - CB in Tailcone?
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2014
Yes your memory is better [Crying or Very sad] -------- Dave Ford RV6 flying RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429482#429482 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 27, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Pitot location
Never feel like a dope. No matter what changes you make, you gave it a lot of thought and came to a rational decision. Yeah, the judge was right .... less screws in the inspection panel, but how often do you look at it? At least you'll look at it every condition inspection. I plan on using hinge to attach my tips. Linn On 8/27/2014 12:14 PM, woxofswa wrote: > > I have the Gretz mount and mine is mounted one bay closer to the tip than where Van's has the access plate. I'm pretty sure, but haven't yet confirmed, that input it where the Gretz instructions recommended. > > Anyway, at OSH, I had one of the judges ask me "why did you move your pitot tube?" The question threw me for a loop and I didn't have a quick answer. > He responded, "it should work okay, but Van's design is for it to be in-board where the access cover is and yours is the first I've seen further out " > > Sure enough, I looked at three -10's on the row behind me and theirs were all more inboard than mine. I felt kind of stupid like I had made a silly mistake. > > As the judge was leaving, I told him that having it where it was gave me more access to the connections with the tip off. He didn't seem impressed and said "that seems like more work than the designated access panel, but whatever, it should work okay." > > I felt like a dope. Then for the rest of the show, I started looking at the pitot position of every 10 I could find and while the majority where in the inboard position, I did find 4 or 5 that had it exactly where I did. I told one fellow who had his where mine was about the judge's comments, and he said that he also had the Gretz mount and was sure that he mounted it exactly per the instructions. > > -------- > Myron Nelson > Mesa, AZ > Flew May 10 2014 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429462#429462 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 27, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Trim servo question
Hadn't seen an answer .... I see no reason to separate the trim and autopilot servo ..... unless there's interference in how they attach to the aileron linkage. I have a different autopilot and trim system so my comment may not be valid. Linn On 8/26/2014 10:43 PM, bob88 wrote: > > Vans has the aileron trim servo (Ray Allen) in the left wing and Garmin has the GSA28 autopilot servo in the right wing. The wiring from the Ray Allen has to pass through the Garmin servo. Has anyone put both in the same wing, or is it better to just run wire across the fuselage? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Trim servo question
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 27, 2014
I think you are right. The mounting kit from Garmin is right wing specific but the Ray Allen servo kit from Vans appears to be ambidextrous...so both in right wing seems the correct thing to do. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429505#429505 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2014
Subject: Re: Elect Ign - CB in Tailcone?
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
I used an inline fuse, by the battery, in addition to the CB in the panel. I can't remember the fuse size, but it's sufficient for the wire size and greater than the 7.5A CB. -Rob On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > Howdy everyone... > > I'm pulling my dedicated wire from the tailcone to the Lightspeed box > installed at the panel. In the panel I have a resettable 7.5 amp CB per > Lightspeed's recommendations. > > However I'm a bit concerned with fire/circuit protection between the > battery and the 7.5 amp CB installed 15 ft away. I'm thinking of installing > a 2nd CB at the battery that is larger in size - say 10 or 15 amps. > > That way, the 7.5 amp CB will provide protection for the Lightspeed, and > if the line shorts somewhere in the fuselage, it will pop the tailcone CB > and not turn my dedicated wire cherry red and ignite. > > Have any of you taken this approach? What size CB did you install and > what was your experience? > > Phil > > > * > > > * > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
From: Rodger Todd <rj_todd(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Undercarriage
Hi Folks,=0A=0AIf you haven't seen this on Vansairforce.net I strongly sugg est you read http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=11617 1=0A=0AWhat Dave Brown has reported is greatly worrying.=0A=0ABest wishes t o all,=0A=0ARodger ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Trim servo question
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Aug 29, 2014
bob88 wrote: > I think you are right. The mounting kit from Garmin is right wing specific but the Ray Allen servo kit from Vans appears to be ambidextrous...so both in right wing seems the correct thing to do. As a lefty, I wish I was ambidextrous; it would have made my life much easier [Wink] This actually brings up a point - is it necessary for the autopilot to trim the ailerons? i agree that it's necessary for pitch trim, but not so much, when it comes to lateral control. John -------- #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429570#429570 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Undercarriage
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2014
I guess flying at the aft CG limit with the family 90% of the time and being #486 in the air has some other benefits. We fly off of grass once or twice per year, but will definitely keep an eye on it. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429574#429574 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Trim servo question
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 29, 2014
I think the autopilot needs to have both roll and pitch authority; as far as the trim function goes, this is the way Garmin has set up their GSA 28 smart servo (power to the Ray Allen trim goes through the Garmin unit). Let me know if I am misunderstanding this. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429583#429583 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Conduit in the wing
From: "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net>
Date: Aug 29, 2014
Here's a question about running the conduit in the wing. A straight through run is OK for the Nav/Strobe/Landing lights but what about interruptions along the way for pitot heat and trim/autopilot servos? Is there a way to branch wires out of the conduit along the way? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429584#429584 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Conduit in the wing
Date: Aug 29, 2014
Some advice Jesse gave me was run the conduit to the access panel and leave a gap for access to the wires via the panel, when needed. than pickup the conduit again to the next panel. I installed all the conduit through the wing than cut the areas where the panels were. Pascal -----Original Message----- From: bob88 Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:31 AM Subject: RV10-List: Conduit in the wing Here's a question about running the conduit in the wing. A straight through run is OK for the Nav/Strobe/Landing lights but what about interruptions along the way for pitot heat and trim/autopilot servos? Is there a way to branch wires out of the conduit along the way? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429584#429584 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
From: Rodger Todd <rj_todd(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: SB 2014-08-29
Vans reacts quickly - see http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf=0A =0ARodger=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Trim servo question
Just thinking out loud .... Wouldn't the aileron autopilot servo be using the trim servo to lessen the forces required to hold the aileron in position? After all, that's what a trim tab does ..... Linn On 8/29/2014 11:28 AM, bob88 wrote: > > I think the autopilot needs to have both roll and pitch authority; as far as the trim function goes, this is the way Garmin has set up their GSA 28 smart servo (power to the Ray Allen trim goes through the Garmin unit). Let me know if I am misunderstanding this. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429583#429583 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Conduit in the wing
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Aug 29, 2014
I just put a slit in the convoluted conduit to get the wires out. A little heat shrink for rubbing issues. John -------- #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429592#429592 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when it spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't necessarily line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on the engine mount. For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding glue or JB weld or something would be warranted to keep that plate from spinning. I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which fix I need to perform. Tim On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: > Vans reacts quickly - see http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf > > Rodger > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Undercarriage
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Date: Aug 29, 2014
This should be interesting and very appropriately timed for me.... I am starting my condition inspection this weekend and I fly exclusively off of grass.... But so far I only have ~180 hours... -Mike Kraus Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 29, 2014, at 8:57 AM, "rv10flyer" wrote: > > > I guess flying at the aft CG limit with the family 90% of the time and being #486 in the air has some other benefits. We fly off of grass once or twice per year, but will definitely keep an eye on it. > > -------- > Wayne G. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429574#429574 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
IMHO, if it can spin then there aren't enough U-1002 washers installed ...... too little tension on the donuts. I'm curious about the potential for the plate wearing on the tubing too. Maybe some silicone rubber would help??? IMHO, the problem that Vic has experienced is due to two things ..... the age and compression of the donuts and the fact that he flies off a grass field. IMHO, I suspect that there was pounding of the donuts against the receptacle. Vic doesn't say how many washers he had installed .... only that they were tight, and the picture looks like there may be room for three washers. How tight is tight? The SB says a max of three U-1002 washers. The reason there are so many IMHOs is that I haven't completed installing the U-1002 washers .... I'm not flying yet .... the plans say one washer on a new install is fine and an additional one as the donuts compress. At lunch today my non-flying -10 builder buddy said he installed two outright ..... and it was a bear. Maybe one U-1002 isn't enough? So, I ask .... how many U-1002 washers did you get installed initially? More than one? Linn .... almost done with windshield fairing On 8/29/2014 3:23 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect > mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... > > If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they > don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in > place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't > secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when > it spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't > necessarily line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on > the engine mount. > > For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? > If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding > glue or JB weld or something would be warranted to keep that > plate from spinning. > > I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which > fix I need to perform. > > > Tim > > On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: >> Vans reacts quickly - see http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf >> >> Rodger >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
Date: Aug 29, 2014
1 isolator at building, let it sit while your building and for the first 10 hours of flying, assuming that means about 10 landings, at that point, since you're checking the plane after every flight anyway, check and possibly add the 2nd isolator. At every annual I check the clearance, but at this point 2 seems to be enough as 3 is too hard to force on. Simply put the abuse of soft field is too much for the way the original mounts were built after 1000 hours. For someone that has no idea what a soft field landing is, other than the practice I did on hard runways, feels like ;-) I doubt there is an issue for me over the long run. Tim; I gathered from the figure 1 that the plate sits with the four corners held in place by the arms, so unless there is a huge gap they really should not move much. Rubbing on the arms is indeed a concern I agree with you on. I would probably use rtv on all four notched areas and for good measure maybe even n the plates themselves to diminish vibration should there be any looseness. Glue would probably be better, and worth a question to Vans on that need, when ordering the plates. As always, I'll await your report on how things look for you. Pascal -----Original Message----- From: Linn Walters Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 1:42 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: SB 2014-08-29 IMHO, if it can spin then there aren't enough U-1002 washers installed ...... too little tension on the donuts. I'm curious about the potential for the plate wearing on the tubing too. Maybe some silicone rubber would help??? IMHO, the problem that Vic has experienced is due to two things ..... the age and compression of the donuts and the fact that he flies off a grass field. IMHO, I suspect that there was pounding of the donuts against the receptacle. Vic doesn't say how many washers he had installed .... only that they were tight, and the picture looks like there may be room for three washers. How tight is tight? The SB says a max of three U-1002 washers. The reason there are so many IMHOs is that I haven't completed installing the U-1002 washers .... I'm not flying yet .... the plans say one washer on a new install is fine and an additional one as the donuts compress. At lunch today my non-flying -10 builder buddy said he installed two outright ..... and it was a bear. Maybe one U-1002 isn't enough? So, I ask .... how many U-1002 washers did you get installed initially? More than one? Linn .... almost done with windshield fairing On 8/29/2014 3:23 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect > mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... > > If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they > don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in > place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't > secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when > it spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't necessarily > line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on > the engine mount. > > For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? > If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding > glue or JB weld or something would be warranted to keep that > plate from spinning. > > I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which > fix I need to perform. > > > Tim > > On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: >> Vans reacts quickly - see http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf >> >> Rodger >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Pascal, I think you mean 1 spacer washer....you'll always want all of the isolators (elastomer). Ok, here is my data point. I'm currently at the hangar, and have the gear dropped. Took the time to send this before it's even completed... I have just shy of 1070 hours. I have been on grass for some landings, but, probably only about 50 I'd guess...nothing too drastic. I have no cracks that I can see, unless they're hidden by paint. But it all seems to look ok to me. Of course, we know that it IS NOT ok, because some day there could be a problem, and I should definitely do the doubler. I also think I'll ask Van's about it when I order it, but I think I'll throw some E6000 glue, just a thin coating, on the doubler...just something to keep it from shifting. I definitely don't like the idea of anything rubbing on the mount tubes. That said, I ALSO never liked, and I mean from day 1, that the metal rings from the elastomers hit those tubes. Yes, mine did from day 1. I saw them bend. They are still bent. And they are still rubbing on the tubes. I am going to grind the areas that bent so that they no longer contact the tubes. I personally think (but you may want to ask more expert opinions) that when building you should take the time to grind a relief so that the rings never touch the tubes. Now for the part that will make people think I'm full of it. I am almost sure that when I first assembled the gear, I put 2 spacer rings on. I remember someone asking me a couple years ago how many I added. At that time I even ordered extra because I didn't even know where I put my extras from the initial build. I have never added any, as far as I can remember. Now, to get my top hat cap off the gear I actually had to reconnect the bottom bolt temporarily and push up hard on the wheel with a lever, to release tension on the bolt so I could pull it out. I don't know how much tension there was exactly, but I had no extra gap between the elastomer metal rings and the base of the mount. And this is with over 1000 hours, and 8 years. My elastomers actually look to be in pretty good shape too. Yeah, I'm shocked too that I 've never had to add any spacers, and still have tension, but I have checked every annual just for play and never had any, so I've never disassembled this area before...ever. I'm very glad for Vic and others who have, because if I hadn't have known from them, I wouldn't have even looked. (I'm betting if Vic hadn't seen the crack from above he wouldn't have either.) So, I guess I now reassemble and order the doubler, then take it apart in a couple weeks again. At least I now know how long to expect it to take. I should note that I am not a very bad lander....no, not bragging because it's not me, but the plane that makes it that way. I almost always land with the nosewheel off, and when I roll out I keep the nose up as long as I can. Heck, if I have a 5000' taxi to do on the runway, I usually add power and taxi with the nose off the ground, just to save the wear and tear. So maybe this has helped. I snapped a couple of pictures, but I'm too messy to send them right now. If someone thinks they're relevant though, I can email to the list. Tim On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Pascal wrote: > > 1 isolator at building, let it sit while your building and for the first > 10 hours of flying, assuming that means about 10 landings, at that point, > since you're checking the plane after every flight anyway, check and > possibly add the 2nd isolator. At every annual I check the clearance, but > at this point 2 seems to be enough as 3 is too hard to force on. > > Simply put the abuse of soft field is too much for the way the original > mounts were built after 1000 hours. For someone that has no idea what a > soft field landing is, other than the practice I did on hard runways, feels > like ;-) I doubt there is an issue for me over the long run. > > Tim; > I gathered from the figure 1 that the plate sits with the four corners > held in place by the arms, so unless there is a huge gap they really should > not move much. Rubbing on the arms is indeed a concern I agree with you on. > I would probably use rtv on all four notched areas and for good measure > maybe even n the plates themselves to diminish vibration should there be > any looseness. Glue would probably be better, and worth a question to Vans > on that need, when ordering the plates. > > As always, I'll await your report on how things look for you. > > Pascal > > -----Original Message----- From: Linn Walters > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 1:42 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: SB 2014-08-29 > > > IMHO, if it can spin then there aren't enough U-1002 washers installed > ...... too little tension on the donuts. I'm curious about the > potential for the plate wearing on the tubing too. Maybe some silicone > rubber would help??? > > IMHO, the problem that Vic has experienced is due to two things ..... > the age and compression of the donuts and the fact that he flies off a > grass field. IMHO, I suspect that there was pounding of the donuts > against the receptacle. Vic doesn't say how many washers he had > installed .... only that they were tight, and the picture looks like > there may be room for three washers. How tight is tight? The SB says a > max of three U-1002 washers. > > The reason there are so many IMHOs is that I haven't completed > installing the U-1002 washers .... I'm not flying yet .... the plans say > one washer on a new install is fine and an additional one as the donuts > compress. At lunch today my non-flying -10 builder buddy said he > installed two outright ..... and it was a bear. Maybe one U-1002 isn't > enough? So, I ask .... how many U-1002 washers did you get installed > initially? More than one? > Linn .... almost done with windshield fairing > > On 8/29/2014 3:23 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > >> >> I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect >> mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... >> >> If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they >> don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in >> place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't >> secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when >> it spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't necessarily >> line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on >> the engine mount. >> >> For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? >> If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding >> glue or JB weld or something would be warranted to keep that >> plate from spinning. >> >> I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which >> fix I need to perform. >> >> >> Tim >> >> On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: >> >>> Vans reacts quickly - see http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf >>> >>> Rodger >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Well, For those that are not aware, the Mooney M20 series of planes use exactly the same part number shock disk. On the early, lower gross wt models the shock disks are good for about 12 years, but many continue to meet the tension specs for over 20 years, but do get harder, providing less cushioning. On later, higher gross wt models the disks may last only 5-8 yrs before they are too compressed. The RV-10 empty wt matches the models that use the O-36-/IO-360 engines at around 1600-1700 lbs, and has gross wt of 2575 lbs. So, depending on climate and exposure to ozone, I would expect the RV-10 shock disks to last 15 yrs, give or take a few, and if tension is lost anywhere past the 10 yr mark I would think about replacing them. The ouch part is that they now cost over $100 per shock disk from most suppliers. I have heard as low as maybe $90 but most are charging $100+ I'm not really looking forward to doing the SB as I am very close to finishing firewall forward work. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > I don't know how much tension there was exactly, but I had no extra gap > between the elastomer metal rings and the base of the mount. And this is > with over 1000 hours, and 8 years. My elastomers actually look to be in > pretty good shape too. Yeah, I'm shocked too that I 've never had to add > any spacers, and still have tension, but I have checked every annual just > for play and never had any, so I've never disassembled this area > before...ever. I'm very glad for Vic and others who have, because if I > hadn't have known from them, I wouldn't have even looked. (I'm betting if > Vic hadn't seen the crack from above he wouldn't have either.) > > So, I guess I now reassemble and order the doubler, then take it apart in > a couple weeks again. > At least I now know how long to expect it to take. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: Aug 29, 2014
Since I am not the builder of my rv10 any idea about how many hours this sb will take my A+P? Alan N668G 300 hrs Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect > mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... > > If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they > don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in > place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't > secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when > it spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't necessarily line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on > the engine mount. > > For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? > If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding > glue or JB weld or something would be warranted to keep that > plate from spinning. > > I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which > fix I need to perform. > > > Tim > >> On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: >> Vans reacts quickly - see http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf >> >> Rodger > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
Date: Aug 29, 2014
Probably 2 hours for the first session to see if you have cracks. Then if you have no cracks probably another 2 or 3 to actually fix it up. But you either have to leave it with them disassembled after you inspect it, or do it twice and wait on the proper set of parts. Tim > On Aug 29, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > > > Since I am not the builder of my rv10 any idea about how many hours this sb will take my A+P? > Alan > N668G > 300 hrs > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >> >> >> I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect >> mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... >> >> If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they >> don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in >> place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't >> secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when >> it spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't necessarily line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on >> the engine mount. >> >> For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? >> If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding >> glue or JB weld or something would be warranted to keep that >> plate from spinning. >> >> I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which >> fix I need to perform. >> >> >> Tim >> >>> On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: >>> Vans reacts quickly - see http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf >>> >>> Rodger > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
Suggest you obtain parts, assuming no cracks, then anyone you trust, licensed mechanic or not can actually do the work. The only requirement for a licensed A&P is to do the condition inspection. You don't even need A&P to correct whatever discrepancies the A&P finds. If you prefer to use licensed mechanic to do the SB, by all means, no criticism, just pointing out there is no regulatory requirement for the certificate beyond than one inspection/yr. On 8/29/2014 3:49 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > > Since I am not the builder of my rv10 any idea about how many hours this sb will take my A+P? > Alan > N668G > 300 hrs > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >> >> >> I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect >> mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... >> >> If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they >> don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in >> place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't >> secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when >> it spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't necessarily line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on >> the engine mount. >> >> For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? >> If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding >> glue or JB weld or something would be warranted to keep that >> plate from spinning. >> >> I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which >> fix I need to perform. >> >> >> Tim >> >>> On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: >>> Vans reacts quickly - see http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf >>> >>> Rodger >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Greenley" <wgreenley(at)gmail.com>
Subject: SB 2014-08-29
Date: Aug 29, 2014
You can still do the SB, you only need the A&P for the annual conditional inspection. Bill Greenley -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan Mekler MD Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:50 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: SB 2014-08-29 Since I am not the builder of my rv10 any idea about how many hours this sb will take my A+P? Alan N668G 300 hrs Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect > mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... > > If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they > don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in > place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't > secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when it > spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't necessarily > line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on the engine mount. > > For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? > If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding glue or JB > weld or something would be warranted to keep that plate from spinning. > > I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which fix I > need to perform. > > > Tim > >> On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: >> Vans reacts quickly - see >> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf >> >> Rodger > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: Aug 29, 2014
Yes i understand Assuming no cracks the doubler needs to be installed. Is this being provided by Vans at no cost? Alan Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 29, 2014, at 7:14 PM, "William Greenley" wrote: > > > You can still do the SB, you only need the A&P for the annual conditional > inspection. > Bill Greenley > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan Mekler MD > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:50 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: SB 2014-08-29 > > > Since I am not the builder of my rv10 any idea about how many hours this sb > will take my A+P? > Alan > N668G > 300 hrs > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >> >> >> I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect >> mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... >> >> If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they >> don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in >> place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't >> secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when it >> spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't necessarily >> line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on the engine mount. >> >> For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? >> If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding glue or JB >> weld or something would be warranted to keep that plate from spinning. >> >> I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which fix I >> need to perform. >> >> >> Tim >> >>> On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: >>> Vans reacts quickly - see >>> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf >>> >>> Rodger > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
Date: Aug 29, 2014
I believe the parts are provided free. Tim > On Aug 29, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > > > Yes i understand > Assuming no cracks the doubler needs to be installed. > Is this being provided by Vans at no cost? > Alan > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 29, 2014, at 7:14 PM, "William Greenley" wrote: >> >> >> You can still do the SB, you only need the A&P for the annual conditional >> inspection. >> Bill Greenley >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan Mekler MD >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:50 PM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: SB 2014-08-29 >> >> >> Since I am not the builder of my rv10 any idea about how many hours this sb >> will take my A+P? >> Alan >> N668G >> 300 hrs >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect >>> mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... >>> >>> If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they >>> don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in >>> place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't >>> secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when it >>> spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't necessarily >>> line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on the engine mount. >>> >>> For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? >>> If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding glue or JB >>> weld or something would be warranted to keep that plate from spinning. >>> >>> I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which fix I >>> need to perform. >>> >>> >>> Tim >>> >>>> On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: >>>> Vans reacts quickly - see >>>> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf >>>> >>>> Rodger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2014
Yep. I ordered mine this afternoon. Bob Sent from my iPad > On Aug 29, 2014, at 7:58 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > I believe the parts are provided free. > Tim > >> On Aug 29, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: >> >> >> Yes i understand >> Assuming no cracks the doubler needs to be installed. >> Is this being provided by Vans at no cost? >> Alan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Aug 29, 2014, at 7:14 PM, "William Greenley" wrote: >>> >>> >>> You can still do the SB, you only need the A&P for the annual conditional >>> inspection. >>> Bill Greenley >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan Mekler MD >>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:50 PM >>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: SB 2014-08-29 >>> >>> >>> Since I am not the builder of my rv10 any idea about how many hours this sb >>> will take my A+P? >>> Alan >>> N668G >>> 300 hrs >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect >>>> mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... >>>> >>>> If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they >>>> don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in >>>> place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't >>>> secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when it >>>> spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't necessarily >>>> line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on the engine mount. >>>> >>>> For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? >>>> If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding glue or JB >>>> weld or something would be warranted to keep that plate from spinning. >>>> >>>> I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which fix I >>>> need to perform. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>>> On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: >>>>> Vans reacts quickly - see >>>>> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf >>>>> >>>>> Rodger > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
Subject: Re: SB 2014-08-29
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
I also ordered mine today. They asked if I found a crack, and I said "I don't know, but I doubt it since I have less than 300 hours and have never operated off grass." They took that as "no cracks" and took my order. I will of course be letting them know if I do indeed find a crack. -Rob On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Bob Leffler wrote: > > Yep. I ordered mine this afternoon. > > Bob > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 7:58 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > > > > I believe the parts are provided free. > > Tim > > > >> On Aug 29, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Alan Mekler MD > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Yes i understand > >> Assuming no cracks the doubler needs to be installed. > >> Is this being provided by Vans at no cost? > >> Alan > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>> On Aug 29, 2014, at 7:14 PM, "William Greenley" > wrote: > >>> > wgreenley(at)gmail.com> > >>> > >>> You can still do the SB, you only need the A&P for the annual > conditional > >>> inspection. > >>> Bill Greenley > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > >>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan > Mekler MD > >>> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:50 PM > >>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > >>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: SB 2014-08-29 > >>> > > > >>> > >>> Since I am not the builder of my rv10 any idea about how many hours > this sb > >>> will take my A+P? > >>> Alan > >>> N668G > >>> 300 hrs > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I'm glad they came out with the SB. Just today I was going to inspect > >>>> mine. What leaves me scratching my head is this... > >>>> > >>>> If you don't have cracks, and you do install the doubler plate, they > >>>> don't specify any type of bonding agent to hold that doubler plate in > >>>> place to the plate above it. It seems to me that if this thing isn't > >>>> secured in at least some way, it may be very prone to spin and when it > >>>> spins, the notched areas for the engine mount tubes won't necessarily > >>>> line up and you could get this doubler plate wearing on the engine > mount. > >>>> > >>>> For someone who's had theirs apart, does this seem correct? > >>>> If so, I'd think perhaps some sort of very strong bonding glue or JB > >>>> weld or something would be warranted to keep that plate from spinning. > >>>> > >>>> I guess I'll know more after I have mine apart and see which fix I > >>>> need to perform. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Tim > >>>> > >>>>> On 8/29/2014 12:38 PM, Rodger Todd wrote: > >>>>> Vans reacts quickly - see > >>>>> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb14-8-29.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> Rodger > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Leaking Tank Blues
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Aug 29, 2014
Hi For the past year or so I have been fighting a weeping tank rivet on the top my QB tanks. I tried loctite but that didn't work at all. Anyway, now that my wings are off for paint, I tried introducing proseal through the fuel sender hole. After some discussion with a local A&P, I decided to drill out the rivet and replace it with a Cherry Max. Fortunately the wing was inverted on a table so I was able to use a vaccuum to draw out most chips as I drilled out the rivet. Next I opened the hole and hand countersunk it. My concerns were that there would be a few small chips inside the tank as well the rivet might not completely seal even when coated in proseal. To deal with this, I introduced a couple of a small amount of proseal into the hole with a small syringe. I then installed a cherry max rivet that was completely coated in proseal. A quick check today indicates the leak is gone! Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429620#429620 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2014
Subject: Re: Leaking Tank Blues
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
I would have thought the gas would be greener on the other side of the border. 8^) On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:23 PM, kearney wrote: > > Hi > > For the past year or so I have been fighting a weeping tank rivet on the > top my QB tanks. I tried loctite but that didn't work at all. > > Anyway, now that my wings are off for paint, I tried introducing proseal > through the fuel sender hole. > > After some discussion with a local A&P, I decided to drill out the rivet > and replace it with a Cherry Max. Fortunately the wing was inverted on a > table so I was able to use a vaccuum to draw out most chips as I drilled > out the rivet. Next I opened the hole and hand countersunk it. > > My concerns were that there would be a few small chips inside the tank as > well the rivet might not completely seal even when coated in proseal. To > deal with this, I introduced a couple of a small amount of proseal into the > hole with a small syringe. I then installed a cherry max rivet that was > completely coated in proseal. > > A quick check today indicates the leak is gone! > > Cheers > > Les > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429620#429620 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2014
Subject: Shunt - Location
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Last night I was thinking about shunt locations and it seems like there are 3 different electrical locations for it. 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT). 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but it misses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the main buss.) Location 3 seems to be the most logical spot for me. 3) Immediately before the main buss. So the ALT and Battery can be sending electrons to the buss and I'll be measuring them before they enter the buss as they're consumed. Then I'm getting a measurement of true load (minus the start). Where have most of you installed yours? I really like option 3 but want to make sure I'm not missing something. I'm also curious to know where yours is installed? I'm thinking of putting it on the aft side of the sub panel, so I can yank a G3X screen and access it. Thanks, Phil ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2014
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Shunt - Location
Well, I physically mounted mine, along with an ANL current limiter yesterday. I placed the shunt above and to the left of the oil and fuel pressure sensor block. I wired it into the Alt line, your option 1. Reason is that I am using the VPX box in lieu of a bus. VPX measures the current flow from the battery automatically, and my shunt measure flow from Alt, and the VPX shows graphically on my Dynon Skyview where the electrons come from and where they go. Hooked up shunt last night and verified it did exactly as described, by connecting a battery charger in front of the shunt, and a second one on the battery. Really slick. If you only have one location to measure current, I would do your option 2, because you want to know whether you are charging the battery or drawing from it. Amps from the alternator and total load are less important than whether you are discharging your battery. I don't know with Garmin, but I suspect that like Dynon you can install a second shunt if you really want more info. On 8/30/2014 7:47 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > Last night I was thinking about shunt locations and it seems like > there are 3 different electrical locations for it. > > 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT). > > 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but > it misses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the > main buss.) > > Location 3 seems to be the most logical spot for me. > > 3) Immediately before the main buss. So the ALT and Battery can be > sending electrons to the buss and I'll be measuring them before they > enter the buss as they're consumed. Then I'm getting a measurement of > true load (minus the start). > > > Where have most of you installed yours? I really like option 3 but > want to make sure I'm not missing something. I'm also curious to know > where yours is installed? I'm thinking of putting it on the aft side > of the sub panel, so I can yank a G3X screen and access it. > > Thanks, > Phil > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Shunt - Location
Date: Aug 30, 2014
A lot of options. Some thoughts: =C2=B7 Most shunts cannot handle starting current, so the shunt cannot be install anywhere between the battery and the starting solenoid. =C2=B7 While knowing what the non-starting loads are is of value, once measured there is little more to be gained by having them constantly monitored. =C2=B7 The load on the alternator however provides an indication of battery health (via charge rate compared with buss voltage). So the shunt on the alternator output does have some value if monitored. =C2=B7 On my plane I did not install a current shunt. I find independent voltage monitoring of each battery to be a better indicator of electrical power distribution system health. No issue however if one wants to add current monitoring as well. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillip Perry Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 10:48 AM Subject: RV10-List: Shunt - Location Last night I was thinking about shunt locations and it seems like there are 3 different electrical locations for it. 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT). 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but it misses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the main buss.) Location 3 seems to be the most logical spot for me. 3) Immediately before the main buss. So the ALT and Battery can be sending electrons to the buss and I'll be measuring them before they enter the buss as they're consumed. Then I'm getting a measurement of true load (minus the start). Where have most of you installed yours? I really like option 3 but want to make sure I'm not missing something. I'm also curious to know where yours is installed? I'm thinking of putting it on the aft side of the sub panel, so I can yank a G3X screen and access it. Thanks, Phil ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2014
Subject: Re: Shunt - Location
Mine is between the B-lead and the main bus. Assuming the battery is fully charged, it shows how much power the entire plane is drawing and indicates that the alternator is working. Right after start-up it shows a larger draw as the battery gets topped off. Then it settles into its normal routine. I have a low voltage light, and my engine monitor alerts for hi/low volts and amps. --Dave Single 925, single PP alt, numerous internal batteries On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > Last night I was thinking about shunt locations and it seems like there > are 3 different electrical locations for it. > > 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT). > > 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but it > misses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the main buss.) > > Location 3 seems to be the most logical spot for me. > > 3) Immediately before the main buss. So the ALT and Battery can be > sending electrons to the buss and I'll be measuring them before they enter > the buss as they're consumed. Then I'm getting a measurement of true load > (minus the start). > > > Where have most of you installed yours? I really like option 3 but want > to make sure I'm not missing something. I'm also curious to know where > yours is installed? I'm thinking of putting it on the aft side of the sub > panel, so I can yank a G3X screen and access it. > > Thanks, > Phil > > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shunt - Location
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2014
I prefer to know what my battery is doing. If it goes more than a couple of a mps negative with the engine running, then you have problems. Also, right af ter start you will see 25+ amps positive which is a great indication that yo ur alternator is working well enough to recharge your battery while powering the bus. Knowing what the bus is drawing is good for load shedding, but tha t's all. The one from the alternator is good too, so you will know if it isn 't putting out amperage. The battery info is my favorite and most informative one. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 30, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > Last night I was thinking about shunt locations and it seems like there ar e 3 different electrical locations for it. > > 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT). > > 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but it mi sses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the main buss.) > > Location 3 seems to be the most logical spot for me. > > 3) Immediately before the main buss. So the ALT and Battery can be sendin g electrons to the buss and I'll be measuring them before they enter the bus s as they're consumed. Then I'm getting a measurement of true load (minus t he start). > > > Where have most of you installed yours? I really like option 3 but want t o make sure I'm not missing something. I'm also curious to know where yours is installed? I'm thinking of putting it on the aft side of the sub panel, s o I can yank a G3X screen and access it. > > Thanks, > Phil > > > > 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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2014
Subject: Re: Shunt - Location
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Good feedback so far. Jessie, on your position, I assume it's inline and handles the start without any issue. (That's where Garmin suggests) What do you actually see on your digital readouts? Do you see 0 Amps on a charged battery and typically -1 or so inflight? I'm just trying to understand the difference between what would be seen monitoring a batteries charge vs monitoring a load at the buss input. Very helpful stuff everyone.... Keep the thoughts coming please. Phil On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Jesse Saint wrote: > I prefer to know what my battery is doing. If it goes more than a couple > of amps negative with the engine running, then you have problems. Also, > right after start you will see 25+ amps positive which is a great > indication that your alternator is working well enough to recharge your > battery while powering the bus. Knowing what the bus is drawing is good for > load shedding, but that's all. The one from the alternator is good too, so > you will know if it isn't putting out amperage. > > The battery info is my favorite and most informative one. > > Jesse Saint > I-TEC, Inc. > jesse(at)itecusa.org > www.itecusa.org > www.mavericklsa.com > C: 352-427-0285 > O: 352-465-4545 > F: 815-377-3694 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 30, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > Last night I was thinking about shunt locations and it seems like there > are 3 different electrical locations for it. > > 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT). > > 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but it > misses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the main buss.) > > Location 3 seems to be the most logical spot for me. > > 3) Immediately before the main buss. So the ALT and Battery can be > sending electrons to the buss and I'll be measuring them before they enter > the buss as they're consumed. Then I'm getting a measurement of true load > (minus the start). > > > Where have most of you installed yours? I really like option 3 but want > to make sure I'm not missing something. I'm also curious to know where > yours is installed? I'm thinking of putting it on the aft side of the sub > panel, so I can yank a G3X screen and access it. > > Thanks, > Phil > > > * > > 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============================================ > > * > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2014
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Shunt - Location
Mine is in the main battery feed. Linn On 8/30/2014 10:47 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > Last night I was thinking about shunt locations and it seems like > there are 3 different electrical locations for it. > > 1) Connected in the B-Lead (to measure the output of the ALT). > > 2) Connected to the battery (to measure the load on the battery; but > it misses the contributions of electrons coming from the ALT to the > main buss.) > > Location 3 seems to be the most logical spot for me. > > 3) Immediately before the main buss. So the ALT and Battery can be > sending electrons to the buss and I'll be measuring them before they > enter the buss as they're consumed. Then I'm getting a measurement of > true load (minus the start). > > > Where have most of you installed yours? I really like option 3 but > want to make sure I'm not missing something. I'm also curious to know > where yours is installed? I'm thinking of putting it on the aft side > of the sub panel, so I can yank a G3X screen and access it. > > Thanks, > Phil > > > * > > > * > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shunt - Location
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2014
It is between the starter solenoid (battery side) and my bus. The alternator is also tied to the bus. 8awg wire in and out. The 8awg ties to the same lu g as the 2awg going to the battery. Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse(at)itecusa.org www.itecusa.org www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > Good feedback so far. > > Jessie, on your position, I assume it's inline and handles the start witho ut any issue. (That's where Garmin suggests) > > What do you actually see on your digital readouts? Do you see 0 Amps on a charged battery and typically -1 or so inflight? > > I'm just trying to understand the difference between what would be seen mo nitoring a batteries charge vs monitoring a load at the buss input. > > Very helpful stuff everyone.... Keep the thoughts coming please. > > Phil > > > >> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Jesse Saint w rote: >> I prefer to know what my battery is doing. If it goes more than a couple o f amps negative with the engine running, then you have problems. Also, right after start you will see 25+ amps positive which is a great indication that your alternator is working well enough to recharge your battery while power ing the bus. Knowing what the bus is drawing is good for load shedding, but t hat's all. The one from the alternator is good too, so you will know if it i sn't putting out amperage. >> >> The battery info is my favorite and most informative one. >> >> Jesse Saint >> I-TEC, Inc. >> jesse(at)itecusa.org >> www.itecusa.org >> www.mavericklsa.com >> C: 352-427-0285 >> O: 352-465-4545 >> F: 815-377-3694 >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Aug 30, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Phillip Perry wrote : >>> >>> Last night I was thinking about shunt locations and it seems like there a re 3 different electrical locations for it. >>>


August 07, 2014 - August 30, 2014

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-kc